Beverley v. Fogg

5 Va. 421, 1 Call 484, 1799 Va. LEXIS 6
Court of Appeals of Virginia·Decided May 7, 1799·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

LYONS, Judge.

Delivered the resolution of the Court, that there was no weight in the objection, that the quantity of the estate was not mentioned in the judgment; for, that is not necessary under the act of Assembly. But, that the judgment of the District Court was to be reversed, because the demandant had omitted to set forth the boundaries of the land in his count. *

The judgment was as follows: “ The Court is of opinion that the said judgment is erroneous in this, that the boun[423] daries of the land demanded in the count are not inserted therein as required by law, nor found by the verdict of the jury. Therefore, it is considered, that the same be reversed, &e. and this Court proceeding to give such judgment as the said District Court ought to have given. It is further considered, that the defendant take nothing by his count; and, that the plaintiff go thereof without day and recover against the defendant his costs by him about his defence in the said District Court expended,”

Footnotes

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

Beverley v. Fogg, 5 Va. 421, 1 Call 484, 1799 Va. LEXIS 6 (Va. Ct. App. 1799).

5 Va. 421 (Beverley v. Fogg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lennig's Ex'rs v. White
20 S.E. 831 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1894)
Holliday's Ex'rs v. Myers
11 W. Va. 276 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1877)
Hitchcox v. Rawson
14 Va. 526 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1858)
Lovell v. Arnold
2 Va. 167 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1811)
Meredith's Administratrix v. Duval
1 Va. 76 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1810)
Turberville v. Long
3 Va. 309 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1809)