Saville v. Rountree

Supreme Court of Virginia

Saville v. Rountree

70 S.E. 850, 111 Va. 832, 1911 Va. LEXIS 37

DecidedJanuary 27, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 70 S.E. 850 (Saville v. Rountree) 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

Saville v. Rountree, 70 S.E. 850, 111 Va. 832, 1911 Va. LEXIS 37 (Va. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

The petition of Chas. O. Saville, clerlr of the Chancery Court of the city of Richmond, for a writ of error and supersedeas to a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of the city of Richmond on the 20th day of December, 1910, in a certain proceeding at law by way of mandamus then therein depending, wherein William W. Rountree was plaintiff and the said petitioner was defendant, having been maturely considered, and it appearing to the court that the change of language in section 13 of the Tax Laws of Virginia made by the act of March 17, 1910, was not intended to increase the amount due for the recordation of deeds relating to real estate, and that upon the true construction of said act of 1910, [833]*833section 13 is identical in legal effect with section 13 before it was amended, the court is of opinion that there is, as applied to the facts of this case, no error in the judgment complained of, and the said petition is denied.

Refused.

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

By the Court:

The petition of Chas. O. Saville, clerlr of the Chancery Court of the city of Richmond, for a writ of error and supersedeas to a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of the city of Richmond on the 20th day of December, 1910, in a certain proceeding at law by way of mandamus then therein depending, wherein William W. Rountree was plaintiff and the said petitioner was defendant, having been maturely considered, and it appearing to the court that the change of language in section 13 of the Tax Laws of Virginia made by the act of March 17, 1910, was not intended to increase the amount due for the recordation of deeds relating to real estate, and that upon the true construction of said act of 1910, [833]*833section 13 is identical in legal effect with section 13 before it was amended, the court is of opinion that there is, as applied to the facts of this case, no error in the judgment complained of, and the said petition is denied.

Refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E. 850, 111 Va. 832, 1911 Va. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saville-v-rountree-va-1911.