Wingfield v. Crenshaw
Supreme Court of Virginia
This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Richmond, reversing an order of the County Court of Hanover, by which leave was given to the appellant to erect a water grist-mill.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Richmond, reversing an order of the County Court of Hanover, by which leave was given to the appellant to erect a water grist-mill. Thomas Crenshaw presented a petition to the District Court of Richmond, stating that on the 25th of May, 1803, William Wingfield made application to the Court of Hanover County for leave to erect a gristmill, on the south branch of Pamunky river, which after the usual proceedings was granted, accordingly, at the August session of the said Court, in 1803; Charles Crenshaw, who owned the acre of land on…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE TUCKER.
Wingfield had obtained an order for erecting a mill; to which Crenshaw, upon a petition preferred to the Richmond District Court, obtained a writ of supersedeas; and the same was reversed by the District Court. Crenshaw’s name does not appear in any part of the record of' the proceedings of the County Court: and the sole question now before this Court is, whether the writ of supersedeas, was. rightly awarded by the District Court.
The District Court law(c) expressly allows an appeal from the judgment or sentence of a County Court, in all contests, concerning mills;. — the SSth…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cline v. F. S. Harmon & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1891
- Noel v. SaleCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1799
- Wilson v. HicksonIndiana Supreme Court · 1822