The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-07-15
SUPREME COURT
HAS ADJOURNED
Opinions Handed Down the Last
Days of the Term,
TWO DECISIONS OF INTEREST.
a Specific Performance OF Contract
for the Exchange Of Lands and
toSuit Enforce Subscribers
Pay Their stock.

has been in session at Wytheville since
June 9Th having completed the calling
Of the docket. handed down opinions in
six cases Tuesday preparatory to the
final adjournment for the term, which
/ took place Wednesday.
Two Of these decisions. however. Will
( be of general interest to the profession.
Hudson VS.. Max Meadows Land and
Improvement Co-The opinion in this
case was delivered By Judge Cardwen. 1t
was suit brought for the specific per-
! Torrance of a contract for the exchange
of lands and the bill having been dis
missed upon demurrer, upon appeal the
demurrer was ovcrruIed.
The bill alleged that a contract was
made between appellant and appellee for
this exchange and that its terms were
/ clear, well understood and definite IN ta
! character. THAT Wuue enc contract was
not reduced To- writing. there WAS such
part performance thereof as took IL ont
of the statute in regard 20 parol agree
mcnts The bill further states that, al
the time of the sale or exchange. IL was
stated by the officers OF the appellee that
there were some oncum5rances on the
tract of land which appellant was 90 get
but that appellant was also told that the
company was in good condition 20 give
him "a clear title. and that he should have
clear tile 10 the land.
After alleging the readiness, cagerness.
and ability of complainant to com1V
with the contract on his part. and tone
dering deeds conveying the property Civ
en- in exchange by him, the bin Drays
that the contract be specifically enforced.
and that the defendant be compelled TO
make TO complainant a deed to the land
sold him in exchange. clear Of an en-
cumbranccs. that the property sold by
him in exchange 10 the defendant, or the
proceeds of Us sale. together with the
cash he was 20 nav Do applied to the
removal Of the encumbrances, If they
sufficient. but ii tnc ocleuddnt cannot re-
move the membranes. that then the
court will protect complainant from loss
and not allow said property and cash TO
be so applied. and for general relief.
CONTENTION.
II was contended, on behalf of appellee,
that because of the membranes set
out in the bill it does not make "a case
which a Court Of Equity can specifically
enforce. as the encumbrancers could not
be made parties TO this suit. and that the
bin shows that the complainant could be
compensated in damages for any injury
he sustained by reason Of the failure ~f
the defendant to comply with the alies-
ed contract. The opinion holds that this
last IS not the case, as the bin sets out
acts of part performance which, If sus-
tanned by the proof show that neither
party could be placed in statu quo
As 10 the first ground of demurrer,
Judge Cardwell reviews the Virginia au-
thorties oxhaustively and holds that 10 is
not a fatal objection 90 the bin. lie says.
"The question always is whether or not
the complainant has contract which the
court can and will enforce. To enable
the court 10 determine this Question. we
can see no reason why reference 10 as
certain the state of the title to the prop
crty i'm question should not be made, nor
why parties interested I'm the subject mat
ter should not be made parties TO the suit.
If necessary although they We're not par
ties 10 the contract sought TO be enforced,
but mere encumbrancers or lien holders.
The fact that an encumbrancer is brought
before the court that the amount Of his
remembrance may DE ascertained. does
not necessarily involve the enforcement
or foreclosure Of his encumbrance."
The decree Is reversed and the demur-
rer Overruled.
LAND COMPANY CASE.
Martin and Others vs.. South Salem
Land Company. was suit brought
by creditors OF the South Salem Land
Cimpany TO enforce the payment by SUD
scuDeIa To- Its stock oi their subscrip-
tions. 10 has formerly been 90 the Court
Of Appeals and was then decided bv
Judge Buchanan IN an able opinion set
thing many veXed questions of corporation
law Upon this second appeal the opinion
was again delivered by him. and some Of
the points are no less interesting.
The first contention Of the stockhald-
ers was that the Circuit Court had no
jurisdiction 10 enter this decree against
them but should have directed its re-
ceivers 10 sue at law. under the act OF De
cembcr -. 1897. Acts 1878 p. Is.
This act directing an actions 20 re-
cover unpaid stock subscriptions to be
brought at law I'm the county or corpora |
ton I'm which the defendant resides. b. |
its terms applies 10 suits pending 40 its |
passage I'm which no final decree had |
been entered. This suit was pending and |
a decree had been pronounced affirming |
the validity Of the stock subscriptions. |
and calling for the first assessment on |
same.
final decree upon the merits as prevents |
the act In question from applying 20 this |
case
II IS further claimed on behalf Of an
pellants that the Circuit Court erred IN
making another assessment upon those
stockholders who paid the FIRST assess
ment without further effort on the part !
Of the receivers to collect the assessment
made against the stockholders who had
not paid and who. for that reason. were
REGARDED as insolvent
The opinion holds that the return Of
executions mo effects" against such de-
lnduents was prima facie evidence OF
their insolvency and If the other stock
holders had reason 10 believe that they
had property which could be subjected TO
The payment of the executions against
hem. that fact should have been brought
10 the attention of the Court
The opinion further holds that the de
cree for the unpaid assessments did not
operate as liens upon the real estate OF
hese dellnquents and that the creditors
of the company could not be compelled
10 wait for the payment Of their debts
until steps could be taken TO subject such
'C9l estate