The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-04-10
A QUESTION OF OBLIGATION.
Opinion Rendered by the Supreme Court
Of Appeals.
WANT OF MUTUALITY IN A CONTRACT.
EdichaI Bullion Company. &C.. Against tho
Columbia Gold Mining Company
other Cases.

In the Supreme Court Of Appeals yesterday
Judge Faunileroy delivered an opinion III the
case OF the Edlchsl Bullion Company and others
against the Columbia Gold Mining Company III
which the opinion Of the Circuit court Oh
Fluyanna county. rendered on the 18th OF April
1859. was reversed. The Court decided that the
complainant company have no equity in their
case, and that the decree appealed from u
wholly erroneous. and the order OF the court was
10 abutt the attachment. and to dismiss the
bills with cost
In this case in the Circuit Court the Columbia
Gold Mining Company, corporation. IS COM
plainsnt. and the petitioners and II. II. lanes
In he opinion the Court said: The original
bill was flel against the said fdlcha! hnllloh
COMPANY rs a non. resident and foreign corpo-
ration for The purpose 81 enforcing 'pe. nc i'I-
Torrance OF an alleged contract Tor inc lNI,
chase y II from the SAD olulhni@ Nul"
Mining Company OF real estate lNlnE IN inc couN-
ties or Goochlund AMI tluyann3. Va. known
o The ltiuylan gold-mlning property am
simultaneou ly with tnc institution or me sult
on he b dav OF july, lNSl. an attachments Was
sued ont and levied upon he interest when u
Was alleged the said Edlchm Iuluon company
owned IN about loo acres OF land Nlh% mostly
IN the said county OF fluyanna' known a. me
LOwies mining property. and upon some per-
sonel property.
DEMUnRTD AND ANSWERED.
To the original bill and the two successive
amended bills filed by the compainaut me tie
PENDANT company demrrred ana an "cred
The Circuit Court Oy rrnlcd the DEM rrer.anu
by the decree complained Of held uiat there wa,
a contract for the sale by the Coiumlia npI
Mining Company to the defendant the L,,oil",
Bullion Company. Of the lelIuyisn gold mining
property. ~ set forth III the BILL 10 nave netH
ma he on the 7th day Oi NoNeml er lNN3' anu ,it-
creed specific performance on the same 10Y NV
defendant company, and also decfcea hsalh't
la MI l.
company - suretlCs.
The case made hy the original and amended
ill was demurrcd 20 as wanting in all the essen
tia requisite OF SUIT for ecihc ptrlormahc9
because l' does not show That any dl~ilhct anu
deiul contract OF sale anu purchase was hithc'
nor when. where. how Snd by whom u was
made or hat the ;cr,On making ~ had an hor-
itv 90 lind the defendant conn ony, nor WhtlhtI
the 'slsged contract wEs by pnrol or IN NrlllhK.
nor whether there wAs any express contract
made by the defendant company. or by any au-
thorzed agent. either by parol or IN Wrltlhg'
STATED ARGUMENTAriyELY.
II is merely stated. argumcntstiyely. that in
asmuch as II. II. Esmos had. OF the 1th day ot
February 1856 procured o contract OF lease from
the complainant company. giving nm the op-
tion OF nuylng the lelluVan gOl l-lnlnlng prop
erty upon certain terms within limited ilme'
aud was, u they alleged, the agent oi the dt-
PENDANT company. operating It's ma 'hlheI] on
the premises which he had leased " IA the OPP
ton 10 buy on or before the ,th day OF No.
vember. 1873, and. inssmuch As the SAID e1,
the de, upon which by the express terms OF ms
contract his said option was 20 cea q therefore.
the said Edlchal hulllon ,omp,ny had become
bound 20 buy and had bought the properly
uron the terms stl puiSted IN the written con
tract between the complainant company ana MS
les see. II. II. Zane. made more. man AK
months before the defendant Idichal bullion
Conn any. had an, existence IN Tact or IN law
hat he bills do not show That kames, HIM
self within tho time limited. a'slled Of his o.
ton to buy the property by notice to that effect,
has OIL To 1 money.
that tho cOmp laIHant comian was. on the next
day after expiration Of the optional contract
with.FAmcs. under any Obligation 10 sell 10 him.
much loss that II Was under an ,onngauon 10
sell che property TO the defendant, Ed
chal Bullion COMPANY In the csse Of the
ChilhOwle iron Company against NATdernef
~ Va. Judge Lacy speaking Tor the Court
said: Can there be a contract without mutual
ohiigation2 an there be An agreement between
two parties which binds one Of them absolutely
and the other merely 1T his PLEASURE Upon
this around 10 specific performance could
properly have been decrecd. since the want ot
mutuaity IN the contract should be conNdered
valid objection in the existence OF that .urisdlc-
The Court then reviewed the evidence At
much length citing law frequently IA support
OF their opinion
other Opinions.
Brown and others against Butler and ais.
Prom the Hastings Court of the city OF Man
chester Afirmed Judge Lewis delivering the
Wvthevile Insurance and Banking Company
against Stultz Prom the Circuit Court of the
county Of Henry. Affirmed, Judge Lacy doliy-
erlng the opinion. Judge richardson dissenting.
city Of Norfolk against Foster FROM the
Circuit Court Of the city Of Norfolk. Affirmed.
Judge Hinton delivering opinion; Judge ;acy
concurring III the result; judge richardson
dissenting.
Thornton against Gaar. Petition TO correct
decree Oyerruled.
Gray against Kemp. Writ Of error and super.
sedeas TO judgment OF Corporation Court OF
the city " Roanoke rendered al June term, 1897.
Hunter against Beach. Argued BY Judge vii
liam j. Robertson for appellant