Davis, Et Vir v. Battle

(dissenting).—I am unable to concur in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Chapman, or to now adhere to the original opinion filed herein on March 4th, 1938.

It is my opinion that the decree of the Chancellor was correct because Mary I. Davis’ estate was benefited arid enriched by the procuring of a sales contract and the escrow of $5,600.00 by plaintiffs below in finding a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy the real estate of Mary I. Davis listed with the plaintiffs, and that this contract alone benefited and enriched her estate within the meaning of Section 2, Article XI, of the…