Town of Grundy v. Goff

60 S.E.2d 273, 191 Va. 148, 1950 Va. LEXIS 207
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedJune 19, 1950
DocketRecord 3666
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 60 S.E.2d 273 (Town of Grundy v. Goff) 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
Town of Grundy v. Goff, 60 S.E.2d 273, 191 Va. 148, 1950 Va. LEXIS 207 (Va. 1950).

Opinion

Spratley, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action of unlawful entry and detainer instituted by Mrs. Trula Goff against the Town of Grundy to recover from the defendant the possession of a small strip of land on the eastern side of Main street within the corporate limits of the said town. Virginia Code, 1942 *151 (Michie), section 5445, Code of 1950, Title 8, section 789-791. Mrs. Goff claimed that while in the actual, peaceful and exclusive possession of the land, she was forcibly ousted by the town within three years prior to the institution of this suit. The Town of Grundy contended that it owned the land as a part of what is known as “Back Street” or “Back Alley” of the town, and that it had been used by the public as a street or highway for more than fifty years. The case was tried before a jury, which after hearing the evidence, the instructions of the court, and viewing the premises, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Mrs. Goff. The motion of the defendant to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and the evidence and without evidence to support it, and for error in the granting and refusing of instructions, was overruled by the court. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict.

The assignments of error before us relate solely to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. No-questions are raised as to the instructions to the jury. There is no dispute as to the law involved, but rather as to the application of the law to the evidence.

Faced by a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, approved by the trial court, the plaintiff is entitled to have the evidence stated in the light most favorable to her. She is: entitled to all just inferences deducible therefrom.

A plat and a brief history of the land involved and adjacent lands may be helpful in consideration of the evidence. The following plat made by C. B. Belcher, a mining and surveying engineer, was filed as an exhibit:

*152

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

Related

Seitz v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
909 F. Supp. 2d 490 (E.D. Virginia, 2012)
Eubanks v. First Mount Vernon Industrial Loan Assoc., Inc.
726 A.2d 837 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1999)
Reyes v. Jones
31 Va. Cir. 404 (Fairfax County Circuit Court, 1993)
Smith v. Ware
421 S.E.2d 444 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1992)
Taylor v. Commonwealth
400 S.E.2d 794 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 S.E.2d 273, 191 Va. 148, 1950 Va. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-grundy-v-goff-va-1950.