Volume 17 — Virginia Reports

*This was a bill filed in the Circuit court of Gloucester county in 1859, by William 13. Gaines, in his own right, and as administrator of his deceased wife Ann B. Gaines, the daughter of Lewis B. Callis deceased, and Amanda Gaines, an infant child of William 13.

This was an action of detinue in the Circuit court of Fauquier county, brought in 18S7 by Catherine Johnston against Thomas Norris, to recover two slaves. At the September term of the court for 1859 the parties agreed a case, and submitted it to the judgment of the court. The material facts are as follows: Prior to April, 1802, Wm. Norris departed this life, having first made his will, which was duly admitted to probate in the Countj’ court of Fauquier.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Fauquier county, brought in the name of E. I*. Fant, for the benefit of A. Schumaker, against John Iy. Fant and six other persons, upon a bond for ten thousand dollars, executed by them to the plaintiff. The bond bore date the first day of September, 1846, and was payable in five years, with interest from the date, payable semiannually.

In March, 1861, Robert J. Echols, in his own right and as guardian of Lewis P., Sterling C., and Susan V. London, infant children of John J. London deceased, filed his bill in the Circuit court of Nelson county, for, among other things, the sale of the real and personal estate of his wards.

This is the first case which has come to this court arising- under the 10th section of chapter 141 of the Code, p. 625, which is as follows: “Upon a bill requiring- no discovery of the defendant, but praying an injunction to prevent the sale of property conveyed to secure the re-payment of a sum of money or other thing, borrowed at usurious interest, the court shall cause an issue to be made and tried at its bar by a jury, whether or no the transaction be usurious; on the…

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Fauquier county, brought by Miller & Mayhew, of Baltimore, against John B. Fant and William F. Phillips, upon a negotiable note of three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars.

On the 20th of February, 1852, William Spencer and Sarah P. his wife filed their bill in the .Circuit court of Henry county, setting out the death of David R. Hill, the brother of the female plaintiff, intestate; claiming that as his sister she was entitled to one-fourth of his ^estate, which consisted of valuable real estate, slaves, &c. and asking for distribution.

<p>1. Chancery Practice — Land Warrants -Laches.* — Bill in relation to land warrants issued for services in the revolutionary war dismissed on the ground of laches and lapse of time.</p> <p>2. Evidence — Claims tor Revolutionary Services.— when a claim for revolutionary services is brought before the court, the ordinary rules of evidence must be applied to it.</p> <p>3. Chancery Practice — Suit in Name of Several Heirs— One Dead — Effect.—When a suit in equity is brought in the names of several heirs, all having the same interest, if one of them is dead at the time the suit is brought in his name, and his heirs, or their agent, is connusant of the fact that the suit is so brought, and make no objection, but intend to claim the benefit of the decree, they will be bound by the decree dismissing the bill.</p>

In May, 18S7, the Circuit court of Albe-marle county made a decree in a cause depending therein, in which George Carr, administrator with the will annexed of David Michie deceased, and others were plaintiffs, and Thomas J. Michie and others were defendants. The defendants obtained an appeal from this decree; but the appel-lees being very numerous, the appellants did not perfect their appeal by service of process upon all of them.

This was an action on the case in the Circuit court of the city of Norfolk, broug-ht by Ueonar.d B. and Victor A. Nottingham, survivors of themselves and John D. Moore deceased, against The Union… Held: that the evidence was sufficient in law to maintain the issue joined on the part of the plaintiffs.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Alexandria county, brought in March, 1858, in the name of the commonwealth of Virginia, at the relation of Henry Blondheim, against Edward Sangster, sheriff of Alexandria county, and his sureties in his official bond.

This was an action on the case, brought in February, 1863, in the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, by Edmond, Davenport & Co. against the Merchants Insurance Company upon a policy of insurance. The defendants pleaded the general issue; and the parties agreed the facts, and submitted the case to the decision of the court.

The will of Bandon Cabell deceased was admitted to probate in the County court of Afnherst in January, 1834.

*This was an action of trespass in the Circuit court of Alexandria, brought in January 1860, by the Orange and Alexandria railroad company against the City Council of Alexandria, for seizing and taking possession by the defendant’s collector, of the goods of the plaintiff, to satisfy a demand for taxes claimed by the defendant.

