The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-03-23

+
the decisions of, therEcourts along this
line both IN favor of and opposed to the
view he takes. and concludes that there
was no error In tho Judgment Of the cir
cult court OF Orange county. and that 1t
should be affirmed.
Sufficiency Of Notice.
The opinion in the case of Preston VS..
Johnson. by Judge Wnittle- deals solely
with the question of the sufficiency of the
notice of sale under which the trustee
In deed of trust sold the land in contro-
versy.
BY the deed OF trust 1t was provided.
among other. thinss. that in the event OF
a sale It. 3should be- made at such place
| In the county where tlIes1and- was situ-
ated as the trustees might determine, and
after advertisement OF tho time. place
and terms aof the sale for such time and
in such manner as he should deem adj
vantageous, for cash sufficient, to dcfray
the expenses Of executing the trust and
to discharge the debt; the residue. IL
any. of the purchase price to be3 on such
credit and secured in such manner as the
grahtor might direct. or, In default of.
such direction. as the trustee might de-
termine.
Publication Of notice of the time and
place Of sale was made in a weekly
newspaper published In the town of
Hampton. but there was no not ice of adj
verttsement of the terms Of sale. and that
fact was not recited in the deed from tho
trustee to the purchaser. Sale of the land
was made at the courthouse in Hampton
on an inclement day, in the presence of
very few persons. to Johnson. the cestuE
que trust, at less than one-third Its value,
and after one other bid made by
kinsman OF Johnson, who was specially
Invited to attend the sale Neither the
grantor nor the appellant, Preston, to
whom the land had been sold subject to
the deed OF trust, was apprised of the sale
or afforded an opportunity to prevent 1t
or in any manner to protect his interest.
The opinion holds that a trustee for
| sale must act toward both dchor and
creditor with perfectN fairness and Inn
partially. and in all material particulars
must substantially conform to the stipu-
5lationss of the deed of trust. It Is there
fore said that it was the duty Of the.
trustee In this case to have given Pres
ton an opportunity to define the terms OF
sale with regard to the excess OF the pur-3
chase price beyond what was required to
discharge the debt and expenses of sale:
and he. ought also to have advertised the
terms of sale as prescribed by the deed.
1T Is declared. therefore, that without
intending. In any n,anner or, to Eimpute bad
faith to the trustee in this INSTANCE, his
failure to observe these essential pros
visions of the deed renders the transact
ton invalid; and the decree appea led
from which sustained the sale Is reversed
Question Of Contract.
The opinion by Judge Harrison lrevers..
|ins the Judgment OF the Circuit Court OF, Of
York county IN the ease or Safih N, Ma;
| Charles Fraser agreed to furnish TO Carlln
IS Co. piles for constructing sea-Wall
and buildings at, the Naval Academy q. az
contract, to conform to the requirements
Of the architect making the drawings. and
and of the englnstnnr Y, q t rs
called for piles ofswhlte oak, Georgia yel-
low pine, spruce, hemlock, or Norway W \
pine. Is " III :, q * rs .
In executing this contract Frasers first
prce Of Which were
rejected blythe government authorities as
'ts ese pss no
s Waa mae aS SS carin Go, made otheS
for seestHTng dhe
OF Frraser'ss shipment pa ylrg nm; $50 for.
Frssss E s Sssn 5.
count count Which included ss,,s7a ge, the balance
pfss''u re1seted and the account sued on
WA alleged III IIlt
flalnaets \ sus tanned by Fraser in conse-i
uuence Of the failure Of Carlin & Co.
TO perform the contras ,re fer,red TO- s'al-
seton Of $50, T09.42 q loss which they
alleged they sustained BY reason 81 TIL, the
Jury rendered. Il verdict In. Frnser's favor
fors s6,9ll, 90, for which D. the court gave
judi rlent.ts G tsg, o. IN
d tThe Supreme Court hold Chat the lowe {, !.
court erred 1,inE adn init fns sy dence Which
tended ia vnry and don't dlSt he written
contract sheweelisa the. parties because 1t
was not presented that there was any
mistakesin the prsnarnt ioneand execution.
of 1t, and no fraud sin%connectlon With IT
IVA q ither8 n LEGGED or proven. that there
Vas Was no agreement shown to change, or
! 10 lwaipa any OF tho terms Of the written
contract after It wasg executed; and that
u,iestinn.of fraud g9,f fraud .lent epllceal-s
Ilnent by Carl y 4 fact siyyi!s
' and should not have been given. t'tWinis
othhr Instructions which direct ed he jury