Barbour v. Grimsley

61 S.E. 1135, 107 Va. 814, 1907 Va. LEXIS 84
Supreme Court of Virginia·Decided September 17, 1907·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

By the court.

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

Barbour v. Grimsley, 61 S.E. 1135, 107 Va. 814, 1907 Va. LEXIS 84 (Va. 1907).

61 S.E. 1135 (Barbour v. Grimsley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harrison v. Day
106 S.E.2d 636 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1959)
Carlisle v. Hassan
102 S.E.2d 273 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1958)
Dean v. Paolicelli
72 S.E.2d 506 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1952)
Scottish Union & National Insurance v. City of Winchester
66 S.E. 84 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1909)