Ames v. Am. Nat. Bank Of Portsmouth
Decision Date | 20 September 1934 |
Citation | 176 S.E. 204 |
Parties | AMES et al. v. AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF PORTSMOUTH. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
Appeal from Hustings Court of Portsmouth.
Suit by Kate Walker Ames and others against the American National Bank of Portsmouth, wherein other persons filed petitions praying to be admitted as parties complainant. From a decree dismissing complainants' bill of complaint on demurrer and refusing to permit filing of an amended bill, complainants appeal.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings to be had on the amended bill.
Argued before HOLT, EPES, HUDGINS, GREGORY, and CHINN, JJ.
Jas. E. Heath and Wm. G. Maupin, both of Norfolk, for appellants.
Vincent L. Parker, of Portsmouth, and Tazewell Taylor, of Norfolk, for appellees.
Approximately the first third of this opinion is taken up with a statement of the case and excerpts from the opinion of the chancellor stating his reasons for sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill. Following that will be found our reasons for reversing the decree and overruling the demurrer.
At first February rules, 1933, Kate Walker Ames and a large number of other persons, all who are stockholders of the First National Bank of Portsmouth (who sue for themselves and all other stockholders of the bank who shall come in), filed their hill against the American National Bank of Portsmouth. Nine other persons filed petitions praying to be admitted as parties complainant in the suit, and stand on the same footing as the original complainants.
The case was submitted on the bill (and the exhibit filed therewith) and the demurrer of the defendant. On July 13, 1933, the court sustained the demurrer.
Thereupon the complainants tendered and asked leave to file an amended bill which the court, by its decree of July 13, 1933, refused to permit to be filed, stating in the decree that it did so for the same reasons given in its opinion for sustaining the demurrer tothe original bill. The cause stands here in practically the same situation as if the amended bill had been filed and a demurrer thereto interposed and sustained; and we shall so consider the case. Omitting one ground which has no application to the amended bill, we shall treat the demurrer to the original bill as being filed as a demurrer to the amended bill. When we hereafter use the word "bill, " amended bill will be understood.
With some immaterial omissions and some slight changes in language made by us to shorten it somewhat, the bill reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Carilion Clinic
...That said, we disregard allegations that "are inherently impossible, or contradicted by other facts pleaded." Ames v. American Nat'l Bank , 163 Va. 1, 37, 176 S.E. 204 (1934).3 By definition, respondeat superior is wholly vicarious in nature, see Wintergreen Partners, Inc. v. McGuireWoods, ......
-
Kraft Foods North America v. Banner Engineering
...as a whole." IMWA Equities IX Co. v. WBC Associates, 961 F.2d 480, 483-484 (4th Cir.1992) (quoting Ames v. American Nat'l Bank of Portsmouth, 163 Va. 1, 176 S.E. 204, 216 (1934)). Moreover, "Virginia courts adhere to the `plain meaning' rule of interpreting contracts, whereby clear and expl......
-
New Age Care, LLC v. Juran
..."inferences [that] are strained, forced, or contrary to reason." Id. at 330 & n.2, 819 S.E.2d 809 (first quoting Ames v. Am. Nat’l Bank, 163 Va. 1, 37, 176 S.E. 204 (1934) ; then quoting Coward, 295 Va. at 358, 812 S.E.2d 766 ). Accordingly, when New Age claimed that the Board "completely d......
-
Kerkhof v. Mci Worldcom, Inc.
..."constructive involuntary termination," saying that every term in a contract should be given meaning. See Ames v. Am. Nat'l Bank of Portsmouth, 163 Va. 1, 176 S.E. 204, 217 (1934); Restatement, supra, § 203(a). It also cites to a "Q & A" document, distributed by management shortly before th......