Camden v. Werninger.

Citation7 W.Va. 528
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Decision Date13 July 1874
PartiesCamden v. Werninger.

A case finally decided in the Supreme Court of Appeals, has become "res adjudicata," and is no longer the subject of review in that Court.

Appeal, by Alstorpheus Werninger, from a decree of the circuit court of Harrison county, rendered on the 14th day of October, 1871, in a suit in chancery therein pending, wherein Gideon D. Camden was complainant and Alstorpheus Werninger, Lee Raymond and Luther Haymond, were respondents. The facts appear in the opinion of the Court.

The Hon. Thomas W. Harrison, judge of said circuit court, presided at the hearing below.

Daniel Lamb for the appellant.

Caleb Boggess for the appellee.

Paull, Judge:

In February 1869, the plaintiff, G. D. Camden, filed his bill in chancery in the circuit court of Harrison county, against A. Werninger and others, for the recovery of a claim or demand against said Werninger, for the sum of $2,500 with interest. In this suit such proceedings were had, that on Wednesday, the 15th day of June, 1870, a decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff, reciting that he was entitled to the payment of his said debt with interest thereon from the time specified in said decree, and subject to the credit therein mentioned; said decree provided further, that unless said defendant A. AVerninger, pay to the plaintiff the amount of his said" debt and interest, within thirty days from the date of said decree, that defendants Luther Haymond and Lee Haymond deliver to Ernest A. Duncan, a commissioner appointed by the court, four one thousand dollar United States bonds with the coupons thereon, to be by him sold, and out of the proceeds of sale, to pay to the plaintiff the amount in said decree specified and his costs by him expended in the prosecution of his suit. Other matters are contained in said decree, but the above is all now necessary to notice.

From the foregoing decree the defendant A. Werninger appealed, and the case was submitted and heard in the Supreme Court of Appeals; and at a session of that Court held on the 19th day of August, 1871, the following decree was entered, to-wit: "The Court, having maturely considered the transcript of the record of the decree aforesaid, together with the arguments of counsel thereupon, is of opinion, for reasons stated in writing and filed with the record, that there is error in said decree: Therefore it is adjudged ordered and decreed that the decree aforesaid be reversed and annulled, and that the appellee do pay to the appellant, Alstorpheus Werninger, his costs about the prosecution of his appeal in this behalf expended. And this cause is remanded to the circuit court of Harrison county, for further proceedings to be had therein, in accordance with the principles laid down in said written opinion".

The cause being remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings, some additional testimony was taken, and on the 14th day of October, 1871, the circuit court entered a decree that defendant A. AVerninger pay to the plaintiff $3,121 with interest from the 3rd day of October, 1871, and his costs by him expended; and unless said amount be paid within thirty days from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Dent v. Pickens
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 13, 1906
    ......Butler v. Thompson, 52 W. Va. 311, 43 S. E. 174; Koonce v. Doo-little, 48 W. Va. 592, 37 S. E. 644; Camden v. Werniger, 7 W. Va. 528; Henry v. Davis, 13 W. Va. 230; Campbell v. Campbell, 22 Grat. 649; Bank v. Craig, 6 Leigh, 399; Sibbald v. United ......
  • Grand Cent. Mining Co. v. Mammoth Mining Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • September 3, 1909
    ...... 117 Ind. 26; Joslin v. Cowee, 56 N.Y. 626;. Williams v. Rogers, 14 Bush. 776; Stewart &. Palmer v. Heiskell's Trustee, 86 Va. 191; Camden. v. Werninger, 7 W.Va. 528; Adams v. Fisher, 75. Tex. 657; Parker v. Pomeroy, 2 Wis. 84; Willis. v. Smith, 72 Texas 565; Pittsburg C. & ......
  • King v. Mason
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 21, 1906
    ......See Butler v. Thompson, 52 W. Va. 311, 43 S. E. 174; Koonce v. Doolittle, 48 W. Va. 592, 37 S. E. 644; Henry v. Davis, 13 W. Va. 230; Camden v. Werninger, 7 W. Va. 528.        The return of the judge of the circuit court of Marion fails to show that any person has set up any claim ......
  • Chafin v. Coal
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 2, 1933
    ...became the law of the case. See generally Price v. Campbell, (Va. 1804) 5 Call 115; Bank v. Craig, (Va. 1835) 6 Leigh 399; Camden v. Werninger, 7 W. Va. 528; Henry v. Davis, 13 W. Va. 230; McCoy v. McCoy, 29 W. Va. 794, 2 S. E. 809; Seabright v. Seabright, 33 W. Va. 152, 10 S. E. 265; Johns......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT