Anchor Co. Inc v. Adams
| Decision Date | 18 September 1924 |
| Citation | 124 S.E. 438 |
| Parties | ANCHOR CO., Inc., v. ADAMS et al. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Error to Law and Chancery Court of Roanoke.
Action by J. R. Adams and another against the Anchor Company, Inc. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Caldwell & Chaney, R. Sidney King, and S. K. Funkhouser, all of Roanoke, for plaintiff in error.
Randolph Henry, of Roanoke, and H. B. Apperson, of Salem, for defendants in error.
PRENTIS, J. Anchor Company, Inc., is here complaining of an adverse verdict and judgment in favor of Adams & Barbour. These facts are clearly shown:
The defendant corporation owned a building in the city of Roanoke, upon which Mrs. Henry Turner had a lease which expired December 31, 1921. The room was used as a lunch room, and, finding her business unsatisfactory, she agreed with Adams & Barbour to sell out to them, and to assign her lease as of September 1, 1921, for a cash consideration of $1,000. Before concluding this bargain, however, Adams & Barbour approached the defendant for an extension of the lease, and the extension which was granted was a part of the consideration for the contract. The defendant executed a written assent to the assignment, and simultaneously agreed to extend the lease from the date of its expiration, December 31, 1921, to May 31, 1922, increasing the rent from $100 to $125 per month during the period of such extension. These contracts are in writing, their meaning is clear, and the legal rights of the parties arising thereunder indisputable. Notwithstanding this contract the defendant, in January, 1922, began to make extensive improvements to the property, and erected scaffolding around it andin front of the place of business in which the plaintiffs were conducting their restaurant. The plans for improvement involved the taking off of the roof, adding several stories to the building, and taking out partitions on the street floor. Access to the restaurant was thereby made difficult, unpleasant, and dangerous. The erection of the scaffolding and the prosecution of these plans made it impossible for the plaintiffs to continue their business. These avowed plans of the defendant and its action were in plain disregard of the rights of its tenants, and this motion is based upon allegation and proof of these wrongs. There are some sharp conflicts in the testimony as to whether the business was prosperous or un-prosperous, and upon some of the other questions, but these were resolved by the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
There are 18 bills of exception and 16 assignments of error, in which there are many repetitions, and identical propositions are unnecessarily repeated. Fairly analyzed, these exceptions generally relate to evidence introduced, as the defendant claims, for the purpose of allowing the recovery of future profits as damages, as to the introduction of certain letters alleged to be inadmissible, because they relate to a bona fide effort to compromise the claim, and as to instructions relating to punitive damages. Much of the argument presented in support of these exceptions is sound, but is it perfectly clear to us that it is inapplicable to the facts of this case. The trial court clearly instructed the jury that they could not consider speculative and future estimated profits for the purpose of fixing the amount of the liability upon the defendant, and the evidence complained of was not relied on to show future profits as the measure of the recovery. It was introduced simply to show the past history of the business and Its condition at the time it was destroyed. This is the best way to show the natural and proximate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenwald Caterers Inc. v. Lancaster Host, LLC
...state ever since the decision of Peshine v. Shepperson (17 Grat. 472, 58 Va. 472, 94 Am.Dec. 468 ).’ " (quoting Anchor Co. v. Adams , 139 Va. 388, 124 S.E. 438, 439 (1924) )). Accordingly, Macdonald is inapplicable to this case and does not warrant this court deviating from the proposition ......
-
Worrie v. Boze
...intentionally and without justification induced one of the contracting parties to break it. 84 S.E.2d, at page 182. In Anchor Company v. Adams, 139 Va. 388, 124 S.E. 438, we held that the willful and unauthorized destruction of one's business is ground for the imposition of punitive damages......
-
Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co v. Hedrick
...those who were qualified to pass upon the nature and extent of the damages. Judge Prentis, later Chief Justice, in Anchor Company v. Adams, 139 Va. 388, 124 S.E. 438, 439, said: "In such cases, where the damages are of such a character that no precise and definite estimate can be made, juri......
-
United Const. Workers v. Laburnum Const. Corp.
...of the rights of the appellees to enjoy the peaceful pursuit of their own business.' (47 S.W.2d, at page 973.) In Anchor Co. v. Adams, 139 Va. 388, 392, 124 S.E. 438, we held that the willful and unauthorized destruction of one's business is the ground for the imposition of punitive damages......