Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1894-03-09
Court Of Appeals Yesterday.
yesterday was opinion day in the
aAsA4G@alasand several opinions
w, l.. DOUGLAS Shoes are stylish.

LUGlu --rr.a.o ,o;. -
of interest were handed down. That OF
most general interest is the case of the
Virginia Land Company vs.. Haupt,
from the Circuit Court of Roanoke,
Judge Lewis delivering the opinion.
Haupt had subscribed to the stock
of the land company and refused to pay
his assessment on the ground that his
subscription was obtained by fraudulent
representations. 1t seems that Mr.. G.
O'Leary, a well known real estate
dealer, solicited Haupt's subscription,
representing that the company was to
purchase a certain tract of land CON
tanning $50 acres. O'Leary informed
him that the land belonged to Gates.
Norman & Norman, when in point
of fact O'Leary and another promoter
held options on the land, which fact
was not made known to Haupt, and
after the land company was organized,
the land in question was transferred to
the company at a large profit to
O'Leary and his partner.
The court below held that Haupt
was not bound and the Court of APP
peals sustains that decision.
The rule is, says Judge Lewis, that
n who is fraudulently induced by an
agent of a corporation-and a promoter
is an agent-to subscribe to its capital
stock, may, at his option, %repudiate the
contract, and that a fraud may consist
as well in the suppression of what is
true as in the representation of what is
false.
Another case of interest is that o!
Mills and Fairfax VS.. Norfolk and West
ern railroad, from the Circuit Court OF
Roanoke. Opinion by Judge Lewis;
reversed.
This was an appeal from the decision
of the Circuit Court of Roanoke on q
demurrer. Mills and Fairfax had
brought suit under contract for work
done in building the Elkhorn branch OF
the Norfolk and Western railroad. I'm
der the contract they were to receive so
much per cubic yard for excavating a
tunnel if certain conditions obtained,
and so much if conditions were revers-
ed. The company demurred on the
ground that the estimates of its engi-
neer were final. The demurrer. was
sustained by the court below. The
Court of Appeals, however, reverses
the decision and holds that when, in
such cases, the estimates of the engi-
neer are fraudulent, or so erroneous as
to be fraudulent in effect, such esti-
mates are not final, and the case is sent
back to be tried on its merits. Sena-
tor Fairfax is a party to this suit and
the amount involved is about $4,000.
Callahan VS.. Young. from the Corpo-
ration Court of the city of Norfolk.
Affirmed; Judge Lewis delivering the
opinion.
The appellant filed a petition for a
mandamus to compel the clerk of the
court to docket a memorandum of q
conditional contract for the sale of q
cash register. The application was re-
fused on the ground that the contract
had not been acknowledged or proved
as required by section $500 of the code.
The Court of Appeals sustains the
court below and holds that contracts of
conditional sales for personal property
must be acknowledged, just as deeds
are, in order that they may be admitted
to record.
Other cases we're as follows
Magarity vs.. Succops, administrator.
From Circuit Court of Fairfax county.
Affirmed; Judge Lacy delivering opin-
ion.
Ginter vs.. Breeder. From Circuit
Court of Rockingham county. Re-
versed; Judge Fauntleroy delivering
opinion.
Tyler, receiver, vs.. Sites, administra-
tor. From Circuit Court of Rockingham
county. Reversed; Judge Lewis deliv-
ering opinion.
Strobe VS.. Clement. From County
Court of Amherst county. Reversed;
Judge Lewis delivering opinion.
Forbes VS.. Commonwealth. From
County Court of Appomattox county.
Affirmed; Judge Lewis delivering opin-
ion.
Whaler VS.. Commonwealth. From
Hastings Court of city of Staunton.
Affirmed; Judge Lewis delivering opin-
ion.
The Virginia Fire and Marine Insur-
ance Co. and four others against Thorn
as, survivor, was argued by J.. L. jeff
ress for plaintiff in error and continued
until to-day.