Reynolds v. Adams

Supreme Court of Virginia

Reynolds v. Adams

188 S.E.2d 85, 212 Va. 770, 1972 Va. LEXIS 261

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedApril 24, 1972

DocketRecord No. 7729

StatusPublished

This text of 188 S.E.2d 85 (Reynolds v. Adams) 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

Reynolds v. Adams, 188 S.E.2d 85, 212 Va. 770, 1972 Va. LEXIS 261 (Va. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff Mabel Corum Adams brought this action “for herself and in behalf of all other heirs at law and surviving consorts of Spencer Roane, deceased” against defendant Edward W. Reynolds, Jr. Adams alleged that Reynolds had wrongfully cut timber on land owned by her and the other heirs of Spencer Roane, and she sought compensatory and punitive damages for the wrongful cutting.

The jury returned a verdict for the “plaintiffs” and assessed compensatory damages in the amount of $1,822. The trial court entered judgment for the “plaintiffs” in accordance with the verdict, and Reynolds now appeals.

The judgment cannot stand for several reasons, but we need mention only one. Adams claimed an interest in the land through inheritance from her mother, but Adams failed to introduce any probative evidence that she inherited an interest in the land either by will or intestate succession. We therefore reverse the judgment and enter final judgment for the defendant here.

Reversed and final judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff Mabel Corum Adams brought this action “for herself and in behalf of all other heirs at law and surviving consorts of Spencer Roane, deceased” against defendant Edward W. Reynolds, Jr. Adams alleged that Reynolds had wrongfully cut timber on land owned by her and the other heirs of Spencer Roane, and she sought compensatory and punitive damages for the wrongful cutting.

The jury returned a verdict for the “plaintiffs” and assessed compensatory damages in the amount of $1,822. The trial court entered judgment for the “plaintiffs” in accordance with the verdict, and Reynolds now appeals.

The judgment cannot stand for several reasons, but we need mention only one. Adams claimed an interest in the land through inheritance from her mother, but Adams failed to introduce any probative evidence that she inherited an interest in the land either by will or intestate succession. We therefore reverse the judgment and enter final judgment for the defendant here.

Reversed and final judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 S.E.2d 85, 212 Va. 770, 1972 Va. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-adams-va-1972.