The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-11-18

al any drug store ar ~ cents per pack
age Send for book on stomach diseases
free.
or to- the estate alleging that tho admin
| istrator had fallen short of his duties
! i'm ascertaining The assets and especial
| IS in that he had not asccrtaned the
! facts as 20 the policy OF life in
surance held 10y Downing On her
| husbands life. which she alleges would
have paid any liability ~ her husband
I 10 Downing and left "a balance due the
! estate.
Downing dcmurred, and both he and
| Yoke answered f.. Dil dismissed and
! appeal.
Held. /: only under special circum-
stances such as the insolvency of The
administrator. collision between him and
| the debtor. that the debtor was a part
ner. trustee or agent Of the decendent.
can lccatee or creditor Of docedents
estate maintain "a suit against the person
al representative and another who is a
debtor 10 the estate. but there is no pre-
else and rigid rule as 10 what con-
stitutos such special circumstances MS
viii Justify "a ioindor. Hogan vs.. Walk
or. lG How. o. %: Wilson's admir- VS.. VIII
con. 90 Va $40. Story's Eq, Pl & Pr. sec.
So.
The bin not showing such special cir
( cumstanccs was properly dismissed as to
Downing.
.. The statements Of the bin. taken
for true upon demurrer. show that the
administrator was grossly negligent and
were sufficient 90 authorize the court 10
require settlement and charge him win
an debts. lost by his negligence and FOR
any dovastavit. This II doubtless would
have done but for the fact recited In the
decrec that the complainant had
brought suit against the administra-
tor for the purpose of setting his
accounts 10 the same rules as this
suit was brought. But the decree dis
missing the bin ought 10 have shown
clearly that II was done without prcju-
dice 20 the right of complainant to
charge the administrator with any sum
II was HIS duty to collect from Downing
on account ~ the policy held bv him.
Decree amended and affirmed.
BOOM CONTRACTS.
CARRIER VS.. sutton. Affirmed opinion
by Harrison. ].
Sutton sold d. S Roller and Samuel
CARRIER each. "a lot on the lands of the
Valley Improvement Company each pay
ing onc-third cash. balance in six and
twelve months. The first credit install
mcnts were paid. the second not
The next year each assigned 10 Joseph
T. Roller his right to look 20 Sutton IN
der the lot sale contract for the pur-
| chase money paid sutton hereunder, ana
coon Roller brought o separate suit upon
each. asking Iesceeei0n that tho losf note
be- cancelled and recovery from sutton
of the money that had been paid him.
The biz ALLEGES that the company decd
10 Sutton vas unauthorized by any cor
porate act that the lots were en'umo red
hv liens beyond their value and that Tor
these reasons the deed 10 Sutton was
worthless ard did not convey good title.
sutton fled am answer by way of cross
bin denying the allegations ana ashlns
for "a decree for the amount due or the
last instarmont of purchase money
Held 10 evidence supports me irst
allegation and the deed IS regular and
free from objection The second is an
tcnablc. the liens elyen by the company
expressly rcserving therefrom the lots
heretofore sold. and besides all the liens
prior % the deed 90 Sutton have been
paid ANY streets and alleys appertain-
lng 90 the lots in question were not af-
fectcd by the deeds Of trust. Those
which were abolished hy the sales there
under ir mo- wise affect the use and en-
| ioymcnt OF these lots and all streets and
alleys on the plot of The company ne
cc-sary 20 their complete enjoyment re-
main as laid ont
The decree for appellee for the balance
OF the purchase money is affirmed.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
Pennybacker vs.. Maupin. Affirmed.
Opinion by Harrison. }.
In 1875 Maupin conveyed his individual
interest. in remainder. 90 sipe trustee.
TO secure creditors. soon thereafter his
mother. the appellee. filed her bin alleg-
ing ownership OF a life estate IN part OF
The lands. a fee simple. derived from her
father. in the balance; and further that
by parol contract she had become the
owner of her sons interest IN the re-
mainder. the consideration being her
transfer TO him OF two bonds Of -. Pen
nybacker. amounting 10 {20o23. and that
the bonds so assigned were used by him
I'm part payment for a farm upon which
ne resided. Appellee alleges that the
bonds were q gift. and II not a gift then
the implied contract was long barred by
the statute The Circuit Court held that
appellant had failed 10 make a case for
specific performance and that If the bonds
were not gift. their value could not be
recovered because barred by the statute.
Held. In ORDER 20 "a decree for specific
performance. where there has been part
performance, the contract must be clear,
certain and unambiguous, and either be
admitted by the pleadings or proved with
reasonable certainty TO the satisfaction
Of the court. Pom. spec. Perform. sec.
l36. 10 must be reasonable, certain, legal.
mutual. for valuable consideration and
the party seeking performance must not
have been backward IN enforcing his
rights. but ready. DESTROYS, prompt and
eager. Darling VS.. Cummings. ~ Va. 0Z.
2 No contract. express or implied, Is
established between the parties in re-
spect 10 the bonds: and il such contract
had been proven the plea Of the statute
is a complete ba-: so that the alternative
prayer of the bill. II the court could not
decree performance for the amount Of the
bonds. with interest, must also be de-
MED.
SHERIFF"S RETURN, ETC.
Ramsburg VS.. Kline. Reversed. Opin-
ion by Harrison. J.
Notice OF motion AT october term. 1897.
20 set aside a judgment awarded April,
1897. because:
J. The writ was never served on Cath
crime NJ. Kline. one Of the defendants.
=. That the judgment was for Interest
from September ! and December !, 1895,
instead Of from September 4 ana Deem
Der g. 1895.
3. That the notes were joint and sew
eral executed by G. c., j. ,. ana Gather
ine NJ. Kline. and 10 separate action could
be maintained thereon against the de-