The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-12-14

and thats the pla1ntlHs nao lie right, as
lienors, to redeem the land which had
been sold for taxes. ard that inasmuch as
Valandingham owed for waste committed
and rents collected sum more than suffi-
cieut to reimburse him for all that he had
paid out for taxes. the decree appealed
from very properly set of the one demand
against the other.
STATUTE OF, FRAUDS.
Rahm VS.. klerner s. Sons. From the
Circuit Court of the city of Richmond.
Opinion by Judge Buchanan.
This was an action in assunpsLt brought
BY the plaintiff n error to recover dam
ages for orencil OF an alleged contract by
which the defendants had agreed to en-
p,oy the plaintiff as agent to sell their
furniture upon commission in a certain
territory AS the agreement was not to
De performed within a year, 1t was neces-
sary under the Statute Of Frauds that it
or some memorandum thereof should be
in writing. Clause I, sec. $40 Code OF
1887.
Plaintiff introduced correspondence De-
tween himself and defendants in refer
euce to his employment. The court be-
low being OF the opln on that the letters
submitted to the jury did not show
completed contract, so instructed them.
and they found a verdict for the defend
ants This action of the court is assigned
as error.
The Court of AppenIs in summing up
its opinion said: "It was necessary that
every essential term Of his agreement
should be evidenced by writing Except
the consideration, Code. sec. 2Sio). and
having failed to show convicted con-
tract in writing he IS not entitled to re-
| cover. and the court did not err in so
nstructing the jury. Its judgment must,
therefore. be reaffirmed.
LIMITS TO EQUITY JURISDICTION.
Galloway VS.. Webster. From the Circuit
Court Of Franklin county. Opinion by
Judge Cardwel.
This was a case in which the plaintiff
in possession of certain lands fled bill
in equity praying for an injunction to re-
strain the alleged waste upon the prop
erty by the defendant ind asking tor
| determination Of the boundary lines be-
tween them and other things. The Court
| OF Appeals said this is clearly a case
which should have been dismissed on the
hearing in the court below for want of
Jurisdiction, and, therefore, the decree
appealed from will be reversed and an
nued, md this court will enter such de-
cree as the Circuit Court should have
entered, dismiss;ng the bill.
THE SUMMARY.
Following is the summary OF the pro-
| coed .ngs of the court yesterday:
Judge James Keith, p
Eau I,;indinsham vs. Bueni Vista I'M
prcvemenr Company CIRCUIT Court Of
Brena Vista. Affirmed.
Judge r. Fl. C;,rGwcll.
Galloway VS. Webster. Circuit Court Of
Franklin county Reversed bill. Dismissed.
John \. Buchanan.
Rahm VS. K4erner & Sons. Circuit Court
for the city of Ric:l aond. Affirmed
Judge George NJ. Harrison.
Lcngley VS. Conmonwe alth. County
Court Of WASN'T, gton county. Affirmed.
City OF Richmond vs.. L.eaker. Law and
Equity Court city OF Richmond. Reversed
Judge a. 4. Pnlesar.
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
VS.. Eison, trustee. Circuit Court of Flu
wanna county. Reversed.
Turnbull ct al. vs.. Mann. Hastings Court
city of Petersburg. Affirmed.
Leesourg and Point of Rocks Us. Com
mCnWcalth for. etc Circuit Court of Lou
doun county. Writ of error md supe-se-
IDEAS Bond, $3.50.
Bond VS.. Kelly. Circuit Court Of Wise
county. Appeal. NJ bond
Smith VS.. Smith. Corporation Court Of
Bristol. Appeal refused.
Fidelity Company vs.. Gayle Hastings
Court city Of Roanoke. Refused.
Lee, Taylor and Snead VS.. Willard Cir
cult Court OF Franklin. Dismissed fer
want Ct jurisdiction.
Shoemaker vs.. Bowman. Petition to re-
hear. Petition refused
Scott vs.. Moore. Petition to rehear. Pc
tition refused
McDaniel's adnx. VS.. Lynchburg Cot
ton Mills Co. Argued by Fred. Harper
and \. S. Hester for appellants, and Cap
tain c. NJ Blackford and p. H. c. Cab
ell for appellees and submitted.
The next case to be called is Fitzger-
AIDS aXecl1triX VS. IrbV-NO 81 on ar
gument docket.