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

\ Qutnt act OF the ETanIOf cOblu dlicCl TUE
of guarantee. nor could his subsequent
insolvcnt debtors oath prejudice her or
them. The deed was upon good consid-
Grafton when made and II grantor re-
served ample property TO pay his debts,
| then Il was bona flde and not made 90
| hinder. SC, creditors. And this was a
/ question 20 be settled by the jury. Bur
den was on Mallory 10 show title under
| deed for benefit Of Hannah and her heirs.
and whether he were the person entitled
| under that deed was QUESTION for the
| jury.
| The question OF n statute OF limitations
| as bar to appellees rights was also
| question for the jury. and the courts IN
| structions on that point Eere unobjec-
| tionable.
The jury found for the plaintiff, which
| they could not have done unless they be-
| lieved that the deed from John Edwards
| for benefit OF Hannah. &c, was bona
| flde and not made 10 defraud creditors'
| that appellee had shown himself the
person entitled under that deed. and that
| the right Of action did not accrue to him
until 1898, when his right was not barred.
Held: l. These facts being established,
: everything contended for by appellant
| might be admitted and could not AFFECT
| the result, for II the deed were bona fde
| Il was not affected by subsequent acts
OA Aflt ElNUkblf iit itiAAN - N'+tf - 49,
vested in the sheriff and therefore could
not have been sold or conveyed by him.
2 Are7iment of counsel. 1t Is the duty
/ Of counsel, in argument, 70 conhne them
| selves to the case, tho evidence properly
before the jury and tssa law as laid
down by the court, and an unwarranted
| departure therefrom might make 1t neces-
sary 20 set aside the verdict. In this case
st is not perceived that the remarks COM
H.
liant. especially in view Of the courts in
structions.
A QUESTION OF USURY.
Evans vs. Rice. Trustee 81 ais. Affirm
Cd opinion by Keith. =.
Scbtt and Davis purchased lot OF Far
Icy for $500. paying $500 in cash, with
bond for balance at eight per cent. in
ferest. payable annually, secured by
deed Of trust. Controversy as 20 usury,
alleged in cross bill and denied in an
swcrs. The bond reserves a greater rate
OF interest than Is allowed by law, but
10 is claimed that IL was not given for
the loan or forbearance of money or
other thing" but that the bond and in
terest reserved thereon constituted part
Of the purchase price OF the lot
Held. Usury can only attach TO loan
of money; or 10 the forbearance Of debt.
on a contract to secure the price or
value Of work done or 10 be done. or Of
property sold. agreement may be made
upon one price for cash, and upon as
large an addition 10 the cash price az
may be contracted for II credit be given.
1t IS wholly immaterial whether the
enhanced price be by the simple addition
OF a lump sum or by a per centage
thereon. In neither case is the transac-
tion usurious. 1T is neither n loan nor
the forbearance Of debt. but simply
the contract price OF work and labor
done or property sold. Gracme VS..
Adams, % Graft. 234 The statement in
Bfockenbroughs Excr's. VS. Spindle, II
Graft. o. that usury should be proved
beyond a rational doubt to the contrary
would be accepted with reluctance. and
seems severe in its terms. but the court
is warranted. indeed compelled. 10 hold
that It must be proved by a clear and
satisfactory preponderance Of evidence.
One witness only charges usury: one. the
original obligee in the bond denies &C.; II
the interest represented a part OF the
purchase price Of the property without
which the sale could not have been made.
the Circuit Court did rot err IN holding
that there was no usury, under the law
I'm Graeme VS.. Adams, and the rule Of
evidence universally accepted as apQlica-
BILE 10 usurious transactions.
Q While the law in many jurisdictions
Is that only the legal rate can be recOv-
cred after the debt becomes due unless
the continuance Of the greater rate be
expressly provided for in the contract
itself IL is otherwise IN Virginia. and
the rate reserved in the contract con-
tinues as an incident Of the debt due I'm
the absence Of any stipulation 10 the con-
trary. Cecil VS.. Hicks. % Graft. /. The
rate reserved I'm that case was lawful as
II also Is in this If for the purchase
price o. land: the one because expressly
permitted by the statute, the other he
cause not within the terms or the statute
which declares what transactions shall
be deemed usurious.
Upon another branch OF the case. Scott
and Davis sold and conveyed other prop
crty. SCOTS wife uniting !n the deed I'M
der an agreement for compensation for
contingent right of dover. and there
upon Scott, Davis and Mrs. Davis con-
Veyed her lot No. 90 as separate estate
with covenant tn Il IL was to be free
from liability % be sold under a deed OF
trust for the purchase money. The deed
to the other property was eleven days
prior to the one 10 Mrs Scott
Held. No recital or covenant in the
latter deed could be actual or cOnstruc-
tive notice 10 the grantees IN the former
The covenant when broken. only bound
the coyenantors personally TO make good
any injury sustained not only out of the
pIbIttuS u Stilt VI the ptNtf property
but 10 the extent of all the property
owned by them and subject 10 their
debts
Howell e. Son VS.. Boudar Trustee. Az
hrmed. Opinion by Judge Rieley.
The principles involved in this case
are discussed and determined in the next
opinion following
AGENCY OR SALE.
Arbuckle Bros VS.. Gates & Brown
Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Rely.
The question involved IS whether the
written agreement between the parties
create a mere agency in G. e. b. 10 sell.
them.
1t purports on its face TO be special
selling factor appointment" and TO con-
stitute G. G. b. factors OF Ar5uckle
Brothers, and its main provisions are
that all goods consigned them on their
requisition until sold I'm regular course
OF business, shall remain the property or
Arbuckles with title in them and be
merely held by G.. & p. as their factors:
that they shall never purchase the goods
for their own account; that G.. & 3. shall
sell and bill I'm their own name. but only
at such prices and terms as Arbuckles
may give them from time to time" Then
follow a number Of stipulations. irrecOn-
cilable with factorship or agency be-
tween the parties.
G. & b. are required not only 10 as
sumo all risk as 10 credit Of purchasers
from them, and to make all collections
at their own expense, but TO guarantee