The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-02-14

been permitted 10 purchase. and alleging
that there was agreement with H.
thst he might pay FOR the property ana
hold IL rs his own until she could redeem
IL By paying him the amount paid by
MIN. with interest agreed upon, con-
sldcrably over per cent. She AYERS
.hat on this understanding and agreement
she turned over to II. all the property so
purchasad. and that she has continued I'm
possession Of the whole Of IL. exercising
entire and exclusive control. She prays
for specific execution or the contract. ana
that II. and his wife may De enioined
from disturbing the possession. by SUIT
or otherwise. Of her father and his wife.
Held. The contract Is insufficient to
support a bill FOR specific performance.
being vague and indefinite. and wholly
wanting in that mutually OF obligation
which - essential. Certainly the
dcfandan. could not have en-
forced It, anl s,e c3nsaTS' mun IN
he certain. definite, equal, and fair. and
sufficiently precise TO obyiate mSun-
Outstanding as 70 its import. A
Hurley. &c. W. oakley Land am I'm
urovement Company. Sc. From The cir
cult Court of Lynchburg. Affirmed.
Opinion by Harrison. judge.
This was a boom case. asking to har'
contract Of purchase rescinded. and all
money paid refunded. because Of false
representations as to industrial enter
prises being erected in the immediate
vicinity OF the lots purchased.
The evidence wholly fails 10 sustain the
charge Of fraud and misrepresentation.
and the case Is controlled by eases re-
ported i'm y $. r. Rep. Ni5. ID, JA. and
Beckley VS. Riverside Land and Inn
proyemnt Company. decided at the No
vembcr term of this court.
~
cult Corut of Madison. Affirmed. Opin-
ion by Harrison judge.
I'm 1870 .. W. C.. unmarried. made
p verbal contract with r. \. g., by which
he sold him $50 acres Of land. The pur-
chaser paid 500 i'm cash. and was imme-
diately put 10 possession. The vendor
married i'm 1873, without having made
vendee a deed. After his marriage he
delivered a deed for the lana TO the
vendee his wife refusing 20 unite. The
vendor has since died and his widow de-
mands dover I'm this land.
Held. Irrespective OF the statute,
widow Pas no dover I'm lands sold hv
her husband previous 10 marriage. though
he died without conveying title. for
while he has the legal title. yet he is not
benehcially seized during the covorture
as against his veudeo. Minors lnsts..
Vol. p p. f47. % Graft. So. Va Code.
Soc. 2l6N has no appHcaiion III thtH 'ds''
The vendor having made the deed, the
inference is that the vendee lfad FUZZY
comnlied with all the terms Of his con-
tract. Even n the purchaser had been
I'm default, that would have given the
vendor no right to re-enter and take
possession. unSss after reasonable no
fice and opportunity 10 redeem his de-
fault. The appellant has no right or
dover in this land.
Dleests Of several other opinions could
not be pronerly prepared I'm time FOR
this issue. They will appear I'm The Times
Of Saturday morning
SUMMARY.
Henley W. Henerron. Three cases
heard together. From tho Circuit Court
~ King William. Affirmed. Opinion by
Keith. p.
Halsey VS. Monteiro. From tho Cir
cult Court of Henrco. Reversed. Opin-
ion by Rely. j.
Violet vs. city Council Of Alexandria.
From the Corporation Court Of AleXan-
dria Reversed Opinion 10y Car,well. ).
Brown VS.. Brown. From the Circuit
Court OF HenrCo. Affirmed. Opinion
by Cardweii. J.
Tones VS.. Jones. From the Circuit