Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-05-01
GETS A BIG VERDICT.
History Of THAT Verbal Agreement
on the Train-The n. 4 ID. stocks
Went I'd, a. the PIaiatin Predicted.
The Courts Instructions.

The long-pending suit 0f Thomas Sed'
don against NJ. Rosenbsum's executors
and executrix was settled In the Law
and Equity Court yesterday. the jury IN
the case bringing In verdict for thu
plaintiff In the sum Of uS.60o.
This controversy IL one Of the mos'
novel ever tried In q Virginia tribunal
Some years ago. while en- route to Wash
ington. Messrs. Seldom and Rosenbaur
became engaged In q conversation con
corning Richmond and Danvllle stock
and a bet was proposed, but abandoned
as II would not have been held legal. Inc
result OF the conversation upon the SUBJ
feet was that an agreement was entered
Into whereby MI Rossnbaunn was 10
furnish Mr.. Seldom with 800 shares OF
Richmond and Dsnvi!le stock. which was
then selling at 80, any lime within the
next three years, when the stock mign'
be called for by Mr.. Seddon. at 20.
CALLED FOR THE STOCK.
Mr.. Joseph Bryan. OF this city. VINO
WAS present nj the time. took memo
randum Of the transaction. In july 1870
Mr.. Seldom sent his check through MS
brokers IN this city to Mr. Rosenoaum
for the $50 shares of Richmond and Dan
VILE stock, which was at that time ser
Ing at $50, but which had at one Tune alter
the agreement was entered into talen as
low as 70. Mr.. Rosenbaum informeu MI
Seddon that he had no stock for MN.
suIt was then instituted In the Circuit
Court of Richmond. and finally q verdlct
was rendered for the defendant. An APP
neal was taken 10 the Supreme Court
OF Appeals. The Judgment OF the lower
cour, was reversed and the case went
back 10 the Circuit Court, but was trans
ferred TO the Law and Equity Court.
Yesterday the jury OF the latter TIL
bunal brought in verdict In accordance
with what IS published above Counsei
for the defendant moved to set the YER
diet aside. but this was overruled BY toe
Court, and the defendant excepted anu
filed his bills OF exceptions Judgment
was suspended.
INSTRUCTIONS or THE COURT.
The following are the instructions al
lowed In the case;
"If the Jury believe that from the EVIL
dence on or about the llth OF March
1855 the plaintiY and the defendants
testator entered into an agreement by
which the defendants testator agreed
,o buy $50 shares of Richmond and Dan
willie railroad stock and sell the same 10
the plaintiff al SOS per share, the piaih''i
10 take the same at the end OF thrte
ycars from the date OF the agreement
but with the right TO take II at any tinc
prior TO the expiration OF three years;
and il they further believe that cary
in the month OF July, 1856. the pia1h,in
ar his duly-authori2ed agent demanded
Of 10 gfOcK from the De-
PENDANTS testator and rendered him pay
Cor the same. and that the defendants
,estator refused TO deliver said stock
then the Jury must find for the plaintiff
an amount equal to the difference be-
tween the contract-price and the market
value of the stock at the time OF tne
refusal to deliver the same, ana should
allow interest on said sum from the date
of euch refusal: and the jury are fur-
Their instructed that formal tender Oh
payment for said stock on the part OF
The plaintiff WAS not necessary IN oroer
IN entitle him to recovery II they snail
believe that the defendants testator
when the delivery OF the stock was DE-
nanded. said in substance that ne olu
not decline to deliver II on account OF
tho tender. but because he had no stock
for Mr.. Seldom.
"An agreement OF the kind set out IN
the foregoing instruction, numbered j,
IA valid and binding. even though not
I'm writing and not signed; and II the
Jury believe from the evidence that the
parties reached such an agreement. then
neither party could thereafter repudiate
It. no matter how short time may have
elapsed between the making OF the agree
uent and the attempted reputation OF
It,"
The counsel in the suit were Messrs.
Frank w. Christian and Hill Carter.Afor
the plaintiff and Judge Waller X. Staples
Henry G. Cannon, and Judge II. H.
Marshall for the defendants.
The Hastings Court was engaged yes
,erday In hearing ordinance cases. Judge
Ingram. of Manchester, presided.