Dinwiddie County v. Stuart, Buchanan & Co.
Supreme Court of Virginia
This was a proceeding by Stuart, Buchanan & Co. to recover from the county of Dinwiddie the sum of $3,695.30, the price of salt delivered to the .agent of said county in 1862. This salt was purchased under the authority of an act of the general assembly of Virginia, which is set out in the opinion of Judge Christian.
Read the full summary
This was a proceeding by Stuart, Buchanan & Co. to recover from the county of Dinwiddie the sum of $3,695.30, the price of salt delivered to the .agent of said county in 1862. This salt was purchased under the authority of an act of the general assembly of Virginia, which is set out in the opinion of Judge Christian. In May 1862, a majority of the justices being present, the county court made an order appointing Edward E. Williamson the agent .of the -county to purchase salt of Stuart, Buchanan & Co., who were the owners of the salt works in the county ■of Smyth. Williamson proceeded to act…
1Opinion of the CourtChristian, J.
There are certain preliminary questions to be disposed of before we pass upon the merits of the controversy.
First, It is insisted in behalf of the appellants, that the appeal in this case was improperly taken to the-county court, and that it ought to have been taken directly to the circuit court.
The decision of this question depends upon the true-construction of the 10th and 12th sections of chapter 47, Code of 1873, page 442.
These two sections give the right of appeal from a *529decision of the board of supervisors, in general terms, both to the counties and to claimants against the county, to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Town of Danville v. PaceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1874
- Homestead CasesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1872
- Ballard v. Thomas & AmmonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1868
- Adams v. MillsNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- People Ex Rel. McMullen v. ShepardNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.