The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-28
SUPREME COURT CASES,
sErEBaL IMPORTANT OPINION,
UfyDED DOM.
Ratification Of Agency-Noidabie Con
tracts-Freedcm Of the Press-Corpo-
rate Powers-tstoppei'
Following are digests OF opinions hand
ed down by the Supreme Court Of Appeals


subscriptions to stock. He fled special
pIea-that one Cook. an agent of the
plaintiff. represented to him that COM
pany had secured the building of certain
valuable manufactures. and had con-
tracted for the same" that believing
these representations were made as exist
ing facts. and relying upon them. he was
induced TO subscribe. the representations
constituting the constellation; that they
were false and by reason OF them he has
been damaged 81. 800 which he offers 10
set off against plaintiffs demand
Held !. The plea alleges not a mere
opinion but an existing fact-"had con-
tracted for the samer-which If made to
influence the action of the defendant.
and he relying upon il was induced To
enter into the contract. ana II turned out
10 be false. then he was entitled 10 jury
To pass upon the question OF damages.
w Wytheville Land Company VS.. Wat
,yns. " Va. l.
:. The plea stating defence MILLER
VS.. Fletcher &c q Graft 4o3l II becomes
necessary TO examine the allegations OF
error. which otherwise. II would not be.
s. The contention that Cook was not
the company's agent cannot De sustained;
the company received the cash payment
on the subscription. ana by bringing this
suit elected 10 accept the contract made
by one without authority. and by whose
acts. &c, It was not bound until 1t con
scented to enjoy the fruits OF his services:
having done so it cannot be heard 10 re-
pudiate his agency. Crump vs.. L. ),
Mining Company. Graft. 559; Haryey's
Admir-. VS.. Steptoe's Admir-. l. Graft 300:
New York Life Insurance Company W.
Taliaferro, decided at this term.
In accepting the contract entered into
on its behalf by an unauthorized agent
the plaintiff assumed it's burdens as well
as It's benefits. The Instructions asked
by defendant correctly state the law. and
should have been given.
VOIDABLE CONTRACTS.
McLanahan &c. vs. Roanoke Iron Com
pany &c: Same VS.. Roanoke Land Com
pany: Same vs.. New Landsdown Land
Company &c. Affirmed. opinion by
Keith, Il.
These three cases were heard together
and disposed of in one decree as present
ing a single controversy.
James McLanahan. ST.. by will dated
April 10. 1865, disposed Of considerable
property ana by a codcil he appoints his
son, Elisha. Trustee 10 receive ard hold
for the wife and children of my son.
James the share Of my estate that would
be coming TO my said son, James said
share not 10 be subject TO the debts Oh
contracts OF my said son, James
James had moved 10 Missouri before
1850 and had not prosepred there. In 1863
he wrote his sister Offering TO sell his
interest in his fathers estate for $3.50.
Some time after that q suit was institut-
ed in the County Court. with all proper
parties, 10 make partition Of the estate,
or its sale II not susceptible of partition,
with the additional prayer that II II APP
peared for the interests OF the widow and
children Of James the share set apart for
them should be sold. and the proceeds be
reinvested FOR their benefit. There was
partition. and the share Of the widow and
children Of James was sold by the trus-
tees TO Yates by deed, dated in 1873; ana
the proceeds invested in lands in Missou-
ri purchased from Sutton, to wit. the sum
of $500 In cash. And a deed was made
OF this land To said widow and children.
Yates disposed Of parts OF the land pur-
chased from the trustee. and he and his
alienees are made defendants to a suit
begun March lS92-nearly four years az
ter the youngest child Of James had at
tanned majOrity-wherein it is contended
that the County Court had no Jurisdiction
10 sell lands of persons under disability,
that the decree in that case was a nudity;
that the Act OF February B. 1873. on which
appellees relied to validate the proceed
ings was unconstitutional and void: that
the deed OF the trustee To- Yates in pur-
suance OF the decree. was a breach OF
trust, in excess OF his authority and void:
and that all who took under IL had notice
OF its iniirmity; with the prayer that said
deed and all subsequent ones be set aside
that complainants be put in possession OF
the land and defendants be required 10
account for rents ana profits
The record disclosos that compliments
knew that the proceeds OF the land sold
were invested IN the land bought OF SUIT
ton in Missouri. that the whole transac-
tlon was free from AL fraud: that the
land was sold az a fair price and judi
ciously reinvested with the approval Of
those interested. who received the benefit
of IL during their infancy. and have. by
their conduct since they attained MAORI
ty, approved and confirmed the same
Held. Without passing on the effect
OF proceedings had ia the County Court.
the deed from the tr-stee TO Yates passed
the legal title. and was 4 voidable and
not a void transaction. and. therefore,
capable OF valuation by the subsequent
asqulescence and ratification Of those
promptly on coming OF age instead Of
waiting more than three and half
years after the youngest OF them came
Of age. al Of them dealing with the
property In which proceeds OF sale had
been invested as their own. After such
inexcusabie delay supersdded 10 positive
acts of afiirmance; after having waited
till the trustee had become q lunatic and
died II is too late for them 10 ask OF
equity 10 have this sale annulled and
rights disturbed. which have been vested
twenty-five years, and transmitted TO a
long succession OF slienees who have
greatly improved the property: and that,
too. without any offer TO re-
turn the consideration they have
received. Mustard vs.. Walford. 10
Graft. al: Hilyer vs.. Bennett. 3 Ellis
CHI r.. 1922: Story's Equity Jur., Sec.
1862.
FREEDOM or THE PRESS.
City Of Norfolk W. Landmark Pub. Co,
&c. Reversed. opinion by Judge Harri-
son.
The City Council adopted an ordinance
imposing a license tax upon every person,
firm. &c. in the city engaged in the
publication of newspaper. The tax
is resisted first. as ia violation OF thu
Constitution and Bill OF Rights Of Nir-
glnia. as in restraint OF the freedom OF
the press.
Held. A tax on the business OF pub
fishing newspaper is not an abridgment
OF the freedom Of the press. TIE guar
antees OF the Constitution and Bill Of
Rights in favor of the freedom OF the
...a..b and Of uerEnra1 liberty