Garnett v. Mayo
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Virginia
[This was an action at law by Garnett, as assignee in bankruptcy of D. C. Mayo, against said Mayo, as principal, and W. K. Watts and Lawrence Lottier, as sureties, upon a bond given under the circumstances stated below.
Read the full summary
[This was an action at law by Garnett, as assignee in bankruptcy of D. C. Mayo, against said Mayo, as principal, and W. K. Watts and Lawrence Lottier, as sureties, upon a bond given under the circumstances stated below. The case was heard on motion of plaintiff to set aside a verdict for defendants.] A valuable part of the assets of Mayo, the bankrupt, consisted of the expensive machinery and implements constituting the outfit of a very large factory for the extensive manufacture of tobacco in the city of Richmond. Its value could only be approximately realized by selling it as an entirety in…
1Opinion of the Court
HUGHES, District Judge.
The motion is to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and evidence, and as defective in form; and for a new trial. It is unnecessary to consider the technical ground relied upon in part by the plaintiff. My action will rest upon a reason of substance, to wit, that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence of the case. It was proved that Watts, the defendant, had had previous c( nversations about the bond, and had declared more than once that he would not *38sign the bond with only Dottier upon it as co-surety, but would sign it if 'Winston would go upon…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Van Duser v. American Surety Co.Rochester City Court · 1934