Legal Opinion

Williams v. Marine Bank

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided March 16, 1922PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the city of Norfolk in an action of assumpsit. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.

1Opinion of the CourtBurks, J.

The Marine Bank recovered a judgment against Williams for $5,120.00 in an action of assumpsit on a contract dated August 25, 1917. The errors relied on for the reversal are the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and the evidence, and errors committed in granting and refusing instructions.

On August 25, 1917, Bundick & Carner, building contractors, entered into a written contract with Williams to furnish the materials and build for him two bungalows in the city of Norfolk for the price of $5,120.00, which amount Williams agreed to pay as follows: $200.00…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Fuste v. Riverside Healthcare Ass'n, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2003
  2. DeWitt v. CoffeySupreme Court of Virginia · 1928
  3. Setzer v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API