Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-06-19

".
description by the compass had been
omitted. A false description does not
render deed imperative IL. after re-
peating the part that is false, there re-
mains a sufficient description TO ascer-
tain with legal certainty the suoret
matter OF the contract. Savings Bank
VIZ. Stewart. SO Va, AL.
g. Depreciation. The rule is general,
applying alike to vendor and vendee.
that where there has been change OF
circumstances or relations which rem
ders the execution Of the contract
hardship to the defendant. growing out
OF unexcused delay by the plaintiff, the
change and delay together constitute SUI
1Cient ground for denying specinc per-
Torrance when sought by the one In &C.
fault. Darling VS.. Cummings, 81 Va, 81.
There was no unreasonable delay py the
vendor here, who rendered good and
sufficient deed. II the property have de-
preciated. appellee alone Is responsible,
and the loss results from his own wrong.
Berry VS. Workman, Trustee. Reversed
Opinion by Harrison, J.
Property sold at auction for cash. APP
nAliee admits a verbal UNDERSTANDING
with appellant, who was not present az
the sale. that appellant could pay $ooV
cash and have his own time TO pay bal
ance: thus leaving for future negotiation
and settlement the terms for the deferred
purchase money.
Held: Equity Will not enforce specinc
perforuance OF q contract unless II be
Complete and certain; whether written
or verbal. Il must be complete In all It's
parts: its terms must be definitely set
tied. and none be left TO future negotia-
tions. Pom. Spec. Perform, Sec. l45;
Darling VS.. Cummings, % Va, 81.
In all contracts of sale the price is
material term. 1t must be fixed by the
agreement itself or means must be
therein provided for ascertaining 1t with
certainty. Otherwise, the agreement is
incomplete, and cannot be enforced. Pom.
Sps. PERI. Sec. 14S.
BOND TOO LATE.
Bull VS.. Evans. Dismissed. Opinion by
Buchanan, ].
Judgment June 10, 1896; petition for
writ of error, etc. presented June 10,
1897, and allowed that day; on the nth
OF same month record and petition re-
ceived by Clerk of this court, as shown
by his endorsement thereon, as follows:
Received by me June IT. 1897, In a box
with case Of Hafner VS.. Chesapeake and
Ohio Railway Company, but l did not
know the petition and record in this case
were in the box until the 18th OF june
1891" The bond was executed on the
18th.
Held: It is clear that the bond was
too late If the record be considered as
| delivered TO the Clerk on the nth, the
time when he actually received 1t. The
| contention is. there was no delivery in
| contemplation OF law till the next day.
| when the Clerk first ascertained IL was
| In the box of papers received the day be-
fore. The Clerks knowledge cannot affect
| the question. The delivery contemplated
by the statute is actual delivery-placing
| the papers in the actual possession or the
| Clerk His omission to examine, or his
mistake, If he did examine, could not
! alter the fact that the papers had been
| actually placed in his hands. which Is
ALL that is contemplated by the statute.
| The mistakes or omissions of the Clerk
| could not change the law. II plaintiff
| had inquired for the record on the 17th,
| and had been told II had not been re-
celved, and he was thereby prevented
| from executing the bond and so lost his
right Of appeal, he might have had
cause OF action against the Clerk, but 1t
would not have prevented the running
OF the statute, which, in such GASES, is
| imperative.
Plaintiff delayed until the last day of
the year within which he could ask for
writ Of error and allowed himself less
than one day after the record was deliv-
| cred to the Clerk to execute the bond.
Cases cited: Page, assignee, VS.. Flick
| Inns Executor, 76 Va, 2s2, 97, 2sS; Otter
back VS.. Alex. and Fred. X. Co., rs Graft,
90; Yarbrough VS.. Deshazo, Graft, S74.
CONDITIoN SUBSEQUENT.
Burdis vs.. Burdis. Affirmed. opinion by
Rely, j..
Burdis devised to his wife his home
stead, with the understanding that his
son, Albert, would take care OF her, and
| at her death the homestead should re-
turn TO Albert as compensation therefor
The wife died before testator. Is Albert
entitled? This depends upon whether the
condition precedent to its vesting In him,
or subsequent the non-performance OF
which would divest the estate given him
by the will.
| Held: Where condition precedent is
! annexed to a devise OF realty, and its
performance is, or becomes, impossible,
| the devise fails without default or laches
bv the devisee himself q Jarman, 10; 4
| Kent's Com, 125; 2 Minors Inst, 220;
| but IL the condition be subsequent and
| its performance become impossible the
| rule is different, the estate will not be
| defeated, and devisee will hold by abso-
| Lutte title as If no condition had been an
nexed. 3 Jarman. IL: Kent's Com, lSO;
Ridgeway VS.. Woodhouse, z BeaV., 4Si;
Parker VS.. Parker, l2S Mass, and many
| other cases.
2. There are no technical words to DIS
I tinguish between conditions precedent
| and subsequent. The distinction Is mat
ter of construction. The same words
| NAV indifferently make either according
| 10 the intent Of the MAKER OF the condl-
| ton. IL the particular clause or the
whole viii shows that the act must be
performed before the estate can vest,
| the condition is precedent; II It does not
necessarily precede the vesting OF the es-
tate. but may accompany or follow IT,
and this can be collected from the whole
will. the condition is subsequent. Finlay
VS.. King, Pei, S4e; Martin VS.. Ballore'
| 13 Barb, 119.
| The words relied on as condition oil
the gift to the son are not annexed there
| 10. but are connected with the devise 70
| the wife; the words, "as compensation
| therefor" attached to the devise TO the
son do not constitute so much condi-
| ton of the gift TO him as 10 show the
motive for It.
But il the language be In legal effect
condition 10 the devise to the son, there
Is nothing in the will that makes the sup
port of the wife by their son necessarily
4 precede the yesting In him OF the remain
| der. but much TO indicate the contrary
| The obligation relied on as a condition
was not a single act, TO be done or omit
ted at once, but might continue loI
| years, and require performance OF many
acts-a continuing duty as long as the
wife might live. There Is nothing TO IN
dictate that devise to son should remain
In a Estate of contingency" during the