In May, 1852, Miller & Mayhew, late merchants residing' in Baltimore, instituted a suit of foreign attachment in the Circuit court of Essex, to attach a debt alleged to be due by %. S. Parland to E. R. Eant, by the name of E. L. Pant & Co., to satisfy a debt alleged to be due by said Pant-& Co. to said Miller & Mayhew. It turned out that the debt of Earland had been assigned to Wm. E. Phillips, and the attachment therefore failed of effect.

This was an action on the case in the Circuit court of Alexandria county, brought in February, 1854, by John D. Corse against Frederick P. Sawyer, to recover an amount of money lost out of the mail between Alexandria and Washington, on a route on which Sawyer was the mail contractor. The declaration contained three counts.

*This was an action on the case for a libel in the Circuit court of Patrick county brought in Hovember, 1857, by William Lawson against Notley P. Adams.

This was a suit for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of two tracts of land in the county of Gloucester, brought by Samuel C. White, of York county, against William Dobson and Joel Hayes. The subpoena was issued and served on the 4th of March, 1859. The plaintiff in his bill stated that on the 20th of January, 1859, he had entered into an agreement with Wm.

This was a bill filed in the Circuit court of Alexandria county, in August, 1855, by Richard C. Smith, executor, trustee, devisee and legatee of Hugh C. Smith deceased, to obtain a construction of the will of his testator. The heirs, devisees and legatees of Hugh C. Smith were made parties defendants to the suit. The will bears date on the 25th of July, 1854, and was admitted to probate in the County court of Alexandria county, on the 9th of August, 1854.

In March, 1816, James C. Steptoe and others entered into a covenant with Matthew Harvey, to pay him one hundred and seventy-two shares of the capital stock of the Farmers Bank of Virginia. In 1820 Harvey instituted an action on this covenant, which, for some cause, had to he dismissed.

This was a writ of unlawful detainer brought in May, 1846, in the County court of Goochland, by William Burton against Edward Matthews, to recover twenty-three acres of land on the west side of Tittle Byrd creek. The case lingered in the County court until May, 1849, when it was removed to the Circuit court of Goochland county; and there it lingered until September, 1859.

In March, 1837, a verbal agreement was entered into between John W. Roster, Marsten Roster and their nephew William Rison, by which they entered into a partnership for conducting a mercantile business at Pittsylvania courthouse. The Rosters were to furnish the capital in equal shares, and Rison was to conduct the business ; and they were to share profits and losses equally.

*William Carr of the county of Prince William, died in 1790, leaving a widow and three children. His daughter Betsey Tebbs was married at the time and had children; his two sons John and William were minors. By his will he, in the first place, gave to his widow during her natural life, the land on which he lived, with the negroes, stock, &c., upon it. He then, in successive clauses, gave land and slaves to his daughter and each of his sons for life, and as is therein stated.

These two cases were heard together in the Circuit court and in this court. The question in both is the same, *and ■the facts are almost identical. They are motions founded on judgments rendered by the Circuit court of Culpeper at a special term of the court held on the 25th day of July, ‘ 1857.

This was an action in the Circuit court of Richmond, brought by C. C. Tong, and on his death revived in the name of his administrators, against the city of Richmond, to recover the value of-a slave, who it was alleged had lost his life through the carelessness and negligence of the agents of the city.

These were motions in the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, by the Commonwealth, against the sureties of Dennis Fielder, late sheriff of Grayson county, in the one case to recover the land, property and September license taxes for the year 1857, and in the other to recover the capitation taxes of the same yeah. The facts are stated by Judge Joynes in his opinion.

These were motions in the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, by the Commonwealth, against Edward S. Calwell, as one of the sureties of John E. Lewis, sheriff of the county of Greenbrier, the one for the balance of land, property, capitation and September license taxes of 1854, and the other for the balance of June license taxes for 1855. Calwell appeared and pleaded non est factum, and the Commonwealth replied generally; on which the issue was made up.

In December, 1836, Earkin Eitchfield with Thomas James, and two others as his sureties, entered into a bond before the County court of Mathews county, as *g-uardian of the six children of Charles Atkinson deceased, of whom one was Mary Iy. Atkinson, at that time about five or six years old.

