Godwin v. Graham

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Godwin v. Graham

131 S.E. 927, 146 Va. 440, 1926 Va. LEXIS 343

DecidedFebruary 25, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 131 S.E. 927 (Godwin v. Graham) 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

Godwin v. Graham, 131 S.E. 927, 146 Va. 440, 1926 Va. LEXIS 343 (Va. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Crump, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case came up from a judgment against the plaintiff in error, defendant in the trial court, in an action of assumpsit brought by John F. Graham, plaintiff in the trial court, to recover the sum of [441]*441$663.30/, balance of the purchase price of a car of peaches shipped to Norfolk, and claimed to be due to the plaintiff.

This case arose out of the same circumstances as the case of Rountree-Holland and Company v. Graham, 144 Va. 145, 131 S. E. 193, recently decided by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, in which the plaintiff in error appealed from a judgment against it in favor of Graham, the plaintiff on the trial. The two cases were tried in the court below at the same time before the same jury, upon evidence taken as equally applicable to both cases, and necessarily requiring a verdict for the same party in each of the eases. Separate verdicts Avere rendered — for the plaintiff in each case — and separate judgments given. As the defendants in the cases were not the same, two writs of error were awarded.

The evidence in the two cases being the same, and the cases having been submitted to the jury upon one set of instructions, the questions raised in the appellate court by the bills of exceptions are identical.

The instant case is therefore ruled completely by the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals in the case referred to.

The opinion in that case was handed down January 14, 1926, and the judgment of the lower court was reversed and judgment was entered by the appellate court, upon the evidence, for the defendant on the trial.

As the controversy between the parties in the instant case is finally disposed of by the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals, we will reverse this case before us and enter final judgment for the plaintiff in error, the defendant in the court below, the plaintiff in error to recover his costs in this Qourt.

Reversed.

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

Crump, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case came up from a judgment against the plaintiff in error, defendant in the trial court, in an action of assumpsit brought by John F. Graham, plaintiff in the trial court, to recover the sum of [441]*441$663.30/, balance of the purchase price of a car of peaches shipped to Norfolk, and claimed to be due to the plaintiff.

This case arose out of the same circumstances as the case of Rountree-Holland and Company v. Graham, 144 Va. 145, 131 S. E. 193, recently decided by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, in which the plaintiff in error appealed from a judgment against it in favor of Graham, the plaintiff on the trial. The two cases were tried in the court below at the same time before the same jury, upon evidence taken as equally applicable to both cases, and necessarily requiring a verdict for the same party in each of the eases. Separate verdicts Avere rendered — for the plaintiff in each case — and separate judgments given. As the defendants in the cases were not the same, two writs of error were awarded.

The evidence in the two cases being the same, and the cases having been submitted to the jury upon one set of instructions, the questions raised in the appellate court by the bills of exceptions are identical.

The instant case is therefore ruled completely by the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals in the case referred to.

The opinion in that case was handed down January 14, 1926, and the judgment of the lower court was reversed and judgment was entered by the appellate court, upon the evidence, for the defendant on the trial.

As the controversy between the parties in the instant case is finally disposed of by the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals, we will reverse this case before us and enter final judgment for the plaintiff in error, the defendant in the court below, the plaintiff in error to recover his costs in this Qourt.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E. 927, 146 Va. 440, 1926 Va. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godwin-v-graham-vactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack