Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-01-02
RICH MOND, VA.
Monday Morning, January l, 1910.
SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS.

by US some days ago-was decided on Saturday
1t came up on appeal from the decree Of Judge
Thompson, pronounced last October, twelve
months, in Albemarle, by which contract o
purchase, made by John Mackay, ION behalf o
himself and Tucaer and Smilh) from Miss Mar
tin, in the year 1916, OF all her tights and inle
rests under the will of her brother, I. B. Mar
lin, for the sum OF fl4,000 slerling was Sc
aside, The purchasers decreed 10 pay the plaintiff
the sum OF 2S,600 and odd dollars, with in'e
rest from 1876 and an account ordered OF any
further profits made BY them on such purchase
The court below also declared that the estate G
Mrs. Catherine Mackay was liable for any def
cheney in such money or profits which could moi
be recovered from the purchasers, and ordered &C
counts 10 be settled Of the administration of DR.
Machay Mrs. Mackay and Frederick w
Mackay upon The estate of Thomas 3. Martin
and also other incidental accounts.
From this decree the representative of Mr.
Tucker and E. J. Smith appealed. The argu.
ment, which, as has been before stated, occupied
% days, was concluded on Thursday week.
The decision made on Saturday, we hear, was
as follows:
Judge Allen pronounced the opinion OF the
mojorisy of the court Judges Eyiand 7altatsrro
concuuing with him) to The following effect.
l. The decree Of The Court below, SO far as il
annuled and sci aside the contract OF purchase
in 1916, and declared the purchasers liable joint
ly for the whole amount OF The estate of T. B.
Martin, received by them under the said pur-
chase, was affirmed.
2. That the money in the iron chest (being The
said sum OF S2SS00) was part Of the estate Of
Thomas B. Marin; and having been received by
the purchasers il The contract had not been set
aside, they would have been accountable for that
amount, as so much Of the purchase money un-
paid-inasmuch as that fund was excepted on, OF
the contract OF purchase, and could not have
been made use of as valid paymen, OF the pur.
chase money, even although the purchasers may
not have known it was The money which was so
excepted.
3. But, as the Court was OF opinion, 10 Sc!
aside tie contract, the purchasers could only be
charged with this iron chest fund, in tn same
manner as for any other part Of The estate OF r.
B. Martin. received by lhem-and could only be
made accountable Tor The amount OF profits re-
ceived by Them, from the purchase, over and
above The amount paid by Them to Miss Marlin,
in 1916.
A. That, therefore, although it was probable
lhey'had received of such profits an amount larger
than The iron chest fund, it was premature TO have
made a decree Tor that sum, until an account
had been taken 10 ascertain the amount OF such
profits, and consequently that the decree should
for that reason, and to that extent, be reversed
with costs, and The case rcmandel for such an
account
The opinion OF lie majority vi Inc Court was
simply decree and did not go into The grounds
upon which the Courl decided the contract OF
1916 TO be invalid whether on account of con-
struclive or legal, or Of actual fraud.
Judge Johnson dissented from The opinion O
the majority Of the Courl, on The ground, as he
said, that while he would have had little difficulty
n setting aside the contract as fraudulent, bat fol
the lacAes Of the residuary egatees Of Miss Mar
tin, after they were informed Of the leading facts
on which The contract was impeached; yet, thai
10 consequence OF such laches and after such apse
Of Time he was of opinion that the plaintiff ough
not TO be relieved and was therefore OF opinion to
reverse The decree and dismiss The bill, but with
out costs.
Judge Ca6cu (PresiGenD. also dissen'ed from
the opinion OF the majority, on the ground, that
he thought there was no proc If actual fraud in
procuring The contract, and that the purchasers
did not stand in such confidential relation 10
Miss Martin at the time OF the purchase, as i'm.
posed on them the burden Of proving that The
purchase was fair, or that Miss Martin had iul
Information OF the amount and condition of The
estate, al the time OF The purchase. And that es
pecially, after so great lapse OF time, he thought
il would be cruel and unjust, to affect the purcha
sers with the impulalion OF implied fraud. He
was opinion, the bill ought to be dismissed with
costs.
We have thought ii proper, thus succnctly, &c
stale the result of case which, in consequence
OF the ability and distinction of The counsel The
large amount in controversy, and still more the
personal interest and feeling which it has excl
ted, has attracted so much public attention in thi
community and elsewhere in The State.
So mach Of the decree of the court below a.
affected The liability OF Mrs Mackays' and D
Mackays' estate, the court was of opinion was
not before !, for adjudication on this appeal, anc
the court RETAINED from expressing any opinion
upon it.
The recommendation OF Gov. Smith in regard
to The unequal representation which exists in
many joint stock concerns, is entitled to The high
esl consideration. That each and every share
ofsock held by individuals as we'll as by The State
should represent vote in the meeting OF The
stockholders, is proposition, which for its equi
ty and fairness, should command the approva
OF every one and YET it finds opponents. for thu
reason, that it would lodge power where il nigh
counteract the mischievous management oil
those who hold the reins, and who might If
sone instances drive, Jehu like, to the destruc
ton of the best interest Of majority Of those
concerned. The State may own majority o
the stock, but by the system of scaling votes sht
is powerless in the stockholders meetings, ant
although found opposing a system which il
ruinous in its tendency, her influence cannot bt
felt.
We trust the Legislature will remedy this
evil BY passing law to the effect, that ever,
share of stock shall count vote, so as TO en-
able those who represent the interest of the
State TO have that just weight which the magni
tuds of her interest entities her to.
We also think the interest of the Stale would b
advanced by repeal of The law which prohibits
the Executive and the Board OF Public Work
from appointing State directors unless they art
stockholders in the corporation for which The ap
poutments are made. The large interest III
Stale holds in the banks and o;her joint stool
concerns, creates an interest with every citizen
and i, is not to be supposed that one whose e1pe
rience and energy were such as to point him gu