Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-28
DM OF PRESS.
ovItT PASSES UPON THE
X LANDMARKS CASE.
AZ OPINIONS HANDED DOWN.
esst Court Of nichmond RE-
In both Instances--pcwers
porasions Denned-what Are
Nc Contracts.


soab were handed down, among
&. being two concerning cases when
baked in the Circuit Court OF TINS
& the decision OF that court being IN
Instances reversed. Probably the
Important, or rather most interest
cpinion. was that on the appeal OF the
|4lk Landmark, which contended mat
ippositlon by the city Of Norfolk Oh
<nss-tnx was an abridgment OF the"
.3H cuaranteed In the Constitution
n aecision OF the lower court which
In favor OF the paper. WAS REVERSED.
& 4 wing are abstracts OF the decisions
= cred:
81 RATIFICATION OF AGENCY.
ms W. boyd Land Company Ns
ned. Opinion by Keith. 4.
4 1se co.npany sued Boyd Tor u"p''e
r i criptions 10 stock. He fled a special
.a.-thax one Cook, an agent OF 'ne
representcd TO him that com
S ~ had secured the building Of certain
Ia manufactories. and had con-
s N TO- M same: that believing
IS <renresentations were made as ex-
e facts and relying upon them, ne
Ia,,,..d "a en,becribc the representa-
4I<onsfltuttnC the consideration, tidt
8Ne{ere false. and by reason OF -, No. rn
~ tI.s been damaged Sl,zVv, winch az ~
I'M 10 SET of against pidlh'ih
>E'4d: /. The plea alleges not a mere opih,
3,ut an existing fact--"had contracted
he same"-which, II made 10 NM.
Tho action of the defendant, ana ne
ng upon Il. was induced 70 emu, me- he
II ffnF
then he was entitled to a jury 10
unon the question Of damages W
hevilIe Land Company VS.. Na'Hyhs'
a.. 1. 1,u,o~ x,s
kThe plea stating defence (Miller vs..
rher SC. n Graft, 4O5), IL becomes
sserv To examine the allegations VI
81 which otherwise II would not De;
The contention that Cook was not tne
bnanv's agent cannot be sustained: the
bpany received the cash payment on
subscription. and by bringing ne
elected to accept the contract mdue
Wnne without authority, and by whose
Gc.. II WAS NOT bound until IL con-
ci 10 enjoy the fruits of his services
<inc done so. il cannot be heard 10 re-
Ediate his agency. Crump VS.: y. ,. MN
To-. Graft, 369; Harvey ; Ao od1. ~
fcptoe's Admir-, IL Graft, 5O5; y;
Life-ins. CO. VS.. Taliaferro, decided al
his term. In accepting the CONTRACT en-
bred into on its behalf by an undu'h ul
Eei agent the plaintiff assumed It's DuI-
|ehs. as well as its benefits. Inc inS e,eiso
ions asked by defendant correctly state
he law. and should have been gwen.
YOIDABLE CONTRACTS.
&C, VS.. Roanoke Iron Co,
&c: same VS.. Roanoke Land Co;
same VS.. New LansdOwn Land Co., &c
Affirmed. Opinion by Keith. Il.
These three cases were heard togethtI'
md disposed Of In one decree, as IRE
Lii mi
James Mel, ST., by will dated Aprll
b 1885. disposed of considerable pro-
,erty. and by a codicil he appoints nus
ON. Elisha, "trustee 10 receive ana EOlu
or the wife and children o. my son,
lanes the share of my estate that would
% coming 10 my said son, James, salu
.hare not 10 be subject 10 the debts OF
contracts of my said son, James.
James had moved 10 missouri DelOIe
$50, and had not prospered there; IN lee9
,e wrote his sister. Offering to sell his IN
crest IN his fathers estate for Sl5Vo.
some time after that suit was insti-
u.ed in the County Court. with all pro-
per parties, 10 make partition OF the IS
ate, OF its sale If not susceptible OF pai =
.ition. with the additional prayer that II
I appeared for the interests OF the WIDOW
and children of james, the share set
apart for them should be sold ana the
proceeds be reinvested for their Deneill:
There. was partition, and the snare OF
he WHOM ana Olnluhtl VI Jointo We
sold by the trustee TO Yates by deed
dated in 1873. and the proceeds invested
n lands In Missouri, purchased from SUI
Ion--to Wit, the sum of $500 in cash. And
a deed was made Of this land 10 sala
widow ard children. Yates disposed OF
narts OF the land purchased from the trus-
Ice. and he and his alienees are made de-
PENDANTS to a suit begun March, Ios--
nearly four years after the youngest chlid
Of James had attained maJOrity-Wheren
hL
had no jurisdiction TO sell lands of per-
IONS under disability; that The decree III
that case was a nullity; that the act OF
February 3. 1873. on which appeiees re-
lied to validate the proceedings was un.
and void; that the deed oil
the trustee to Yates, In pursuance of the
decree. was breach OF trust. In excess
~ his authority, and void, and that al
who took under II had notice OF IT'S IN
trinity, with the prayer that SAID deco
and all subsequent ones Dc SCI asluei ina Sl
romplainants be put in possession Of th'
land, and defendants be required TO ac
eornf for rents and profits.
The record discloses that complainant
knew that the proceeds OF the land sold
acre invested in the land bought OF
sutton i'm Missouri thatth whole trans
action was free from all fraud; that the
land was sold at a fair price, and judi
ciouely reinyested with the approval o.
those Interested. who received the benen
If IL DURING iNtlf ntldn1Ns anu nave -.
their conduct since they attained majori
" approved and confirmed the same
Held: Without passing on the effect o
the proceedings had In the County Court
Che deed from the trustee TO Yates pass
ed the legal title. and was a voidable an,
NOT :, void transaction, and, therefore
capable OF valuation by the subsequen
acuuiescence and ratification OF those in
ferested. Their duty was to disaitirn
promptly on coming of age, instead o
waiting more than three and half year
after tho youngest OF them came OF age
ali OF them dealing with the property II
which proceeds OF sale had been invested
as their own After each ineXcusabl
delay, superadded 10 positive acts o
aflifmance; after having waited till tn
trustee had become lunatic and died
h Is too late for them 10 ask of equit
10 have this sale annulled and rights dis
furbed which have been vested twenty
five years, and transmitted TO long sue
cesslOn of alienees who have greatly i'm
proved the property, and that, too. withOu
any OFFER 10 return the consideration the
have received. Mustard vs.. Walford. ]
Graft. 34l; Hillyer VS.. Bennett. 3 Eli
CHI r., 322; 2 Story's Equity Jur., Sc,
l202)
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
City Of Norfolk vs.. Landmark Publish
ing Company, etc. Reversed. OpinlO
The City Council adopted an ordInanc
imposing a license-tax upon every person
firm. etc, in the city engaged IN IN
publication OF newspaper. The tax
resisted; iirst, as In violation OF the Cor
sfItution and Bin OF Rights of Virgini.
az IN restraint OF the freedom of IN
press.
Held: A tax on the business of pull
fishing a newspaper Is not an abrid.
ment OF the freedom of the press m
guarantees OF the Constitution and ri
OF Rights in favor Of the freedom OF I'll
. press, Of speech. and OF personal libert.
were never intended 20 restrict the rigi
of taxation for the support OF the go'
ernment; else the government would soc
be ins0lvent and powerleSs 20 furnis
the protection claimed. (See Federalis
page 632; Information vs.. JAEGER, ~ s. {
ass, where IL IL held that a license ia
Is no more an abridgment of the libert