Amory v. Justices of Gloucester

General Court of Virginia

Amory v. Justices of Gloucester

2 Va. 523

DecidedJune 15, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Va. 523 (Amory v. Justices of Gloucester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering General Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amory v. Justices of Gloucester, 2 Va. 523 (Va. Super. Ct. 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court, after conferring on the subject, entered the following judgment:

“1. The Court are unanimously of opinion, and doth decide, that the offices of a Deputy Clerk of a County Court, and of a Justice of the Peace of the same county, are incompatible.

‘ ‘2. It is unnecessary to decide the second question, because the Court is unanimously of opinion, and doth decide, that, whether the acceptance of the office of Deputy Clerk of a County Court, vacates the office of a Justice of the Peace of the same county, or not, in this Case, the Superior Court ought not to make a rule on the Justices to shew cause why a Writ of Mandamus should not issue to admit the Plaintiff to execute the office of Justice of the Peace, and that the said Court ought not to grant a peremptory Mandamus.” (Chew v. The Justices of Spottsylvania, ante, p. 208.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Court, after conferring on the subject, entered the following judgment:

“1. The Court are unanimously of opinion, and doth decide, that the offices of a Deputy Clerk of a County Court, and of a Justice of the Peace of the same county, are incompatible.

‘ ‘2. It is unnecessary to decide the second question, because the Court is unanimously of opinion, and doth decide, that, whether the acceptance of the office of Deputy Clerk of a County Court, vacates the office of a Justice of the Peace of the same county, or not, in this Case, the Superior Court ought not to make a rule on the Justices to shew cause why a Writ of Mandamus should not issue to admit the Plaintiff to execute the office of Justice of the Peace, and that the said Court ought not to grant a peremptory Mandamus.” (Chew v. The Justices of Spottsylvania, ante, p. 208.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Va. 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amory-v-justices-of-gloucester-vagensess-1826.