The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-09-19
j. M. FOURQUREAN, Rec'r.

pecting to sell Ct at a great profit to a
company then forming. making the pur-
chase wholly for themselves. not for the
company. which was in no sense a party
to the contract acquired no right and IN
CURED no responsibility.
Held: Whatever may have been Rison's
purpose when he bought the land, or
whatever his contract thereafter with the
comany, there was no privity Of contract
between the company and Rison's vendor
relative TO the land. or in respect to the
money paid on account Of its purchase
by Rison and his associates therefore it
cannot maintain an action to recover the
money so paid.
MISTAKE IN DEED.
Max Meadows Land and Imp. Co. VS..
Bridges and ais. Reversed. opinion by
Judge Buchanan.
This was an exchange OF land foot for
foot BY mistake I'm the deed Of ex-
change. appellant conveyed 5000 feet less
than Il received. Transaction in 1890. and
mistake not discovered tin 1925. Trial
court held that specific execution was
then impossible by reason of laying off
of streets. &c, and because said lands
had greatly deprecated in value since 1890,
and decreed a specific sum as compensa-
ton for the land not conveyed
Held: Before decreeing compensation
the court should have ascertained through
commissioner whether specific perform
ance were practicable; II not practicable,
the defendant company TO pay the value
of the deficit al the time Of exchange.
Neither party can take advantage OF
changes I'm value. and both are Untitled 20
the benefit Of their contract. according to
the values Of the land where 1t was enter
cd into.
SECTION 2i15 OF THE CODE.
Newberry Land Company VS.. Newberry.
Affirmed. Opinion by Judge RELY.
Action of covenant on an agreement I'm
writing. TO which the plaintiff was not
party: a contract inter parties, and n
sealed instrument as to the defendant.
Demurrer 10 the declaration sustained.
Held: The plaintiff cannot maintain the
action At common law person could
sue upon a deed poll. though not a party
10 81. II Il should on its face that 10 was
made for his benefit. But this was not
so OF a deed inter parties. which was
available only 10 the parties thereto and
their privies Jones VS.. Thomas q Graft.
90. Stuart VS. James r. & Kan. Co.. %
ID. 29l; Ross VS.. Milne and wife, IS Leigh
204
The statute in the code OF 1910: sec
ton 2n5 Of the present Code does not
abrogate this principle. Even II one OF
the objects Of the statute was TO abolish
the distinction between these deeds. and
TO bring both within the common law
rule. applicable 10 deeds poll. IL was
clearly not intended 10 change that part
OF the rule that only a person named
or definitely pointed out in q deed as the
beneficiary. can sue thereon and this
was not it's effect. Unless a party 10 the
deed ne must be plainly designated BY
II as the beneficiary and the covenant
or promise be for his sole benefit
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
Solenbcreer. Etc. VS.. Herr Etc. Ar
hrmed. Opinion by Judge Rely.
Herr got decree against Solenberger
and wife 10 sub iect her equitable sepa-
rate estate to tho payment Of a note and
bond on which sSe was surety for her
husband and her lands were advertised
by the sheriff for rent until the debts
were paid. She ard her husband. who
is the trustee OF her separate estate filed
their bin TO compel Herr to acknowledge
IN writing that he held In trust for her
an interest In certain lands, which they
CHARGED ho held under n verbal trust and
70 cntoin him from enforcing his decree
until ne executed n written declaration
of the trust They 40 not CHARGE thst
Herr has disclaimed TIE alleged trust,
but has simply ignored II, nor do they
I seek 20 enforce H. but aver that enforce
ment IL not now desired but an admission
in writing Of Its existence Is wanted for