Maxwell v. Light
Court of Appeals of Virginia
In replevin by Maxwell for taking his goods and chattels, Light avowed the taking for rent arrear due by indenture on a demise for ten years.
Read the full summary
In replevin by Maxwell for taking his goods and chattels, Light avowed the taking for rent arrear due by indenture on a demise for ten years. The plaintiff replied: 1. That the avowant did not demise, and issue thereon. 3. Entry by the defendant into parcel and expulsion of the plaintiff. 3. No rent arrear. 4. That defendant did not build certain walls on the premises. 5. .That defendant did not permit the plaintiff to clear and cultivate twenty acres of land in addition to the cleared lands. 6. That defendant entered and expelled the plaintiff from another parcel of the demised premises.…
1Opinion of the Court
PENDLETON,
President. Upon the third point, the question is, whether the Court or the jury are to assess the double value? For, if the Court, then the evidence was proper; but, if the jury, then it was not.
PENDLETON, President. If the landlord did dis-train for too much, was he entitled to the double value ?
The Court having taken a few days to consider the case;
PENDLETON, President, now delivered their resolution ; that the judgment was erroneous on account of the Court’s permitting the copy of the deed to be given in evidence, without any other proof than the Clerk’s certificate of its being…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Skagit Railway & Lumber Co. v. ColeWashington Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by11 opinions
- Taliaferro v. PryorSupreme Court of Virginia · 1855
- Trammell v. ThurmondSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1856
- Bargamin v. Poitiaux ex'orSupreme Court of Virginia · 1833
- Ben v. PeeteSupreme Court of Virginia · 1824
- Hunt's Adm'r v. Martin's Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1852
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.