Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Volume 135

Front Cover
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 215 - no goods or chattels whatsoever, lying or being in or upon any messuage, lands or tenements, which are or shall be leased for life or lives, term of years, at will, or otherwise, shall be liable to be taken by virtue of any execution, on any pretence whatsoever, unless the party, at whose suit the said execution is sued out, shall before the removal of such goods from off the said premises, by virtue of such execution...
Page 183 - But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively...
Page 57 - Except for the seriousness with which this claim has been asserted and is now pursued into this court, the law with respect to It would be regarded as so settled as not to merit further discussion.
Page 752 - It is the settled law of this court that the interdiction of statutes impairing the obligation of contracts does not prevent the State from exercising such powers as are vested in it for the promotion of the common weal, or are necessary for the general good of the public, though contracts previously entered into between individuals may thereby be affected.
Page 253 - ... the circumstance that the parties do intend a subsequent agreement to be made is strong evidence to show that they did not intend the previous negotiations to amount to an agreement...
Page 525 - It before he performs the act, and. then performs it, he is guilty of murder In the first degree, however short the time may have been between the purpose and its execution. It is not time which constitutes the distinctive difference between murder In the first degree and murder in the second degree.
Page 466 - The first duties of the officers of the law are to prevent, not to punish crime. It is not their duty to incite to and create crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it. Here the evidence strongly tends to prove, if it does not conclusively do so, that their first and chief endeavor was to cause, to create, crime in order to punish it, and it is unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and to the established law of the land to punish a man for the commission of an offense of the...
Page 834 - What then is the present case? Before answering that inquiry specifically, it may be well by a process of exclusion to state what it is not. It is not an assertion of the right on the part of the Government, always recognized under English and American law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime.
Page 89 - In an action or suit by or against a person who, from any cause* is incapable of testifying, or by or against the committee, trustee, executor, administrator, heir, or other representative of the person so incapable of testifying, no judgment or decree shall be rendered in favor of an adverse or interested party...
Page 818 - Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial Ace. Comm. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 756, 758759, 172 P.2d 1, 3: "* * * where the employee is combining his own business with that of his employer, or attending to both at substantially the same time, no nice inquiry will be made as to which business he was actually engaged in at the time of injury, unless it clearly appears that neither directly or indirectly could he have been serving his employer.

Bibliographic information