The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-01-03
THE COURT OF APPEALS LAND BOOM
DECISION.

In the case OF Bosher ct ais. v. Tue
Harrisonburg' Land Company the Court
Of Appeals has recently made decision
that some of our country friends of the
press misunderstood. and through their
misunderstanding Of II they are quite
liable to stir up useless and unprohtapie
litigation unless they set themselves right
In regard to It at once.
The case that the court decided was
this: Certain promoters Of land COM
pany at Harrisonburg put out prospec-
fuses and advertisements Of the future
of their land company which contained
statements calculated to induce Innocent
parties to subscribe to the stock OF the
land company, which statements those
who did subscribe, say, now, were aDso-
lutey false, and known by the promoters
to be false when the representations were
made. though the subscribers did not know
them to be false. but believed them to
be true. More than 200 innocent persons
subscribed to the stock Of the company
under the influence Of these false repre-
sensations. and paid part Of their sub
scriptions in cash and gave their notes
for the residue thereof. On finding out
that they had been deceived, four OF the
subscribers to the stock filed their bill
I'm equity for the benefit ot themselves
and Of all other subscribers to the stock
of the land company having like interest
with themselves who would come in and
contribute to the expense and share the
Benefit of the suit, praying that their
subscriptions to the company's stock
might be set aside and annulled as hav-
ing been procured by fraud and deceit.
and that the money they had paid on
those subscriptions might be required to
be repaid to them.
The defendants demurred to this bill
on the ground that there was a misjoinder
Of plaintiffs. The real point was that
there may have been different represcn-
tations to each subscriber and each sub
scriber's case might differ so entirely
from that of any other as to make it
impossible to try it along with the others.
That jury trying 200 cases at once. each
one of which might be entirely different
from any other, would become so involved
in the contrariety of issues as to be in
capable Of rendering a verdict that would
do justice between the parties. The lower
court took this view of the case and els
missed the bill On appeal from the de-
cison the Court Of Appeals reversed this
decree, holding that one suit might be
brought by all OF the subscribers, by
one bill. as in the case of all Of the credit
tors of an insolvent party uniting in one
bill. This was what the Court of APP
peais decided, and it was all that 1t de-
cided in the case.
The court comments upon the gross
character OF the fraud praciiced upon the
subscribers. according TO their version Of
it, and discusses quite fully the elemen-
tary principle that fraud vitiates Ill con-
tracts. It's remarks in this connection
have msled some of our country friends
into understanding that its decision con-
tains ground for the purchaser of lots
at sales In the boom towns suing the land
companies to recover back the money
they paid for those lots. We want to
warn these gentlemen that they are
wholly mistaken in what was the scope
and extent Of the decision when they get
this impression. There is not a word or
line in the case that gives any support
or countenance TO such proposition any
further than the general doctrine that
any man who has been innocently led into
contract through false representations
by a person who intends to cheat him
may rescind and repudiate that contract
and recover back any money which he
may have paid under it. But the case Of
lots purchased at boom sales is a very
different one from stock subscriptions,
and it is to be hoped persons thinking
OF embarking in litigation of this sort
will consult prudent lawyers before they
launch themselves upon sea Of expensive
and fruitless lawsuits.