The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-06-18

: liams Medicine Co., Schenectady N. y.
Robertson under seal. In Ii Robertson
agreed that In consideration OF one 1 dol-
lar In hand paid, tho receipt ofswhich
was, nckn Wledged, he would sell Elan
the, AaG shares OF stock d the price above
stated. Elan to have the right 10 make
the purchase under the agreement until
December ]. 1904 In separate letter
Robertson agreed TO give Elan, or his
assigns. o rebate Of s., 1898 If tho option
these agreements TO O. -. Sands on N o.
ivember 81, 1904. for value received, ana
on the same day Sands notified ebert
6tyon Of lis desire 10 exe rcise the option
by the purchase Of the 4se shares Of
he's hal sold the stock to another party,
and refused to receive the purchase price
rendered 3a AZ IS Il s
Charles Fl. Watkins fllcd his bill IN
the. chancery Court on to compel specific
forth thnt#the contra ct had been assign,
ed to him; that Sands had acted for him
sinthc purchase Of the stock. etc.
30 An amended bill was subsequently, filed
by which w. D. Stuart, president of the
Richmond Hardware Compan to whom
Robertson claimed to have sold the ock
before the tender OF the purchase price
under the option by Sands. was made a
party. # q. .R
authorized Elan By the agreement Of
October 20. 1904. to sell the 1876 shares of
stock TO one Springer only. at the price
Of lo per share Ihs eenteGM9n by
saying that the agreement . makes no
mention Of Springers name though some
testimony was improperly admitted to
the effect that there was talk between u
Of the stock to Springer, but that9sth t| ne
Limitation has no founda ton In fact, and
could nos have been engrafted upon the
agreement except by mutual consent OF
both parties. .4 .85 r. Sf3
e. II Is held that the lower court I'm.
properly admitted evidence on behalf OF
Robertson as to sta tements made W
Stuart to Robertson in the absence OF
considered at length. because the case
was taken from the Jury by the instruc-i
B II Is 4 decided that the contract be-
seal, which conclusvely imports q cons
sIderatfon, Robertson should not be per-
:mItted to deny Certainly as to watkins.
who, IN his dealing with Elan, undo ubt-
eddy relied upon the positive rep res
.he (Robertson) had received The. consider,
alton Necessary to its validity and
binding force. This being the conclu-
sion reached. It 10 held that the instrucI;
the appellants (Nos. /. III and 81 given
and for error in this respect ana Tor n
Improper admission OF evidence Y, the
mandeti for new trial. no opinion be-.
Ing expressed as to the weight OF 4 the
evidence. q. "a
The Same Corporation,
In Wright Caesar Tobacco Company VS.
"a. rIoen & Co, there was a recovery by
Hoen g. Co IN the Lazy ny, and ~ Equity, Court
from May. 1903. until paid .4f The suit
upon IA contract made BY the Wright
surburg Tobacco Conn any.n and the only
question presented to the supreme e. Court
Caesar. ca, ass Tobacco Company and the
Wright Surburg Tobacco COMPANY were
one ana the same corporation. Il being;
stated that the evidence sufficiently.
rendered the verdict and establishes the
liability Of the Wright -surburg Toba eco
Company to Hoen & Co. 4. 5 3s S;
e. After reviewing the facts. the opinion
DECLARES that the doeumen.arX ey ya enc
able doubt that tho fN7rI ght-c Caesar To-
i,acco C.onDanv5 was but continuatloh
OF the corporation known as the Wright;
surhurE Tobacco Company and ~ won asii
the verdict aside had the jury found
1T, Il Is further found that the questions
of fact were pronerlya SUBMITTED 10 tiny
Jury; and the Judgment Of the trial
court Is nff1rmed, The opinion Is by
Judge Keith.
Limited Contract.
u Judge Harrison handed down the opin-i
ion IN Il Mayo. Hysore g Co. vs., Phil
adelnhia Textile Machinery Company,
CITY of Richmond being affirmed.
Under contract between tho parties
tho Philadelphia Textile Machinery Com
.pnny was to nay Mayo, TIysore 4 II Co.
at the rate OF $4,000 a. year during the
leges and considerations. In the con-
tract It was provided that II should
take effect on November l, 1902, land
shall continue for the period Of eighteen
months from that date. and thereafter
tntii SIX months shall .5t have elapsed
after written notice shall have been re-
=.= m
$5sits ~, s.8, -,