Moon v. Washington-Beaufort Land Co.

133 S.E. 499, 147 Va. 919, 1926 Va. LEXIS 294
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moon v. Washington-Beaufort Land Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 147 Va. 912
Court of Appeals of Virginia·Decided May 27, 1926·No. No. 2·Published

Opinion

Holt, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is in all respects like that of John S. Moon and others v. Washington-Beaufort Land Company, this day decided, ante, page 912, 133 S. E. 498, save that it is an action on a note and not on account. The two were heard together. The evidence was the same and instructions were the same, but since the endorsers were not entitled to a judgment over, that entire recovery was transferred to the first case. The jury’s [920]*920verdict was: “We, the jury, find for the defendant.” For the reasons stated it also must be reversed and remanded. These two should be again heard together and the single issue to be covered by one verdict should be the ascertainment of the actual value of the potatoes delivered and accepted.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Moon v. Washington-Beaufort Land Co., 133 S.E. 499, 147 Va. 919, 1926 Va. LEXIS 294 (Va. Ct. App. 1926).

133 S.E. 499 (Moon v. Washington-Beaufort Land Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moon v. Washington-Beaufort Land Co.
133 S.E. 498 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1926)