Goldsmith & Co. v. Latz
Supreme Court of Virginia
Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Danville rendered October 11, 1897, in an action of covenant wherein the defendant in error was the plaintiff, and the plaintiffs in error were the defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Danville rendered October 11, 1897, in an action of covenant wherein the defendant in error was the plaintiff, and the plaintiffs in error were the defendants. The contract upon which this' action was founded, and the letter thereto attached, are in the words and figures following, to-wit: “ This agreement, entered into and concluded this 14th day of April, 1894, by and between Joseph Goldsmith and Henry J. Goldsmith, both of the city of Baltimore, State of Maryland, copartners, trading as J. Goldsmith & Co., in the city of…
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The court is of opinion that the proper construction of the contract in writing between the parties to this controversy is that Latz, the defendant in error, was to serve Goldsmith & Co., the plaintiffs in error, as manager of their mercantile establishment in Danville, Va., for one year, beginning April 16, 1894, and ending April 16, 1895, and that the contract should continue in force upon the same terms and conditions for like successive periods of one year from the first term until abrogated by one of the parties, in which event a written *684notice should be given not less than sixty days in…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Conrad v. Ellison-Harvey Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1917
- D. Buchanan & Son v. EwellSupreme Court of Virginia · 1927
- Buchanan v. HigginbothamSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
- Fred v. DixonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1876
- Fred v. DixonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1876
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.