Hounshell v. Hounshell
| Decision Date | 07 September 1914 |
| Citation | 116 Va. 675,82 S.E. 689 |
| Parties | HOUNSHELL. v. HOUNSHELL. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Smyth County.
Suit by P. W. Hounshell and others against D. S. Hounshell and others, to settle the estate of Joseph S. Hounshell, deceased. From certain decrees, defendant D. S. Hounshell appeals. Appeal dismissed.
W. B. Kegley, E. Lee Trinkle, and J. J. A. Powell, all of Wytheville, for appellant.
B. F. Buchanan, of Marion and S. B. Campbell, of Wytheville, for appellees.
This is an appeal from two decrees of the circuit court of Smyth county, one entered in vacation on the 18th day of August, 1913, and the other in term on the 13th day of September, 1913. The object of the suit was to settle the estate of Joseph S. Hounshell, deceased, and to divide the same among his ten children according to their respective rights, and to that end to have construed two certain papers executed by Joseph S. Hounshell in his lifetime—the first a deed, dated July 11, 1887, wherein Joseph S. Hounshell was party of the first part and J. A. Hounshell and his children were parties of the second part. The second paper was an agreement dated January 28, 1908, between Joseph S. Hounshell and his son D. S. Hounshell. On the 24th day of May, 1913, the cause was argued and submitted to the court and made a vacation cause for such decision and decree as might have been entered in term. On the 18th day of August, 1913, the court entered the first decree here appealed from, construing the two papers executed by Joseph S. Hounshell in his lifetime, determining the rights of the parties thereunder, and appointing a commissioner to ascertain and report among other things the value and kind of estate left by the decedent. On the face of this decree prior to the signature of the judge, signed by counsel for all the parties, are the words, "Agreed to." The commissioner's report being returned, the court on September 13, 1913, entered the second decree appealed from, confirming the commissioner's report without exception, and carrying into effect the provisions of the decree of August 18th. At the foot of this decree the following indorsement is made, signed by counsel for all the parties: "We agree that the foregoing decree may be entered."
The contention of the appellees is that these are consent decrees and therefore not appealable. It is not denied that a consent decree waives all error and is not subject to review. As said in the recent case of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Am. Fertilizer Co
...E. 954; Darraugh v. Blackford, 84 Va. 509, 5 S. E. 542; Bank v. McVeigh, 32 Grat. 530; Pates v. St. Clair, 11 Grat. 22; Hounshell v. Hounshell, 116 Va. 675, 82 S. E. 689; 15 R, C. L. pp. 643, 644; Cor. Jur. p. 133. The next question to be determined is, What right or estate was vested in Mr......
- Barnes v. American Fert. Co.
-
Higgins v. McFarland, 4323
...and especially is this so when entered by consent of the parties. Roberts' Adm'r v. Cocke, etc., 28 Gratt. (69 Va.) 207; Hounshell v. Hounshell, 116 Va. 675, 82 S.E. 689. A similar question was before this Court in Wallihan v. Hughes, 196 Va. 117, 82 S.E. (2d) 553. The facts in that case we......
-
Brown v. Brown, Case No. CL07-3084
...agreement to the terms contained in the Order." Id. In support of her argument, Plaintiff cites the holdings in Hounshell v. Hounshell, 116 Va. 675, 82 S.E. 689 (1914) and Newman v. Newman, 42 Va. App. 557, 593 S.E.2d 533 (2004). In Hounshell, the parties endorsed a Commissioner's Report "A......