Legal Opinion

Richardson v. Breeding

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided September 11, 1936PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGregory, J.

The present controversy involves a provision for a ten per cent collection, or attorney’s fee, embodied in a collateral note and is an outgrowth of, and incidental to litigation involving approximately $30,000, which was due by the Bank of Grundy, Incorporated, (now in receivership) to A. S. Richardson. The trial court in deciding the main litigation in favor of Richardson, (from which there was no appeal sought) handed down an opinion, the concluding portion being as follows:

“ # * It is contended on the part of the bank that Richardson is not entitled to collect any attorney fee at all,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Fishburne & Wife v. Ferguson's HeirsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1887
  2. Cox v. HaganSupreme Court of Virginia · 1919
  3. Conway v. American National BankCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1926
  4. Reed v. Axtell & MyersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1887
  5. Colley v. Summers Parrott Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1916

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Twohy v. HarrisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1952
  2. Pulaski National Bank v. HarrellSupreme Court of Virginia · 1962
  3. OSB Manufacturing, Inc. v. Hathaway (In Re Hathaway)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · 2007
  4. Bergen Builders, Inc. v. Horizon Developers, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
  5. Elrod v. Bowden (In Re Bowden)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · 2005

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API