Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-27

March IL, 1899.
"a RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF a CORPORATION
DULY SIGNED AND SETTING
FORTH THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT, Is A COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTE REQUIRING
WRITTEN CONTRACTS FOR TIE
SALE OF LAND.
A WRITTEN CONTRACT MUST
SHOW ON IT'S FACE a COM
PLETED AGREEMENT OR II
CANNOT EE ENFORCED.
This was suit brought by the New
por; News; Street Railway Company TO
recover tom the Developments Com
panJ. OH an alleged contract Of that
company tn donate s2,50o and Il lois
worth $-.iJU to the railway company
TOWARDS The construction OF it5 road
Tie defense VAS that the agreement
was net in writing, and the statute OF
limitations Their" was also q dcmur-
Ter. a resolution of the Development
Company donating the money and lots
was proved to have been passed by It's
directors The lower court gave judy
ment for the plaintiff, and the Devel-
opmcnt Company appealed.
The court says:
\ resolution Of Il board of directors
OF corporation duly signed by its
president and secretary, which Suin-
ciently sets forth the terms of the con-
tract. IS compliance with the statute
Of frauds as to contracts for the sale
of real estate. When, however, such
resolution is relied on as the evidence
OF written agreement. ii must, like
other written contracts. show on its
face Z. complete ana concluded agree
ment between the parties. Nothing
mus he left open for future negotia-
ticn and agreement, otherwise it can
not Ire enforced.
Tie resolution relied on i'm The case
a. bar clearly shows on its face that
the paroles had not rea ched u fina! and
concluded agreement. Thc resolution
Is an agreement to make the donation
upon certain conditions. The cond-
lions upon which the donation is to
be made are. however. not settled, but
expressly left open for future ncgotia-
tior and agreement between the rep
rcacntatlves of tile two contracting
parties.
There being no complete and conclud-
cd contract in writing, the claim OF
the dctendant i'll error rests upon an
oral contract, and the action not hav-
Ink been brought within three years
the plea OF the statute must prevail.
Reversed.
CAPITAL GAS 6 L. L. co. V. GAINES
Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
February Q. 1899.
WHEN A GAS COMPANY CON
TRACTED WITH A CITY TO SUP
PLY GAS TO CONSUMERS AT A
RATE NOT EXCEEDING 50 PER
1000 CUBIC FEET IT COULD NOT
CHARGE THEN METER RENT IN
ADDITION THERETO.
MONEY PAID THE GAS COMPANY
AS METER; RENT IN SUCH CASE.
MAY BE RECOVERED BACK,
THOUGH THE PAYMENT WAS
VOLUNTARY.
This was an action by Gaines to en-
JOIN The gas company from refusing to
supply him with gas and to recover
money ,laid it undcr> mistake There
was IL contract between the CITY of
frankfort and the gas company 10
supply consumers with gas at q: price
not exceeding g aer- Thousand cubic
feet OF gas consumed The lower court
enjoined the ga; company from rcfus-
iEg 10 supply the plaintiff with gas,
but dismissed his claim for money paid
TO !; FOR rent of meter. Both parties
appealed. The court says:
III Is not complained that the appel
liant is charging the appellee more for
Gas man the contract authorized, but
ina; III is furnishing 4 meter 10 measure
the gas. which il supplies him AT the
rae on 20 cents per month. So the sole
question III this case is whether. I'M
der the terms Of the contract. il is au-
tnciiZed 10 charge meter rent In Gas
Go. V. Dulaney. the court held that inc
M l..,
for the use of meters which il furnish
cd consumers 10 measure the gas s,Ip-
piled - them. The court said: ",rho gas
meter IS Inc property of the company
and Is as necessary 10 the company in
the measurement of its Gas as are it's
works for its manufacture" 1T is nj
legged in the answer that at tho time
the contract was entered into the city
had been supplying gas to consumers:
,h0i 1t had been the usage of the civ
to charge meter rent; that such usage
was known 10 the parties to tho oyi..i-
nal contract, and tina. the deed for The
citys gas plant and the contract
were made With reference to said GUS
tom and usage ." Where parties
enter into a written contract. unless
there is something in it 10 negative the
inference. the parties To the contract
are presumed to have contracted with
reference to Il well established usage: so
we may say it is well settled doctrine
that usage known TO the parties in ell
tering into Il contract is binding. un-
less the terms of the contract exclude
1t. Under the contrac. the appellant is
10 supply private consumers with gas
at the price stated. In Gas Co. V. Du-
laney the court held that meters were
necessary to supply gas to consumers
Ii seems to lis to follow that where the
contract fixes q sum that should be
charged for thus supplying consumers
with gas. it does. if not expressly. by
necessary implication. exclude the idea
that the consumer was TO naY an adj