Gimmi v. Cullen
Supreme Court of Virginia
In May, 1867, Louis Gimmi applied to the judge of the Circuit court of the city of Richmond for an injunction to restrain Patrick Cullen and others from proceeding to sell certain real estate in the city of Richmond and county of Henrico, under a deed of trust executed hy Gimmi and wife to secure a negotiable note for $7,000, made by Gimmi and endorsed by S. Swartz, and held by Cullen.
Read the full summary
In May, 1867, Louis Gimmi applied to the judge of the Circuit court of the city of Richmond for an injunction to restrain Patrick Cullen and others from proceeding to sell certain real estate in the city of Richmond and county of Henrico, under a deed of trust executed hy Gimmi and wife to secure a negotiable note for $7,000, made by Gimmi and endorsed by S. Swartz, and held by Cullen. The bill charged that the note was usurious, having been discounted at six- > teen per cent, per year; and without asking for a discovery from the defendants, prayed the court to direct an issue to be tried at…
1Opinion of the CourtJoynes, J.
Tbe court did not err in giving tbe instruction moved by tbe defendant. It was in accordance with the doctrine of a majority of tbe whole court, in Whitworth v. Adams, 5 Rand. 333; following Taylor v. Bruce, Gilmer 42; and recognized as the settled law of the State, in Brummel & Co. v. Enders, Sutton & Co., 18 Gratt. 873.
Tbe instruction moved by tbe plaintiff was predicated upon tbe supposition that Lancaster & Co. did not sell tbe note to tbe defendant as tbe agents of the maker and endorser, or either of them, as supposed in tbe instruction moved by tbe defendant; but that they bad…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vaiden v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1855
- Carrington v. BennettSupreme Court of Virginia · 1829
- Brummel & Co. v. Enders, Sutton & Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1868