Barbour v. Grimsley
This text of 61 S.E. 1135 (Barbour v. Grimsley) 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.
Opinion
This day came again the parties by counsel, and the court having maturely considered the transcript of the record of the petition aforesaid and arguments of counsel, is of opinion, for reasons set forth in paragraphs four, five, six and seven of the answer of the Honorable Daniel A. Grimsley, judge of the circuit court of Culpeper county, and upon the authority of Brown v. Epps, 91 Va. 726, 21 S. E. 119; Smith v. Bryan, Mayor, 100 Va., 199, 40 S. E. 652, and Henrico County v. City of Richmond, 106 Va., 282, 55 S. E. 683, that the prayer of the petitioner for a writ of prohibition be denied; and that the respondent recover of the petitioner his costs in this behalf expended.
Writ denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
61 S.E. 1135, 107 Va. 814, 1907 Va. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbour-v-grimsley-va-1907.