The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-09-18

ties who acquired their rights before the
deed IS registered. The policy OF the
registry laws Is not TO affect holders OF
al,tecedent rights. but only such persons
rs have to search the records to protect
their own interests
Decree affirmed as to amount due ap-
peliant and directs sale Of lot still owned
by Hun to be FIRST sold. reversed in all
other respects.
STATUTE or FRAUDS
Liberty Savings Bank vs.. Otterveiw
Land co. Affirmed. opinion By Harri-
SOL. j.
suit 70 wind up insolvent land company
and apply assets. The amended ana sup
Elemental bill brings the stockholders be-
fore the court and asks decree against
them for balance due upon shares OF
stock held by each.
Appellecs answer under oath, and
deny that they made any contract IN
writing 10 take stock, or authorized any
one to do SO, ana plead the statute OF
limitations applicable 10 verbal contracts.
This puts burdeu upon appellant 10 prove
contract IN writing. and there IS no eVi-
dence That any one OF them ever made
such a contract. Their names appear on
the books of tie company, and the evil
dcnce tends 70 prove that they are own
ers Of the stock charged 70 them. but
81 is not a question OF ownership but
whether the contract TO become owner
was verbal or written. No original lists
are produced. and the evidence all tends
10 show that the subscriptions appearing
on tho books were based on verbal con-
tracts. and that appellces made no con-
tract in writing
The right OF action accrued June 10. ls3.
The amended and supplemental biz, max
ing the stockholders parties, and asking
a decree against them was not filed tlll
March 81, 1891. more than three years, ana
the right 10 recover Is barred in express
terms. code. sec. 1920
PRIORITY.
New South Building and Land Asocia-
ton VS.. Reed. Reversed IN part. Dpln-
Ton by Harrison j.
A deed of trust was dated and recorded
April II, 1898. TWO judgments liens on the
property conveyed IN the deed, were O0-
tanned in the Circuit Court che term OF
which began April 10 1889 after the rec
ordation Of the deed.
Held The judgments relate back 70 the
first day Of the term. and have priority
over the deed Of trust recorded during
the term. Code, sec. 1864; Hickman VS..
Hickman, 50 Va. ass.
g. 1t Is well settled that Improvements
put upon the wifes separate realty by her
husband in fraud Of his creditors can be
followed by them and the realty can be
charged with the value Of the improve
ments In favor Of the creditors. Rose VS..
Brown, II w. Va. 122; Bank VS. Wilson,
% ID 242; Bent vs.. Tmmons, - Id. 81.
RATIFICATION.
Ward VS. Scherer Reversed. opinion
by Cardwell, J.
Motion for Judgment on a bond OF ap-
pellant executed before marriage and dur
ing infancy. Plea of infancy. Replica
ton. ratification in writing since appel
liant came Of age. Demurrer TO replica
tion overruled.
gIeld. whatever might have been the
efect II this action had been brought on
the open account referred 10 IN tho let
tiers Of appellant, (rclied on - arlciee
fo establish ratification there is no rec
erence IN any Of them 10 tho bond sued
on. and nothing 10 show that the bond is
for the account about which she was
writing Every expression in The letters
that mieht by possibility be construed s
a ratification or promise 20 pay the HcDI
sued on As either coupled with q conHl-
tion. or falls short of such q ratlncauoh
of a promise previously made as would
Justify the judgment of the court oelO"
upon a demurrer 10 the replication.
Q. No particular form OF WORDS IS TO-
oulred 10 confirm q debt contracted nul-
inc infancy. lut they must import an I'M
oouivocal recognition and confirmation n
the previous engagement, though they
need not amount TO a direct promise 10
nav. The memorandum or writing 10 DC
Sufficient must recognize the DEBT as
debt binding upon the party VINO signs j.
1t must either in terms or on q talr con-
struction refer 10 the contract Whl'h is
TO be ratified. and treat 1t IS a suD5is,lns
contract Code, sec. 2Si); Smith on Con.
ID T.
state Rep 70l 708 7l3, am cases citel-
SPECIFIC PERFOl;MANlh.
cieh's Fx'cr. VS.. Jamison. Reversed.
Opinion by Rely, j.
Jamison sold Gish a house and lot Tor
s16.O01. Of which SO cash, $3.50 on dellV-
erv of deed. and the residue. with In
tereet. one year from date of contract
"the cash payment TO be made as soon
as the FairmOunt Land Company made
their cash payment 20 Gish." The land
company never paid. and after tnelr re-
fusal Jamison brought suit 10 rescihd
his contract with Gish. Jamlson a--
ouiesced I'm the dismissal of that SUIT, but
thereafter made 10 demand on Gish 20
perform the contract, nor took any action
TO compel him TO perform TIN this suit
was brought-more than four years after
the sale and more than three years after
the credit payment was due.
Held J. Every application for specihc
performance IS addressed 20 the sound
judicial discretion OF the court gov
erned by established principles. These
require that the applicant have been
ready. prompt and eager TO perform the
contract on his part. Powell VS.. Perry
81 Va, J6S: Darling VS. Cummings ETcr.,
81 Va, 52l. The court viii not decree
specific performance where his conduct
has been such as TO Justify the prcsump-
ton Of an abandonment Of the contract.
or where it would work a hardship on
either party. not only because OF un-
fairness I'm fits terms. but also where the
applicant has been I'm default the hard
ship is caused by subsequent events, or
IS the result Of callateral circumstances.
lie must not have remained quiet or
held himself aloof so as 10 enforce or
abandon the contract as might seem
advantageous. Minors INST. sos;
Booten VS.. Schefer q Graft. "A. 4e7;
Anthony vs.. Leftwich. 9 Rand e3S APP
plicant has remained in possession and
has not offered 10 give possession. o. ten
dered a deed on the delivery Of which
he was entitled to exact the cash pay
mont Ue had brought suit TO rescind
when the property had nearly doubled
in value. aud, waiting four years, brought
this suit, when 81 had deprecated nearly
One-third from the price at which he
sold Equity VIII not grant specific pcr-
Torrance where there has been lack Of
good faith, and viii refuse relief, where
the applicant is in default, and by delay
has indicated an intent 70 perform or
abandon the contract as the property
might rise or fall In the market
2. Though the cash payment by the