Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-12-08
THETERM CONCLUDED
THE SUPREME COURT or APPEALS
ADJOURNs.
TWO OPINIONS RENDERED YESTERDAY
Camp VS.. Bruce, from AHnscm'n"
County, Decided I'm Favor OF "c
neutrality-suspicious. Win INNER
administrators vs.. C.. & o. R'y Co.

Z L AAdAA vi R'@f
A number OF interesting cases were con-
sidered yesterday, but the one which pro-
badly will excite greatest interest was
that of Marye. Auditor, VS.. the state
Board Of Agriculture.
Colonel Thomas Whitehead sued to
compel the Auditor TO pay TO the Depart
ment of Agriculture the funds represent
ing the taxation of fertilizer. The last
Legislature had enacted a law providing
that the expenses Of the department
should be paid out OF this fertlhzer iuhu'
Judge Wexford, Of the Circuit Court Oh
granted the mandamus prayed
TOR.
Acknowledgement Montague. as coun-
sci for the Auditor, took an appeal ana
asked the court for a writ OF error !,
was granted, and the supreme Court VIII
hear the case.
DECISIONS HANDED DOWN.
The court handed down opinions in The
cases of Camp VS.. Bruce and Hammer
Administrator VS.. Chesapeake and ONO
Railway Company.
The frst-named case, which comes up
from the Circuit Court OF Nansemohd'
has some peculiar features. on June IL,
1894, at a judicial sale In the case Oh
Ranstead VS.. Ranstead, the appellee
bought q tract of land of 1900 acres for
81, 100. He paid the cash sum required
and executed bonds for the deferred pay
ments. The sale was reported 20 the
court. but pending confirmation the ap-
pellee entered into a written agreement
with the appellants by which, in con
sideration Of their assuming payment Oh
the purchase money, bonds, and the pay
ment Of 81, SO TO the appellee, you pront
on his bid. he sold his right, title, ana
interest in the land to the appellants.
He also agreed to have his wlle unite
with him i'm the conveyance. However
an upset bid was put in, the sale TO the
appellee was set aside, and a resale or
dered. The land was several tunes re-
sold, but d sale to the appellee at 'he
price Of $3.50 was finally confirmed. some
months later the appellants hied d OH
to compel the specific performance on
the part of the appellee of his agreement
with them to transfer his right TO the
land. They also alleged that in fraud OF
their rights he had procured the upset
bid to be put in.
In his answer the appellee admitted the
execution of the agreement, and sald ne
would have complied with its PROVISIONS
had the sale been confirmed, but denied
having procured the upset bid
THE COURTS OPINION.
The opinion of the court, which was
written by Judge Buchanan, holds that
the agreement was Illegal. This conten-
ton was made in argument, but was not
raised by the %pleadings, nor relied on IN
the Circuit Court. The court holds, now
ever. that this defect cannot be gotten
rid of either by failure to plead or py
agreeing in the most solemn manner 10
waive it. (Fry on Spec. PERI, section "H9;
I story's Ed., 261; Pomeroy's Contracts,
section 2S6. second edition; Hall VS.. Mann
Wall, 542.)
While there is no law in Virginia de-
claring such contracts unlawful, yet the
court holds that under the common law
any contract made for the purpose OF OF
whose necessary effect or tendency Is ~
lessen competition and restrain bidding
az iudicial sales. is held to be illegal, be-
cause opposed TO public policy. The OBJ
iect in all such sales is to get the best
price that can be fairly had for the pro
nertv. To allow one bidder 10 buy on
another Is a species of bribery. CUnder-
wood VS.. McVeigh, % Graft, 4@-f2S-9i
cocks VS.. lizard. Z Wall, 55S-62; Fry on
Snec PERI. section 90S; Pomeroy's o
tracts. section 2S3; GREENWOOD on Pup'
( Pol, 1S3-lS9) -
~ the first sale had been confirmed, ana
the contract enforced, the appellee wouId
have pocketed $500, for which he gave no
valuable consideration, and would have
tol,er from the that much OF
their inheritance, and enabled the appel
Iants 70 get the property without taxing
chances of having TO pay a higher price
at a resale.
The court holds that a commissioner
should have reported to the court ina
the appellee had sold his bid at a prom
NJ $500 to be paid when the sale was con-
drmed. A court will never, where the
facts are known to 1t, confirm a sane when
the bidder has sold his bid at an advance
unless the advance inures 10 me Denen'
of the PARTIES to the suit. q DAN, Chy
Pl and Pr. 1855 ed ed; Holder VS.. Ruf-
fin l Tamlyn. 3iD. 1t is the custom OF
English courts to require the bidder whc
desires TO substitute another 10 file an
afHdavit that there is mo underhand bar
gain between them
In conclusion, the court holds that the
Hill was properly dismissed by the Circuit
Court and that its decree must be con
firmed.
THE LOWER COURT AFFIRMED.
Haffner's Administrator VS.. Chesapeake
and Ohio Railway Company came up from
the Circuit Court Of James city ana the
CITY of Williamsburg. 1t is a writ OF err
ror. The case was first decided In favor
of the appellant, but the verdict was Sc
aside as contrary TO the law and evil
dence. At the new trial the jury found
for the plaintiff subject to me detend'
ants demurrer TO evidence, and upon tina
demurrer the Circuit Court entered Judg
ment for the defendant. Haffner's ad
ministrator thereupon obtained a writ o.
error from the Supreme Court.
The opinion, written by Judge Keith, p.
cites that the deceased was a brakeman
ON the Chesapeake and Ohio running be
tween Charlottesville and Newport News
and was killed I'm an accident His ad
minis.rator sued for damages. The deci
sion was against him in two trials In thu
Circuit Court.
The opinion afirms the judgment Of thu
Circuit Court.
SUMMARY.
Judge James Keith, p:
Haffner's Administrator VS.. chesapeake
and Ohio railway. Circuit Court OF james
city county and the city Of Williamsburg
Affirmed,
Judge John A. Buchanan:
Camp vs.. Bruce. Circuit Court or Nan
semond county. Affirmed.
Rowzie. &c, VS.. Daingerteld. Circui
Court of Essex county. Appeal and su
persedeas. Bond $3.50.
Postal Telegraph Company VS.. Farm
willie and Powhatan Railroad Company
County Court OF Chesterfield. Writ o
error awarded. Bone Sl5O.
Marye. Auditor, VS.. Board OF Agricul
ture. Circuit Court Of city of Richmond
writ Of error.