The earliest report of all current decisions of the Supreme Court VOL. II. . of Appeals. MARCH 21, 1908. No. 1. Tri-monthly during months beginning 15th of each January, March, June, September and November. M. B. WATTS, Editor and Publisher RULE XVII. REHEARING. No application for a rehearing will be entertained unless made within ten days after the decision is announced (except as otherwise authorized by law), and no rehearing will be allowed unless one of the judges who concurred in the decision shall be dissatisfied with it and desires a rehearing. And an application under the Code, Chapter 170, sec. 3942 to rehear and review any case decided by this court within the first fifteen days of the next succeeding term and not therewithin the first ten days of the next succeedng term and not thereafter.. And no application for a rehearing will be entertained by the court, in any case, unless the reasons therefor, printed, shall be filed at the time such application is made. N. B.-All opinions printed in this number are subject to rehearings which may be granted under the above rule. Petitions for rehearing filed, and the action of the court thereon, will be noted on this page of each number. Rehearing pending in Briggs & Cobb v. Barnett (1 Va. App. 245.) Page CASES REPORTED IN THIS NUMBER. BROWN & HOOE v. CORNELL ET ALS-Mechanics Lien-Sufficiency of BURTON v. HAYDEN ET ALS-Deeds-Compromise of Doubtful CARTER'S ADMINISTRATOR V. SKILIMAN ET ALS-Fiduciaries-Ad- DRAKE 7. BLYTHE ET ALS-Wills-Joint Tenants Code, sec. 2431..... Page 1 36 41 Justifiable 95 Survivorship— 43 FENTRESS v. POCAHONTAS FOWLING CLUB-Ejectment-Evidence- GRUBB BROTHERS V. MOORE CLEMENS & COMPANY--Contracts- HENNINGS v. PARSONS-Real tracts-Notice Estate Agents-Commissions-Con INGERSOLL V. POND ET As-Insurance--Benefit Societies-Gift of Policy Contracts-Equity Judisprudence-Specific Performance-Case at Bar.... 64 67 15 .....130 KELLY . GWATKIN ET AL-Pleading and Practice-Amendment- FOBINSON V. CITY OF NORFOLK-Extra-Territorial Taxation-Code, Sale of 19 83 25 SCHAUBUCH v. DILLEMUTH-Adverse Possession-Claim of Grantor STIMMEL 7. BENTHALL ET AL-Appeal and Error-Final Judgment TRADERS AND TRUCKERS BANK V. BLACK ET ALS-Practice-Instruct- 45 .100 120 58 . 125 VANSANT, KITCHEN & Co. v. COMMONWEALTH-Statutes-RepealTaxation-Jurisdiction of Products Intended for Exportation...115 WHITTLE ET ALS. v. WHITTLE'S EXECUTORS-Wills-ConstructionResiduary Clause-Case at Bar.... WINGFIELD 7. MCGHEE ET ALS-Judges-Power to Make Decrees In Vacation-Code, secs. 3427, 3451... 31 ..104 CARTER'S ADMINISTRATOR v. SKILLMAN, ET ALS. (Richmond, March 12, 1908.) 1. FIDUCIARIES-Administrators-Protected in Settlement of Estate by Order of Court-Code, secs. 2671, et seq.-The provision made by our statute law for the settlement of the accounts of fiduciaries is full, ample and complete, and guards and protects every interest as amply as could be done by a formal suit in chancery. Where after regular and orderly proceedings under the statutes, a court having jurisdiction of the whole subject, finds that there is but one distributee; and the administrator, having fully settled his accounts, is directed by the court to pay over to this distributee the estate of the decedent, without a refunding bond, the administrator is protected in such payment against the con sequences of his obedience to the decree. 2. COURTS-Limited and General Jurisdiction.—The only difference between a court of limited and one of general jurisdiction is, that with respect to the latter there is a presumption in favor of the jurisdiction, while with respect to the former the presumption is against that jurisdiction; and the jurisdiction of the former being established, all the presumptions are in favor of the right. ful exercise of that jurisdiction. Appeal from Circuit Court of Loudoun County. Reversed. John H. Alexander, Richard H. Tebbs, for appellant. Chas. P. Janney, N. C. Nichols, R. Walton Moore, for appellees. KEITH, P.-Travers H. Carter died intestate, unmarried and without issue, possessed of considerable real and personal estate in the county of Loudoun, and at the November term 1892, of the county court of Loudoun county his estate was, on motion of Edwin J. Carter, a distributee, committed to the sheriff for administration. The actual administration of the estate was entrusted to William S. Summers, a deputy sheriff, within, whose district the decedent had resided. Summers proceeded promptly to settle his accounts as administrator before William N. Wise, a commissioner of accounts, and a balance was ascertained to be in his hands of $2,197.14, which the commissioner reported as payable to "E. J. Carter, sole heir at law of said decedent." This report was duly confirmed by the court. At the March term, 1894, of the county court, an order was entered, that the creditors of the decedent, Travers H. Carter, appear on the first day of the May term, 1894, and show cause, if any they can, against the payment and delivery of the estate of said Travers H. Carter to his distributee, Edwin J. Carter, without a refunding bond; and at the May term, 1894, an order was entered, reciting due publication and posting of the former order, that no creditors had shown cause against it, and ordering the payment to the distributee, E. J. Carter, of the said sum of $2,197.14, without refunding bond. This payment was accordingly made. On December 1, 1903, John H. Skillman, of the State of Washington, and. Bushrod Skillman, of the State of Indiana, filed their bill in chancery, in which they made H. H. Russell, sheriff of Loudoun county, E. J. Carter and others parties defendant, claiming that E. J. Carter was not the sole distributee of Travers H. Carter, but that he had left surviving him a mother, Mary A. Skillman, and two half brothers, besides that said Edwin J. Carter; that the mother had since died; that they had been ignorant of the death of Travers II. Carter until 1900, and had since been diligently prosecuting their claims; and that they were not parties to any proceeding touching the said personal estate or its payment to E. J. Carter. It was originally claimed that the bill was one to surcharge and falsify the accounts of the personal representative of Travers H. Carter, but this contention was properly abandoned. The accounts of the administrator contained a full, complete. and fair settlement of the estate committed to his charge. There is no pretense that a dollar has been omitted with which the administrator should have been charged, or that a penny has been credited to him with which he should not have been credited. The sole questions are, first, was Edwin J. Carter the sole distributee, and, secondly, did the proceedings before the cominissioner of accounts of Loudoun county and before the county court protect the administrator under the circumstances disclosed in this record? The circuit court was of opinion that the sheriff, as administrator, was not protected by the order of the county court in |