The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-01-08
when the right Of such homestead ter

IW||fnHttA VI H. IlAHHA nav tENf
his homestead by claiming In the PEE
scribed manner. could DE considered IN
the absence Of an actual fraudulent IN
tent. such an alienation OF his properly
as appellants could complain CT. ; MiiorS
Inst. 1871. Cent. Nat Bank ~. ttnm", Ia
l.. s. lG. il IS unnecessary TO deciie thl.
question, however. for even II II were u
fraudulent disposition. which the WIDOW
and son must account for 10 the eNteh.
Of the premiums so paid, they would sun
be entitled 10 the fund as a Homestead.
Appellant's right to subject IL 50 p*id
could be no greater than Il IL had iot
been paid but retained till his death. Tie
homestead claim Of the widow ana son
would have been good in such case, the
debtor not having waived II IN MS ne
time.
Where a fraudulent alienation IS s't
aside M the instance OF a creditor, the
debtor has the same right of homestead
as between him and the creditor az be
would have had il there had been no sucl
alienation. Shine. Cloud Sc Co, vs.. ke-
mass. ~ Graft. 1l6. Boynton &c, vs.. NC
Neal. 81 Graft. $50; Marshall vs.. reos
ex'cr.. 20 Va. -; Hatcher vs.. crew. =
Va, 81.
THE same must be true where toe
alience or beneficiary IS required 10 &C.
count for the value OF the property ~
disposed Of. ~ q
I'M the case Of Clendening vs.. Conrad. u
Va ana the Circuit Court set apart the
sum of 1900 TO the householder as q
homestead 10 be paid him out OF the pi'--
Goods of his property decreed 10 ne SOU
for benefit of his creditors. before IL
was paid he died. leaving infant chllui'l-
The fund was then set apart lor 'u'"n,
and at the instance Of creditors tnSlI
guardian was required to give Dohu ~
the forthcoming of the corpus ol ~
homestead at the expiration Oh 'uv ho''
stead period. This was prior 10 inc 80
Of 1S,7. Since May /, lNNn' Nli"'.S ",
wilkins. % Va. go. mas beeh uct'"e-'
the conclusion reached mat inc '"1
hoidor himself ought not TO be icquN,u
40 gfvo bond for the Forthcoming o. Nc
bomesfoad M the expiration oil It's pc
Rod. .,ty.e 70
cufrin~ the widow or the Gudlui"h "a
bouseholdcr's children 10 give poHn ~
that purpose. To require them ~ 49,
80 a., ,nost cases defeat the object g.
the law. 4 majority on tlS - IL chic.
~ the opiniou under the hperhl Iu'
.to,,td GOVERN the contraction Oh '"~"
- tb.t the courts ought not e"
arire such bonds from the WHO" a."
rhildron of tho household or ht'" vi
mic after his DEATH. in the absence oi
=. statutory provision requliihs u.
Tnn decree must bo amended IN so 4W
as IL requires such bono. p..orsod
Turubul, &C, W. Mann
Oniniou by Judge HARRISON. 60
Ilcid. The purpose of sec. -f'o VIZ ~
,ssnrd a eummarv remedy for having the
nans mentioned therein marked salishe"'
,.,.ro n has been neglected or NOT per
formod when proof that the debt mas
- actually discharged, and II Was NOT
intended 10 enable persons 10 nave 9"."
ita,s marked satisfied because naole 10
be defeated by presumption OF pay menu
or because barred by the statute Oh l"'
BREACH or CONTRACT.
James. &c, IS. Hblers adminls'l",o
and KILLERS administrator vs.. Ja"'S' ~
Reversed. opinion by Juuse Ne,
Here was a lease for nve years WIN
fh. privilege OF ten. at am annual rehtai
of $1,000. payable monthly. The lessee5
moi taking pOssesslOn, lessons hOtlhen
fhem that premises were ready for their
Use and occupation. This notice was ais
REGARDED and they were notified IN "iili5
thlt unless they complied with the con-
tract before 70 certain day. the lease Wouid
Doc put up at auction, and the leSseeS "o
held "chargeahlc Tor all costs, damages ana
deficits. The lease was duly sofa, ana one
OF the plaintiffs bought 1t AZ Sl'toO per
annum-u deficit OF about SlJO per month.
rhereupon plaintins brought suit 10 re
cover as DAMAGES the sum that Would
have leen due as rents AT the date or the
auction. and the value az that date OF
each future monthly deficit, and COSTS
and expenses of sale, as just measure OF
COMPENSATION due from lcssces Tor their
total breach Of contract.
Held. !. There WAS an entire abah-
Nm HIA-
and I'm such case the plaintin cannot re-
cover for rent of the premises, but COM
pensation for the breach Of contract,
the measure of damages being the differ
cnce between the sum stipulated In the
contract and that which he actually re-
ceiyes from the sale Of the lease fairly
made. either privately or publicly.
Where the breach of contract Is entire.
compensation may be recovered az once
for tho whole loss. though the conse-
quence Dee "a continuing one. If the future
resultant damage can Dee ascertained with
certainty. Sutherland on Damages. sec.
lZi. sedgwick ON Damages. sec. eJ. Remlee
SIS. Hail. 81 Vermont. $50, James vs.. Allen
CO.. % Ohio. ZZi.
3 A lease for five years. with the
privilege of ten upon condition that lessee
signify bis election by six months notice
Boo writing DIS not "a present demise for ten
years. but only am option 10 renew. \
mere covenant 20 renew. at the option of
the lessee. is not an actual renting for
ID longer period than the term specified.
Gear on Land Ten. sec. 10. q. Hunter
ys. Silvers. - VII. Ia; Sutherland vs.. Good
now, Jos ILL.,, jS.
g.. The mere signing Of an agreement
does not Of itself create the relation Oh
landlord and mani The lessee never
took possession under the contract. but
broke and abandoned II long before the
sale was made. Tho plaintiffs had never
been ont of possession. and hence ther-
could Dee no re-entry by them.
g. IL was the duty of plaintiffs TO min
imize the amount due them as damages.
so as TO relieve the defend tnt from the
consequences of his own leflIlt 50 much
as possible, and the principle taat ~ {
cannot be- both buyer and seller has 10
application i'm Il case IKE This.
The amount secured % the sale Is
prima ficie me true valde. bu, n"i core
elusive if it can be made 10 aprelr that
the sale was not fairly made. Nc at
tempt Was made 10 do thas, 1ud che plf-
sumption must DE tnat the defendant
was unable TO establish 2 greater value
than that fixed by the evidence of the
plaintiffs.
SUMMARY.
Judge James Keith, P.-Childress' Adj
NIX. rs. G.. & -. ity Co. from the CIR
cult Court OF HenricO. afirm-
Judee John W. ~Ricly.-Smith vs.. Bur
ton. from Circuit Court Of Cumberland
county, affirmed.
sims VS.. Tyrer. from Circuit Court OF
Alexandria county. affirmed.
Mccartney Us. Potomac Electric Com
pany from Circuit Court Of Alexandria