Virginia Appeals: Decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Volume 17

Front Cover
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 191 - No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title...
Page 213 - The promisee, if he pleases, may treat the notice of intention as inoperative, and await the time when the contract is to be executed, and then hold the other party responsible for all the consequences of non-performance ; but, in that case, he keeps the contract alive for the benefit of the other party as well as his own...
Page 364 - Whoever shall -order, purchase, or cause intoxicating liquors to be transported in interstate commerce, except for scientific, sacramental, medicinal, and mechanical purposes, into any State or Territory the laws of which State or Territory prohibit the manufacture or sale therein of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes...
Page 302 - ... or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
Page 360 - It is further to be observed that the rule in ejectment that the plaintiff must recover, if at all, on the strength of his own title, and not upon the weakness of that of his adversary...
Page 491 - First, the existence of an ulterior purpose ; and second, an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding: 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., 630, 631. Regular and legitimate use of process, though with a bad intention, is not a malicious abuse of process.
Page 409 - Act to recover damages for personal injuries to an employee, or where such injuries have resulted in his death, the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee...
Page 542 - ... reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and (4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the United States.
Page 549 - The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.
Page 188 - Where damages are claimed for injuries which may have resulted from one of two causes, for one of which the defendant is responsible and for the other of which it is not responsible, the plaintiff must fail if his evidence does not show that the damage was produced by the former cause.

Bibliographic information