Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-07-26

cannot dispnte, as in the case
of 9 landlord and tenant, and
the injury is to the substantive
value of the land in the char
acter in which it is enjoined, court of
equity will enioin the commission of
such waste and injury.
r. r. Wood against James A. Walk
or ct ais. From the Circuit Court of
Wythe county. Reversed ), opinion by
Judge Cardwell.
This was suit for the specific per-
Torrance of q contract for the sale of
land. Plaintiffs bill failing to allege the
facts, the facts constituting perform
ance upon his part, and to tender with
his bill sufficient deed of conveyance
ofthe title of the property he had agreed
to sell and convey; that the court
might Judge whether he had done what
he ought, and whether the deed is such
conveyance of the title as the con-
tract requires held the demurrer of
the defendant thereto should have been
sustained.
Fry against Showers. From the Cir
cult Court of Bland county. Reversed;
opinion by Judge Buchanan.
1. In an action of ejectment the dec
larations ola deceased person as to the
identity of a particular corner or bound
airy may be received in evidence, pro-
yided such person has peculiar means
of knowing the fact in question.
2. The declarations of former de-
ceased owner of the land in contro-
versy, in disparagement Of his title,
may be given in evidence against the
present owner as circumstance tend
ing to show that the boundary is 10.
Gated as claimed by the adverse party.
8. Declarations made by a stranger
to third party, in the presence of the
land owner, as to the boundaries of his
land, he being no party to the CONVEX
sation, are not evidence against him.
Watkins VS.. Wytheville Land and
Improvement Company. From the
Circuit Court of Wythe county. Re.
versed. Opinion by Judge Harrison.
The court held
1. When sued in court of law for
the purchase money of land, q party
has the right to make any defense, I'M
der section 1929, that does not involve
rescission of the contract and rein.
vestment of the vendor with the title.
2. A misrepresentation, the falsity OF
which will afford ground of action for
damages, must be an affirmative state
ment or affirmation ofsome fact, in con-
tradiction to mere expression of opin-
ion, which ordinarily is not presumed
to deceive or mislead.
8. Where there is positive promise
and undertaking to make improve
ments, the defendant has right under
his special plea of Offset, to an oppor.
tunity to establish the fact by such
legal evidence as he may have to offer.
Thomas VS. Lynchburg Perpetual
Building and Loan Association. From
Circuit Court of Roanoke. Petition for
appeal and supersedeas refused.
Oakland Land Improvement Com.
pany VS.. Quicke & Wood. From the
Corporation Court of the city of Peters
burg. Petition for writ Of error and
supersedeas refused.
Hunter VS.. Gilman. trustee, and
others. From the Hastings Court OF
the City of Roanoke. Petition for ap-
peal and supersedeas refused.
Morgan ct ais. vs.. Thomas ct. ais.
From the Hastings Court of the city OF
Rsdford. Petition for writ of error and
supersedeas refused.
NOEL vs. NOEL. Writ of error and
supersedeas awarded to a judgment of
the Hastings Court of the city of Rad
ford. Bond in the penalty of $4,000.
Martin vs. Martin ct ale. Petition
for rule for contempt. Petition refused.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Com
pany VS.. Mills s. Fairfax. Petition for
rehearing refused.