National Banks. Powers. Leasing and Improvement of Real Estate

1903 The Virginia Law Register  
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
more » ... ntent at 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 1903.] NOTES OF CASES. 765 reasons analogous to those for the defense of impossibility in an ordinary action on the contract. See Sedg. Dam., 8th ed, sec. 1006. But where the breach is wilful, there is no reason for reducing the damages, and full compensation is allowed. Western R. R. v. Babcock, 6 Met. (Mass.), 346; Barbour v. Nichols, 3 R. I. 187; AUlen v. Atkinson, 21 Mich. 351. Nor is the principal case supported by the decisions of its own jurisdiction, for the authority cited as extending the rule in Virginia is, in so far as it is in point, confined to cases of failure of title, and two decisions tend to establish the proper rule of damages. Wilson v. Spencer, 11 Leigh (Va.), 261; Newbrough v. Walker, 8 Gratt. (Va.), 16.' The Michigan Law Review thus reports and comments on the same case: "The defendant contracted to sell trees to the plaintiff, which in a previous suit between the same parties, had been held to be realty. The defendant having received a better offer, refused to perform. In an action for damages for breach of the contract, Held, that the measure of damages is the contract price, and not the difference between the contract price and the market value at the time of the breach. By the contract price is meant the purchase money actually paid, and interest thereon. Stuart v. Pennis (1902) (Va.), 42 S. E. Rep. 667. "The court in this case used the term contract price, and yet gave it the meaning of the purchase price paid. There are several rules by which the measure of damages is ascertained. One adopted by some courts is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the time of the breach. The weight of authority is with Hopkins v. Lee, 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 109, in allowing the difference between the contract price and the market value as the measure of damages, or, if the contract price has been paid, then the full market value. See Sedgwick on Dam. 111, 1012, and cases there cited. According to a few cases, the rule of nominal damages and the consideration paid, is established. Bain v. Fothergill, L. R. 6 Ex. 59, L. R. 7 H. L. 158; Buck v. SerriU, 80 Pa. St. 413; McCafferty v. Griswold, 99 Pa. St. 270. According to the decisions of Virginia this case is correctly decided, but it is contrary to the weight of authority in the United States. Upon principle it is weak in that it allows the vendor to break his contract with impunity. The property having risen in value, he refuses to perform his contract, and this rule does not give any value to that contract in favor of the vendee. Should the property fall in value, the vendor can still hold the vendee. The effect of the rule is unjust." Our criticism of the decision conceded its possible correctness under previous rulings in this State, but pointed out its rank injustice, and suggested alteration of the rule by act of the legislature. NATIONAL BANKS-POWERS--LEASING AND IMPROVEMENT OF REAL ESTATE. A case of much importance to national banks contemplating the purchase or leasing of real estate for the erection of a bank building, which need not be 1903.] NOTES OF CASES. 765
doi:10.2307/1099662 fatcat:mnalwssevzef5a5r3h76d7cdai