Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-09-18

ton. or falls short of such a ratiiicauon
of a promise previously made as WouIu
Justify the Judgment of the court peioW
upon a demurrer 10 the replication. T.,
2 No particular form OF WORDS -
o1lired 10 confirm a debt contracted du-
ring infancy. but they must import an
uneduivocal recognition and connrnlailol
az the previous engagement, though they
need not amount TO direct pioIllise W
nav The memorandum or Wrltlhs 10 DC
sufficient. must recognize wv - -, O. -
debt binding upon the party VINO Signs IL
II must either in terms or on ialr con
etruction refer to the contract when Is
To he ratified. and treat 1t as supsiaIll5
contract Code, section ZeiO' SIIIh ,c 81.
con. 800: / Minors Inst. 52l Ia, 10,
IS Amer. State Rep, iUl, 'VS' 40 ana ca9e9
cited. snoc
c,sb,s Executor VS. Jamison. Reversed.
opinion by Rely, j. .a =. for
Jamison sold Gsh a house ana lOt LOT
SIG C0G. of which $40 cash, SLED on uellNeiS
Of deed. and the residue, with lnteIeaI I,
one wear from date of contract, the Cash
Davrent 10 lie made as soon as the falr
r,cnnt Land Company made their casn
n+Vnent 10 Gish" The land company
never paid. and after their reIusal jam l.
son brought suit to resclnd MS CVIti a. l
with Gish. Jamison acquIesceGe III -, az ~
dismissal of that suit, but thereafter madt
no demand on Gish TO perform the CUn-
tract nor took any action 10 compei nm
IN perform till this suit was pIouShI' InuIe
than four years after the sale ana MUIR .
than three years after the credlt pay
ment was due. 49,, -. e,,oo;ec
performance is addressed to the soun9
judicial discretion Of the court soFeiiisu
NV established principles. Ihese Iequ5le
that the applicant nave Deeh r,d ie ooS, ;
nrornpt and eager to perform the con II,
tracf on his part. Powell vs.. Berry, u
Va 56S. Darling VS.. Cummings Executor
% Va. 521. The court Will not decree spe-
cidc performance where his cOhuucl mas
bepn such as to justify the presumption
- 90 ohoudonment of the contract or
where If would work hardship on either
marty not only because or uniarhess III
lis terms but also where the apPliCNhS
has been in default the hardship j. caused
py subsequent events or Is tne Iosu' y,
Collateral circumstances. he must NOT
have remained quiet or held hlmselt aloot
60 40 10 enforce or abandon the contract
as might seem advantageous Miiiui
inst SOS: BoOten vs.. Scheiier' q Iidl -
474 lg7; Anthony VS. Lel'"lO"' MANU.
2SS. ,o,e,,es,o,,
APPLICANT RETAINED POSSESSION.
Annlicant has remained in possession,
and has not offered 10 give possession,
or rendered a deed, on the delivery OF
which he was entitled 10 exact the casii
payment He had brought SUIT 10 TesSlh1
when the property had nearly douDit q
In value. and waiting four years, brous NJ
mis- suit when IL had deprecated nearly
one third from the price al which ne sou
F1uitv will nor grant specific performance
where there has been lack OF good daltn,
and will refuse relief where the appiIcaht
is in default ana by delay has mn. .Sa 60,
an intent 10 perform or abandon the con-
tract as the property might rise or IAN
Though the cash payment by the
land company TO Gish was never pdlu'
that from Gish was due IN reasonaple
time, and after reasonable delay Jdi'isoA'
had a right TO exact II. a..
In view of Jamison's delay ana the
evidence of his abandonment or the con-
tract prior 10 this suit, under the chahked
conditions during the delay, IN no eesIee
ettrihutable TO any default of Gish, out
nroduced by circumstances over which
he had no control specific execution
would be harsh, oppressive, ana very III
equitable.
Foster VS.. Commonwealth. Reversed.
Opinion by Rely, J. -, A.
Is boy under 1t capdDie' snuel t.e
law of this Commonwealth, or commit
ting ar OF the attempt TO commit, crlml-
,ai assault? The question has never been
nsssed upon in Virginia by court OF
last resort. - .,,,,,,,;,,, 4, co,,-
os ~ the offence, and evidence TO rebut
the presumption is inadmissible. i Hale
p i' q. $50; Black, Com. A2; Queen Wy, vs..
Waite 1s9 2 Q. b. 600; Queen vs. IN Wa III
Hams ds9S) / q. Il. 800. In the United
S,ates the rule of the common law has
not been uniformly followed. In Florida
the common-law rule holds; IN some 9err OF
,be other States il holds IN modlhed form.
In ohio in 1876 II was held that the pre-
smmntion might be rebutted by proof OF
onacitv "a commit the crime; but In 1878
the rule was followed with strong inu-
rn.tion that but for the previous decision
nc court would have adhered TO the
ccinio'nmon.law rule. The American text
critters adhere to the. common law
among them Davis and Minor. Bishop,
W., NV ah,est and most philosophical writer's
mon law in this country. approves the
lila for the sake OF convenience and de-
cency as we'll as justice. and doubts
..whsther Physical capacity In BOYS De-