Cottom v. Cottom

4 Rand. 192, 25 Va. 192, 1826 Va. LEXIS 23
CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedMay 10, 1826
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 4 Rand. 192 (Cottom v. Cottom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cottom v. Cottom, 4 Rand. 192, 25 Va. 192, 1826 Va. LEXIS 23 (Va. Ct. App. 1826).

Opinion

The President

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The proceedings on the first application of the appellant to qualify as the executor of Richard Cottom, his testator, Ought to have put at rest the controversy no>v before the [194]*194Court. The record of those proceedings was properly before the Circuit Court, upon the appeal from the second order of the Hustings Court, refusing to permit the appcllant to qualify as executor as aforesaid. The Circuit Court had both appellate and original jurisdiction of the controversy; and the record of the proceedings on the first application to qualify, was properly presented to it as a bar to the application in the second instance. Until the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction, upon the same matter, is reversed in a course of regular proceedings on it, a resort to any other tribunal, or to the same tribunal, for its judgment on the same controversy, is inadmissible. Though the Hustings Court, on'the first application by the appellant to qualify as executor, was divided, and only virtually refused his application, yet, an appeal lay to the Circuit Court from that refusal, and was prosecuted by the appellant here to a judgment against him; from which, he failed to appeal to this Court. - The record of those pro-' -ceedings is, therefore, not before this Court, for the purpose of re-viewing the judgment against him in that case; although it was properly before the Circuit Court, in the proceedings now appealed from, as a bar to any further application to qualify as executor, no pleadings being required in such case: and of consequence, is also now before this Court for the same purpose.

Without noticing, therefore, the other points made in the argument, the judgment is to be affirmed.

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

Related

Smith's Adm'r v. Charlton's Adm'r
7 Gratt. 425 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1851)
Colburn v. Matthews
31 S.C.L. 386 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1846)
Norton v. Wallace
31 S.C.L. 460 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1846)
Bowyer v. Chesnut
4 Va. 1 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1832)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Rand. 192, 25 Va. 192, 1826 Va. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottom-v-cottom-vactapp-1826.