Hoover v. Saunders.*

Decision Date18 January 1906
Citation104 Va. 783,52 S.E. 657
PartiesHOOVER et al. v. SAUNDERS.*
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
1. Statutes — Construction — Giving Effect to Entire Statute.

A statute must be construed so as to make all its parts harmonize, if practicable, and give a sensible effect to each.

2. Exceptions, Bill of—Time for Signing —Expiration of Term.

Code 1904, § 3383, providing that any bill of exceptions may be signed by the judge "either during the term at which the opinion of the court is announced, to which exception is taken, or in vacation, within 30 days after the end of such term, " gives the court power to retain the case, for the purpose of signing bill of exception, during the vacation immediately following the term at which the opinion excepted to is announced, and for 30 days after the adjournment of such term, if the vacation should last that long; but the beginning of the new term, although within the 30 days, puts an end to the court's jurisdiction for that purpose and it cannot afterwards be resumed.

Error to Corporation Court of Newport News.

Action by A. F. Saunders against W. B. Hoover and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error. Dismissed.

O. D. Batchelor and W. R. Perkins, for plaintiffs in error.

Jeffries & Lawless, for defendant in error.

HARRISON. J We are met at the threshold of this case with a question of jurisdiction.

The term of the corporation court of the city of Newport News, at which the final judgment complained of was rendered, adjourned on December 10, 1904. At that term certain exceptions were taken to the opinions of the court. The next succeeding term of the court began its session on December 12, 1904. The bills of exception, which were taken during the term at which the judgment was rendered, were not signed until January 7, 1905, which was during the vacation following the last-mentioned term, which began on the 12th day of the preceding December.

Formerly, after the judgment became finalby the adjournment of the court, jurisdiction over the case was lost, and with it the power of the court to sign the bills of exception. This rule was changed by statute approved December 31, 1903, which, so far as necessary to be quoted, is as follows:

"Any bill of exceptions may be tendered to the judge, and signed by him, either during the term at which the opinion of the court is announced, to which exception is taken, or in vacation, within thirty days after the end of such term, or at such other time as the parties, by consent entered of record, may agree upon, and any bill of exceptions so tendered, and signed by the judge as aforesaid, either in term time or vacation, shall be a part of the record of the case." Va. Code 1904, § 3385.

The plaintiff in error insists that the power to sign the bills of exception is not limited to the period of the vacation immediately following the term at which the final judgment was rendered, but it is by the terms of the statute extended to a period of 30 days after the end of such term. This construction would eliminate from the statute entirely the words, "in vacation, " and make it read, "any bill of exceptions may be tendered to the judge, and signed by him, either during the term or within 30 days after the end of such term, " etc.

If the Legislature had intended that the exceptent should have 30 days after the adjournment of the term at which the final judgment was rendered in which to have his bills of exception signed, although the vacation following such term did not last for 30 days, its purpose could have been easily accomplished, as already seen, by omitting from the statute the words "in vacation." Upon well-settled principles we are not at liberty to deal with the statute in the manner indicated. It is a familiar canon of construction that every part of an act must be given effect if it be possible. A statute must be viewed in connection with the whole, so as to make all of its parts harmonize, if practicable, and give a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Layne v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1909
    ...9 Barb. (N. Y.) 161; Morgan v. Railroad Co., 96 U.S. 716, 24 L.Ed. 743. Our attention has been directed to the case of Hoover v. Saunders, 104 Va. 783, 52 S.E. 657, holding that the occurrence of a regular term before expiration of the 30-day period shortens the time; but we are not satisfi......
  • C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Hewin
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1929
    ...243, 81 S.E. 57; Funkhouser Spahr, 102 Va. 306, 46 S.E. 378; Sherwood Atlantic and D.R. Co., 94 Va. 291, 301, 26 S.E. 943; Hoover Saunders, 104 Va. 783, 52 S.E. 657; Fox Commonwealth, 16 Gratt. (57 Va.) 1; Postal Tel. Co. Norfolk and W.R. Co., 88 Va. 920, 925, 14 S.E. 803." Conditions which......
  • Layne v. The Chesapeake
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1909
    ...475; Turnpike Co. v. People, 9 Barb. 161; Morgan v. Railroad Co., 96 U. S. 716. Our attention has been directed to the case of Hoover v. Saunders, 104 Va. 783, holding that the occurrence of a regular term before the expiration of the thirty day period shortens the time; but we are not sati......
  • Chesapeake &. O. Ry. Co v. Hewin
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1929
    ...E. 57; Funkhouser v. Spahr, 102 Va. 306, 46 S. E. 378; Sherwood v. Atlantic & D. R. Co., 94 Va. 291, 301, 26l S. E. 943; Hoover v. Saunders, 104 Va. 783, 52 S. E. 657; Fox v. Commonwealth, 16 Grat. (57 Va.) 1; Postal Tel. Co. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 88 Va. 920, 925, 14 S. E. 803." Condition......
  • 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