Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-06-27
OUR HIGHEST COURT.
ABSTRACTS OF OPINIONS HANDED
DOWN THURSDAY.
A Question of Nuisance-Lien Under
Forfeited Bond ResctssiOn--As To
Equitable RcIief-Other Interesting
Cases Decided.
Cases Decided

TIE following are abstracts OF opinions
handed down IN the Supreme Court Of
Appeals at Wytheylle Thursday last:
Masonic Temple Association VS.. Banks
Reversed. opinion by Judge Rely
Banks doing some contract work for
the city Of Roanoke damned a stream
OF water. and thereby caused the flood
irg Of the cellars Of associations build
ils Enjo.ned as q nuisance, injunction
dissolved. and appeal
Held: I. The creation and the continu-
s.ce Of nuisance likely TO produce ire
parable injury is proper subject Of in
Junction, Otherwise person would suffer
tae greatest wrongs for which action at
lw would afford no adequate redress.
miller vs.. Trueheart, &C, 4 Leigh. 500;
Irlrer & II. VS.. Pendieton &c, 20 Va,
o.. Sauderlin VS.. Baxter, &c Va, 299.
when the right is clear and the nui-
tuce established a court Of equity will
always interfere il the nuisance results
from an unlawful act. is continuous in it's
nature, or, if only temporary, if it is not
adequately compensate in damages"
Wood On Nuisances. section 800.
o. "ITeparable injury" is a grievous or,
g. least. a material injury not adequately
repamb,e IN damages. &c Va. supra.
O. The fact that the injured party may
Yo- .bly ward on the evil effects and dan
t0'ous results Of a nuisance az his own
ta makes no exception 10 the rule. The
W tolorates no experiments made at the
Is Of human life
LIEN UNDER FORFEITED BOND.
Ienenburg Trust and Savings Bank vs..
Elliott q co. Reversed. opinion by
Buchanan. j.
Tlo question here was priority Of liens.
I'll. appenccs' lien was based upon a for
t.ral forthcoming bond. The conditions
Ct fh- statutes as 10 such bonds code.
SECTIONS 3tl7 and 3GlO appear 10 have been
iled substantially, with the material
..rf.On that 10 was made payable 20 the
rIf instead Of the execution creditor
H-I. l. statutory lien can only exist
'tel u has been perfected ia the manner
fr.s rbcl bv the statute. l Jones on
..ls. section Jos. II made payable 10 d
.ln other than that provided for In
l.a statute 10 Is imperative as statu-
f..r bond. and when forfeited ana re-
frrcI 10 the clerks Office il does not
have tie force OF judgment nor con-
e lien upon the lands Of the
r..eors as 10 taken and returned IN the
v .l.r provided by the Code. The cXecu-
t.r creditor can have il quashed dow
ta ts. Chirn = Wash, lsD, but cannot
proceed on it by action or motion in his
O.. name. II may be a good common
l~ bond. and The sheriff may bring an
action 0n 10 OBeale VS.. bowman. / Call
tt. Johnston ye Meriwether. 3 H.. 525).
af g th. absence OF q statute 20 That
eject "a bond made payable 10 one per
o.. cannot operate as lien IN FAVOR or
tactIer.
RESCISSION.
Henry Slowthower VS. tho Oak-Ridge
land Comp NY. Affirmed. Opinion by
Harrison. J.
Appellant asked for rescission OF con-
trae' made in 1890 for purchase OF lots IN
Roanoke alleging false and fraudulent
telroseutatiOns and that he bought from
10 company az the solicitation Of an
tfrf Of The company, who was himself
Interested in the same as stockholder
Il0. The allegation Of fraudulent
clfesentatious II sustained. could not
avail. because not made as 20 existing
fenfs bat related merely 10 future i'm
Ii)Fcmelts Watkins VS.. w. WytheYile
land Co.. % Va. D.: Max Meadows l.. and
IMP Co W. Brady, Ibid. IL
Appellant saw the lots shortly after
BIS purchase and examined them tho
roughly. and saw then lots In the same
PAT selling al an advance. He did not
eel bat fixed his price at nearly double
The cost. and put them IN the hands OF
land agent for sale thus waving any
vice or imperfection I'm the original con-
tract. He became aware OF all causes OF
complaint IN 1890 but did not ask for re-
lief for nearly three years. after all nope
OF speculation had passed, ana he IA"