Baltimore & Ohio R. R. v. Gallahue's adm'rs
Supreme Court of Virginia
This is the sequel of the case reported 12 Graft. 655. When the cause went back the parties agreed the facts. From this it appears, that the course of business in respect to the contracts between the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company and the defendants in the action, P. and F. C. Crowley, was for the company through its engineers to make the monthly estimates of work done on the 20th day of each month, and payments upon these estimates were made about the 10th of the next…
Read the full summary
This is the sequel of the case reported 12 Graft. 655. When the cause went back the parties agreed the facts. From this it appears, that the course of business in respect to the contracts between the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company and the defendants in the action, P. and F. C. Crowley, was for the company through its engineers to make the monthly estimates of work done on the 20th day of each month, and payments upon these estimates were made about the 10th of the next month. The estimates ma(^e on the 20th of December 1851 were paid by company prior to the service of the attachment;…
1Opinion of the CourtSamuels, J.
When this case was formerly before the court, it was decided, 12 Gratt. 655, that the plaintiff in error was such a party as might be a garnishee under process of attachment.
It is alleged by the plaintiff’s counsel in this court, that the Circuit court erred at its June term 1857, and also at a previous term, in refusing leave to the garnishee to file an amended answer to the attachment. The decisions of this court have settled the practice that a party alleging error in the ruling of a Circuit court, must show the error on the face of the record; that the court here will intend that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Balt. & Ohio R. R. v. Gallahue's adm'rsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1855
- Baltimore & Ohio R. R. v. McCullough & Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1855