On the 8th of December, 1848, a covenant was entered into between the James River and Kanawha Company of the one part, and John D. Adams of the other, whereby the latter contracted to construct, in a substantial and workmanlike manner, the dam across James river, known as the “Pedlar dam,” and the river lock connected therewith, in conformity with certain specifications annexed to the covenant, and with the plan of the said dam and river lock exhibited by the .company, and…

These cases were actions of ejectment in the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, brought in 1854, by Richard D. Mitchell and Adolph í>. W’lliams, one against * Angelo Baratta, and the other against Nicholas Riviera, to recover two adjoining lots of ground fronting on the south side of Rranklin street in the city of Richmond. The facts are the same in both cases, and they were tried together in the Circuit court, and heard together in this court.

This was an action of trespass brought in 1845, in the Hustings court of the city of Richmond, by Ijlisha Shepperson, a merchant of Richmond, 'against John S. Peshine and Adam B. Gouldthwait, merchants doing business in Newark, New Jersey.

This is an action of detinue brought for the recovery of slaves.

This case was before this court in 1855, and is reported in 12 Grattan 74. Held: 1st. That the creditors of the concern of F. R. Whitehead, agent, and F. R. Whitehead, agent, & Son, were entitled to full satisfaction out of the assets of said concerns. 2d. That the plaintiffs in the order in which they obtained their liens upon the residue, if any there shall be, will be entitled to such residue. 3d. That whether…

Mary Brown brought a suit in equity against Maurice H. Garland, administrator of Archibald Robertson deceased (he being the only defendant), to recover a debt due her from said Robertson as executor of William Brown deceased. Under an order in that cause said Garland settled^ before a commissioner an account of his transactions as administrator of Robertson, which was reported to the court and confirmed by its decree at April term, 1839.

was a suit in equity, brought in 1834 by Samuel Read’s administrator against Boyd Miller and Archibald Robertson, the former partners for Read, for the settlement of the partnership accounts.

This was an indictment in the Circuit court. of Bedford county against Rucinda Kates, a colored woman, for the murder of her child. On the trial the jury found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and fixed the term of her imprisonment in the penitentiary at eighteen months. The prisoner asked for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; but the court overruled the motion, and sentenced her in accordance with the verdict.

This was an indictment in the Circuit court of the county of Powhatan against Randolph Jones, a freedman, for stealing six hogs, the propert3T of Blair Burwell. On the trial the prisoner was found guilty, and the term of his imprisonment in the penitentiary was fixed at three years. He thereupon moved the court for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; but the court overruled the motion, and rendered a judgment upon the verdict.

This was an indictment in the Circuit court of Middlesex county, against Martha E. Hughes, a freedwoman, for grand larceny, in stealing a number of articles of female wearing apparel, stated in the indictment to be the property of Mrs. Robert H. Montague.

This was an indictment in the Circuit court of Albemarle county, found against Harrison Speers, a. freedman.

This was an indictment in the Circuit court of the county of Rockbridge, against George Vaughan, a freedman.

At the October term 1866 of the Circuit court of the county of Rockingham, Timothy Oneale was indicted and tried for bigamy.

At tíi.e .Ápril,, term 1866 of’ the Circuit court pi;. iipuiioun coitjRy, tbe grand jury found’ an ipdiptment against William Btafdy and, Charley Curry, that.tlieyi on. the' Sth ,day, of Dejcember, . 1865,. on ‘ one ’John ,T. Gregg feloniously did make an assault, and him the said ,'John ,T,'.

This was -an indictment in the Circuit court of Pittsylvania county against Sim-eon B. Da.vis for .unlawfully, but not felo-niously, killing a dog, the property of James C. Riqketts. On. the trial- the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury, that a- criminal prosecution cannot be sustained for the destruction of dogs.

At the April .term 1863 of the Circuit court of Bedford county, Wilson C.-Hewitt was indicted for.an assault, and Rattery committed in February, 1863, upon Rowland!). Buford. This indictment was made upon the evidence . of Rowland D. Buford, a witness, palled on.by the grand jury.