The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-03-17

s6f .5ef .N.s7s f'Hsf1S1S2 zos12 E.1fs.3
q. : ---::------.--
j thereto the. entire output OF the Oriental
4 mills for year under certain cond-
i lions and a specified price Subsequent
i ~ the Oriental Lumber Company sold
i it's business to the Blades Company ana
4 entered into n contract with the Blades
i TO execute tho contract and to indemnify
i and save harmless the Oriental Com
I, pany. a. difference arose between he
as to the condition In which the lumber.
/, was to he delivered. Tho Oriental Com
pany conceded thu, correctness Of the
CONTRACT Mer ae The Oriental Company efrects
O. settlement with the American Com
pany at an agrced figure and = hen en-.
tered suit ng.linst tho Blades Lac Company !,
the lower court to allow, plaintiff to show
i that there was a verbal con tract be-
tween It and the American Lumber COM
4 pany was assigned MS error. s&
\ SEIn its opinion the court says, as to this
i question, that If theN contract between
the plaintifr and defendant IS strictly
\ the indennit ee cannot recover until he.
|-llns suffered loss; but that the contract
! In this case is not one OF. mere inder m
alternative to deliver the lumber or to In
8demnify and save harmless. but Is Q
| direct and positive engag cement to de-
yer The ot
merely an agreement to Jindem nj ana n
save harmless, but an L express promise
TO pay q debt or Bdo some ,pnrt icular. act.
tho failuresot the &indemnit tor 10 crfornl5
tho act agreed gives the ind enlnitee g
right of8actlon be- fore he !. has suffered
any direct damage himself: It Is u held
did not correctly PROFOUND the law, and
| THAT the paintings instruction did so
and should have been given q he court
also holds that ee rnn
Humber was not admissible / not set
lsupz in. the plea ings but, when 4 p roperly
pleaded Is clearly admisa ae !. and an
lftablished Is a question for the jury UNI
der proper Instructions. u.
An Interesting Richmond Case:
IN the case 3of Blair vs. the Security.
| OF the city Of Richmond, the opinion
of the court is writtentby Judge Stafford
81. 1Vhittle and greyerses the jud gment&oi
the lower court md reminds the case. a
ayerd let was rendered 4 In the low r% curt
giving jud gment gninst 3 lar 4 or 9.oV.
his snare OF an o blign ton as par
Elm the 5Sfrm johnson brothers .g!T-
5corporated The case liz Of especial 7, IN
|fterest inasnuch as upon It's determlnal, I1
depends the Tia BIZ OF other stoc gig
crs The firm named y, +, S. /, !, =, no.
TERED stock holdersE OF he . ohns l3rot hers
I$Co.,# entered into an agreement VIII sthe
Security Bar for the q
liable for the portion Of the entire
debt represented by that Of. his !. STOCK .e,
to the entire stock Of the firm was va
Iscontendcd by the firm that the agreement
lBWas not to become binding upon al the
same. II appears that before his wa J; (, = :
SANK mr. Brought lgh this suit and the lower
court gave jud gnent for y. G, -
| s4lIt appears that the signing % the gree
Of tho stockholders Of Johnson Brothers
| 81 Co.,8for he purpose Of dcyislng ways
and means Of relieving the company from
financial and fhs ml a nes
Of raising money was recommended by a
! committee and adopted. /. In It's tatement
OF the case the court states that.the T
was evidence tend ng II to h shoW /. tina I'll z!
Igthese meetings, at which the cashier ana
Representatives of the Security Bank, a.
fBeIrnes Blair. was present. It was uh V..ea
| stood and agreed that the agreement was
| mot to become operative or binding ktpon
any Of the stockholders unless and untll
had been signed ny al; but was !, 70 pe e
bank had knowledge and q upon those
| with, and that the paper was prepared
| with that understanding OF Wnich IN, tne
terms was executed by Harrison Blair
/ and other stockhol ID ers. (, -. X a
| S3 This constituted Blairs main dcle nce -
The first assignment Of error 1s 70 !, .tils
STOCK to c kholders who signed the d agreement
| to prove the statement made by a:
4 Beirne Blair, the cashier and re presentia-
Live OF the bank. to- them respectively,
! that the ma per- was executed by the pa r
ties, Including the defendant with me me
IA Ag The court holds that the bank, being q
corporation, must of necessity have car
Red on It's business through the medium W
Of Of officers and agents, and where tn. The
i ticular transaction devolyed1 UPON ~. ~
agent, stSfollows that as to that business,
Ibis acts and declaratlons, with IN the scope
OF his employment and n ths perioe
/ Edence against the principal; that the ,ad Z
4 missions or declarations Il Of a. S Beirne
1 blair were In the line of his duty az
| REPRESENTATIVE of the bank With respect
Btoithe business In hand, and were, there
fore. admissible in evidence against the
Two Two Instructions were asked for by the
| defendant which told the Jul y that ~, ~
u the express understanding that It was Y, not
4 10 ne delivered to the bank or binding
1 until executed by all the preteIl'ed STOCK,
holders of Johnson Brot hers d Go.E ana
| delivered to the bank, etc, then the agree
1 ment is no t binding upon the defendant,
| and they should find for the q fendant,
These are held to have been properly Z re- g;
element or knowledge on The, part of the
4 bank Of the alleged conditional execu-
4 ftion5 and delivery of tho contract. I'D
4 .The first Of the Two structi 10 ms SUI
| fic!ency Of the defonsc. 4 hat the contract
4 was delivered by tho defendant With&tke