The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-19

mcut Had j. g. G.. Idld II ""'ft ti'
decree. he would have been emitted to
be subrogatad TO #. As 10 MS wiie-a
married woman. the decree "uS DC.
Second. Prior to Code or lssi there was
no limitation to Vendors heh' OF lien
for oweity OF partition. when continued
TO exist until released or sdiishea or
presumption Of payment was established.
80 Graft. Supra. s. Va. supra IA1siaH
vs. Withers 50 Va. So, Bowie S.. leor
School - Va. 300. Stimps0p 81. Lishop.
~ Va 100 The present statute (sec.
29S5) WAS enacted long after the ion was
created. and even ii it apply 90 owclty
Of partition @bout which 40 opinion IS
expressed il is clear It does not bar the
plaintn in this case. Code, sec. Egg.
Nor can presumption Of payment de-
feat IL. which is simply the or resumption
or a fact. and may be rcbutied. as was
fully done in this case. Laches cannot
be- imputed 10 a person ignorant of his
rights. but even II Mrs. j. had knowledge
OF her rights all the time. none OF the
equitable circumstances which A'nrielly
constitute the grounds Tor the apf hcltion
Of the doctrine Of lachcs o&ist. Rowe rs.
Bentley. etc. 20 Graft. .53. morrison
ExeCutriX. etc. vs.. Householder. % Va,
627.
Third No estoppel from enforcing the
lien against q purchaser. Tie partition
suit was the source of title TO thr land.
Means of iSn0Hledgc. with the oH.y Of
using them. arc. in equity. equivalent 70
knowledge itself" Carnell vs. Lynch. 81
Va. III. Wood. etc. IS. kreDs, etc., 80
Graft. 11S.
Where The condition o. ihe Nte IS
known to both parties. or boin nave the
same means Of ascertainng the truth.
there can be no cstoppeL Brant fs. Va.
Coal aud Iron Co. 90 a.. s.. a5"
DAMAGE. COMPENSATORY. EXEM-
PLARY.
Burrus ~. Hines. Reversed. Opinion
by Judge Rely
e. and u. owned adjoining lots 10 Nor-
folk. y. begin TO build on bis iot and
found the wall OF HIS warehouse over
hung bis lot 90 that the building could not
20 on. lie required ~. TO draw in his
wall. and finally got an Injunction TO
compel him. II. contended That tle lean
on his wall was caused hy BIS pile driving
for a foundation. injunction awarded,
and wall taken down. Then sui ry b.
for damage for loss sustained hy delay
OF his building, and verdict and Judgment
for 1920. item.zei by jury as follows
age $1,000.
Held 4. The general rule Do awarding
damages is 10 give compensation for pecu-
MARY loss. so Gar as money can 90 10 10
PIT plaintiff in same position as Doe would
have been II the contract had been per-
formed or the tort not committed 20
give amends or reparatiOn. SedgW.ck on
Dam. Sec. 30. Peshine SIS. Stephenson. j.
Graft. 4S5. he must show damage. the
extent OF II with reasonable certainty.
and that IL was the natural and proxi-
mate result OF tho injury. ordinarily no
Will not be permitted 10 give evidence cf
OF recOver. profits or expected gains
which are generally comic tur3l. and
might nave turned out losses But n 10
be shown that She loss Of profits Or gains
was the natural and proxiuate result Of
the wrongful act. and their extent IS sat.
isfactorily proved they may DO recovered
Boiling IS. Lorsner. g Graft. 81.
I'm the case al bar the building 20 be
erected had been leased IN advance. an
actual renting for "a specific sum or money
and so ~ IS differentiated from Bingham
vs. Waiia Walla. Pacific r.. fo' The
amount dscertaincd hy the jury as the net
rental was. therefore. not speculative
profits. bat was proved with the requisite
certainty. was the natural and proNmafe
result of the injury. was not excessive
and according TO the testimony. was sub
stantially just and right.
Q Tho testimony as TO the contract 20
rent was properly admitted. though not
20 Doe performed within a year now in
writing The statute fScc. 2,iW does NOT
avoid such contracts. but simply provides
that mo- action shall Doc brought on them
u does not render testimony Do regard 10
them iuadmi sihic for such "a purpose as
IL as admitted Tor in this case.
B. Exemplary damages are allowable
only where there De- misconduct or malice.
or the equivalent. Where the injury is
without frard. malice. oppres ion. 0r
other special aggrdvat.0n only compensa-
tory damages are allowed. y. a ". r.
r. Co. IS Nicely. 81 Va. 53a.
T. The general rule IS that counsel fees
are not recoverable as damages. hrt in
AN action FOR malicious prosecution ~
false imprisonment where exemplary
damages are recoverable. the fees of cOun-
sci incurred in the original suit or pro-
cceding may be proved. and. II reason
able and necessarily Incurred. may be
considered hy the jury in assessing dam
ages. Parsons VS.. Hopkins. lG Graft. "a
but n The injury were not wantOn or ma
,..corcr.I,i. tho ,iiog..,,o ~ counsel fss.
A. ,ro,roror
TrJoment reversed FOR errors fevsr.
Mar, damages ana couusel fa) and new
trial
ptcr4.rs az, ,ropTcAcl-rs AFTER
roprCr osr-Pr
H.eN vs. N."Ne'' l''''''-'' 'p''
ION by Judge Buchanan.
NJ. rnlN AiN convey 'N IAI4~ ll Nit-