Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-09-19
julius SyCle Son, The Corner Bargain Store 2M and 2O3
aloders ncevep Umpt attention


may plead such breach as defence to
an action for damages alleging wrongful
dismissal. l Minors Inst, 212.
2. Failure 10 do the work for which
he was employed in a reasonably skilful
manner is just cause of discharge; but
reasonable skill Is all that is required
without a profession Of a higher skill,
and a contract to do the work in the
best manner Wood on Master and Ser
want, sec. l5j.
Newberry Land Company VS.. Newberry.
Affirmed. Opinion by RELY, j.
Rson and associates bought land, ex-
pecting to sell 1t at a great profit to
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 incurred no responsibility.
Held: Whatever may have been Rison's
purpose when he bought the land.
or whatever his contract thereafter with
the company, there was no privity or
contract between the company and
Risons vendor relative 10 the land, or
In respect to the money paid on account
of its purchase by Rison and his assoc
ciates: therefore. 1t cannot maintain an
action to recover the money so paid.
MISTAKE IN DEED.
Max Meadows Land and Improvement
Company VS.. Bridges ct ais. Re-
versed Opinion by buchanan, j.
This was an exchange Of land, foot for
foot. BY mistake In the deed of ex-
change appellant conveyed 5000 feet less
than 1t received. Transaction In 1890
and mistake not discovered till 1895. Trial
court held that specific execution
was then impossible, by reason OF laying
off of streets, etc. and because said
lands had greatly deprecated in Value
since 1890. and decreed specific sum as
compensation for the land not conveyed.
Held: Before decreeing compensation
the court should have ascertained'
through q commissioner, whether specific
performance were practicable; If not
practicable. the defendant company TO
nav the value Of the deficit at~the time
of exchange. Neither party can take
advantage Of changes in value, and both
are entitled to the benefit of their con-
tract. according TO the values OF the land
when 1t was entered into.
SECTION 2n5 OF THE CODE
Newberry Land Company VS. Newberry.
Affirmed Opinion by Rely, j.
Action of covenant on an agreement IN
writing to which the plaintin was not
a narty. a contract inter parties. and
sealed instrument as TO the defendant.
Demurrer to the declaration sustained.
Held: The plaintiff cannot maintain the
action. AT common law person could
sue upon n deed poll, though not party
to II. IL 1t showed on Its race mat IL
was made for his benefit. But this was
not en- Of a deed inter parties. which was
available only to the parties thereto ana
their priyies. Jones VS.. Thomas. Il
craft %: Stuart VS. James r. and Kan,
ca. "a Id. 29i; Ross VS.. Milne and wife,
Y Leigh. 20i o .,.
The statute in the Code Of 1919, section
on5 ~ the present Code, does not abro-
cate this nrinciple. Even II one Of the
objects of the statute was 10 abolish the
distinction between these deeds, and 10
bring both within the common law RUE
applicable to deeds poll, 1t was clearly
not intended to change that part Oh the
rule that only person named or DELI
nitely pointed out in deed as the pehe-
fjciary can sue thereon, and TINS was not
it's effect. Unless party TO the ueeu,
ne must be plainly designated by IL as
the beneficiary, and the covenant Vi pi'-
mise be for his sole beneit.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
solenberger &c. VS.. Herr. &c. Afnrmed'
Opinion by Rely, J. ,,,o
Herr got a decree against .. ana WIFE,
to subject her equitable separate esq
tate to the payment OF note ana pond
ON which she was surety for her hus-
band. and her lands were advertised by
the sheriff for rent until the debts were
paid. She and her husband, who IS the
trustee of her separate estate, Med Their
bills 70 compel Herr to acknowledge In
writing that he held in trust ior ner an
interest in certain lands. which they
charged he held unders verbal trust.
and to enjoin him from enforcing his de-
cree until he executed written deciara-
ton of the trust. They do not charge
that Herr has disclaimed the alleged
trust, but has simply ignored 1t: nor do
they seek to enforce 1t. but aver that
enforcement is not now desired, but an
admission In writing Of it, existence Is