The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-06-19

pated I'm 10y the bank, OF which there IS no
vestiee of proof.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
Clark vs.. Ilutzler. Reversed Opinion
by Judge Harrison.
Tho alleged defects in title relied on TO
relieve from specific performance consist
Of the mistake in describing tne points Of
tine compass in The deed of December l.
1852. repeated in that of March, 1888, and
again September 1854
Held: A specific performance VIII not
be decrecd vendor unless his ability 10
make such a title as me agreed 90 make
be mquesii0nable I'm q contract 90 pur-
chase 90 fee simple estate 81 no encum-
brance Doe communicated 10 purchaser or
bo known by him TO exist be suppose5
himself 90 purchase an unencumberld
estate and specific performance viii not
be compelled unless the party demanding
80 can himself do an incumbent on him
20 DO. Ganelt VS.. Macon, Call 3lA;
Bryan VS. Lotus, ! Rob, l3, Christian W..
Cabeu. % Graft, So 10 SIS Well settled
however. that tho defective description
herein constitutes 10 cloud on the title
or suggests any reasonable doubt IN re-
spcct 10 30: the title is uuimpaircd there
nv and as free from doubt as III the
dissertation by tho compass had been
omitted 4 false description does NOT
render a decd imperative. If, after re-
heating the part that is false. there rec
mains a sufficient description 90 asctr-
tain with legal certainty tho subject mat-
ter OF tho contract. Savings Bank vs..
Stewart. 93 Virginia AZ.
2 Depreciation. The rule SO general
a3piving alike 90 vendor 2nd Vcndee tAAI
wnm there has been change o. clIeun-
stances or relations which renders me
execution o. the contract a hardship 10
in. defendant. growing out OF uneNcuaed
delay bv the plaiutln. th' cnlnec ANA
DELAY together constitute sufficient ground
for denvins specific performance Vnen
sought bv tho one iu default Daring
vs. Cummings. % Virginia, JZL There was
mo- unreasonable delay by the vendor mere,
VINO rendered a good and sufficient deed
~ the propcrtv have deprecated, the APP
re1s alone As responsible and tho loss re-
suited from his own wrong
Kerry VS. workman. trustee. Reversed.
Opinion by Judge Harrison.
Property sold M auction Tor cash ~
nelIoe admits verbal understanding
Win oppelant. who was not present nc
Inc sale that appellant could pay A.O
cash and have his own timo 10 pay Dali
ance. thus leaving for future hesoua-
zion and settlement the terms Tor inc ur-
fcrrod purchase money.
Held: Equity will not enforce spe1-
6c ncrf1rmanco OF q contract unless II De
complcte and certain. whether written
or verbal 81 must be complete IN an us
parts. us terms must Doe definitely set
lied and none be left 90 future nfsoild-
lions Pom Spec. Perform. sec. l'i
Darling vs.. Cummings go Va. 52l.
In an contracts of sale the pf.ce IS
material term. 10 must bee fixed by the
agreement itself. or means must De
therein provided for asccrlainng % Win
certainty. Otherwise the agreement Is
incomplete and cannot be enforced. POM
Spc. PERI. sec. lls.
BOND TOO LATB.
Bull vs.. Evans Dismissed. Opinion
by Judge Buchanan.
Judgment June TO- 1896, petition Tor Wrlt
of error etc, presented June 10. ln5, and
allowed that dag. on the nth OF the
same month. record and petition received
nv clerk Of this court as shown by MS
endorsement thereon as follows
Received by me juno 18th. 1897, IN
box with case OF Hafner vs.. G. q.
Railway Company but / did not know
the petition and record IN this case were
I'm the box until the lSth OF June. 1917.
The bond was executed on the bth,
Held II 10 clear that tho bond was 700
late II the record be considered as de-