The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-06-27

Notwithstanding consideration had Who'll
~ failed.
dence Of debt secured by deed OF trust on
appeIlee's land and appellee always stood
ready TO nav had the railway been locat-
ed: and the consideration for which the
notes and stock we're given having failed
the purchase money should be abated TO
that extent. Prayers OF the bill ma APP
nellants he cnjoined from disposing or
The notes or stock In my manner, that
thew be compelled 10 deliver same to APP
pelloe and the land released from
the lien of the deed OF trust
securing the same. and that appellee be
allowed to cancel the payment OF the as
scesment on the stock and to cancel or
dispose of the stock as il may see ut.
Decree in accordance with the prayer,
and affirmed by TINS Court:
VOLUNTARY DEEDS.
Lakewood vs.. Forrer. Affirmed. opin-
ion by Judge Cardwell.
This case was a conveyance OF land by
mother TO son and the transaction was
So palpably voluntary, and with intent 10
defraud creditors. &c. hat IL was set
| aslde bv the lower court. and that action
il sustained on appeal.
Held. Fraud must be proved as charg-
cd.
but "a transaction may Of Itself and by
itself furnish the most satisfactory PROOF
of fraud so conclusive as TO outweigh the
| answer OF defendants or even the evid-
| ence of witnesses. The circumstances
| attending and following a transaction are
often OF such character as TO leave not
| even a shadow Of doubt as to tho real
object and nature or the parties, ana
whera this is the case II IS rash TO at
tempt to claim any advantage from the
answer because il is responsive to the
will. Experience attests that I'm a mai
orltv OF cases fraud can only be estab-
| lfshCd by circumstances. The motives
| and intentions Of the parties can only be
Judged Of by their actions and the nature
and character OF tho transaction. They
often furnish more conclusive evidence
than the most direct testimony" Staples
J.. In Parr VS.. Saunders II l.. j. 49,.
.. Objection 10 confirmation OF sales
| under decree OF court for i~nadequacy OF
price can not be sustained. The sale was
! well advertised. well attended. and fairly
conducted. Ii is shown that commission
| ers made every possible effort 10 get more
for tho property. but could not, moreover
two weeks time was given appellants 10
obtain better bids and t.oy reported
none. If they made the effort.
RESCISSION or CONTRACT.
Lambert VS.. Crystal Spring Land Com
pany. Affirmed. opinion by Judge Keith,
President.
Lambert bought lots from the company
In the representation that the Roanoke
and Southern Railway Company would
place a depot almost In front OF and
across the street from said lots He
swears that this was a material induce
mcnt TO him without which he would not
have bought as without the depot, the
lots are almost useless for business pur-
poses because OF their distapce from the
city. nor are they desirable IS residences.
The tepot has not been erected. though
there IA a contract by the railway COM
pany with the land company, for tho
depot in consideration OF The right of
way. That he would nave been willing
and able TO pay. deferred notes II repre-
sensations had been compiled with. That
the failur TO comply constitutes fraud
by the lane con 1any. which gives him
the right 10 rescind. The land company
denies the fraud, and disclaims The re-
sponsihillty for default of the railway
company as TO the depot and swears that
the representations were OF acts 10 lie
performed in tho future, and were so ac-
ceDtcd and understood by thu PLAINTIFF.
Decree for defendant in Circuit Court af-
nrmed.
Held. The principles which determine
this case are set out in % Va. 1; Ia, Il.
4 Misrepresentation, the falsity OF which
Will afford ground OF action for dam
ages, must be OF an existing fact-an az
hrmative statement Of some fact In con-
tradiction TO a mere expression Of opin-
ION. A representation that certain emu
meratcd IMPROVEMENTS Wnl be made Is the
mere expression OF an opinion, and the
failure TO make them constitutes no de-
fence 20 an action on 4 contract induced
by such representation.
PRESUMPTION REpEIIED.
Kinnier's Admir-. W. Woofson & Co.
Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Keith, Pres
ident.
X, was assignee Of judgments against
Woodson. executions had been returned
no effects" lie filed a bill alleging that
since the return. Wo0dson had greatly
prospere1 IN business. and has accumu-
lated valuable real estate. taking the
deeds therefor IN the name of hIs wife,
though The lands were paid Tor by him,
with intent 10 defrdud creditors, that the
wife had no means whcrcwith 10 pay for
there 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 alleea-
tons Of the bin ana averirg that he has
been working for small wages hardly suf-
fcient TO supper, his family. and that the
land was bought by his wife aud paid for
by ltr out OF IeF ttIIlNs0s ~ a. sot'
trader. and that he had no interest I'm
them whatever. The answer OF the wife
IS TO the same effect. Commissioner re-
port that the judgments Were not liens on
the land. and decree 10 that end which
Ia affirmed.
Held. The husband Is the owner OF all
the property. real n personal, or which
the wife may be in possession during COW
orture. especially If they are living to-
gcthcr as man and wife. To overcome
this presumption in a contest between
husbands creditors and wife. she must
show anirmativelv that tho property IS
her own. and that it was derived from a
source other than her husband. and in
good faith If he be insOlvent. otherwise a
wide door would be open TO fraud. yates
vs.. Law. Sc VA. l20)
Purchases of either real or personal
property made by the wife Of an insol-
vent debtor during cOverturs are justly
regarded with suspicion. unless Dr. clearly
appears that the consideration was paid
out Of her separate estate. Such Is their
community Of interest: such purchases
ere so often made a cover for n debtors
property. and so frequently resOrted TO
TO Withdraw his property from the reach
Of his creditors and preserving il for his
own use. and hold forth such temptations
for fraud. that they require close scruti-
ny.
In a contest between husbands creditors
and his wife there f.. and should be. a
presumption against her which she must
overcome by Affirmative proof. (SeitZ Us.
Mitchell. % L. 5. 300
This case H. easily distinguishable from
me should not be controlled by the above
cases. which correctly state the law.
WOOdson was insolvent when tho iudg-
mcnts were obtained I'm 1850. He after