Hurt & Son v. Myers & Axtell
Supreme Court of Virginia
Appeal from decree of circuit court of city of Richmond, entered November 7th, 1885, in the suits in chancery therein pending, by the style of Green and Bocock, trustees, against the Richmond & Alleghany R. R. Company, and Alexander & Ellerson, trustees, &c., against the. Same. By a previous decree in said causes, Lawrence Myers and Decatur Axtell had been appointed receivers of the said company, and this contention is between them and Stephen C. Hurt and Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal from decree of circuit court of city of Richmond, entered November 7th, 1885, in the suits in chancery therein pending, by the style of Green and Bocock, trustees, against the Richmond & Alleghany R. R. Company, and Alexander & Ellerson, trustees, &c., against the. Same. By a previous decree in said causes, Lawrence Myers and Decatur Axtell had been appointed receivers of the said company, and this contention is between them and Stephen C. Hurt and Wm. Hurt, partners in business under the style of S. C. Hurt & Son, who appealed from the decree of November 7th, 1885. Opinion states the…
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis, P.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a controversy between the appellants and the receivers of the Eichmond and Alleghany Eailroad Company. The former are the owners and operators of an extensive flouring mill in the city of Lynchburg, situate on what is known as “ the Lynchburg level.” And for a number of years they were lessees of certain water privileges, for the operation of their mill, from the James Eiver and Kanawha Canal Company. On the first of. October, 1876, they entered into a new lease with the canal company for a water supply, at a stipulated and established…
2Cited by1 opinion
- John H. Heald Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1937