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

not adequately compensate in damages"
Wood on Nuisances. sec. 500.
?. "Irreparable injury" is a grievous. or
at least, q material injury, not adequate
~ rcparablc in damages, 40, Virginia,
supra.
8. The fact that the injured party may
possibly ward off the evil effects and
dangerous results of q nuisance Ut his
own costs makes no exception 10 the
rule. The law tOlerates no experiments
made at the risk Of human life.
LIEN UNDER FORFEITED BOND.
Lynchburg Trust and Savings Bank VS..
Elliott & Co. Reversed. opinion by
Judge Buchanan.
! The question here was priority Of liens.
| The appollecs' lien was based upon n for
fcited forthcoming bond. The conditions
of the statutes as 70 such bonds Code.
sec. 36l7. $3.50, appear 70 have been Jul
filed substantially-with the material ex-
ceDtiOn that IL was made payable 10 the
| Sheriff instead Of the executive creditor.
Held l. A statutory lien can only exist
when IL has been perfected in the man
ncr prescribed by the statute. l Jones on
Liens. sec. JOG. If made payable 10 a per-
son other than that provided for in the
statute it is imperative as a statutory
bond, and when forfeited and returned TO
the clerks Office 10 does not have the
force OF q judgment, nor constitute 4 len
upon the lands of the ObligOrs as ir taken
and returned in the manner provided by
INI NMAAH IA WW-%
have ii quashed bowman Us. thlnn. :
Wash. 1SO. but cannot proceed on II by
action or motion In his own name. ~
may be a good common law bond ana
the sheriff may bring an action on II
Boale VS.. bowman, l Call. 2i9; john
ston VS.. Meriwether, SD, 500; but in the
absence of a statute to that effect a bond
made payable TO one person cannot ope-
rate as a lien in favor Of another.
RESC1SSION.
Henry SlowthOW er VS.. The Oak Ridge
Land Company. Affirmed. Opinion by
Harrison, j.
Appellant asked for rescission OF con-
tract made In 1890 for purchase Of lots in
Roanoke, alleging false and fraudulent
representations and tfat no bought from
the company at the solicitation OF an
agent Of the Company who was himself
interested I'm the same as a stakeholder.
Held /. The allegation of fraudulent
representations. If sustained. could not
avail because rot made as 10 existing
facts. but related merely 10 future inn
provements. Watkins vs.. w. Wytheville
Land Company. 20 Va, l; Ma Meadows
l.. and Inn. co. VS.. Brady. Ibid. II.
2. Appellant saw the lots shortly after
his purchase, and examined them thor
oughly. and saw these lots in the same
plat selling out at an advance. He did
not sell. but fixed his price at nearly dou-
BILE the cost. and put them in the hands
OF a land agent for sale. thus waving any
vice OF mptIltCl4OH III lic bilHlHNl ''N-
tract. He became aware OF all causes
of complaint In 1890 but did not ask
for relief for nearly three years after all
hope Of speculation had passed, and he
had been called upon 10 perform his part
Of the contract. Such rights must not be
slept upon; prompt action is essential
when one believes himself entitled TO re-
session OF his contract.
EQUITABLE RELIEF.
Moomaw. &c. vs.. Fairview Gem. Co.
&c. Affirmed. opinion by Judge Harri-
SON
Appellants Organized a Cemetery Com
pany with a view OF selling IL land own
ed by them; and did sell II the same.
Christian. manager Of the Street Rwy.
Co, contracted to locate n dummy line
across one corner of the LAND for l.S00.
said contract being made in contemplation
OF the sale 10 appellee. and for its BEN
eft, and that sum was paid Christian by
assigning 10 him two purchase money
notes, executed by appellee. now In con-
troversy. amounting to s~l.6l2.o0. and can
collation. OF cash payment due by him for
thirty shares OF stock I'm the appellee
company. Christian could not fuih!l his
contract 10 locate the road. and appellee
agreed 10 release him N his surrender OF
the notes and stock given in consideration
Of lha contract. which ha agreed 10.