The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-06-26

and entered into by and between the
said company and its members under SAID
bylaws and former charter, and not IN
! compatible with this charter, are hereDy
validated and confirmed.
| Appellant contends that dealings be-
! tween him and the association under the
| court charter were usurious, and that the
Legislature had no power, In granting
the new charter. 20 validate and confirm
| the previous illegal transactions.
Held This contention was settled by
/ this court in the recent case Of Smoot
vs.. Peoples 7. i. e Il. Association, %
Va. wherein Ii was held that statutes
1 which validate contracts otherwise in
valid. are sustained when they 20 no
| further than 10 bind a party by a con-
! tract which he has attempted 10 enter
| into. but which was invalid by reason
( Of some personal inability on his part TO
| make il. or through neglect Of some legal
/ fOrmality, or I'm consequence Of some in
| gredient in the contract forbidden by
! law. There Is no distinction between the
case cited and this.
! As 10 the constitutional objection, mo
| law shall embrace more than one object
i which shall be expressed in the title"
/ The title of the act IS AN act TO pro-
| vide n new charter for the Iron Belt
! Building and Loan Association" It IS
insisted that the provision, validating and
/ confirming transactions between the
| company and its members under the
! court charter, Is not contemplated nor
covered by the title; that II has two dis
| tinct objects, one granting a new charter.
! tho other validating its acts under the
/ court charter.
| Held. The constitutional provision was
not designed to embarrass legislation by
/ making laws unnecessarily restrictive in
| their scope and operation. and thus null
! uplving their number The title viii be
| held sufficient IL the things authorized
| to be done. though Of a diverse nature,
| may be fairly regarded as i'm furtherance
J Of the object expressed in the title. All
I that IS required IS that the subjects en-
| braced i'm the statute, but not expressed
! i'm the title, be congruous and have nat
/ ural connection with or be germane 10
| the subject expressed I'm the title. Ana
\ the Constitution IS TO be literally conslru-
| ed so as TO uphold the law. If practicable
/ Iverson Browns case. q Va. l62; Town
/ Of MahoInet VS.. Quackenbush, ll1 L. 3.
\ gS2
/ Nor IS the limited power 10 borrow
! money conferred by sec. Of the new
/ charter. such n radical departure from
1 The original design and purpose OF the
/ company as would necossitate the assent
| Of each member thereof in order that he
/ he bound by IT.
LEASE At WILL
! Oglesby's Excx vs.. Hughes. etc. Al
! drmed. opinion by Harrison ).
In December. 1850. Oglesby contracted
I with appeuecs leasing to them for ten
wears the right 10 mine ores on TWO
| tracts of land. Appeuces were 10 pay q
/ royalty Of . cents per ton on an ore
mined. were 10 remove an average OF
not less than 1000 tons year. were 10
! nav and did pay. 5000 in advance o.
! ROYALTIES 10 he reimbursed them on inc
! first l. 900 tons taken out; were 10 ma q
an timber on the premises NECESSARY LOT
/ mining purposes. not 10 include umDer
, suitable for rails or lumber. 10 use lhe
/ crq+er and wash ores on the premises
! but 10 maintain mId-dams ana s7'tiihs
I ulnds I'm such case. I'm case OF lti'uie ~
comply. they should forfeit ah rights,
4 "a tho ,gre.rnent and lease become
I null and void. They proceedea 10 IIaN
| rrenaratious for mining. and spent mucE
/ ,,,,,o,, In machinery. houses, tram-ways'
etc and much time in these necessdI
rreDarations for carrying out the con-
/ tract. .,., 1oeeor
/ elad his bin charging that the lessse
/ we're tenants ait will, and declaring nv
,,,,r,oee tn terminate the lease prayHS
so. rosciesion for an injunction on Il"
/ e,rtbor onerations under the lease. lo'
oooo,rt of the ores removed anu lue
/ o. -. 9ra for alleged violations OF lle
/ .a,tract I'm using timber not aio"eu'
f,tli,o IN erect dams. etc, ana sialhHs W
| tol,a out 70 O00 tons Of ore the III
/ ADpellees answered. ana a9Ncu ,Ut
/ - answer be treated as cross Di.,
| 70
/ tbot since filing the bin by lessor Ihey
- ceased TO operate under II, ana are
! Limo nreDarafions 20 SURRENDER llc
-l.,,,orf,, as soon as possible; thao they
80 not required 10 take out lZV" IONS
| eocb consecutive ear: that lessor having
| ,or,ninoted the lease without their CON
,o,t or fault. they are only chargeaDle
| -,,tb the ore actually mined ana re-
! moved. They deny violations OF the con-
/ tract. insist they have compiled IN an re-
| spects. and have not damaged coiil-
| niaiuant. Are ready TO account foi an
| ores mined. but allege that complainant
| is Indebted 20 them I'm q large sum TOT
| money advanced by way Of royalties, ana
| ror damage by reason OF the sudden and
| unwarranted termination OF the lease. ava
| osl, an account Of the amount due them
| and a decree therefor.
Decree for account and report. based
on evidence Of Tu1dry witnesses that
/ there had been mined and removed 2Z'i
/ tons Of ore. worth S57522: that there was
due lcssees. on account Of the 5000 adj
( vanced I'm royalties s. 1856. and that
! no damages had been sustained on either
side All exceptions 20 report oyerruled,
/ decree entered confirming g. and appeal.
Held l. The parties having agreed that
: their contract was intended as a lease At
I will. as admitted in the bill and answer.
! Il must be so treated. and so the lease
! was determined by the lessor upon the
I institution Of this suit.
.. The contract did not require - ono
! tons Of ore each year but n yearly aver
/ age Of that amount during the twelve
years II would nave been unreasonable
/ to expect the lessees TO take out as
/ much the first year, in view Of the ne
/ cessary large and expensive preparations
! required as they could do thereafter.
when everything was completed and in
| good working order.
3. The findings OF the commissioner.
| that there had been no violations Of the
contract by the lessees are sustained by
the evidence and appellees have forfeit
ed none Of their rights under the con-
tract
4. Having compiled with their contract.
and the lease being terminated by the
lessor without fault on their part before
they had taken out enough ore TO re-
imburse them the sum advnced on ac-
count OF royalties, the appellees are emit
tied 10 recover from appellants the diff
ference between the sum so advanced
and the ore actually removed at the price
per ton provided by the contract
PREMATURE SALE