Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-06-27

/ iCSclSSion or hls contract
EQUITABLE RELIEF
Moomaw. SC. vs.. Fairyie" SGi,e'' ~,
Company. &C. Affirmed. Opinion by
| Harrison. J.
Appellants organized q cemetery com
! pany with a view OF selling inc idhu
owned by them. and did sell the same,
/ Christian. manager OF the street IauMos
/ company. contracted TO locate uunl.ns
/ line acToes ono corner OF the land Tor
/ s. 500 said contract being maze IN Con
/ temptation OF the sale TO appehee ah9 to'
/ IT'S benefit. and that sum was palu Chll9
tan by assigning 30 him two purchase
| money notes executed by appellee now III
| controversy. amounting to S,ol-..p' an
ca Mediation OF cash payment Que ~ mn
! for thirty shares OF stock IN INC 1Iic'I,r
| company Christian could not fuihll ms
| contract to locate the road. and appclee
AGREED 20 release him on his surrender OF
/ the notes and stock given In cohslleId-
ton Of tho contract, which ne asieeu ~
and appellee appointed appellants TO MAKE
such agreement with him, which they uIu
! and Christian gave up 10 them the ho'ta
and stock. Appellants then refused 10
/ surrender the notes and stock TO appelee
/ claiming that they and their feNow-pro-
/ meters were entitled thereto, and that
/ appellee should pay the same ho.WitH
/ standing consideration had wholy lune sI
/ These notes constituted the only eVi-
\ dence Of debt secured by deed OF trust on
| appclec's land. and appellee always slOo'
/ ready TO pay had the railway becn To-
/ catcd. and the consideration for which me
| notes and stock were given having ialIeu
/ the purchase money Should ne hDA1.u ~
! that extent Prayer of the bill tnat ap.
| pollants be enjoncd from disposing OF
| the notes or stock in any manner, tna'
/ they be compelled 10 denver same 70 -
/ psllee: that the notes be cance'eu, -
/ The land released from the Hen or the
I deed of trust securing the same. ana va.
/ appellee be allowed 20 cancel the p"yHie
! OF the assessment on the sio-h, diu W
/ cancel or dispose Of the stock as IL ma!
/ sec ct. - $1,000
| Decree IN accordance with the prayer
and affirmed by this court.
VOLUNTARY DEEDS.
| Hazlewood VS. Forrer. Affirmed Opinion
| hv Cariwel J.
! This case was q conveyance or lana by
/ mother TO son. and the TRANSACTION was set
/ aside bv The lower court, and that action
! Is sustained on appeal
! Held: Fraud must he proved, as charseI'
but "a transaction may, OF ltScu ana Dy
itself furnish the most satisfactory PROOF
] of fraud so conclusive as 10 outweigh the
answer of defendants or even the evil
| derre OF witnesses. The circumstances
/ attending and following "a transaction are
often Of such character as 70 leave not
even q shadow Of doubt as 10 the real
object and motive OF the parties, ana
/ when this is the case II is rash TO attempt
/ 10 claim any advantage from the answer,
| because IL Is responsive TO the bill. TX
/ porionce attests that in majority %, Oh
/ cases fraud can only be established by
/ circumstances. The motives ana inten-
| tons OF the parties can only be judged
/ Of 10y their actions. and the nature ana
/ character Of the transaction. They often
| furnish more conclusive evidence than the
most direct testimony STAPLES, j., IN
! ParT ". Saunders, II l.. j., $50.
. Objection to confirmation or sales
under decree Of court for inadsquacy or
price cannot be sustained. The sale was
well advertised. we'll attended and fairly
| conducted II is shown that commlS-
soners made every possible effort to set
more for the property, hut could Ioti
moreover. two weeks time was gwen
appellants TO obtain better bids, and they
reported none II they made the effort
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT
Lambert VS. Crystal Spring Land Com
pany. Anlrmed. Opinion by Keith, Z.
lambert bought lots from the company,
on the representation that the Roanoke
and Southern Railway Company would
place a depot almost in front or ana
across the street from said lots. lie
AYERS that this was a material lnduce-
ment 10 him. without which he would not
have bought. as without the Depot the
lots are almost useless for business pur-
poses because Of their distance from the
| city. nor are they desirable as residences.
The depot has not been erected. thousH
/ there was contract by the railway com
pany with the land company for the de-
| pot. in consideration OF the right OF way.
/ That he would have been willing ana able
| TO pay deferred notes, II representations
/ had been complied with; that the ialuIe
/ 20 comply constitutes fraud by the ldhd
company, which gives him the right 70
rescind. The land company denies All
fraud and dsClaims All responsibility I9r
default OF the railway company as 10 the
depot. and AYERS that the representations
were Of acts 10 be performed IN the iu-
ture and were so accepted and understood
l by the plaintiff. Decree for Defendant in
Circuit Court affirmed.
/ Held: The principles which determine
/ this case arc set out in - Va, J.. ID. II.
/ A. Misrepresentation. the falsity OF Wnlch
/ Will AFFORD ground Of action for damages,
| must be Of an existing fact-an ailrma-
/ tive statement OF some fact III cOuildQls-
I tuctiOu 20 q more expression or opinion.
/ q representation that certain enumerated
| improvements Will be made Is the mere
| expression of AZ opinion. and tho failure
! 70 make them constitutes 10 defence 10
an action on a contract induced By such
/ representation.
PRESUMPTION REPELLED.
Kinnier's Administrator VS.. Woodson, &c.
Affirmed. Opinion by Keith, j.
Kinnier was assianee Of judgments
against " oodson. EXECUTIONS had beeh
returned no effects" lie filed bill al
leging that since the return WOodsOn had
greatly prOspered in business. and has
accumulated valuable real estate, taking
the deeds therefor in the name Of his VIE,
though the lands were paid for by him,
with intent TO defraud creditors; that the
wife had no means WheieWIth 10 pay TOT
these lands. nor any business OF her own,
and asking that the lands be subjected 10.
the payment of his assigned judgments.
WOOdson answered, denying the allega-
tons of the bill. and aVerrins that he has
been working for small wages, hardly
sufficient to support his family ana thdt
the land was bought by his wife and paid
FOR by her out OF hor earnings as sole
trader, and that he had no interest IN
them whatever. The answer Of the wife
is 10 the same effect. COmmiSS iOnerS re-
port that the judgments were not liens on
the land, and decree 10 That eAd, when
Is affirmed.
Held: The husband is the owner Of all
the property, real and personal, Of which
the wife may be In possession during
cOvertuTe, especially if they are living
together as man and wife TO overcome
this presumption IN contest between
husbands creditors and wife she must
show aftirmatively that the property IS
her own. and that it was derived from a
source other than her husband. and In
good faith. II he be insolVent, otherwise
a wide door would be open 10 fraud.
Yates vs.. Law. So Va, 30.
Purchases or either real or personal
property made by the wife of an insol-
vent debtor during cOverture, are justly
regarded with suspicion, unless II clearly
appears that the consideration was paid
out Of her separate estate. Such is their
community OF interest. such purchases
are 50 often made cover for a debtors
property, and 50 frequently resCrted TO
10 withdraw his property from the reach
of his creditors. and preserving ii for his
own use, and hold forth such tempta-
tons for fraud, that they require close
scrutiny. In a contest between husbands
creditors and his wife there IS and should
be. a presumption against her which she
must overcome 10y affirmative proof
Seitz VS. Mitchell, VI l.. $, $50.
This case is easily distinguishable from
cases which correctly state the law.
Woodson was insolyent when the Judg-