The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-07-04

that much merchantable ore on the land
capap,ll ! OF being mined ut a reasonable
each month was to be paid by tho lessee.
whothor y was mined or not, but he
Was sr to nave the right to mine the deficit
again paying therefor. Tho Lessee might
also at any time rescind and cancel the
n lease by paying ne lessor the amount Of
r,, ilG IRON Company gave notice to
os.'ngo n, on March ", 1900, that on the LIST
or April all work on tho leased property
merchantablc orc could not be found on
the land capable or being mined al
r r;,a ,..,! cost. Upon the work being
abandoned Olingcr Instituted this SUIT
4 the lower court n Judgment for ;l.50l5O
:, Y pom the writ Of error allowed by the
SSn;.Sslnns Court. Judge Harrison hands
ho 40 XII, me opinion Of the court. in which
submitted 10 the Jury was. ibid the
Iron Company make Q bona fde effort
70 discover rs ,s and mine the pre- sis did It
prise without having madej proper and
ore?' - =.
The lower court gave two instructions,
and confusing, because they Invited the
jury to consider whether the mining
lease, or contract, aEas Cancelled under
Mns clause 81 the s9nrac
that fact. It is said that on the con-
trary, the whole evidence showed that
the CONTRACT was abandoned because as
cient quantity and quality to be mined
at a reasonable cost7
1t is said that the jury should find
for the plaintiff the minimum royalties
due him under the contract. II they be-
llevcd from the evidence that the de-
PENDANT company acted In bad faith and
abandoned the enterprise without having
made proper and sufficient EFFORT to ina
and mime the ore.
. For the same reason is was held to
have been error to put an addendum to
another instruction which referred to
cancellation OF the contract under the
same clause.
These were the only errors found, the
other, assignments being overruled. The
payment Is reversed and the case re-
manded for new trial.
LAND TITLES.
In Dunn eli ais. vs. Showers ct ais,
Ion, which affirms the decree of the
CIRCUIT Court of Bland county.
!, The controversy in this case was as to
GUS tracts Of land. which by contract, or
title bond. dated September 5, 1900 James
NJ, Showers and his wife contracted TO
sheraton Of $4,000 divided Into three
three bonds. u q &. is5
of the lands in May 1891, and made a
bonds between May j, ISL. and july
1872 it but did not pay any Of them IN
payments were made to ames NJ. Stow
ers. several being made after the death
of Mrs. Showers on January. 1888.
or these lands 9-14 were owned by Mrs.
Showers. who acquired them as the sole
heir Of her father, Joseph Lambert. who
died in March. 1850. The title to the
q hs lands was anued
parties who. acquired title from broth
er Of Joseph Lambert. who owned the
lands Jointly with his brother, and who
A suit at law having been Instituted by
Showers to recover the purchase money
evidenced BY the bonds, Dunn and his
upon the Showers and the children and
heirs at law of Mrs. Showers to exhibit |
title to the court In order that 1t might be
title might be adjudicated, SO that if good
appellants dunn and others) might have |
proper conveyance executed. and II not
good that the contract by which Showers
might be rescinded and the purchase
money theretofore paid refunded Mrs
Showers died without executing deed for
the lands, the purchase money bonds
never having been paid, and II seems
that appellants were Of opinion that after /
her death they could not acquire good
1t was the opinion of the Circuit Court
that the contract for the sale OF the lands !,
was valid and enforclbe, Notwithstanding
the death OF Mrs. Showers; that any ques-
ton of the loss of the general warranty
of the wife. II ordinarily sufficient to bar
specific performance was waived by Dunn
and his associates; who after her death
recognized the contract as subsistinga by
retaining possession Of the land and MAX
Ing payments thereon. It was. therefore,,
decreed that the title to the land was
FOR the sale Of the land be speclhcally
enforced. and that to. that end. James
A; Showers recover OF appellants sl,25S.79,
with interest on s15s;62, from October i
chase money due for the land. az
The Supreme Court declares that 1t Is
settled that a contract made BY a mar
ried woman for the sale Of hen statutory
separate estate may be enforced in a 4
court of equity In suits for or against
her, and holds that the deed rendered by
and four OF his children. three Of whom
were then adults, conveying his interest.
and that OF all Of the children and heirs
Of his wife. with the exception of two,
.yeyance Of the interest Of the Infants by
a special commissioner, in accordance with
the decree Of the lower court. vested In
able title to the lands. The defects in
the title suggested by tho commissioner,
OF Margaret Perkey and Barbara Scott
to- unite in the deeds from them to
James NJ Showers, are not considered
important. the court being of opinion
that the fact that Showers and the
appellants, together had continuous act
ual. open and exclusive possession Of the
hnds for more than thirty years before
this suit was brought. together with the
fact that the deeds from Barbara Scott
and Margaret Perkey are perfect upon