Cooke v. Graham's Administrator
This text of 5 Munf. 172 (Cooke v. Graham's Administrator) 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
Tuesday, October 15th 1816, the President pronounced the Court’s opinion, “ that the Appellant in his second Plea having “ pleaded that he could not recover from the said Josiah Wat- “ son in the condition of the bond mentioned, or his endorser, “ the sum of money in the said condition also mentioned, or “ any part thereof; and that he has paid to the Appellee’s in- “ testate one half of what could not be recovered ; (to wit, “ one thousand dollars;) as well as five hundred dollars, stat- “ ed to have been paid by the said Watson before he failed 5 “ which averment is not only in the terms of the condition of “ the bond, but also imports that due diligence had been used “ by him to recover the same ; and that averment not having “ been controverted by the Appellee, but, on the contrary, ad- “ mitted by the demurrer; the said Plea, so confessed, forms [175]*175“ a bar to the action ; and that, on this ground, without ad-' “ verting to any other, the said judgment is erroneous.”
Judgment reversed, and entered that the appellant take nothing, &c.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Munf. 172, 5 Va. 172, 1816 Va. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooke-v-grahams-administrator-va-1816.