Volume 16 — Grattan's Virginia Reports

This was a bill filed in March, 1848, in the Circuit court of Kanawha county, by Richard K. Cralle against Joseph and Thomas R. Eriend, Samuel H. Early and wife, and others, asking for an account of… Held: in a suit in which all these parties were parties, and by its decree they are bound. It is productive of large profits, in the hands of a judicious agent or bailiff, rendered so principally on account of the Salt water and the Coal.

This was an action of ejectment in the Circuit court of Smythe county, brought by John Anderson against A. J. Blankenpickler. Pending the action Anderson died, and it was revived in the name of his heirs. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs; and the tenant obtained a writ of error.

This was an action for trespass on the case in the Circuit court of Randolph county, brought in August, 1856, by William J, Harper against Solomon Parsons. The declaration contains eleven counts, the first of which is as follows: Virginia, Randolph county to wit: William J. Harper complains of Solomon Parsons,'who hath been summoned in a plea of trespass on the case.

This was an action of slander, brought in April, 1858, in the County court of Rock-bridge, by William Wilmoth against John Hogan. The declaration contained two counts.

<p>Debt on Negotiable Note—Maker Incompetent Witness to Prove Usury.—In an action of debt against maker and. prior endorsers of a negotiable note, they plead jointly nil debet and usury. Before the trial the maker confesses a judgment, and there is final j udgment against him; and the two prior endorsers release him from all liability to them. As the maker is liable to the two last endorsers, under the act, Code, ch. 146. § 6, p. 587, for five per cent. damages for any amount of the debt they may have to pay, he is not a competent witness for the defendants to prove usury.</p>

This was an action of debt in the County -court of Augusta, instituted in January, 1857, by George Baylor against Robert A. Hogsett, as maker, and John W. Hogshead, J. M. Mills, D. G. Hogsett, and John Crawford, as endorsers of a negotiable note for one thousand dollars. The defendants joined in the pleas of “nil debet” and usury, on which issues the case was tried.

This was a bill for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land filed in April, 1858, in the Circuit court of Augusta county, by Margaret S. Calhoun and others against Henry B. Hoover.

This was a bill of interpleader filed in the Circuit court of Scott county by John C. Brickey against Haseltine & Walton, E- A. Millard and others. Haseltine & Walton had brought two actions of debt against Nathaniel M. Hicks in the County court of Scott county; and pending these actions Hicks removed to the State of Tennessee. The plaintiffs then sued out attachments in their actions, and on the 29th of January, 1856, Brickey was summoned as a garnishee.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Pocahontas county, brought by The President, Directors and Company of the Freeman’s Bank, an institution incorporated by the laws of Massachusetts, endorsers of Emery, Haughton & Co., against John H. Ruckman, to recover the sum of $2500.

This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, rendered on the 25th of February, 1860, in favor of the Commonwealth against Thomas K. Davis, sheriff of Prince William county and his official sureties. The facts are stated by Judge Allen, who delivered the opinion of the court.

In June 1856, Henry A. K. Eerguson and others filed their petition in the County court of Halifax county contesting the election of James R. West, as sheriff of the county.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Accomack county-, brought by Charles St. John Chubb surviving partner of the firm of Chubb brothers, against Thomas H. Bayly in his lifetime, and upon his death revived against William T. Joynes administrator with the will annexed of said Bayly. The action was against the defendant endorser on a note in the following words: $1200. Washington, May 24, 1854.

*This was an action of debt in the circuit court of the county of Alexandria, brought in September 1852, by John L. Pascoe, administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Joseph Smith deceased, against John Lloyd, and afterwards revived against his executrix, upon the following paper: Whereas a suit is now pending in the Circuit court for the county of Alexandria —John Lloyd against the bailiff, Charles Scott, on a writ of replevin, in which Jonathan Schofield claims to…

<p>I. Return upon Summons—“Executed in Person”—Effect.*—A return upon a summons, “executed in person,” signed by the deputy sheriff with his own name and .that of his principal, shows that the summons was actually served on the defendants; and therefore if it is defective the defect can only be taken advantage of by plea in abatment†</p> <p>2. Same—“Executed”—Effect—Quiere.—Quajre: If a return upon a summons of “executed" merely, would beheld to show it was served on the parties.</p>

This was a bill filed in the Circuit court of Culpeper county, by Armistead and fountain Beckham, two of the legatees of John Beckham deceased, against Jonathan C. Gibson, as administrator with the will annexed of John Beckham, and his sureties in his official bond, *for a settlement and distribution of the testator’s estate. The only question in the case of any general importance, was whether the sureties in Gibson’s official bond were liable for his acts.

This was an action of ejectment in the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, brought by Caroline B. Goodwyn and others against George Myers, to recover a lot of land near Rockets.

This was a suit in chancery brought in the Circuit court of Lunenburg, and after-wards removed to the Circuit court of Nottoway, by Anderson B. Bradshaw *and Susan his wife, and some twenty-five others, grandchildren of William Hines deceased, against Lewellen Jones.

On the 21st day of January 1857 the Insurance Company of the Valley of Virginia sued out from the clerk’s office of the County court of Frederick, a summons in debt against John W. Barley and Iy. B. Swartzwelder, for $571.00, with interest, and $2.63 costs of protest. On the same day these defendants executed a power of attorney by which they authorized William Iy.

This was a supersedeas to the judgment of the Circuit court of Bedford county, admitting to probate a paper writing as the last will of David M. Roy; and it being proved that the paper as well as the endorsement upon it was wholly in the handwriting of David M. Roy, the only question in this court was whether it was so signed by the testator as to make it his will. The paper is obviously written by a very illiterate man.

These were three actions of ejectment brought in the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, by the appellees against the James River and Kanawha Company, to recover certain parcels of ground in the city of Richmond. The facts in relation to the only point decided by this court are stated in the opinion of Judge Moncure.

This was a bill of injunction in the County court of Culpeper, afterwards removed by consent to the Circuit court of that county, filed by James R. Hume against James R. Brown and others. Both Hume and Brown were creditors by judgment and execution of Julius M. Hunt, whose property, taken in execution and sold, was not sufficient to satisfy the executions in the sheriff’s hands; and the only question in controversy was the validity of Brown’s judgment.

On the 12th and 17th of February 1864, J. R. F. Burroughs and B. P. Abrahams applied to this court by petition, setting out that they were held in custody by Major T. J. Peyton commanding at Camp Bee near the city of Richmond, as conscripts.

At the March term 1860, of the Hustings court of Lynchburg, Spotswood Rider was indicted for feloniously stealing, in October 18.59, one axe of the value of fifty cents.

At the June term 1857, of the Circuit court for the corporation of Lynchburg, the grand jury found an indictment against Robert Bradshaw for keeping and exhibiting a certain gaming table called a faro bank, “a true bill.” And at the same term Bradshaw appeared, and pleaded 1 ‘not guilty” to the indictment; and on his motion the case was continued until the next term.

This was an indictment against Thomas Samanni in the Hustings court of the citjT of Richmond, held by the judge thereof, for that he did with other white persons, to the number of three or more, unlawfully and riotously assemble themselves together to disturb the peace of the commonwealth.