Snodgrass v. Copenhaver

West Virginia Supreme Court

Snodgrass v. Copenhaver

12 S.E. 695, 34 W. Va. 171, 1890 W. Va. LEXIS 65

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 12 S.E. 695 (Snodgrass v. Copenhaver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Snodgrass v. Copenhaver, 12 S.E. 695, 34 W. Va. 171, 1890 W. Va. LEXIS 65 (W. Va. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Holt, Judge:

This was an action of ejectment tried in the Circuit Court of "Wetzel county with verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. During the progress of the trial various exceptions were taken to rulings of the court and noted on the record; and a motion was made by defendants Copen-haver and Barkus to the court below to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant them anew trial which motion the court overruled. The record does uot show that any objection was made or exception taken to such rulings therefore this Court can not look into the assignment of errors contained in the bill of exceptions. State v. Hollins, 31 W. Va. 363 (6 S. E. Rep 923); Brown v. Brown, 29 W. Va. 777 (2 S. E. Rep. 808); Congrove v. Burdett, 28 W. Va. 220; Danks v. Rodeheaver, 26 W. Va. 274; State v. Thompson, Id. 149; State v. Phares, 24 W. Va. 657; Riddle v. Core, 21 W. Va. 530; Shrewsbury v. Miller, 10 W. Va. 115. The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.

AeRIRMED.

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

Holt, Judge:

This was an action of ejectment tried in the Circuit Court of "Wetzel county with verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. During the progress of the trial various exceptions were taken to rulings of the court and noted on the record; and a motion was made by defendants Copen-haver and Barkus to the court below to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant them anew trial which motion the court overruled. The record does uot show that any objection was made or exception taken to such rulings therefore this Court can not look into the assignment of errors contained in the bill of exceptions. State v. Hollins, 31 W. Va. 363 (6 S. E. Rep 923); Brown v. Brown, 29 W. Va. 777 (2 S. E. Rep. 808); Congrove v. Burdett, 28 W. Va. 220; Danks v. Rodeheaver, 26 W. Va. 274; State v. Thompson, Id. 149; State v. Phares, 24 W. Va. 657; Riddle v. Core, 21 W. Va. 530; Shrewsbury v. Miller, 10 W. Va. 115. The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.

AeRIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.E. 695, 34 W. Va. 171, 1890 W. Va. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snodgrass-v-copenhaver-wva-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack