Volume 86 — Virginia Reports

complainants, against the Shenandoah Valley railroad company et als. defendants. The lattef company was incoi’porated under the laws of this state, and given general powers to construct a railroad through the state, etc. Later, similar privileges were given by the states of West Virginia and Maryland. Various mortgages were executed by this company to secure divers bonds, the first named company being trustee in all.

E. hToell and Thomas Starling, partners as Eoell & Starling, were plaintiffs, and the Eichmond & Danville railroad company was defendant. At the trial the court gave an instruction to which the defendant excepted. The verdict and-judgment were for the plaintiffs for $1,260 00. The defendants obtained a writ of error and supersedeas.

<p>Appeal from decree of corporation court of city of Norfolk, rendered January 28th, 1888, in a suit in equity, wherein Slater, Myers & Co. are complainants, and Peter Moore is defendant.</p>

L. Pannill’s executor against Robert H. Mustain, for the sale or renting of defendant’s land to satisfy liens. Erom decree to sell, defendant obtained an appeal.

S. Jinkins and wife, Wm. Y. and A. L. Jinkins, and C. B. Jinkins, an infant, by, &c., (who are the appellants here) against James F. Lawrence and Arietta his wife, and their infant children, Rosa P., Sarah A. and James F. Lawrence, and R. I). Wortham, trustee.

On petition for a writ habeas c'orpus. In December, 1888, a judgment for a fine of two dollars and costs was rendered by Stephen West, a justice of the peace of Warwick county, against the petitioner, Oscar Marx, a Jew, for unlawfully carrying on liis business, as a retail merchant, on a Sabbath day.

Kate Jameson as administratrix and distributee of the estate of her daughter, Eliza Corbin Jameson, deceased, for the construction of William Major’s will and the payment of her intestate’s'share of a legacy thereunder. The decree was in favor of the petitioner, and Philip L. Jameson, one of the legatees, filed- a bill to rehear the decree of April 2, 1888, but it was dismissed and he appealed.

Mehlenger and others are complainants, and G. A. TJtterbach, E. G. TJtterbach, and others are defendants. The decree being adverse to the defendants, they obtained an appeal.

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of King and Queen county, rendered July 8, 1887, in the chancery cause of Wm. M. Parrish against B. F. Bowden and Margaret L., his wife, Bichard E. Bowden, and Boderick Bland, substituted trustee. The decree being unfavorable to Bicliard E. Bowden, he appealed.</p>

Gayle’s Adm’r, and Parrish v. Bowden et als., heard together. The decree being adverse to John W. Pitts, a partnership creditor of the late firm of Bowden & Gayle, he obtained an appeal.

J. Ford against Louis Euker, brought for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate for the benefit of the plaintiff’s son, A. J. Ford, Jr. The relief sought was denied and the hill dismissed with costs. Complainant obtained an appeal.

Bobinson, sheriff, and administrator of John Hans: ford, deceased, John W. Newman, P. B. Jones, John II. Lee, B. F. Nalle, B. M. Graves, and J. J. Halsey were defendants. Bond, Jones, Lee and Graves having died pending the suit, their representatives were substituted. The said decrees being adverse to the defendants, they obtained an appeal.

Ellis, trustee,) was plaintiff, and Thomas G-. Elam, A. S. Barden and J. P. Webb were defendants. The verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff for $5,000, with interest from April 18, 1887, till paid. The defendants brought the case here on writ of error and supersedeas.

Jane King was plaintiff and the Eastern Ice Company, of Bangor, Maine, was defendant. Verdict and judgment at the last trial being for plaintiff, defendant obtained a writ of error-and supersedeas.

H. Fore was complainant- and H. T. Green, administrator c. t. a. of P. H. Foster, deceased, and his devisees, were defendants. The circuit court sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the bill and dismissed it, and the complainant, appealed.

three decrees of circuit court of Fluvanna county, rendered September 13, 1884, November 24,1886, and November 25, 1887, respectively, in the chancery cause wherein L. J. Walton, sheriff-administrator c. t. a. of Richard Noel, deceased, was fcomplainant, and ~W. Ii. Noel, R. A. Noel, James P. Noel, and others, were defendants. The object of the suit was to construe the will and settle and distribute the estate of the testator, Richard Noel, deceased.

M. Aiken, administrator of Lewis A. Yates, is complainant, and W. T. Law and others are defendants. At- the hearing the bill was dismissed with costs to the defendants, and the complainant appealed.

Heard at Staunton. Decided at Wytheville. Appeal from ■ decree of circuit court of Augusta county, rendered June 4, 1887, in the cause of John B. Guthrie and others, complainants, and Hugh G. Guthrie’s executors, defendants.

& Payne were defendants. The verdict and judgment being for the plaintiffs, the defendants brought the case here on writ of error.

Heai’d at Biclimond. Decided at Wytheville. Error to judgment of circuit court of Gloucester county affirming a judgment of the county court of said county awarding, on an application by the executors of John W. C. Catlett, a writ of mandamus to compel the board of supervisors of said county to pay a claim of their testator against said county.

Heard at Richmond. Decided at Wytlieville. Error to judgment of corporation court of city of Danville, rendered July 12th, 1888, in an action of trespass on the case, wherein Thos. D. Williams was plaintiff and the Richmond and Danville railroad company was defendant. The action was for damages for personal injuries sustained by said plaintiff whilst in the defendant’s employment as brakeman.

Heard at Richmond. Decided at Wytheville. Appeal from decree of chancery court of city of Richmond rendered February 25, 1888, in a creditor’s suit wherein Lindsay and others were complainants and John M. Page’s widow and administratrix and children were defendants. The decree being adverse to the defendants, they appealed.

Heard at Richmond. Decided at AVytheville. Error to judgment of circuit court of Matthews county, rendered in the action of ejectment brought by Cahoon and others, plaintiffs, against Alvey, defendant. The judgment being for the plaintiffs, the defendant brought the case here on writ of error.

<p>Heard at Richmond. Decided at Wytheville.</p> <p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Gloucester county, rendered March 11, 1887, in a suit wherein Thomas Marcliant was complainant and Thomas B. Rowe’s administrators were defendants. The decree being adverse to the administrators they appealed.</p>

<p>1. Bes Judicata—Payment^.—This court affirmed, decree of court below adjudging, in suit to correct a mutual mistake, that payments of certain incumbrances on land by the grantee thereof, should be treated as payments on the price: held, on second account taken by direction of this court, it is re-i judicata that the payments of the incumbrances should be treated as payments, and not as set-offs.</p> <p>2. Several executions.—It is proper to direct executions to issue severally to a complainant in original bill, and to a complainant in cross bill, for the sums adjudged to them respectively.</p>

Fry, the plaintiff in error, setting up against, said county a claim for $5,000 for personal injuries resulting to her through the negligence of the county’s servant.

0. Lancaster’s Adm’r and others against John J. Lancaster’s Adm’r and others, overruling a demurrer to the bill. From this order the defendants obtained an appeal from one of the judges of this court.

<p>Heard at Richmond. Decided at 'W'ytheville.</p> <p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Culpeper county, rendered June 4, J888, in a creditors’ suit instituted by Mifflin County Uational Bank, complainant, against J. P. Alexander and others, defendants. The decree being unfavorable to J. II. Krake, one of the lien creditors, he appealed.</p>

Ward was plaintiff, and William W. White and others were defendants, to recover damages for a personal assault and shooting of plaintiff in error by defendants in error in the town of Abingdon, September 27, 1885. On the trial the verdict was for the plaintiff, and damages assessed against the defendant for the sum of thirteen hundred and seventy-five dollars, and judgment rendered by the court accordingly.

Hicks, the plaintiff in error, was sentenced, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of four'years for an attempt to administer poison to one James Anderson.

Heard at Staunton. Decided at Wytheville. Error to judgment of circuit court of Warren county, rendered October 20, 1887, in a motion wherein Thomas H. Aslrby’s trustees were plaintiffs, and the Shenandoah Yalley railroad company was defendant, to permit an amendment of a return made September 5,1874, on a writ of summons served on a director of said company, in order to show that the service was in the county wherein the director resided.

<p>Appeal from decrees of circuit court of Grayson county, rendered November 13, 1888, and April 16, 1889, respectively, in the cause of Mrs. Dettie M. Trinkle, complainant (appellant here), against J. G. J ackson, defendant (appellee here).</p>

G-. McConnell andR. A. McConnell, partners under the firm name of T. G. k R. A. McConnell, are plaiutiffs, and the Norfolk and Western railroad company is defendant. The verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiffs brought the case here on writ oí error.

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Smyth county rendered December 10, 1887, in an action of covenant wherein John W. Richardson, administrator of Harold P. Davis, deceased, was plaintift, and F. W. Leonard, administrator of Payette McMullen, deceased, was defendant.</p>

Andrew’s administrator is plaintiff and the Southwest Virginia Improvement company is defendant. The action was .instituted against the plaintiff in error, the owner and proprietor of certain coal mines situated in the county of Tazewell, hy the defendant in error, for the negligent killing of his intestate while working as a laborer in said coal mines.

<p>Judicial Sale—Cloud upon title—Delay.—In suit to sell certain lands to pay liens, answer is filed and treated as a petition, whereby it was averred tliat a portion of the land was in the possession of H.; that unlawful detainer was pending against him to recover said portion; that a sale under such circumstances would be at a sacrifice; and that debtor was in a position to effect a desirable private sale: held, the unlawful detainer, seeming to be a mere contrivance for delay, the court will not stay the sale.</p>

Bartholomew and others, by Charles M. Joslyn, trustee of Bartholomew, claiming whatever might he found due to Bartholomew from any of the garnishees. The decree dismissed the petition, and Joslyn appealed.

Heard at Wytheville. Decided at Staunton. Appeal from decree of circuit court of Montgomery county rendered in the cause of the Farmers Fational Bank of Salem and others, complainants, against John M. Thomas and Giles D. Thomas, defendants. The decree being unfavorable to the defendants, they appealed.

<p>Argued at Wytheville. Decided at Staunton.</p> <p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of city of Roanoke, rendered at its April term'; 1888, in the chancery cause, wherein David E. Trout, administrator of Martha B. Trout, deceased, against Henry S. Trout, as administrator of John Trout, deceased, and in his own right, and P. L. Terry and wife, his distributees. At the hearing, upon the pleadings and evidence, the bill was dismissed, and the complainant appealed.</p> <p>Opinion states the ease.</p>

Heard at 'Wytheville. Decided at Staunton. Appeal from decree of circuit court of Patrick county, rendered in the cause of Murray Turner, administrator of Pufus Turner, deceased, against Samuel G. Staples, executor of Abram Staples, deceased. The decree being adverse to the complainant, he appealed.

Oliver are complainants and Joseph T. Fudge, George T. McClintic, and James G. Kincaid are defendants. The object of the suit was to reform a deed whereby the defendant Kincaid conveyed certain lands to those under whom the complainants claimed on the ground of a mutual mistake so as to make it conform to the intention of the parties. The circuit court reformed the deed according to the prayer of the bill, and the defendants appealed.

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Rockbridge county, rendered March 29, 1888, in a chancery cause therein pending under the short style of Luckess’ Ex’or, for, &c., v. J. G. Paxton’s Adm’r. The decree being adverse to Mrs. Annie M. Paxton, one of the parties’ to the cause, she appealed.</p>

Lee and son et als. against Bumgardner et ais. The plaintiffs (the appellants) tiled their bill in said court August 12, 1887, praying an injunction to restrain the defendants (the appellees) from committing a trespass on their lands in the hill mentioned, which injunction was granted.

K,. Stout, J. W. Stout and J. M. Quarles, executors of James M. Stout, deceased, were plaintiffs, and the said city of Staunton defendant. The judgment being for the correction of said entry, the defendant excepted, and brought the case here upon writ of error.

E. Beard v. Rusmiselle and others. Into this cause Annie Thomas came by petition, setting up a claim against Mrs. Rusmiselle, to whom, petitioner alleged, certain land belonged, which the creditors of Mr. Rusmiselle were seeking to subject to satisfy their claims against him. The decree being adverse to the petitioner, she appealed.

Blackley and others, creditors of Fannie 0. Geiger, are complainants, and Fannie C. Geiger and William C. Geiger, her husband, are defendants, the object of which was to charge her separate estate with the payment of debts contracted by her.. The decree being against her, she ■ appealed.

J. Johns’ administrator, against Rebecca Johns’s administrator and others. The decree being that Mrs. Rebecca Johns took under the will of her deceased husband, William Johns, an estate for her life only in the funds bequeathed, and had a life estate in the land purchased by her to the extent said funds entered into the purchase thereof, and that so far said land was not liable for her debts, the administrator of A. J. Johns, deceased, one of her creditors, appealed.

F. Grayson and others are complainants, and W. EL Miller’s administrators and others are defendants. In this suit Mrs. Mary E. Walker and her husband, J. 0. Walker, filed a petition claiming title to part of the land included in the litigation, under a purchase made by her of W. H. Miller in his lifetime, and whereof he had put her in possession. The circuit' court decreed that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief asked for. From the decree the Walkers appealed.

Dunlop aud Mary G., his wife, were complainants and the Shenandoah Valley railroad company was defendant. The object of the suit was to reform a deed conveying the right of way to the defendant for its railway across the adjacent tracts of land of the said plaintiffs respectively, in order to conform it to the terms of a prior written agreement, on the ground of a mistake made by the draftsman of the deed.

Argued at Wytheville. Decided at Richmond. Appeal from decree of circuit court of Russell county, rendered August 15,1888, in a chancery cause wherein the appellant, L. Finney, is complainant, and the appellees, M. G. Clark and A. F. Hurt, sherift of said county, are defendants.

Funsten and others, in the chancery suit of IT. H. McGuire v. O. B. Funsten and others. This was a suit in equity, brought soon after the late Avar, in the circuit court of Clarke county, by Dr. Hugh H. McGuire, for the enforcement of a contract for the sale of a tract of land, situate in. that county.

<p>Error to judgment of corporation court of city of Lynch-burg rendered December term, 1888, in a proceeding wherein A. A. Tunstall was plaintiff, and the commonwealth was defendant.</p>

Argued at ¡Staunton. Decided at Richmond. Error to judgment of circuit court of Rockingham county, rendered April 13, 1889, in an action wherein the plaintiff in error, George E. Sipe, administrator of Wm. Reherd, deceased, is plaintiff, and I). R. Clem and Isaac Wenger, partners in business under the style of Clem & Wenger, are defendants.

The prisoner was indicted at the October term, 1888, of the county court of Appomattox county, for a rape on Bertha Wright, a' female child under twelve years of age. He was held to answer an indictment for the offence in the said court on the second day of its August term of the same year, but was not indicted until the October term, although a grand jury was impaneled at the September term and also at the August term.

Argued at Staunton. Decided at Riclnnond. Error to judgment of circuit court of Botetourt county, rendered January 2,1888, iu an action on the case wherein Robert Lucado’s administrator was plaintiff, and Sydney F. Tyler, receiver of the Shenandoah Valley railroad company, was defendant. The verdict and the judgment being for the plaintiff, the defendant brought the case here upon writ of error.

The charge in the indictment was that, on the 15th day of March, 1889, in the night time, he feloniously broke and entered the kitchen of Abner Richardson, with intent to steal, and did then and there feloniously steal, take and carry away one hundred pounds of flour, thirty pounds of corn meal and two dozen eggs, the property of the said Richardson.

The jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree, and fixed the term of his confinement in the penitentiary at eighteen years, and the court sentenced him accordingly. Prisoner brought the case here on writ of error.

A. Krise is complainant and Stephen T. Dillard and L. A. Larkin are defendants. The decree being unfavorable to the latter, they appealed.

<p>1. Creditor’s bill—Single creditor—Decree of account.—A single creditor at large may sue personal representative of deceased debtor in equity for account of assets, payment of his debts and general relief. Rice v. Hartman, 84 Va., 251.</p> <p>2. Idem—Laches—Issue.—Where bond fell due in 1875; suit brought ten years afterwards, when all the obligors were dead; the bond having been assigned as collateral and the interest regularly paid: held, not laches, and not a case for an issue out of chancery.</p> <p>8. Personal representatives—Personal decree.—Where testator’s estate was ample to pay all his debts, and his estate had been administered in suit for partitions to which a creditor was no party, and no refunding bonds were taken from legatees: held, the executor is personally liable for the debt.</p>

D. Patton was complainant and R. M. Leftwich and W. IL Stiff, surviving partners of themselves, and R. P. Robertson, deceased, doing business in the name of R. P. Robertson & Co., and the Liberty Savings Bank and others, were defendants. The decree being against the complainant, he appealed.

<p>Trustees—Liability.—Sale under trust, deed to secure a debt was declared invalid long after it was made, and trustee’s representatives were adjudged to pay into court the value of the land when sold, with interest. The debt was then paid from the trustee’s estate; but the amount paid was less than the land’s value, with interest. Held, trustee’s representatives must pay into court, for benefit of debtor’s estate, the difference.</p>

T. Seal on the 31st day of December, 1888. The deceased Avas a policeman of the said city, and was in the act of arresting the prisoner without a warrant for- a misdemeanor, not committed in his presence, when the prisoner shot him with a pistol, which caused his death a few minutes afterwards. Upon firing the fatal shot the prisoner fled, and was apprehended the following day near Barboursville, in Orange county, as he was malting his way northward on the Midland railway.

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Fluvanna county entered April 14tli, 1887, affirming the decision of the county court of said county, disallowing the claim of the appellants, Burwell G. Bunch’s executors against the said county.</p>

The injunction awarded the complainant, having been perpetuated, and the defendant’s petition for a rehearing having been dismissed, he appealed.

<p>Error to judgment of tlie judge of the circuit court of Stafford county, rendered March 29, 1889, refusing a writ of error to a judgment of the county court of said county, rendered February, 1889, sentencing Henry Brown, the plaintiff in error, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the period of fifteen years for the murder of J. B. Heflin.</p>

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of iSTelson county rendered April 2, 1887, in an action of ejectment wherein E. R. Pugh (the plaintiff in error) was plaintiff, and J. C. McCue was defendant.</p>

, and Pettyjohn, etc., against Woodruff’s executor, the same having been consolidated and heard together. The decree being adverse to Pettyjohn’s executors, they appealed.

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Albemarle county, rendered at its February term, 1889, in an action of trespass' on the case, wherein-A. D. Payne (the defendant in error) was plaintiff and the Richmond and Danville railroad company (the plaintiff in error) was defendant.</p>

<p>Error to judgment of hustings court of city of Richmond, rendered November 25, 1889, by which the plaintiff in error, Louis Schonberger, was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of five years, in accordance with the verdict of the jury.</p>

<p>1. Negligent Injuries—Evidence—Damages.—In action by husband for the negligent killing of his wife, evidence is admissible that after his marriage there was a marked change for the better in his habits and pecuniary condition, as affecting the quantum of damages.</p> <p>2. Idem—instructions—Case, at bar.—Where the killing of the wife was ' caused by a stone thrown by a blast fired in defendant’s quarry, between 500 and 600 feet off, refusal to instruct that the defendants were entitled to continue to conduct their business in their usual manner if no accident had been previously caused thereby: held, not error.</p> <p>3. Practice at common law—Objections to jurors.—Where party had opportunity to question jurors before sworn, and raised no objections to their competency, the verdict will not be set aside on the ground that one of them was employed in the same shop with plaintiff but in a different department, and another’s sons worked in the department of which plaintiff was foreman, unless it is apparent that the verdict ivas wrong in principle or the result of passion or prejudice.</p> <p>4. Idem—Refusing to instruct as asked.—It is not error to refuse to give an instruction asked for, if the court gives one embodying the same propositions of law as applied to the facts.</p>

<p>1. Attachment—Return— Order of publication.—Where before an attachment is returned “ executed,” an order of publication was made, and the order was not posted by the clerk at the front door of the court-house on the first day of the court next after it is entered, the attachment should be abated. Code 1887, secs. 2979 and 3231.</p> <p>2. Pe aotice at common law— Trial without an issue—Jeofails—Where in action of assumpsit, no plea has been filed, the only question is the quantum of damages, and that only after an order of enquiry of damages, it is error to allow defendant to cross-examine the witnesses and demur to the evidence, and such error is not cured by the statute of jeofails which does not cure a total want of issue.</p> <p>3. Idem—Rule upon certificate of evidence.—Such case is not a proper one for applying the rule that when upon survey of whole record, judgment appears substantially right, it will be affirmed, though there may have been error in progress of the cause not operating to prejudice the appellant.</p> <p>4. Idem--Special appearance—No waiver.— Appearance to move to quash attachment on account of irregular service of process, is not such appearance to the action as waives alleged defects.</p>

B. Taylor and others, citizens and tax-payers of Greenville county, enjoining the board of supervisors of said county from issuing any bonds in payment of its alleged subscription to the Atlantic & Danville railroad company, and dismissing the bill with costs. Prom this decree complainants appeal. Opinion states the case.

Argued at Staunton. Decided at Richmond. Appeal from decree of circuit court of Rockingham county, rendered August 1, 1887, in a chancery suit in the style of Herod Homan and others against James H. Moore’s Administrator and others upon an’original hill, and James IT. Moore’s Administrator against John E. Roller upon a cross bill. The decree being adverse to John E. Roller, he appealed.

Argued at Staunton. Decided at Richmond. Appeal from decree of circuit court of Clarke county, rendered October 10, 1888, in a chancery cause wherein George W. Wiley was complainant and Mamie Colston was defendant. The bill was dismissed with costs, and complainant .appealed.

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Lancaster county rendered November 27,1888, whereby the plaintiff in error, John Stoneham, was sentenced according to the verdict of the jury, to confinement for the term of eighteen years in the penitentiary for the murder in the second degree of one George Clevenger. To this judgment the prisoner obtained a writ of error and supersedeas.</p>

<p>1. Principal—Agent—Third party.—Where agent acts under special or express authority written or verbal, the party dealing with him is bound to know, at his peril, what the agent’s power is, and if agent exceeds his power, the act is void as to principal.</p> <p>2. Idem—Evidence of authority.—To make agent’s act binding on principal, party dealing with agent, must show by clear, competent, direct and satisfactory evidence the terms and authority of the agent, or a ratification of his acts by principal.</p> <p>8. Auctioneer, etc.—Custom—Real estate agent—Quxre.—If a man expressly empower another a§ his auctioneer, broker, factor or other professional agent, and privately restrict his power, a presumption of authority to . deal with the goods according to the agent’s usual course of business will arise. Quxre, whether a real estate agent falls within the category of such agents.</p> <p>4. Specific Performance— Case at bar.—The evidence here not establishing the authority of the agent to make the sale of the real estate in controversy, the specific performance prayed for cannot be decreed.</p>

<p>1. Set-oee—•Action on collateral bond—•Condition performed.—In an action on a bond with collateral conditions, where the only plea is "conditions performed,” the defendant is not entitled to prove a set-off. Code 1887, sec. 3298 and sec. 3303.</p> <p>2. Idem—Action by county.—One sued by the county cannot set off a claim which has not been presented to the board of supervisors and allowed by them, or by the county court upon an appeal. Sec. 843.</p>

Bransford, treasurer of said city, and in the 44 other cases, styled as above, against the same defendant. The judgments being respectively against the plaintiffs, they severally obtained thereto writs of error and supersedeas from one of the judges of this court.

<p>Appeal from decree of Nottoway county circuit court rendered April 5, 1888, in the chancery suit wherein Carroll & Davidson, receivers for the benefit of L. E. Carroll, the widow, and E. D. Carroll, the son and only heir of 'William M. Carroll, deceased, who was a member of said firm, were complainants, and Nancy T. Blanton and others were defendants. The decree being adverse to the defendants they appealed.</p>

<p>Appeal from three decrees of circuit court of Albemarle county rendered June 16, 1880, Eebruary 11, 1888, and May 19,1888, respectively, in the chancery causes of Bodeker against Harman, &c., and Barksdale, trustee, against Bodeker, &e. The decree being adverse to Samuel Straus, surviving partner of Straus, Adler & Harman, he appealed.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court' of Loudoun county, rendered October 19, 1888, in the chancery cause' wherein James M. Wallace was complainant and Fairfax 0. Minor, J. Monroe Heiskell, Minor Heiskell, an infant, George A. Ropp, executor of Samuel Ropp, the personal representatives of Louisa Fairfax Minor, and others, were defendants. The decree dismissed the bill and the complainant appealed.</p>

Long, &c., against Joseph B. Strayer and Fannie B. Strayer, his wife, and others. The decree was adverse to Mrs. Strayer, and she appealed.

<p>1. Bonds—Indorsement—Defense.—To make a subsequent agreement respecting a bond, a part thereofj it must be so engrafted on the bond that the original and the engrafted matter shall constitute inseparable parts of an entire instrument. Otherwise, the indorsement must be pleaded as matter of defense.</p> <p>2. Idem—Variance—Demurrer■—Case at bar.—Incase here, the indorsement was not so engrafted as to become part of the bond declared on, and to make the declaration, which did not mention the indorsement, demurrable for variance.</p>

Defendant moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, which motions were overruled and excepted to by him, arid the case brought here upon writ of error.

<p>Appeal^ from decree of circuit court of Albemarle county, rendered October 14, 1887, in the chancery causes of Scott against Langliorne and Scott against Ashlin’s Administrator, &c., and other causes heard together. The decree being adverse to Z. It. Lewis and Nannie L. Lewis, his wife (who before her marriage was Nannie L. Scott), and others, they appealed.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Louisa county, rendered in the chancery cause of Saunders against Parrish and others, to annul a conveyance as fraudulent. The circuit court dismissed the bill. The complainant appealed.</p>

<p>1. Wills—Mode of execution—Signature.—Code 1887, sec. 2514, provides that “no -will shall be valid unless it be in writing and signed by the testator or by some other person in his presence, and by his direction, in such manner as to make it manifest that the name is intended to be as a signature.”</p> <p>2. Idem—Case at bar.—A will wholly in testator’s handwriting, beginning: “ I, A. W., of the county of II., declare this to be my last will and testament,” but nowhere else containing testator’s name, was inclosed in a sealed envelope on which was written in testator’s handwriting, “My Will—A. W.”: held, not signed by testator.</p>

<p>Trust Deed—Real beneficiary—Suit to enforce—Demurrer—-Case at bar.—Bill to enforce trust deed filed by the real, not the nominal, beneficiary, according to averments of the bill, is demurred to: held, demurrer should have been overruled.</p>

<p>1. Mechanics’ mens—Contracts.—Under Code 1873, ch. 115, as amended by Acts 1883-84, pp. 636, 637, in action against owner by sub-contractor, whose account is disputed by general contractor, it is not sufficient for sub-contractor to show that he has served his notice and filed his account as provided by sec. 5, but he must also aver and prove that he has complied with his contract with the general contractor under which the materials were furnished.</p> <p>2. Idem—Essence of contract.—In a contract to furnish material for a building “ within sixty days from date of order ” : held, time is of the essence.</p>

<p>Appeal irom decrees of circuit court of Louisa county, rendered September 21,1888, in the chancery cause wherein Daniel H. Brown and Robert William Browm were complainants, and George K. Anderson, administrator of Baldwin M. Buckner, deceased, and the children of the deceased; Elizabeth Wilkerson, the widow of Robert Wilkerson, deceased, and others, were defendants. The object of the suit was to seek a settlement of the estate of said Baldwin M. Buckner, deceased, who with the complainant, Daniel H. Brown, was the executor of the estate of Robert. Wilkerson, deceased. The circuit court dismissed the bill upon a demurrer, and the complainant appealed.</p>

L. Blanton (the appellant here) was complainant, and the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac railroad company was defendant; and in the last the said company (plaintiff in error here) was plaintiff and said Blanton was defendant.

<p>1. Chancery practice—Final decree.—When a decree makes an end of a case, and decides the whole matter in contest, and leaves nothing to be done by the court in the cause, it is final.</p> <p>2. Idem—Res judicata—Case at bar.—A suit to execute testator’s will, sell his real estate, and distribute the proceeds, wherein some of the lands "are still unsold, and some sold, has not been accounted for, the objects of the suit are unaccomplished, and no final decree has been entered in the cause, and is no bar to a second suit brought to correct an admitted-error claimed to be accidental.</p> <p>3. Executors—Joint bond—Reciprocal sureties.—Where two executors execute a joint official bond, the one is surety for the other.</p>

, was plaintiff, and the Virginia Midland railway company was defendant. The verdict and judgment being for plaintiff', defendant brought the case here upon a writ of error and supersedeas.

<p>Argued at Wytheville. Decided at Eichmond.</p> <p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Pulaski county rendered at its October term, 1887, in the chancery cause wherein J. Lawrence Eadford, Gabriel 0. Wharton and Nannie E., his wife, and Eichard H. Adams «and Elizabeth, his wife, were the complainants, and William T. Yancey, Jr., was the defendant. The object of this suit was to assert the claims of J. Lawrence Eadford and the female complainants as heirs of their sister, Mrs. Mary McO. Yancey, deceased, who in her lifetime was the defendant’s wife, and who died intestate and without having had children, to a tract of 242 acres of land in said county, which, in the partition of their ancestor’s real estate, had been conveyed, without warranty, by the complainants to said Yancey and wife and to the heirs of the said wife. The circuit court decided that Yancey was entitled to one-half .of said land for bis own life, and that the said J. Lawrence Radford and the female complainants were entitled to the other half in fee,' and directed au account of oue-half of the rents and profits since the death of Mrs. Yancey: Erom this decree the said W. T. Yancey, Jr., appealed.</p>

<p>1. Admissions as to title—Privies.—Declarations accompanying the act of possession in disparagement of claimant’s title or otherwise, qualifying his possession, are admissible in evidence not only against declarant, but those claiming under him.</p> <p>2. Idem—Partition.—Such admissions by grantee of deed on its face absolute and for a valuable consideration, are admissible to show that the deed was merely intended as a deed of partition between coparceners, and, therefore, no conveyance at all, because “ partition makes no degree.”</p> <p>3. Ejectment—Wife’s maiden land—Case at bar.—In ejectment where wife’s heirs demanded land in possession of husband’s grantees, on the ground it had descended upon her from her father, though wife’s brothers had conveyed it to her and her husband by deed reciting a consideration, but which the heirs claimed was only a deed of partition, the declarations of husband that the land had come to wife from her father, and that he had only a life estate in it: held, admissible against said grantees.</p> <p>4. Husband and wife—Separation—Tenancy by the Curtesy—Case at bar.— Husband and wife separated by agreement setting apart to wife one-third of the'land descended to her from her father, free from all claims of the husband, but stipulating nothing as to the remainder whereon he continued to reside: held, he derived his tenancy by the curtesy through his wife, and did not hold adversely to her, or to her heirs after her death.</p>

<p>Error to judgment of the judge of circuit court of Russell county, in vacation, affirming judgment of county court of said county, rendered at its March term, 1887, whereby plaintiff in error was sentenced, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of twenty years for the alleged carnal knowledge of a female child under twelve years of age.</p>

<p>3. Criminal Proceedings—Robbery—Case at bar.—Evidence showing that accused and companion assailed a party at a stated time, and that companion held the party whilst accused took from, his person a pocketbook of the value of fifty cents, containing fifteen dollars in currency: held, proof warrants conviction of robbery.</p> <p>2. Idem—New trial.—The facts aforesaid being established, a new trial will not be awarded for newly-discovered evidence that a witness that had testified at the trial, since remembered that the scene of the robbery was examined by lamplight, and not by moonlight.</p>

Argued at Wytheville. Decided at Richmond. Error to judgment of the judge of the circuit court of Smythe county, denying a writ of error to the judgment of the county court of that county, rendered October 22,1889, whereby Miller Jones, the plaintiff in error, was sentenced, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, to four years imprisonment in the penitentiary for horse-stealing.

<p>1. Criminal Proceedings—Remedial laws—Remedial laws in force at time indictment found, must prevail, though whenoffense committed different modes of procedure were required. Miller Jones’ case, ante, p. 661.</p> <p>2. Idem—Summoning venire—By the law in force before May 1, 1888, the county court alone was empowered to issue the venire facias, though the indictment was to be tried in the circuit court. By sec. 4020, Code 1887, any court wherein a person accused of felony is to be tried, may cause a venire facias to issue for his trial, and that section is the law of the case, no matter when the offense was committed.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Loudoun county rendered October 22, 1888, in a chancery suit wherein Hough, Gray & Co. were complainants, and B. G. Carter, the appellant, was defendant.</p>

Bransford, treasurer of that city, was plaintiff, and'J. Hallan and W. H. Hallan, partners under style of Hallan Bros., and the plaintiffs in error, J. H. Wood, a justice, and Wm. B. Davis, a constable of that city, were defendants.

<p>Judicial sale—Motion to set aside—Case at bar.—In this case the land sold at a price above its assessed value, and the evidence failed to sustain the motion to set aside the sale for inadequacy of price, etc.</p>

<p>Argued at Staunton. Decided at Richmond.</p> <p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Warren county, rendered May 3, 1889, in the cause of IT. IT. Downing, trustee, against Samuel Macatee’s creditors. The decree being adverse to J. J. and J. H. Williams, administrators of P. Williams, deceased, they appealed.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Augusta county rendered June 13, 1888, in the consolidated causes of McCue’s Creditors v. McCue’s Trustees, and McCue’s Trustees v. McCue and others, rehearing, and, to a certain extent, reversing a decree rendered December 5, 1878.</p>

<p>1. Banks—Collaterals—Application.—It is a well-settled rule that collaterals deposited with a bank for one debt, or class of debts, cannot be appropriated to another debt, or class of debts.</p> <p>2. Conteaci’s—Construction—Case at bar.—Firm having deposited with a bank, for its note to the bank as collateral, another note of the firm endorsed by third party, stipulated as follows: “ If we should come under any other liability, ok enter into any other engagement, with said bank, while it holds this obligation,” &c.: held, construing the word oe, as and, the stipulation refers to any other liability or engagement of the same kind with the first mentioned note; and not to a draft drawn on, and accepted by, said firm, and discounted for the drawer and placed to his credit.</p>

<p>1. Constitution—Hlghvags—Telegraphs.—Condemnation of land for public highway gives only right of passage over it. The absolute property in the land remains in owner. Erection of telegraph poles and wires constitutes an additional servitude on the land. Act February 10,1880 (Code, secs. Í287-1290), authorizing construction of telegraph lines along any public road, if the use of the highway be not obstructed, without providing any compensation to the land owners, violates the constitutional intention when taking private property for public use without compensation.</p> <p>2. Corporation—Xon-resident—Process.—There is no error in serving prey cess against a non-resident corporation on an agent thereof resident in the county wherein suit is brought.</p>

Heard at Staunton. Decided at Richmond. Appeal from decrees of circuit court of Rockingham county, rendered April 14, 1887, and April 17, 1889, in the cause of J. 5. Harnsberger, late general receiver of said circuit court, who sued for tlie use of George E. Sipe, general receiver of said court, on his own behalf and on behalf of all the other lien creditors of Charles A. E. Moore, who should come into the suit on the usual terms.

Error to judgment of circuit court of Brunswick county rendered October 12, 1889,- affirming judgment of county court of said county, sentencing Harrison J ones, the plaintiff in error, to ten years confinement in the penitentiary for the robbery of Mansfield Moore;

Argued at Staunton. Decided at Richmond. Error to judgment of circuit court of Rockbridge county affirming judgment of county county of said county whereby plaintiff in error, Jacob Shipp, was sentenced to eighteen years confinement in the penitentiary for the murder in the second degree of Johu Hottinger.

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of city of Alexandria, rendered March 23, 1888, in3 a suit wherein ¥m. H. F. Hodgkin, the appellant, was complainant, and William FT. McVeigh and others were defendants.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of hustings court of city of Roanoke rendered in the cause wherein G-. M. Bartholomew and others, creditors of the Rorer Iron campany, were complainants, and the said company and others were defendants. Earn & Hick-son, first-mortgage bondholders, brought the case here on appeal.</p>

<p>Circuit courts—■Jurisdiction—Insanity—Committee.—A circuit court lias no jurisdiction to adjudge a person insane. When once a person has been so adjudged by a county or corporation court or the justices before whom he is examined, the circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction with such court to appoint a committee for the lunatic. Code, sections 1097, 1698, and 1700.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Loudoun county rendered Eebruary 14, 1889, in suit instituted by the appellant, Ann E. Throckmorton, for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, from her husband, Mason Throckmorton.</p>

Argued at Staunton. Decided at Richmond. Appeal from decree of circuit court of Frederick county, rendered July 18, 1887, in a suit wherein E. EL Boyd, administrator of W. T. Gilbert, deceased, was complainant, and the appellants, .Barbara A. Solenberger and R. W. Solenberger, trustee, were defendants.

Strange’s executor and heirs were defendants. The object of the suit was to set aside a deed for undue influence. At the hearing the bill was dismissed, and complainants appealed.

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Norfolk county rendered March 25th, 1889, in an action upon a fire insurance policy, wherein Edward M. Tilley, the plaintiff in error, was plaintiff, and the Connecticut Fire Insurance company was defendant. The judgment sustained a demurrer to the declaration, and plaintiff brought the case here on error.</p>

<p>Criminal proceedings —Capital offense—Arraignment—Circuit court—Case at bar.—Prisoner indicted for murder, on arraignment elected to be tried in circuit court, and was produced therein, but the record had not been certified, and he moved to be remanded to the county court for trial. The circuit court examined the uncertified record before it, held therp was error apparent therein in that the county court had refused to hear prisoner’s motion for a continuance before his arraignment and remanded the case. When afterwards prisoner objected to trial in the county court because he had upon his arraignment elected to be tried in the circuit court, but this objection being overruled, the trial proceeded: held, after election to be tried in circuit court, it alone had jurisdiction to try him, but it could not do so, without a certified record of the case, but it had no jurisdiction to correct errors of court below. And so, prisoner has not been lawfully tried.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Middlesex county, rendered September 3, 1888, in the cause of W. W.-Woodward, administrator d. b. n., c. t. a. of Manus Rowan, deceased, complainant, against Ann Gallagher and John Gallagher, her husband, G. B. Gary, husband and sole distributee of Minnie E. W. Cary, deceased, and others (the .appellants), defendants.</p>

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Warwick county, ■affirming judgment of county court rendered January 9, 1888, in an action of unlawful entry and detainer, wherein C. 0. Dexter was plaintiff and William H. Mears and Alfred I^ewis (the plaintiffs in error), were defendants.</p>

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Goochland county rendered March 12, 1888, wherein E. F. Trice was plaintiff, and the plaintiffs in error (Lawrence Myers and Decatur Axtell, receivers of the Richmond & Alleghany railroad company), were defendants. The object of the suit was to' recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff whilst in the defendant’s employment.</p>

<p>Executors—Liability—Case at bar.—Where the will gave executor a wide discretion in dealing with testator’s estate, and the condition thereof was such as fully justified his course, and he appropriated some of it to himself, but was “ honest and faithful in all things”: held, his conduct should be judged by the discretion given him, taken in connection with the condition of the estate, rather than by the strict rules of the law as to fiduciaries, and he should not be held accountable for losses which may-have resulted from errors of judgment.</p>

<p>3, Equitable set ope—Cane at bar.—B. had judgment against R. for a large sum. Afterwards R. as surety on B.’s official bond as county treasurer, was compelled to pay a larger sum. Previously B. had assigned all his property, except his claim against R., to S. as trustee, and S. claiming the judgment by some “ parol trust,” directed it to be marked for his benefit as such trustee: held, R. is entitled in equity to set off the amount paid by him as B.’s surety against the judgment in the hands of S., who, at most, could only take it subject to all equities against B.</p> <p>2. Contribution.—When surety has paid more than his portion of a joint debt, he can demand contribution from his co-surety, but only for the excess he paid over his portion.</p>

<p>1. Common law practice—Instructions.—Instructions propounding- abstract questions of law but not predicated upon any evidence in the case, or which presuppose a condition of facts not supported by the evidence, are erroneous.</p> <p>2. Negligent Injuries—Presumptions.—In trial of action for negligent inju- , ries, negligence must be proved; and it is error to instruct the jury that plaintiff is not bound to do more by his proof than to raise “ a reasonable presumption of negligence ” on defendant’s part, to entitle him to recover.</p> <p>8. Idem—Contributor!! negligence—Rale.—It is also error in such actions to instruct the jury that, if plaintiff contributed to the injury, his right to recover is not affected thereby,unless he was in fault in so contributing to the injury, the true rule of contributory negligence being that laid down in Dun v. Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co., 78 Va., 645.</p> <p>4. Idem—Modification.—In such action, it is error to modify a proper instruction as to the effect of plaintiff’s contributory negligence upon his right of recovery, by inserting in the following provisory clause, “ unless the perilous position of plaintiff was known to defendant’s employees, and that by use of ordinary care, after knowledge thereof, the accident could have been avoided,” the words, “ or by use of ordinary diligence could, have been known.”</p> <p>5. Case at bar—New tried.—Where a plaintiff, acquainted with a crossing, and aware that the place was used for shifting cars, was seen by engineer of the shifter, that had just passed, to drive his one-ho-rse wagon safety across the track within a few feet of the shifter, the horse not noticing it, and to proceed some nine feet from the track, when, the engineer not observing, the horse balked and backed the wagon on to the track into collision with the shifter, which, having- coupled onto a train of cars, was backing down the track, whereby injury resulted to wagon, horse and plaintiff, held, error to refuse to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff as not warranted by the evidence.</p>

Garrett was plaintiff and J. 0., Hutchinson, sheriff of said county, was defendant. The verdict and judgment being against him, Garrett brought up the case on error.

Potterfield, administrator of Frederick Miller, deceased, was complainant, and William Garrett, a person of unsound mind, by his guardian ad litem, and others, were defendants.

<p>L Married women— Separate estate—Bill—Demurrer.—Where a hill against husband and wife to subject her separate estate to judgments against them, fails to charge that, at the time she signed the notes whereon the judgments were had, she had separate property, and that she signed them with intent, expressed or implied, to charge it, held, a demurrer lies.</p> <p>'2. Commissioner’s report—Exceptions.—Case at bar presents an instance where the report of the separate property of a married woman was too uncertain for the court to base a decree of sale thereon.</p> <p>3. Idem—Cases Distinguished.'—In Frank & Adler v. Lillienfield, 33 Gratt., 397, the wife did endorse the blank negotiable note intending to charge her separate estate.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of corporation court of Danville rendered March 11,1889, in the cause of Joseph D. Blair, administrator de bonis non of W. II. Tunstall, deceased, complainant (appellant here), against. E. D. Withers and others, defendants, the object of the suit being to enforce a vendor’s lien.</p>

<p>¡j^Errot to judgment of circuit court of city of Richmond rendered March 9, 1889, in an action of trespass on the case, wherein Robert G-. Scott was plaintiff, and the plaintiff in error, the Richmond City railway company, was defendant.</p>

Appeal. from two decrees of circuit court of Gloucester county, rendered respectively May 19, 1885, and June 19, 1888, in the chancery cause wherein William A. Davies and Indiana Davies, his wife, and others, the appellants, were complainants, and Thomas J. Hughes, executor of Thomas Hughes, deceased, and others, were defendants.

A. Ford and W. F. Matthews were plaintiffs, and the plaintiff in error, LI. J. Offtendinger, was defendant. Opinion states the case.

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Eranklin county refusing writ of error to judgment of county court of said county rendered December 14, 1889, whereby George Early was sentencecl to be hanged in accordance with the verdict of the jury at the trial of an indictment, against him, jointly with Bird "Woods, William Brown, Morgan Dickenson, and Hannie Woods, for arson.</p>

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Franklin county affirming a judgment of county court of said county rendered December 16,1889, whereby Nannie Woods, the plaintiff in error, was sentenced to be hanged, in accordance with the verdict at the trial of an indictment against her and others for arson.</p>

<p>Criminal peoceedings—Verdict.—Where verdict is rendered and delivered in court, though unsigned, held, sufficient.</p>

<p>1. Criminal Proceedings—Accomplice— Witnesx.—An accomplice, found guilty, but not sentenced, is competent to testify against another indicted for the same offense.</p> <p>2. Idem—Conspirators—Declarations.—Until a conspiracy has been prima facie established, the declarations of his alleged co-conspirator are not admissible as evidence against the prisoner.</p>

Chandler, deceased, the representatives of the estate of James' A. Chandler, deceased, was plaintiff, and the plaintiff in error, James ~W. Orr, surviving obligor of himself and A. J. B. McElroy, deceased, was defendant.

Argued at Richmond. Decided at Wytheville. Error to judgment of circuit court of Henry county rendered at its October term, 1888, in an action of covenant, wherein the plaintiff in error, the Piedmont Guano and Manufacturing company was plaintiff' and Morris and others were the defendants.

<p>Married wojies-Defective deed—Specific performance—Case at bar.—Where by deed of July 31,1875, which was defective in execution and acknowledgment, married woman sold and conveyed her maiden land, and after her death, her heirs recovered it in an action wherein the deed was adjudged to be void: held, the purchaser cannot compel either specific performance, or a return of the purchase money,.by her heirs.</p>

<p>Criminal proceedings—Indictment—Venue—Demurrer.—Where one count in an indictment fails to state that the offence charged occurred in the igggTcounty wherein the indictment was found, a demurrer to the indictment and each count thereof should be sustained.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Bland county rendered at its April term, 1887, in the cause wherein the appellant, Polly A. Crabtree, ivas complainant and D. W. Dunn and. others were defendants.</p>

<p>1. Chancery practice—Commissioner’s report—Interlocutory decree.—It is well settled that whether interlocutory decree confirming commissioner’s report shall be modified, or wholly set aside, or not, is generally a matter resting in the Chancellor’s discretion, to be exercised according to the particular circumstances of the case.</p> <p>2. Idem—Petition and affidavit.—When such decree has been rendered on the merits, application to rehear it in order to introduce new evidence must be made by petition and affidavit that the newly discovered evidence could not have been produced by reasonable diligence. Trevelyan v. Lofft, 83 Va., 141.</p> <p>3. Idem—Case at bar.—Here there was no absolute adjudication of the appellee’s claims until the decree complained of, and the above rule has no application.</p>

Argued at Richmond. Decided at Wytheville. Error to judgment of circuit court of Mecklenburg county rendered October 17, 1888, in an action on a policy of insurance, wherein Mrs. Sarah K. Saunders and husband were plaintiffs, and the Virginia Fire and Marine Insurance com.pany (plaintiff'in error here) was defendant. This , case has once before been to this court. Bee 84 Va., 210.

Argued at Richmond. Decided at 'Wytlieville. Error to judgment of circuit court of city of Richmond, rendered May 30th, 1889, in an action of trespass on the case, wherein Margaret Johnson, administratrix of James Johnson, deceased, was plaintiff, and the Richmond and Danville railroad company ivas defendant.

E. Knopff, O. G-. Knopff and M. M. Knopff, containing gravel and other materials required by said company for the repair of its railroad.

Argued at Bichmond. Decided at Wytheville. Error to judgment of circuit court of Warwick county, rendered September 21, 1888, in an action of trespass on tbe case wherein tbe plaintiff in error, tbe administrator of James Stewart, deceased, was plaintiff, and the Newport News & M. Y. Company, was defendant.

Pattie, was complainant, and Henry, Carrie and Marcus Guggenheimer, partners in business in the name of Guggenheimer & Co., were defendants. Pattie was on February 21st, 1885, a citizen of said city, and the head of a family, and filed his deed of homestead according to law. Guggenheimer & Co. had their fi. fa. for less than $500, principal and iuterest, against him, levied on his homestead effects. Pattie obtained and perfected an injunction.

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Clarke county rendered February 2, 1889, in an action of assumpsit, wherein the plaintiffs in error, Wilson & Griffiths, were plaintiffs, and Province McCormick was defendant.</p> <p>Opinion states the case.</p>

Argued at Wytheville. Decided at Staunton. Error to judgment of circuit court of Tazewell county, rendered June 10, 1889, in an action of assumpsit, wherein C. GL Holland was plaintiff, and John Gf. Watts, J. W. Baker and M. J. Beavers, the plaintiffs in error, were defendants.

<p>Error to judgment of circuit court of Wythe county rendered December 16, 1889, in an action of debt, wherein Edmund Pendleton was plaintiff and the ISTorfolk and Western railroad company was defendant. Its object was to recover certain penalties for over charges on the transportation of fertilizers.</p>

<p>Appeal from decree of circuit court of Rockingham county rendered April 19, 1889, in the suit of Hall against Effinger’s Ex’or, and other causes consolidated therewith.</p>

Argued at Richmond. Decided at Staunton. Error to judgment of circuit court of Eauquier county in an action of assumpsit pending therein in the name of John S. Armstrong’s administrator against John K. Skinker.

court of King William county rendered April 23d and May 4th, 1889, in the chancery cause wherein Jones, Poindexter & Co. and others, creditors of J. T. Christian, were complainants, and said Christian, John W. Montague, and Julia C. Hudgins were defendants. At the hearing the bill was dismissed with costs, and the complainants appealed.

Argued at Richmond. Decided at Staunton. Appeal from decree of chancery court of city of Richmond, rendered August 24,1888, wherein the Richmond Paper Manufacturing company was complainant, and the appellant, Franklin Stearns’ executor, was defendant.

Argued at Wytheville. Decided at Staunton. Appeal from decree of circuit court of Lee county rendered dune 21, 1887, in a suit wherein Nathan IT. Moore and others were complainants and the appellant, Peter P. Fugate, executor of M. B. Overton, deceased, was the defendant.

Argued at Richmond. Decided at Staunton. Appeal from decree of circuit court of Lancaster county rendered March 28, 1889, in a chancery cause wherein the appellant, Jamos R. Miller, was complainant, and A. R. Smoot, and Cecilia A., his wife, ánd B. Smoot were defendants. The decree dismissed the bill with costs.