Volume 28 — Grattan's Virginia Reports

<p>The case is fully stated by Judge Moncure in his opinion.</p>

This is a supersedeas to a judgment of the court of hustings for the city of Portsmouth, rendered on the 27th day of October 1871, in an action of ejectment in which William H. Thomas was plaintiff, and Robert Jones defendant. The action was brought for a parcel of land in said city, described in the declaration. The defendant put in the plea of not guilty, on which issue was joined, on which issue a verdict and .judgment were rendered in favor of the defendant.

This was an action on the case in the corporation *court of the city of Norfolk, brought by Weill & Ullman, against the Manhattan Fire Insurance Company, to recover the amount of the insurance on a house in said city which had been consumed by fire.

This was a bill filed in the circuit court of Bedford county, by John B. Harding, to subject a certain tract of land in the possession of N. B. Floyd, as trustee of his wife Ellen S. Floyd, to a judgment which had been recovered by Green B. Board against J. M. W. Eeftwich, the plaintiff, and two f others, on a negotiable note, in which said j Eeftwich was maker, and the plaintiff and the others were endorsers; and which the plaintiff had satisfied.

. This was an attachment in equity in the circuit court of Mecklenberg county, brought in March 1873 by John R. Hicks against C. B. Riddick, J. A. Moss and others.. The plaintiff, charged in his bill, that Riddick, who lived in North Carolina, was indebted to him by bond in the sum of $4,000; that he owned a house and lot in Clarkesville, in the said county, which he prayed might be subjected to pay his debt, and that J. A. Moss was in possession of the property.

This was a suit in equity in the circuit court of Culpeper county, brought in August 1869, by Thomas B. Nalle, to subject certain lands to satisfy a judgment recovered by him against William B. Ross and James A. Beck-ham, in November 1860. One of the tracts of land had been conveyed by said Beckham to Franklin Stearns and John M. Botts in 1862, and another tract was conveyed by Ross to Peter B. Borst in March 1865.

This is a writ of error to a judgment rendered on the 3d day of February, 1873, by the circuit court of the city of Richmond in an action of assumpsit brought in said court by David W. Moore against the Virginia Fire and Marine Insurance company of Richmond, on a policy of insurance. Issue was joined on the *plea of non assumpsit, and leave was given to introduce any evidence under that plea that could be introduced under any special plea.

This case was heard in this court, as well as tried in the court below, together with the preceding case. It is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding by Stuart, Buchanan & Co. to recover from the county of Dinwiddie the sum of $3,695.30, the price of salt delivered to the agent of said countv in 1862. This salt was purchased under the'authority of an act of the general assembly of Virginia, which is set out in the opinion of Judge Christian.

*This was an action of assumpsit upon a policy of insurance on a building, brought in September 1871 by Snowden Yates against the Southern Mutual insurance company. Yates obtained from the Southern Mutual insurance company two policies of insurance, numbered 1,093 and I, 093, upon two buildings at Orange Courthouse, both of which buildings were consumed by the same fire.

This was an action of assumpsit in the corporation court of Alexandria, brought by Isaac Tancil against George L,. Seaton, to recover the amount of a National Bank note for $1,000, deposited by the wife of the plaintiff with the defendant. The facts are stated by Judge Burics in his opinion. In the progress of the trial, the plaintiff asked for two instructions, which were refused; and the defendant asked for three, which were given; and the plaintiffs excepted.

This was a suit in equity in the circuit court of Fauquier county, brought in 1866 by Milton Garrett, a resident of Washington city, against Samuel S. Bradford, of Culpeper county, to have a settlement of a partnership account in relation to the grazing and selling sheep.

These were suits in equity in the Richmond chancery court, brought one by William R. Clarke and Harrison E. Woodward, partners, and the other by T. J. Jones and Thomas Knapp, late partners, to subject a tract of land in the county of Chesterfield, to satisfy judgments recovered by them against D. B. 'Bridgford and N. Tinsley Pate, partners under the name and style of Bridgford & Co. The judgments were recovered in the hustings court of the city of Richmond, the one first…

This was an action of debt in the circuit court of Mecklenburg county, brought by Robert Y. Overby’s executors, and after-wards revived in the name of his administrator de bonis non, &c., against the executors of John Lewis. The plaintiffs declared upon a writing obligatory for $1,800, executed by John Lewis and James E. Has-kins. The defendants filed the pleas of “payment,” and non est factum. The paper declared on was as follows: Dolls. $1800.

In 1872 three suits in equity were instituted in the county court of Tazewell county; one by Austin Mullins, one by D. W. Marrs, and one by Jacob W. Buckland, all of them against Jacob Barger, Evan H. Brown, and C. D. and H. W. Straley, seeking to subject the land of Barger, which had been conveyed to Brown to secure a debt to the Straleys to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff against Barger.

On the 14th day of August, 1874, Stuart, Buchanan & Co. presented to the board of supervisors of Pulaski county, a claim for salt furnished to the county in 1862. This claim was rejected by the board of supervisors; and Stuart, Buchanan & Co. thereupon took an appeal to the county court.

At the August term 1874 of the county-court of Patrick county.

This was an action for malicious prosecution in the circuit court of Floyd county, brought by William B. Shelor against Matthew Scott and James M. Boyd. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for one thousand dollars. The defendants thereupon applied to this court for a writ of error and supersedeas; which was awarded. The case is fully stated by Judge Burics in his opinion.

These cases were separate indictments, the one against Rowena McPherson for living in illicit intercourse with George iStewart, he not being her husband; and the other against George Stewart for living in the same way with Rowena McPherson, she not being his wife. The proofs were that they had been married; and the only question in this court was, whether, she was a negro, and therefore the marriage illegal, as Stewart was a white man.

John S. Haynes was indicted in the hustings court of the city of Richmond for grand larceny; and on his trial he was found guilty, and the term of his imprisonment in the penitentiary was fixed at five years; and the court sentenced him accordingly. On his trial the prisoner took .'two exceptions to rulings of the court; and applied to a judge of this court for a writ of error; which was awarded. The bills of exception are set out in the opinion of Judge Christian.