Hansbrough v. Neal, Featherston & Co.
Supreme Court of Virginia
Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the city of Roanoke, rendered October 26, 1895, in an action of assumpsit, wherein the defendants in error were the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff in error was the defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtBuchanan, J.
The defendants in error brought an action of assumpsit against Samuel H. Gish and wife to recover commissions alleged to be due from them for making sale of a tract of land. The declaration contained the common counts for work and labor done and performed by the plaintiffs, money loaned and advanced to the defendants, and for money had and received by the defendants to the plaintiffs’ use. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit. and non assumpsit within three years, to which last named plea the plaintiffs replied generally. Before trial *724the male defendant died, and the action was revived…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Richlands Flint Glass Co. v. HiltebeitelSupreme Court of Virginia · 1895
- Governor for Liggatt v. WithersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1848
3Cited by30 opinions
- Thomas v. SnowSupreme Court of Virginia · 1934
- T.G. Slater & Son, Incorporated v. The Donald P. And Patricia A. Brennan LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2004
- Pettyjohn & Sons v. BashamSupreme Court of Virginia · 1919
- Bardach Iron & Steel Co. v. Charleston Port TerminalsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1925
- Gilbert v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of ChickashaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.