Legal Opinion

United States Mineral Co. v. Camden & Driscoll

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided March 14, 1907PublishedCited by 23 opinions

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Buckingham county in an action of assumpsit. Judgment for the plaintiffs. Defendant assigns error.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiffs, Camden & Driscoll, against the United States Mineral Company, to enforce the payment of a balance of $2,500, alleged to be due them from the defendant company. The declaration avers that the plaintiffs sold to the defendant company a tract of twenty acres of land for the agreed price of $5,000; that of this sum the defendant paid $2,500 in cash, and for the residue delivered to the plaintiffs certificates for twenty-five shares of its capital stock of the' par value of $100 per share, upon the promise and agreement on the part of the defendant…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Republic Life Insurance v. SwigertIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Rollins v. Shaver Wagon & Carriage Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1890
  3. Blalock v. Kernersville Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
  4. Shoemaker v. Washburn Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Dock v. Schlichter Jute Cordage Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. San Antonio Hardware Co. v. SangerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
  2. Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1910
  3. Bissell v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1957
  4. Marshall v. Fredericksburg Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1934
  5. Kennerly v. Columbia Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1923

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API