The Sunday telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1914-1927, 1916-05-14

WEIGH Publishing Co. VS.. johnson
Realty Co. ct AL; Mcdowell county;
reversed; decree for plaintiff; re-
manded; POHenbarger, judge.
j. An oral contract for the sale
OF town lot having certain mum
Der aud dimensions fixed by the plat.
made by designation OF its location.
in the absence of the plat, and
describing 1t as regards dimensions.
is Interpreted as being sale of the
entire lot, not sale of portion
thereof, determinable by the front.
ages mentioned in the erroneous de
scription by dimensions.
2. A town lot, like farm or
tract of land. is an entity in itself
and description of II as the sub
iect matter of contract OF sale, Is
not restricted by further descriptive
matter merely purporting TO give It's
dimensions without any intimation OF
intent to sell less than the entire lot.
8. A mistake on the part of the
vendor of such lot, as to Its area
or dimensions, inducing a sale there
of at smaller price than he would
have asked, had he been cognizant
of its size, not in any way occasioned
by conduct of the vcndee, constitutes
no ground for RECESSION of the con-
tract, nor does this inadvertent fall
ure to specify portion of the lot as
the subject of sale at the prlcc
named.
a. Nor, II he has permitted the
vendee to take possession OF the lot
partly perform the contract and al
ter his position, by improvement OF
the property and location OF his bust.
ness thereon, will such mistake JUS
tIfy refusal of court of equity to
compel specific performance OF the
contract.
S. One who has purchased land
in the possession of another under
an executory contract of sale, either
oral or written, takes its subject to
the contractual right of such other
person. and If the latter has right
10 have specific performance of the
contract by his vendor, the second
purchaser holds the legal title. II he
has obtained 1t, in trust for the
equitable owner and will be required
by court of equity to convey 1t to
him.
G. C. George VS.. Norfolk & West.
ern Ry. co. ct al; Mercer county;
7 Judgment reversed; verdict set aside;
new trial allowed; Pofrenbarger,
judge.
/, In an action for false arrest
and Imprisonment. facts and circum-
stances, attending the arrest and the
prosecution and bearing materially
upon the character and extent of the
plaintiffs injury and the motive, prr-
nose and mental state of the defend
ant, not admissible for the purpose OF
proving justification OF the acts COM
blamed of, are admissible for the
purpose OF mitigating the damages.
2. An offense committed in one
state does not justify arrest of the
perpetrator thereof in another. 9TH
erwise than upon a warrant for his
arrest as a fugitive from justice.
8. A judgment of conviction in \
court of state other than that in
which the offense was committed IS
void for want of Jurisdiction, and
cannot be relied upon in an action
for false arrest, as proof or evidence
of proceeding; but 1t is admissible as
evidence upon the issue as to the
amount of damages recoverable.
4. False arrest or false imprison~
ment gives an absolute right to re-
cover at least nominal damages, and
neither probably cause to believe the,
injured party guilty of an offense nor