Anderson v. Price

Supreme Court of Virginia

Anderson v. Price

4 Munf. 307, 18 Va. 307, 1814 Va. LEXIS 47

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedDecember 9, 1814

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 4 Munf. 307 (Anderson v. Price) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Price, 4 Munf. 307, 18 Va. 307, 1814 Va. LEXIS 47 (Va. 1814).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Roane

delivered the following opinion of the court.

In this action, (which is an action of debt against an administrator, suggesting a devastavit,) one of the sums demanded is 1391. 2s. with interest from the 23d of February, 1803, till paid, with the costs of a former suit. It also appears from the declaration, that this sum was that by which the sum recovered in a former action, viz. 2781. 4s, ought to have been discharged. On the authority of the case of Ragsdale vs. Batte, in this court, this penal sum was the one for which the appellee ought to have declared, and which in no event could be exceeded. The declaration being, therefore, for the sum conditioned to be paid in the judgment aforesaid, with interest thereon till paid, is not only erroneous in departing from the foregoing standard, but, in event, might have subjected the appellant to the payment c>f a greater sum than, by the appellee’s own shewing, in his declaration, he is entitled to recover. On the ground of this defect in the declaration, the court is of opinion, that the judgment should be reversed» and rendered for the appellant.

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

Judge Roane

delivered the following opinion of the court.

In this action, (which is an action of debt against an administrator, suggesting a devastavit,) one of the sums demanded is 1391. 2s. with interest from the 23d of February, 1803, till paid, with the costs of a former suit. It also appears from the declaration, that this sum was that by which the sum recovered in a former action, viz. 2781. 4s, ought to have been discharged. On the authority of the case of Ragsdale vs. Batte, in this court, this penal sum was the one for which the appellee ought to have declared, and which in no event could be exceeded. The declaration being, therefore, for the sum conditioned to be paid in the judgment aforesaid, with interest thereon till paid, is not only erroneous in departing from the foregoing standard, but, in event, might have subjected the appellant to the payment c>f a greater sum than, by the appellee’s own shewing, in his declaration, he is entitled to recover. On the ground of this defect in the declaration, the court is of opinion, that the judgment should be reversed» and rendered for the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Munf. 307, 18 Va. 307, 1814 Va. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-price-va-1814.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack