Moore v. Barksdale

• Decision Date: 04 August 1896
• Citation: 25 S.E. 529
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: MOORE. v. BARKSDALE et al.

25 S.E. 529

MOORE.

v.BARKSDALE et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Aug. 4, 1896.

Vendor and Purchaser — False Representations—Statement op Opinion— Injunction.

1. A statement, by a vendor of lots to a purchaser, that pipes would be laid to the property connecting with a system of waterworks, is not a representation of a fact which will authorize a rescission of the sale on the ground of false representations.

2. A sale of property under a trust deed will not be enjoined because the trustee has adver-tised to sell all of the property, consisting of several lots, while the law authorizes the sale of only so much as is necessary to satisfy the debt secured, the presumption being that in making the sale the law will be followed.

Appeal from hustings court of Roanoke; John W. Woods, Judge.

Bill by Charles E. Moore against T. P. Barksdale, trustee, and others. Decree dismissed on demurrer, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

B. Lacy Hoge, for appellant.

Hardaway & Payne, for appellees.

KEITH, P. Charles E. Moore filed his bill In the hustings court for the city of Roanoke, In which he avers that he purchased from one W. P. Wheatley, of the city of Baltimore, four lots, described in the deed of conveyance as lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, in block 34, as shown on the map of the "River View Land & Manufacturing Company"; that he made the cash payment required by his contract of purchase, assumed certain other payments, and executed his negotiable notes for the deferred payments, securing the same by deed of trust upon the property, in which T. P. Barksdale was the trustee; that since making the purchase, he had erected on one of the lots a dwelling house at a cost of nearly $2,000; that all of the original purchase price of the lots had been paid except about $1,400; that at the time he made the purchase he was induced to believe that pipes would be laid which would bring these lots into connection with a water supply from the Roanoke Gas & Water Company, but that this had never been done; that the trustee, Barksdale, had advertised the lots for sale by public auction, and proposed to sell the whole of the property, whereas, he should be permitted to sell only so much as would be sufficient to pay the unpaid purchase money. The prayer of the bill was that the sale might be enjoined. The injunction was awarded, and upon the hearing the defendants Barksdale and William P. Wheatley demurred to the bill, the demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed. To this...