The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-01-31

storm IN TACT Dut t'bse .'....tao blS -.
~ ~ The storm. from COMPLYING Wt1n
,he law. 3 II. s. Circuit Court ~ ~,
neaIs' Reports SO And 'othcr $500 ,,s-
causes" must be taken 70 M
a.oi"au onesfion whether tic fact5tir<
o.. ,oadIn. and unloading wers s1s 80
suitable. about which tne ev l,,' Tor the
con an, rsras, OF jury. Their ..r.
ne.s ,,,a, heen approved by the trial s~ r,s'1
~. 10 ne,,rt cannot say IL was not s"Pb
by the evidence oS..utorx ef AIS
DaInhhss circuit Court OF Elizabein S4's.
,,,rned Opinion by Judge haii'sv" co.
Ani,.' Cor specific performance OF 'r.-
tract In May, tsss. DSs s,,ns a. a." writine
min neStr nsq Tor the sale by parisnx 70
a con..raS' ~ tract OF land known
ui,fori and embodying also = c<,n,,,v>s,va
sale OF an adjoining ', vas never signed
acres. nd the whole matter remaiuSt
Dy hayancs in Cummings died. ~ tn,rS
isso. CUMMINGS isft r ~,' estate. Mi.
s snls soI5 10 MIR Darlins, aecoroins 70
aoi ",n,derstandine between us; Anc Nm,
a. ~ fortv-seven acres, sojoanns s,,,~
ford. wish that also s that the unsiEn-
We s,arer was expressly referred 20 in ~
vs,l and the two ought 10 pe rsso
gether, and thus consii.u.. - yrs,,ds
afr
Held. Where memorandum o. partan
,a.,yeen the parties ~ contained III rep1-
rafe pieces OF paper, ana tnen $50,
constitute the whole atsas,' .tats,te re-
ouires. provided the contents OF tns s'tn-
ed Daper make such reference 70 LII
other written paper or pspsrssn s whole
~ those together as constituting AZ tn'
terms of the bargain. II necessary 20 pso-
duce parol evidence 10 cohnect nsn-a
paper with unsigned because eo or Of
The signed paper 10 show references 70 ~
connection with the unsigned, inca .no
several papers taken together 60 30. .un
stitute such a memors ,, pa ~ or,
Sales. 9th Amer. Edi, sec; ~ ~ ho,sa
necessary that the signed paper sn S,'s,s'
refer TO the unsigned as sucn " - t sua
Client TO show that particular unssks
paper and nothing else, can De ietes.sy
10 and parol evidence IA admissible ief
that purpose Id. sec. 22l. 49,.
A will is in no sense a contract. out
voluntary individual act. revocable ~
pleasure The weight of authority - tnaS
the signed paper lin this case the WIZ
must refer TO the unsigned IN clsa. anu
distinct terms, though not necessarily 60
nOmine: that parol evidence IL admlsI
bic to identify IL If the reference be SUM-
ciently clear 10 exclude the idea Oh any
other paper. 80.
with any degree OF certainty what wa
the Understanding referred 10 ~ w.
1 will, but the statute OF frauds would moi
avail If the evidence herein produceu
were sufficient to establish the unsigned
I paper as embodying such understanding.
and as a contract. 80 clearly proven tna.
I its specific performance would be ENFORCED
! ,. Application for specific performance
/ OF a contract IL addressed TO the SOUND
discretion OF the court. The contract
must be distinctly proven, and It's terms
| clearly aSCarfainet IN must be feAS0nA-
| BILE. certain. legal. mutual, for valuable
/ or meritorious consideration. ana the
/ party seeking to enforce IL must not have
I been backward IN asserting his rights
but ready, desirous, prompt. and eager
IS Va; 1913: - = =. Rep; ST; In this
manded enforcement. the land, mean
time, having greatly enhanced In value.
g. When vendee delays Ia complete
a contract In, order to speculate upon tho
chances OF his bargain, and when as
sured that II VIII be fortunate specua-
ton. offers to perform and sues TO COM
pei a conveyance, equity Will refuse thf7
remedy although he may have at an
earlier day. paid part of the purchase
price. And arise In the value OF the land
during the interval Will always be a
fact Of much weight. tending TO show
yendee'5 speculative delay, and for the
! purpose of awaiting a turn favorable 10
himself. The rule may be laid down as
general, applying either TO the vendor
or the vendee, that where there has been
D "a tHUflkt OF tlftulnS ldnttN vi ItiallOnr
which, under the execution OF the con-
tract work a hardship 10 the de-
feudant, and this charge grows out or
/ lay on the part of the plaintif. the charge.
: and the delay together will constitute
sufficient ground for denying specific
performance when sought by the one
thus IN default. Pomeroy in Spec. Per-
Torrance. sec. 40I. 40s.
SUMMARY.
ford vs.. Rogers. From the Circuit Court
| OF Princess Anne county. Affirmed.
Judge John A. Buchanan: Chesapeake
and Ohio Railway Company W. American
and Exchange Bank. From the Circuit
/ Court OF the city OF Lynchburg. Affirmed.
Gaskins et ais vs. Hunfon. From tise
Circuit Court Of Fauquier county. Az
nrmed
vs.. Cummings executors ct ais From
the Circuit Court of Elizabeth City coun-
!, ". Affirmed.
Lefew IT ais. VS.. Simpkins et ais. From
| the Circuit Court of Pulaski county. APP
! peal refused.
sucduth VS.. West wythevilIe Land and
| Improvement Company. From the Cir
cult Court OF Wythe county. Appeal re-
I fused.
Coldiron vs. Asheyille Shoe Company.
From the Circuit Court OF Lee county
| Appeal awarded
Mary Thoms executor vs.. Thorn ct ais.
| From the Circuit Court OF Fredericksburg
! Appeal ana supersedeas
| Larkin vs.. Witz Biedler x Co.. &c
| Dismissed for failure TO print
Hughes administrator vs. Wilson Fl ais.
Argued by John b. Donovan. ESD, for
appellant and General William y. ITALIA
! ferro and ". G. l.. Taliaferro, Esq, for
/ appellees aud submitted.
Jackson VI. Hopkins Argued by +. NJ.
| Whitehurst. Esq. for plaintiff IN error
and John j. Burroughs. Esq. for de-
! PENDANT in error and AT bar.
Charles r. Glenn. ESQ. OF Richmond
! city. allowed TO practice In this court
, rhe next cases are Jet ct ais. W. tfar-
ris ct ais and Aylett, trustee. VS.. Walker,
| Nos a. and IS