The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-06-13

equal value, as near as may be. My
use of the land allotted to each one of
them and in case either one of them
should die, and all of their children, then
their lot or lots shall revert to the sur
viyors of my children or their children.
Held that the testator's intention was
to give his land to his three children, and
if either of the three shall predecease
him leaving children, then those last
named children should take the same
that their parent would have taken if he
or she had survived the testator.
Strauss vs. Mutual Reserve Fund Life
Association. Affirmed.
A mutual life association, after enter
ing into a contract with one of its mem
bers and receiving large sums there
under cannot, without the members con-
sent so alter the contract as to practi-
cally destroy its value.
Conrad VS.. Land Company; affirmed
Where one lays off his land in public
SQUARES. lots and streets for the pur-
pose of forming a town or a suburb to
town or city and causes the same to be
registered in the county where the land
is situated and sells parts of the lots and
in the deeds refer to the plat, such refer
ence will constitute an irrevocabe dedi-
cation to the public of the streets and
public squares marked upon the plat, and
it is immaterial whether the public au-
thorities have formally accepted the
dedication of the streets and public
squares.
Battery Park Bank VS.. Loughran;
affirmed.
Action to recover notes executed by
defendant, which the pay be transfer
red to plaintiff bank as collateral Sc
curity for a debt. The consideration OF
the note was the purchase price of lots
sold at public auction and bought by de-
PENDANT The defence was that B pro-
cured by bidders in violation OF his
agreement not to do so. and that the
price of the lots was thereby increased
in excess of their value, and, after said
notes were executed B sold the lots with
out consent of defendant. and thereby
disabled himself from making proper
deeds and plaintiff bank had full knowl-
edge of the defendants equitable defence.
There was judgment for defendant, but on
appeal to this court a new trial was
awarded. When the case was tried again.
alleging that at the sale of the lots B
announced that the balance Of the pur-
chase money should be secured by notes
of purchasers and in consideration there
for he would execute bonds for title in
fee, and this defendant purchased lots
and delivered his notes to b, and B fail
ed to execute sufficient and legal bond
for title
Defendant offered no evidence of fraud
in the sale. The referee found that there
was an agreement between the defendant
| and that defendant should pay one
| fifth of the purchase price in cash, and
give notes for the balance, and B would
| then deliver good bond for title, but b
did not comply herewith, but afterwards
sold the lots to the highest bidders for
| cash and made deeds, etc. The referee
| found as a conclusion of law that was
not entitled to take anything, and that
the notes had no consideration to support
| them. Held error in sustaining the
ruling of the referee.
The plaintiff contended, however, that
| the amended answer raised no issue, and
| that it was a sham plea, and that, not
withstanding the court sustained the
| finding of the referee, the plaintiff was
entitled to judgment because the amended
answer raised no issue of the delivery
of the bond for title; held that this con-
| tention cannot be sustained.
| Taylor VS.. Russell, 119 n. c. 80, and
Bank VS.. Loughran, 122 N. C. Cos, cited
and distinguished.