Early Journal Content On JSTOR, Free To Anyone in The World
Uploaded by
Patrick DeatoEarly Journal Content On JSTOR, Free To Anyone in The World
Uploaded by
Patrick DeatoEarly
Journal
Content
on
JSTOR,
Free
to
Anyone
in
the
World
This
article
is
one
of
nearly
500,000
scholarly
works
digitized
and
made
freely
available
to
everyone
in
the
world
by
JSTOR.
Known
as
the
Early
Journal
Content,
this
set
of
works
include
research
articles,
news,
letters,
and
other
writings
published
in
more
than
200
of
the
oldest
leading
academic
journals.
The
works
date
from
the
mid-‐seventeenth
to
the
early
twentieth
centuries.
We
encourage
people
to
read
and
share
the
Early
Journal
Content
openly
and
to
tell
others
that
this
resource
exists.
People
may
post
this
content
online
or
redistribute
in
any
way
for
non-‐commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-‐jstor/individuals/early-‐
journal-‐content.
JSTOR
is
a
digital
library
of
academic
journals,
books,
and
primary
source
objects.
JSTOR
helps
people
discover,
use,
and
build
upon
a
wide
range
of
content
through
a
powerful
research
and
teaching
platform,
and
preserves
this
content
for
future
generations.
JSTOR
is
part
of
ITHAKA,
a
not-‐for-‐profit
organization
that
also
includes
Ithaka
S+R
and
Portico.
For
more
information
about
JSTOR,
please
contact
[email protected].
38 VIRGINIA LAW REGISTER. [May,
WREN & OTHERS V. MONCURE & OTHERS.-Decided at Richmond,
December 2, 1897.-Riely, J:
1. RESCISSION-Falserepresentations-Ignorance of Falsity-Facts-Opinions. A
false representation of a material fact, constituting an inducement to the contract,
on which the purchaser has the right to rely, is ground for rescission of the con-
tract, although the party making the representation was ignorant as to whether it
was true or false. The misrepresentation, however, must as a general rule, be the
statement of a material fact, made for the purpose of procuring the contract, as
distinguished from a mere matter of opinion unless the parties are dealing on un-
equal terms and one has means of information not equally open to the other.
2. RESCISSION--Representation that land is suitablefor building purposes. In the
absence of any concealment by the vendor of land, or of any effort to prevent in-
quiry as to the facts, his statement that land is available for building sites and
purposes is the mere expression of an opinion, which does not entitle the purchaser
to a rescission of the contract, though he and others may be of opinion that it is
not so suitable.
3. AGENTTO SELL LAND-Offer to becomeco-purchaser-Failure to disclose his
interest in the land. If the agent for the sale of land, in order to effect a sale, in-
duces a purchaser to join him in the purchase on terms of equality, and fails to
disclose that he owns an interest in the land, this constitutes a fraud upon the
purchaser and avoids the sale at the election of the purchaser.
4. CHANCERY PLEADING-Fraudulent representationsnot relied on in pleadings-
Proof confinedto pleadings. Fraudulent representations or concealments not relied
on in the pleadings cannot be set up in the evidence. The allegations and proof
must agree. A recovery will not be allowed in a case, though proved, which
differs essentially from that alleged in the bill.
5. RESCISSION-Fraudulentrepresentationscharged must be common to all of the
complainants. Where several complainants unite in one bill, by which they seek
to have their contracts of purchase of real estate rescinded on the ground of fraud-
ulent respresentations, the representations must be common to all the complain-
ants. This is the ground upon which they are allowed to unite in one suit. Mis-
representations to some only of the complainants are not admissible in evidence.
ATLANTIC & DANVILLE RAILWAY Co. v. REIGER.-Decided at
Richmond, December 2, 1897.-Buchanan, J. Absent, Harrison, J:
1. CHANGE OF VENUE-Prejudice. In an action against a railroad company
to recover damages for a personal injury, the fact that a prejudice exists against
the company in the city in which the action is pending, because the company had
removed its shops from the city and abandoned the city as a terminal, in violation
of a contract with the city, is not sufficient to justify a change of venue of the
action, especially when the witnesses, by whom the feeling against the company is
shown, express the opinion that a perfectly fair and impartial jury to try the
case can be gotten in the city.
2. CHANGE OF VENUE-Prejudice against corporations. In an action against a
corporation a juror cannot be asked on his voir dire whether he is prejudiced
against corporations.
