Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Volum 83D. Bottom, Superintendent of Public Print., 1888 Some vols. also contain reports of cases in the General Court of Virginia. |
Andre utgaver - Vis alle
Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Volum 61 Virginia. Supreme Court of Appeals Uten tilgangsbegrensning - 1871 |
Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Volum 33 Virginia. Supreme Court of Appeals Uten tilgangsbegrensning - 1867 |
Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Volum 68 Virginia. Supreme Court of Appeals Uten tilgangsbegrensning - 1877 |
Vanlige uttrykk og setninger
acres action Adm'r administrator affirmed aforesaid alleged answer Appeal from decree appellant appellees applied assignment Beavers bill bond cars cause charge circuit court city of Richmond claim commissioner complainants contract conveyance conveyed counsel county court court of equity Crawford creditors death debt deceased declaration decree of circuit deed of trust defendant in error delivered the opinion demurrer dower duty entitled equity evidence Ex'or executed executor facts feme covert filed fraud Fridley grant grantor Gratt heirs held Henrico county husband interest Isaac Trout James River judge judgment jury lease levy liable lien ment motion negligence overruled paid parties payment person petition plaintiff in error purchase question Railroad Co Railroad Company real estate record rendered rent res judicata reversed Rixey Rorer rule statute suit supersedeas surety Syllabus-Statement term testator thereof tion trial Upshaw verdict W. G. Leith wife William writ of error
Populære avsnitt
Side 831 - But there is another proposition equally well established, and it is a qualification upon the first, namely: that though the plaintiff may have been guilty of negligence, and although that negligence may, in fact, have contributed to the accident, yet if the defendant could in the result, by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, have avoided the mischief which happened, the plaintiff's negligence will not excuse him.
Side 750 - Goodman, contrary to the form of the act of the General Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Side 803 - BLATCHFORD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. We are of opinion that the writ of mandamus must issue.
Side 812 - What merely wounds the mental feelings is in few cases to be admitted, where they are not accompanied with bodily injury, either actual or menaced. Mere austerity of temper, petulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want of civil attention and accommodation, even occasional sallies of passion, if they do not threaten bodily harm, do not amount to legal cruelty...
Side 859 - Had she used her senses, she could not have failed both to hear and to see the train which was coming. If she omitted to use them, and walked thoughtlessly upon the track, she was guilty of culpable negligence, and so far contributed to her injuries as to deprive her of any right to complain of others.
Side 455 - A court of equity which is never active in relief against conscience or public convenience has always refused its aid to stale demands where the party has slept upon his rights and acquiesced for a great length of time. Nothing can call forth this court into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence.
Side 548 - Jones a certain tract or parcel of Land lying and being in the County of Franklin on the Waters of Nicholas Creek, containing three hundred and twenty two acres, more or less...
Side 493 - I wholly dissent from the opinion of the majority of the court in this case, both as to the law and the facts.
Side 735 - as a matter of law" there was no entrapment. Verdict of guilty followed, motions in arrest, and to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and the evidence, were denied, and defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen months.
Side 390 - When this court first established the separate estate, it violated the laws of property as between husband and wife ; but it was thought beneficial, and it prevailed. It being once settled that a wife might enjoy separate estate as a feme sole, the laws of property attached to this new estate ; and it was found, as part of such law, that the power of alienation belonged to the wife, and was destructive of the security intended for it. Equity again interfered, and by another violation of the laws...