Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-12-08

| OF his physician. he wrote TO piainun
and asked to BIO released from ms en-
gagement. To this letter there was no
reply. but shortly afterwards tnis s", y
was brought. and the jury rendered Ia a
| verdict In favor OF the plaintiff for $iuv.
in the view the court takes OF tne
| case. only one assignment OF error Is
| considered. which relates 20 the action
of the lower court i'm refusing 10 set
aside the verdict In favor Of the plain
til as contrary to tho law and the EVIL
dence
Held: 1. Under the expression. 'the act
of God" IS comprehcnded all misfor-
tunes and accidents arising from nevl-
table necessity which human prudence
could noe foresee or prevent Illness
being beyond the power OF man 10 con-
troll or prevent, Is the act or God. 49,,
2. A contract to marry Is coupled WIN
the implied condition that both OF the
parties shall remain in the enjoyment OF
life and health, and IL the conditon Oh
the PARTIES has so changed that the mar
roge state would endanger the lie or
health OF either. a breach OF the con-
tract r. excusable.
g. Upon the law and the evidence the
defendant acted throughout In good faltn
and the unhappy circumstances In when
he found himself justified the aiieged
breach OF his contract TO marry plalntl1.
Case reversed apd new trial awarded.
Richmond Case Involving Alleged
Fraud.
In Cady VS.. Straus, Law and Equity
Court, city Of Richmond. Judge keith
delivered the opinion OF the court, whlch
affirmed the decision Of the lower court.
Lee Straus. a wholesale shoe dealer IN
the city of Richmond. made an assign
ment for the benefit OF his creditors, in
which he established certain preferences
in favor of individuals named. His gene
raj merchandise creditors amounting IN
the aggregate to about $4,000 Instituted
81 declared
and void as TO them. The Judge OF the
Chancery Court decided that the charge
of fraud had not been established, ana
u.ihcld the deed. e
Charles Straus. n brother OF Lee straus'
made an offer TO pay 10 per cent. upon
Tho nrincipal of the claims represented
Nv counsel I'm addition 10 the dlNiuend
which would be received by the seneIai
creditors under the deed OF assle iiiieht-
Counsel for the creditors replied: II yoe
will nav 90 per cent. OF the claims OF
our clients your offer shall be accepted
and we will secure for you all necessary
ASSIGNMENTS Of all the claims OF the
creditors represented by us as soon as
the money IS paid and the papers can ne
drawn and executed. ms
a e-reement of course, is subject 10 our
clients approval. but we believe tneS
will promptly carry IL out" Straus ac-
cepted this proposition, but on the l9th
NJ March not having heard from counsel
nosal for an assignment Of claims. rms
s the substance Of the negotiations when |
opened on the 25th Of February, 1871 , ana
closed the latter part or March. inlS
r,,it vas brought by Cady to recover the |
adherence between the sum paid 10 nm
out of the assets Of Lee Straus ana Lhe
20 per cent. which II is claifleu |Ha' ie9
straus bound himself Tor. Co..
/. The court holds that Charles Straus
& not bound by his proposal set forth IN |
the correspondence, and that ms letter
If March 18th was effectual to release
lim from all liability.
2 Mutually Of obligation Is OF the es-
sence of a contract and 1t Is plnulns
mon neither party until a point IS reacn-
ii where the minds OF the parties 70 II
,ccede to one and the same set OF terms.
rhat an offer may be withdrawn at any
line before its acceptance IS setlleu Jaw,
.inca an offer unacceptel creates no |
.iehts. and is not binding upon the party
making II. It follows that II may De to
,oked at any time before acceptance