Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-21

by usuryY What is the measure OF relief
HE'D; }, The first question has been
, ron since settled afiirmatively. young
US. scott, 4 Rand, AIS: Exchange Bank
vs.. Fugate. % Va. S2l) The change I'm
she statute that usurious contracts shall
ne deemed 10 be for an Illegal considera-
tion, instead OF void. as formerly fur.
nlsneS no warrant for departure from the
settied doctrine. nor do the recent de-
clslons (Scott vs.. Bank, 81 Va, 652; Mum
iord vs. McVeigh % Va. 4i6).
T. In all cases involving usury whether
AZ law or in equity, the measure OF re-
lief Is the principal sum lent or forborne
subject 20 the rule touching the applica-
uon OF payments laid down in Munford
vs.. McNeigh, supra.
MECHANICS LIENS.
Gilman VS.. Ryan. Affirmed. Opinion by
Buchanan. j.
The appeal as TO all but three of the
appellants Is dismissed for want of juris-
dicuon-lesS than 500 in controversy. there
being nothing to bring either within any
OF the exceptions 10 the general rule as
TO jurisdiction. The only question neces-
sary TO be considered as TO the others is
whether the accounts filed by them in the
Clerks Office are such as are required to-
be filed TO create mechanics liens.
Held: The filing Of the account is the
initial and one OF the most important
steps, and substantial compliance with
the statute that the account show "the
amount and character Of the work done
or materials furnished. the prices charged
therefor the payments made. If any. and
the balance due" is essential 10 the crea-
ton of the lien. and necessary for the
protection Of owners. purchasers and
other lien creditors. Taylor VS. Neither
wood, 81 Va, IS. In each Of the accounts
filed there is failure 20 state the amount
Of work done. and the materials furnish
ed, and the prices charged therefor. rms
defect is not such an naccuracy as the
statute declares shall not invalidate the
lien, but an entire failure 10 state what
the statute requires TO be stated. The de-
murrers were properly sustained, and the
decree is affirmed.
EVIDENCE. &C.
New York Life-Insurance Company VS..
Taliaferro. Affirmed. Opinion by Buch-
anan. Jr
4. brought assumpsit against the com
pany for services rendered as agent. in
Producing an agreement under seal in his
evidence. Company objected to ii as not
proper to sustain assumpsit Later in the
trial company read deposition OF its presl-
dent, to which was attached "A duplicate
or the agreement. which I. insists was
waiver of objection.
Held: If a party object to evidence. and
afterwards introduce the same evidence
himself. ii Is no ground for reversing the
judgment. though the evidence was in
competent. Va. and Tenn. Coal and Iron
Co. VS.. Fields, &c S. f.. r.. 1926
PARTITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Board OF SUPERVISORS OF AleNdnNTld COull-
~ VS.. City Council Of Alexandra. APP
peal dismissed. Opinion by Buchanan, j.
Appellants filed their bill Tor parutlon
in kind Of the courthouse and Jail of the
county and city of Alexandria, or for their
sale, and an equal division of proceeds.
Lower court declined to grant relief pray
ed for until the Legislature should deter
mine the respective interests Of the city
and county in the property. Appeal
Held: The decree is not final. nor does
g1fndipDfp nfincinleg
Code. section 1854: Elders Executrix VS..
Harris 70. Va. g. 73-'74 The court ex-
pressly declined 10 determine the inte-
rests of the parties. or grant the rellef
sought till legislative aid was had. The
parties had the right 10 await legislative
action. or to apply TO this court Tor
mandamus to compel the Circuit Court 10
act. An appeal lies to correct errors by
trial court in deciding case, not Tor re-
iusing 10 decide II.
? without legislative authority neither
the cOurt nor the parties had the power
to make partition or sale. The general
laws of the state confer no such authOrl-
ty. The title Of the special act-Acts
1896 So, % 559-is not broad enough to war
rant such legislation. Lacy VS.. Palmer. 95
Va. 159; Martin vs.. SO. Salem Land Co.
26 5. Z. r., 591, constituting Va Cons, Art.
v. section l..
g. The Legislature. as the trustee and
representative Of the general public. has
full control over the public property ana
the public rights Of the cities and counties
OF the Commonwealth, and when any
change is made in the use OF property I'm
which two or more subdivisions of the
State are interested. the interests of each
can be much better determined by tho
Legislature than by the courts. ! Dillon
on Munic. Corp, secs. Coil
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
Selden VS.. Camp. Affirmed. Opinion by
Harrison, J.; Buchanan, j., concurring
In the results.
Suit for specific performance Of cove
nants to renew leases Leases made in
1893. each for ninetY-nine years, renew
able forever with a provision that If
the yearly rent remain unpaid for six
months after maturity lessor may re-
enter and hold until all arrearages are
paid. X appears that the rent and taxes
have always been paid. though not al
ways exactly when due, and that for
several years after the end Of the first
ninety-nine-year period the rent was paid
and accepted. the lessons not Offering 10
renew nor the lessees making a demand
Tor renewal; that the mother or lessees
had a life estate that did not expire till
1888, when appellees. as remainQermen, |
first came into control of the property; |
hat they were ignorant of the expira-
ion of the first ninety -nine-year period, |
nor discovered II till after their mothers |
leath, when they at once employed coun- |
sci to prepare renewal deeds but before |
his was done they were served with |
notice to quit, February 10, 1894; that |
hey and their mother were always able |
o comply with the terms of renewal, and |
after notice TO quit they rendered the |
rent extraordinary" due at end of first |
)eriod) with interest and costs Of new |
eases, and demanded a renewal, which |
vas refused.
Held: The true meaning of the contract /
S a perpetual lease, yielding the lessor an |
annual ground rent forever. the payment |
secured by right of re-entry; the lessee
lcQuired a perpetual interest In the leased |
PREMISES. justifying him IN making per
nanent improvements and enabling MN
o enjoy the proceeds of the property |
nhanced from this and other causes.
rhe lessons understood perfectly tnat tne
essees had no intention or surrendeiing
hese valuable rights, worth thousands OF
lollars. 10 avoid the payment or one
ears rent extraordinary and the annual
round rent. IL.
2. Mere default in payment at stipu-
ated time generally admits OF compensa-
ion and hence time of payment Is sell
ON treated as essential in contracts
ouching real estate. 1t is plain that time
vas not of the essence of these contracts.
There Is no lack of power In a court OF
unity 10 grant relief against failure 10
erform punctually conditions precedenI
yhen time lis not of the essence ana
can be made. StoryS Eq.
mr. section 1875; l Lomax's Dig, page
ri The question 10 be considered Is:
las the party asking for relief been
uiltv Of gross negligence, or Is the de-
nit relied on the result Of mere negl-
ence? When the terms have not been
t,ictlv complied with, or are Incapable
+ being strictly complied with, II there
as not been gross negligence In me
arty. and il is conscientious that the
greement should be performed, and com
ensation can be made Tor non-comph- !
nee. in such cases equity VIII decree
necidc performance. The doctrine or
|