The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-08-05

hul Jones. The deed was III the possession
OF Brown Il Co. conveying this property TO
Derbyshire and Jones. and Derbyshire
knew II. In two days they had TO comply
with their contract and take their deed
lie had not asked to have it changed al
though they say their intention was 10 have
the property conveyed 10 Jones. On the
day of the sale 10 Never he sought at once
10 have the deed changed. conveying TO
Jones. The counsel Of the Blantons know
inR nothing of the circumstances. assented
And a relative of the Blantons, at the ex-
pense OF Meyers vendors. was sent 20 Cum
berland 10 have the new deed executed.
He knew nothing of the circumstances.
The reasons given by Derbyshre seem in
sufficient. being he did not want 20 be on
warranty deeds, nor have a large amount Of
negotiable notes on the market These re-
reasons were applicable when be resOld be-
fore obtaining his vendors deeds, and
had deeds made directly to his
vendees. and settled with their notes
he could not have meant that
he would throw upon his so often co-pur-
chaser and intimate friend, DR.. Jones, liza
bllities which he would not assume himself.
His third reason seems insufficient under
the circumstances. being that being the
representative of q Northern corporation
he did not want 10 have the reputation OF
specializing largely in real estate until he
was generally known and published that he
was a large dealer. When others SPOKE Of
this property there was no hesitation IN
stating his ownership.
NEARLY YEAR.
From Meyer only. so far as appears in
this record was the fact of his ownership
kept on any occasion when 1t would natural
~ have been mentioned. And il was nearly
year before Meyer knew that Derbyshire
had any interest.
But concede the reasons for being omitted
from the deed they are no excuse Tor keep
ing the information from Meyer.
If these circumstances misrepresent Der
byshire it is a misfortune. The Court can
not look into the hearts OF men and know
the truth. but must be guided by the evil
denoe before II. The pregnant, unques-
toned fact exists that Meyer was never in-
formed of Derbyshre's interest, and there
can be little doubt that Meyers reliance on
Derbyshre's judgment effected the sale %
him
Was the representation (as construe it,
that it was good property 70 buy, TO sell at
profit, true
There is much evidence from credible
witnesses that the price paid by Meyer was
not beyond the then selling prices from
some that 1t was under.
j gather from the evidence that there was
no approximately-fxed values. The price
of any given piece of property depended
rather upon the speculative expectations Of
the purchaser.
There is evidence tending TO show that
the location of this property IS unfayorable
for building.
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
The most accurate guide as to the value Of
this property would seem TO be what &C
CURED with the most active market ever
known. Sometimes property resOld two or
three times before the deed was made by
the first vendor. This property was on the
market from the time 1t was bought on
March 18th by Derbyshire and Jones until
this suit was contemplated, and there was
never an offer for it at what Meyer gave lex
eept for a part rs above mentioned and the
request for ap option at the same price
Derbyshire and Jones bad the day before
the sale TO Never offered an extra commits
sion of " of the profits to secure a sale. II
would not seem at that time this was good
property TO buy ct about $4,000 to sell at
profit.
IL was Derbyshire's property In part and
IL was his judgment that II was best for him
TO sell 10 Meyer at S2l roo. OF which. leaving
out other costs, 1880 went to the Browns
as extra commissions. And ! do not apDre-
bend how if ia Derbyshire's judgment Il
was wise for Derbyshire who was under no
necessity TO sell AZ about $4,000 It could
also be wise for Meyer 20 buy at about SEA
O00 both only wanting It for the profit TO DO
made on resellng. II would seem clearer
justice 70 value at his selling price or less.
There is some doubt from the evidence as
30 when Meyer became dissatisfied; II being
claimed that II was only after the boom
ceased.
MATTERS OF OPINION.
There being nothing in this line of evil
dence 20 change my view that Meyer acted
on Derbyshire's judgment, and IL not ap-
pearing that satisfaction with the purchase
had any source independent of his vendors,
/ do not deem that this matter needs con-
sideratiOn. A court would be slow TO apply
estoppel without better basis; whether the
vendee be slow in finding he has had a bad
bargain, or whether knowing 1t he avoids
noising il abroad when he knows Of no re-
lief but resale. The bill was filed as soon
as DerDyshire's interest WAS known. With
tins opinion upon the evidence. the law ap-
plicable seems demonstrated IN stating IT,
The general doctrine that representations
as TO value are matters Of opinion, and, as
rule will not effect in law a transaction be-
tween vendor and yendee in the absence of
a trust relation. is applicable TO known ven
doris and yendees or their representatives,.
The law requires, and common sense tells
Us. that men will commend their own wares
on the market, and 1t mlsleads no one.
Opposition of interest between vendor and
vsndee is declared by the transaction. and
if the vendee Is uniformed, he seeks dis
interested source of information. II upon
seeking this information from one ia whose
judgment he confdes; who knows the reli-
ance placed upon it, and why 1t Is sought;
the advice induces the vendee by the
known influence Of his judgment 10 make
bad bargain, and it turns out that the ad-
wiser was the vendor, undiscl0sed, neither
law nor morals will permit the adviser 10
reap this adverse profit. under the gulse OF
disinterestedness.
HAS 80 RIGHT.
No one has the right TO force another 10
become his adviser or protector. ct. when
one uniformed, asks the advice OF another,
that other must either avoid the relation, or
if he advises. he must not by the known III
fuence OF his judgment bring the pro
posed yendee 10 grief to his own proht,
keeping secret his adverse interest.
The yendee is not on his guard.
There are few men who do not act in
many transactions on the opinions of others
who arc dlsnterested. and IN whose ludg
ments they conhde; and yet would be I'M
moved IL they knew these opinions were
from an interested source, though honestly
entertained. 80,
Authority seems unnecessary. yet II VIII
be found in the opinion OF the Chancellor
I'M tie leading OF Fox vs.. Mscreth, yol !.
Leading Cases IN Equity Hare ~ Wallace
"a Amer. Ed. J.. top page 1856, marginal l0l;
Fndley vs.. Johns, 90 Amer. Reports, bl2;
I,von VS.. Briggs, 81 Amer. Reports, $40;
HAMMER VS.. Harding. Isl Amer. Reports, 6l5,
Medbury VS.. Watson, SO Amer. Dee, 7S2
rs Metcalf, 246) The point Is go we'll put
in this case, / will quote from the opinion:
- [ ,,roa,,,,,a | arn gate IN Affirming that