Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-04-21
THEC0NTRACT HOLDS
MIR. RoSENnAuMs EXECUTORS
MUST PAY mn. sEppoN's CLAIM.
A COMPROMISE CASE AFFIRMED,
Court of Appeals Hands Down Four
Opinions and Adiourns for the
Tcrr,--Sims Against sims. and De-
maine vs.. Washington Southern.

NaAin executors against StN4oN. from
the Law and Equity Court OF the city
OF Richmond. Judge }. w. RELY deliver
cd the opinion. and the result was TO
affirm the judgment OF the lower court.
The case grew out OF the fact that on
March n. 1856. Rosenbaum and Seldom
uttered into an agreement by which
Rosenbaum agreed TO sell 10 Seldom $50
shares Of Richmond and Danville railroad
stock az $50 per share. giving him the
richt 20 take It at any time prior 10 the
expiration OF three years. Early In July,
1856. the plaintiff demanded the delivery
of the stock. rendering payment for the
same. which was refused
The details Of the first trial are set
forth IN the opinion.
Tho plaintiff asked for an instruction
20 the effect that IL the jury believe that
on or about March n, 1886. the parties
agreed TO buy 80 shares OF Richmond
and Donvillc railroad stock. and sell the
Same % the plaintiff az 500 per share.
the plaintiff TO take them az the end Of
three years from the day Of the agree
mcnt. but with the right TO take il at
any time prior 10 the expiration Of that
time. and that ~ they believe that in the
month OF July. 1856. the plaintiff. or his
agent demanded delivery of the stock,
and rendered pay for the same. and the
defendant refused then the jury must
find for the plaintiff an amount equal 10
the difference between the contract price
and the market value Of the stock at the
lime of the refusal TO deliver the same.
TIE court refused TO give this instruction
una gave q different one, and upon this
pr appeal was taken 10 the Court OF APP
rea's. the lover court having round
f-r gosenhaum. the defendant Inc Suc
1r rc Court sustained the correctness OF
... instruction. and sent the case back.
DO then went 10 the Law and EQUITY
Court. and the same instruction was
sked for and given.
VERDICT GIVEN FOR seldom.
on the second trial the jury rendered
verdict for seldom. the plaintin. Tor
an amount equal to the difference between
he SIS per share and the sc.nng value
81 the stock az the time OF the cai Tor
he stock-this difference was upwards
ON this second appeal the court held
substantially that the same questions
rere involved as those embraced in the
,rst appeal and then passed upon by the
court and. therefore. affirmed the Judg-
ment OF the lOwer court. which means
hat Rosenbaum's executors will have TO
paw the amount OF the verdict fenutIth
D the Law and Equity Court. 800
The PRINCIPAL question involved IN TINS
Ease was whether the agreement mace
between Seldom and Rosenbaum as 10 the
sale OF stock was m the nature OF u
binding contract These gentlemen. both
d whom were prominent in the business
world we're on the train going north
when the conversation which subsequently,
became a subject Of litigation occurred.
NJ Seddon thought Richmond and Dan
yille stock would advance. while MT.
kosenbaum held the contrary view. Inc
FORMER then offered to buy the 25O shares
% 81. 20 be delivered at the expiration or
three years, or sooner. if called for Mr.:
Rosenhaum accepted the offer. and one OF
The gentlemen present mdde peiiOit
memorandum of the conversation. ms
occurred IN the Pullman in which tne
Richmond party were travelling. ~ q.
kosenbaum spent some Ih!e III ,e, NJ
smoker and upon returning 10 the sleeper
fold Mr. Seldom that Of course what had
occurred was all a joke. and neither siae
would be- held by the sreement' MI
seldom. however insisted that the agree
mfnt was binding and insisted that the
memorandum. which Mr. Rosenbaum ce-
riined 90 sign. be preserved. and TINS Was
fhc significant evidence I'm the case. Dan
vile stock advanced rapidly in price, and
when Mr. Seldom called for the Z5l shtrts
ne failed to ger 1t. Then the suit, which
mas ATTRACTED so much atte ali5pl ana j.
now finally decided. was brought
The Compromise Must stand.
Judge RELY prepared the opinion in the
ease of Fuos and others against VIII
iiams's Administrator. from the circuit
Court Of Holloway county. In 1870 ap-
rrllHnfE. u no were fDlNpidlho4ttH ~ -.
court below. brought suit against ths au.
ministrator OF the female complainant
and John J.. lrby ana ms suftuEs lOL q
settlement Of his accounts as theH bual-
Iian. and to recover the amount an Whlch
he should be found 20 be- indebted. Inc
court ordered the account 10 De tahei
and settled by one or It's cOnnlhsiVivl ?
This was done. exceptions We're meg ~
both sides and IL was recommiued. Seve-
raj settlements Of the account were maue
ana reported TO the court during the Two
years the cause was penang AZ INC
April term. 1871. the court entered ut-
cree approving and ratifying a compfo-
mise in accordance with when the az
ministrator of the guardian asreed, anu
the case was ordered 10 be stilcheh i'oHi
On Sentember s. 1879. a further com
promise was made by cOmplalnahts VIII
John T. Parkinson and the executor OF
= W Tpes by which Parkinson ana the
estate III Fues were released nom an
liability on the bond OF the guarglah Gnu
especially from all liability ior the
Tor 81 tbe Guardian at the April term.
1871 i'm pursuance Of the terms OF the
comnromise then made. aud by when me
@mplainants at me sam, me- e sr'iecf;o, Of
no entire estate of the guardian TO the
payment Of their claims
COULD NOT ANNUL 1T.
Eleven wears after this compromise suit
was brought by cOmplainants TO set aside
end apui1 the COMPROMISE and for "a re-
opening and resettling OF the account
with the guardian, contendihg thal WHIT
they did not charge fraud or deceit, they
reserved the right 70 amend thelr Dili, l,
I'm the progress Of the cause, the lacts
developed should justify them IN DONG
SO The gravamen Of the suit was that
the compromise WAS very uNequdl 10
them. and that they were ignorant OF all
ne opinion holds that the record wholly
failed 10 show that there was any Iiduu
far ~ ion in the case. us Cd
feet was 10 satisfy ana forever settle tne
entire liability Of the guardian. etc. Ger
tain objections offered at this time snould
have been raised az the tine OF the
making OF the compromise.
After referring 10 the decidedly mlXed
condition Of the accounts, the court says
that the compromise was not entered INTO
until every effort had been made 10 ascei-
tain the extent of the liability OF the
guardian 20 the cOmplainants. ana the
latter had etcrei into il not mao
yisedly or incOnsiderately. but win the
FUN knowledge Of an the circumstances
In the case Judge Rely holds that Il
COMPROMISE Of an uncertain liability en-
tered into under such circumstances fuily
executed and acQuiesCcd ~ Tor eleven
veafe should not bc set aside, except upon
ne cleareet proof OF fraud. misrepresen-
fation cOnceaimcnt, or mutual mistake.
me decree of the lower court is affirmed.
DEGREES Ia VIII Gases.
Another opinion rendered in the Court
Of Appea's yesterday was that OF sims
against sims from the circuit Court Of
Crenne county. the ouinion in which was
prepared by Judge Rely. This involved
The construction Of "a Will. and the de-
cision discussed throughout the Inference
fefOecn an inteTlOcGlOry and ~ nnal de-
cree saving: ''rhe decree Ohe one in
question: referred the cause TO one Of tne
Commissioners Of the court, 20 take, state,
and report az it's next tenn an account , OF
an account Of the debts. II any. against