The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-06-12


tate a previous transfer to him. and the
consignment is thus changed into sale.
Tiodmaa on Sales, Sec. 8. Prohibition TO
sell below trade price or the reserved
right 10 fix. from time to time, the price
al which the buyer shall sell the goods
IS a common device 10 prevent tompeu-
ton and maintain prices, but has htue
tendency TO prove agency, ana cannot
noutralize tho distinct elements OF a sale
in other provisions OF the agreement
See williams, &c, VS.. Drummond TO
bacco Company. Al S. w. r., 1S5; Mack
VS.. Same. g. n. w. r., ia; Arbuckle
Bros. VS. Kirkpatrick, 9S Tenn, 2Zl.
The cases cited by counsel Tor appel
lants are not analogous TO TINS, ana 40
not sustain the contention that agree
mont created a mere agency, ana not
sale -, 80,
.. Conceding for the purposes or his
case. that, although the agreement con
stituted a sale and not an age lcY' there
vas a valid reservation II uie until the
coffee was paid for. 1t was sun
cary that the agreement be docketed' OF
else Il was void as 20 creditors anu pui
chasers for value without notce' NOu7'
Sec. 2ie2, as amended. .s,,,r,
A trustee in a deed 10 secure creul'oIs
e a purchaser for value. chapman 70.
Cbahman al Va 40, and cases there
tr,ete.o was on the appellant. While the
tact Of notice may be inferred from CIR
cumstances as we'll az proved by uirec'
o,,idcnce vet the proof must be such as
e. "A foc. the conscience of the purchaser
and no 40 strong and clear rs 10 establish
rpola fdes. Vest VI. Niche 81 Grau'
40. Morrison cs. Bausemer' 81 H.
2l5. Johnson's executor vs.. Nauohai En-
change Rank. % ID. 413. The evidence
n that
There is no proof that tho trustee hau
c,or aeon the agreement or knew or It's
conditions TIL after the assignment ana
10 tostfdes that the conditions printed
AZ the foot Of the invoices Gere torn OH
before they were turned over 10 him'
and there is no evidence that his state
ment is untrue.
DEDICATION OF STREETS. ETC.
CITY of Norfolk vs. Nottingham Al
frmed. Opinion by Judge helth' pIesl-
dent
The Atlantic Iron Works surveyed and
divided into lots. streets and alleys, as
shown by maps returned to the county
Cont of Norfolk county, certain lahd
owned by II. September I. 1870 II sold
at auction 900 feet and February d. ISL
the remainder Of its land. on the south
side Of Front street. embracing the space
claimed to be occupied in part py
streets ( O. the sales were OF a con-
tinuous frontage running eastwardly on
the southside OF Front street, without
regard 10 streets. alleys, etc. quite
number Of lots we're sold September 81
1870 IN various parts Of the property, IN
accordance with said map. sometime
during the sale. however. the aucuoneer
made public announcement by authOriz-
fly. that said map would be- corrected
and the streets appearing thereon south
OF front street would be effaced, and a
man. so corrected. was then exhibited,
thereby revolling 50 far as the company
could. the dedication Of part OF its land
TO public uses.
The purchasers of'lots are not parties
TO this suit and their rights cannot be
affected It may be that the oedica-
ton was complete as 10 purchasers prior
20 the public sale. and TO purchasers on
that day before the announcement was
made as 20 the change I'm the map. II
may be that such purchasers have since
compromised or lost any rights then ac-
ouircd These questions are not involved
herein.
Held :. Assuming that, prior 70 an
uuuccmout Of change Of the map. there
had been a sufficient dedication IL Is GER
tain there had been no acceptance by the
public. while there is conflict as 10 what
viii constitute an acceptance by the pub
JIG. whether n formal acceptance IS re-
duisite. or what degree OF user Will war
rant an inference OF fl Without the for
NAL act # Is clear that acceptance man
ifested I'm some way Is necessary to es-
tablsh the right in the public
.. The sale OF lots I'm accordance with
maps vests in the purchasers the right
% the use OF the streets appearing
thereon. The right 80 vested cannot be
defeated by the Vendor by the sale un-
der such circumstances ne IS cstODDed 10
deny or impdach rights thus acquired.
Hermann on EstOppel. secs. 1858; CITY
Of Cincinnati VS.. White, Peters 40;
NVeisJI d VS. R'w'y Co. rs Wise. at p. -.
TO hold otherwise would be 20 permit
him 20 perpetrate a fraud upon his ven
dees. Such cstoppol however. operates
only IN favor Of one who has been mis-
led TO his injury and he only can set r.
Up Kotchum vs. Duncan. G Otto GO.
Applying this rrinc'D'o 80 IS manifest
that the city Of Norfolk is not within IT'S
operation. Concedirg that its limits
were extended by the act o. 1890. so as
% embrace the land In controversy and
that Il succeeded 10 whatever public
rights existed in the county OF Norfolk,
the facts relied on TO prove acceptance
OF tho dedication either by county or
CITY were long subsequent 10 Seuten-
Der 1850 when the offer was withdrawn
on the day Of sale before any accent
ance. express or implied by Norfolk
county. Not having been misled 70 its
preiudices by appclees It cannot invoke
estoppel AGAINST them.
3. a dedication Of land 70 the use OF
the public, whether express or implied,
may be revoked before It has been form
ally accepted by competent authority or
before others. upon the faith Of IT, have
been induced so TO act as 10 render its
revocation unjust. Tho owner IS estop-
ped to assert no formal acceptance
where the public relying upon the man
ifest intent 90 dedicate have occupied the
property in such manner as renders It
unjust and proper to reclaim H. but
where no public nor private inter-
ests have been acquired the mere
user by the public OF the SUD-
posed street. etc. though long
continued, should be regarded as a mere
license revOcahle at pleasure. Harris
VS.. Com. % Graft $40: Buntin vs. Dan
Vlle %. Va 2o3: Haldane vs. Trustees,
etc, q N. Y. 40
AS 10 PRTORITIES.
Osborne We. Big stone Gap Colliery
Company. Reversed in part Opinion by
Keith. p.
Held. The facts in this case.
stated generally. are that the Col'iery
Company. owing sundry people debts
some Of which had become established
liens. was placed IN the hands OF a re-
ceiver who was authorized p issue re-
celvers' certificates which should consH-
tute a ;irst lien on all the franchises and
property Of the com Dany. and requiring
him 10 complete and operate the plant
under the direction OF the court Two
years thereafter another decree was rem