The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-10-07
ISUH IS DECIDED
AGAINST STRAUS
Court Holds That EIe Must Re-
fund Mitchell $1,000 on
Sale Of House.
PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED
Plaintiff Claimed That Owner
Misrepresented Condition
in Arranging Deal.

ROBERT Mitchell. member of the firm
Oh Mitchell & Hotchkiss, wins his suit
/ against Charles Straus, of 1927 Par,,
Avenue. under decree entered yes
.eruaS oE Judge Moncure, in the Chan
Gerry Court, annulling a contract enter
ca into between the plaintiff and de-
ienuant for the sale OF a house and lot
at l101 West Avenue.
n review of the evidence, as pre-
scented by Judge Moncure shows that
Straus built the house at 11o1 West
Avenue In 1902 and occupied it as his
residence until 1910. In August. 1912
through his agent. j. II. Ramsey, he
gold the house and lot to Mitchell for
$4,000. representing the house. accord
Ing TO Mitchelrs testimony, to be
sound, solid and stable" Shortly ar
t" the sale was effected the house was
condemned as unsafe by the Building
Inspector and has since remained un-
occupied.
Charged Misrepresentation.
Mitchell ut once brought suit for re-
session of the contract and for the
| recovery of the $4,000 which he had
paid in on the deal. lie charged that
StrauS knew at the time of selling that
The walls of the house were cracked,
and that the foundation was insecure.
and that in showing him over the prop
erty he concealed it's defects. Counsel
for Straus denied all these allegations.
| declaring that the property was sold
tc Mitchell after his personal inspec-
tion and at his own risk
Evidence brought out during the trial
Of the case developed the facts that
the house was built on made ground
| filed in to depth of twelve feet or
whore, and that it lacked an indepen-
dent wall on the west sharing. instead.
the cast wall of the house at 1903 West
~ enue. likewise the property of Straus.
| w. B. Davis brick contractor, who
| supervised the building of the house
ut 1101. 1t was brought out. had adj
! vised Straus against emitting the in
dependent wall and warned him that
it would endangcr the building.
| In his review of the evidence, Judge
Moncure holds that Straus knew of the
insecure foundation and of the bad con :
dition of the walls, and that in omit
tirg to mention them at the time of
| the SALE he misreprescnted his prop
| crty when he described it as sound and
sta BILE.
Right to RcpudIate.
Ir support of his view, Judge Mon
| cure quotes from a Virginia court de-
| cison pertinent TO the case. as follows:
mo man is bound by a bargain in
which he has been deceived by fraud
or misrepresentation Whenever a
purchaser has been induced by a ma
| terial Misrepresentation of the vendor
| to buy, he has right to rcpudiate the
contract-a right correlative with that
of the vendee to disapprove the sale
whom he has been defrauded.'
Carrying out his views in the case,
Judge Moncure entered the following
order:
The rcscission prayed for will be
granted and Il decree VIII be entered
accordingly
"Straus must pay Mitchell $4,000 and
interest. all interest paid Straus by
Mitchell, all taxes paid by Mitchell, with
| interest from the dates OF the rcspec-
| tive payments. less all rents paid by
Straus, with interest from respective
payments"