Bowers v. Capital Equipment Co.

Supreme Court of Virginia

Bowers v. Capital Equipment Co.

179 S.E.2d 458, 211 Va. 568, 1971 Va. LEXIS 220

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedMarch 8, 1971

DocketRecord No. 7360

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.E.2d 458 (Bowers v. Capital Equipment Co.) 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

Bowers v. Capital Equipment Co., 179 S.E.2d 458, 211 Va. 568, 1971 Va. LEXIS 220 (Va. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in not finding as a matter of law that defendant was the principal by whom plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed for sums paid by him as surety.

The parties waived a trial by jury and the trial court heard the evidence ore terms. In these circumstances the ruling of the trial court in favor of the defendant is presumed to be correct and will not be set aside unless it appears from the evidence that it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Wright and Hunt, Inc. v. Wright, 205 Va. 454, 460, 137 S.E.2d 902, 907 (1964).

The burden is upon the party who assails the correctness of the trial court’s ruling to show that it is manifestly wrong. Ford v. Ford, 200 Va. 674, 679, 107 S.E.2d 397, 401 (1959).

The trial court found on conflicting evidence that Charles C. Mottley and not the defendant was the principal for whom plaintiff was surety.

This finding is amply supported by the evidence and will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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