Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-07-16
THE TERM ENDED.
THE SUPREME COURT COMPLETES
SIX WEEKS OF WORK.
TWO IMPORTANT CASES LAST WEEK.
The Enforcement OF Il Specific Con-
tract for the Sale of Land--Case to
Compel Stockholders to Pay SUBJ
scriptions.

W
June 9Th. adjourned Tuesday
The court has done a great amount Of
work at this term. The docket is nearly
entirely cleared. Many cases Of unusual
Importance were adjudicated.
The court handed down opinions in six
cases last week. Four of the cases de-
cided and the opinions in them were OF
comparatively little importance Two de-
cisions, however. will be of general in
terest to the profession and to the public.
Hudson vs.. Max Meadows Land and
Improvement Company.
The opinion in this case was delivered
by Judge Cardwel. II was q suit brought
for the specific performance Of a contract
Tor the exchange OF lands, and the bill
having been dismissed upon demurrer,
upon appeal the demurrer was oyerruled.
The bill alleged that contract was
mace between appellant and appellee for
this exchange, and that its terms were
clear. well understood, and definite in
their character. that while the contract
was not reduced TO writing. there was
such part performance thereof as took I
out OF the statute IN regard TO parol
agreements. The bill further states that
at the time Of the sale or exchange II
was stated by the officers Of the appellee
tnat there were some encumbrances on
| The tract of land which appellant was 10
get, but that appellant was also told that
the company was in a good condition TO
give him clear title and that he should
nave clear title To the land After al
leSlng the readiness, cagerness, and abili-
~ of complainant 10 comply with the
contract on his part. and rendering deeds
conveying the property given I'm exchange
by him, the bill prays that the contract
be specifically enforced, and that the de-
PENDANT be compelled TO make to com
"A
exchange, clear Of all encumbrances; That
the property sold by him in exchange 10
the defendant or the proceeds OF us SAFE
together with the cash he was 10 pay
be applied TO the removal OF the encum-
brances. if they are sufficient, but II the
defendant cannot remove the encum-
brances. that then the court VIII protect
complainant from loss, and not allow
said property and cash 10 be so appheu'
and for general relief.
1t was cOntended. on behalf or appellte'
that because of the incumbrancers set out
in the bill, il does not make a case
which a court Of equity can speclncaul
enforce. as the incumbrancers could not
be made parties TO this suit. and mat
/ the bill shows that the complainant could
| be compensated in damages Tor any IN
| jury he sustained by reason OF the ialluL e
/ Of the defendant TO comply win the al
The opinion holds that this last is not
| the case, as the bill sets out acts or paI
performance, which. if sustained by the
/ proof show that neither parry cOuIo DC
| placed in statu quo.
As to the first ground Of demurrer
! Judge Cardwel reviews the virginia au-
| thorities exclusively, ana holds lilaI =
J is not fatal objection 10 the bill. lie
says: THE question always is whether
or not the complainant has a contract
| which the court can and VIII enforce
| TO enable the court TO determine TINS
/ question, we can see no reason why d
/ reference to ascertain the state OF me
| title to the property in question shouid
| not be made nor why parties interested
| in the subject matter should not be made
| parties TO the suit, if necessary, al
| though they were not parties 10 the con-
| tract sought to be enforced, but mere IN
| cumbrancers or lien-holders. The tact
that an incumbrancer is brought before
the court that the amount Of his incum-
brance may be ascertained, does not ne
cessarily involve the enforcement or fore
closure Of his incumbrance.
The decree is reversed and the demur-
rcr overruled.