The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-03


copting tho Dimensions as correctly
stated: and that n he had known the
lot did not run back iSS feet ne would
have so stated: and that }. bought hhuer
a mistake az TO the fact, that the price
paid was a very good price, ihdecu'
The deed follows the terms OF the ad-
vcrtiscment, which follows the deed uh-
der which T. held.
In fact the lot ran back only Iz' lee''
J. filed his bill. claiming an abatement
OF the purchase money. r. hlod answer
and plea. tho latter denying is. rlght
to recover in chancory, ana aNerilhs
that his right. II any. Is purely regal
and that law will furnish him adequate
and complete remedy.
The plea claims that the property was
sold in gross, and not by the loo'' Il,
other words. that IL was contract y.
hazard and that J. went on the Io'
,nmcdiatolv after the purchase; made
such measurements as he oeslIeu' 49,
complied with the terms of SAFE not
moro than sixty days thereafter.
Held f. The Virginia decisions aphhu-
antl,, sustain the jurisdiction OF Il court
~ couitv i'm such cases however tno
law may be elsewhere. ! Roo. %, -. 400
2e Graft. 723. y Graft. 6gN' 80 Va" l'V.
The authorities not only snow 10
equity will take jurisdiction oil 'nls 80
Of
hr, that every sale OF real estate ""'io
,I,, ouantity rs referred 10 IN the con
tr,ct and where the language does io'
I ,,iofnlv indicate that the sale was III
! tended TO be "a sale in gross mus.
,.,,,.,,,,od IN be a sale per acre. 'h"'
| III contracts Of hazard are not j"
valid courts Of equity 40 not l'b"i
! tbero with favor" The presuihP W.,
| oeains. them: and can only be iop,.'
| bv clear and cogent PROOF, inc Du' w.
| tg,,,, ON tho party asserting the con-
tract Of hazard. 49,. ~. -.
| r. either made the representation az w
,.,,a,.i,, I'm the honest belief OF It's truth
or else Knowing or having reason 10
! i,,o.,, chat II was untrue. OF when la''''
! tbo~o IS neither suggestion MOI a"7P'.'o'
| i'm the record In the former case'
nr,itiod "a the relief asked Tor on 'ie
,..o,,nd ~ mutual mistake as 10
| material matter: in the latter C"Se -
| claim for relief would rest upon -
stronger grounds The mutua'
,..,.ir,( beon established, a contract OF
hazard not having been SNOW j., ~ l,,or-
| e,,r,o,ion arising in such cases lh"' p""I
49,. t,e,,onced the price not HAVING ue'h
/ e,.o~.o,,o and the very brlei u'i"l "
| .,,r,at,ino the deficiency having peoil
| -,,tefoctorilv accounted for. the pay iile', ne,
| 80 ~ money and acceptance OF 'he ueeu'
- tro circumstances disclosed ar
~, suGicient to defeat appellee
! covcry. 30, ,c,x -r-rxrT-RIcS
Morotock Insurance Company vs. -,
efrr Brothers From the corp "r I,io,'
| Court OF Danville. ANl'''i'u'
| bv Kiely. Judge. ....,ro,,,s nj
| ,,,n,,.,cturing glass machinery HA'Uic S'
go and personal property were III
! ,,,r.d through Il broker. ana polc9 va
! tss,,ed without the usual printed OF VIII
..n anDlication by the insured. no repre-
! seutation whatever, was maue ny ~, 49,
| now any statement made OF iep~''~" a.
| 80 choir title or interest IN the property
| or as TO any encumorance thei con
! There is no evidence nor any PIC
| ~ evidence of fundamental cOnceallileH'
| ~ any matter. Prior 10 insurance 'Ho
| Insured had mortgagod their entire plah'
| embracing three parcels OF lahu' an"
! including also all engines mhchlitS =
! tools. appliances, connections dulaCH-
] ments and contrvances OF every Mn"
now used in operating the grass i"O
/ tory ON said premises 49,.
There was a clause in the policy that
"tbis entire policy shall be void II the
! assured has conceded or misrepresehteu'
| i'm writing or otherwise. any material TACT
| or circumstance concerning this lnsur-
! ance or the subject thereof. or II the IN
/ terest Of the assured I'm the properly pe
| not truly stated herein, II the
| interest Of the assured be other thah uIl-
| conditional and sole ownershipi or il
| the subject of insurance be building on
| ground not owned by the insured In fee
| simple: or if the subject Of insurance be
| personal property and be or becoming en-
| numbered by cbattel m0rtsage etc, elc.
| The first contention of plaintiff i'm error
| is that 10 was the duty of the insured
| voluntarily to disclose the mortgage, ana
| failure TO do 50 rendered policy void.
| Held: ]. There is nothing in tho policy
| recurring disclosure Of the liens. except
| the disclosure of chattel mortgage or
| personally insured, and If the company
| neglected 10 make proper inquiry, IL cam
| not be permitted. after loss. TO defeat a
| recovery because insured did not volun-
tarily disclose existence of the mort
gage % Graft. So $3.50; 2S Graft. $50,
! Wood on Fire Insurance, sec Z53. Gil
mores Notes on Smith Mer. Law, 293.
The condition that the interest Of the
| insured in the property shall be "uncon-
| ditonal and sole ownership" d.l not
! have reference TO the legal title but 10
| the interest Of the insured in the property
| and was not O warranty against liens
and membranes
That interest continued to be "sole and
| unconditional ownership" Notwithstanding
| the mortgage. and the condition was iden-
teal with that IN the policy sued on in
| Is Graft 329, supra, where il was held
that a deed of trust or the property did
| not violate the condition or Vitiate the
policy. See also 81 Graft 3G2, 10 West
Va 507.
It was also contended that the exist
ence of the mortgage violated the fur
Their condition of the policy as 10 personal
| property and claimed that the engines,
| machines, tools" etc, conveyed i'm the
| mortgage We're personal property.
- Whether 81 was personally
! or what the law denominates fixtures. and
| therefore a part Of the realty and pass
! ing with it. depends not less upon its
| relation TO the realty and the use 10
which il was put than upon It's nature.
In this age of marvellous development
| Of Industries and multiplication of man
| ufactures. il Is the machinery and APP
| paratus necessary for the product of the
| particular manufacture which form the
principal part Of the mandatory; and
! the building in which they are placed and
| 10 which they are affixed serves but 10
| enclose and protect them. They mainly
constitute the mandatory while the
building is generally only the incident.
The true rule for determining when
the machinery and apparatus Of a manu-
/ factory are fixtures is: where the ma
| chinery is permanent in its character
ana essential TO the purposes for which
the building Is occupied. II must be re-
garded as realty and passes with the
building. whatever Is essential TO the
purpose for which the building is used
| VIII be considered as fixtures although
the connection between them Is such that