Knopf v. Richmond
Decision Date | 21 February 1889 |
Citation | 8 S.E. 787,85 Va. 769 |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Knopf v. Richmond, P. & P. R. Co. |
A copartnership entered into a written contract with defendant railroad company, the consideration of which was " a ticket, entitling either one of said [firm,] but only one on any train, to occupy one seat, and travel on the passenger trains of said railroad company. " Held, that the firm was entitled to only one ticket, which was to be presented whenever any one of the firm took passage on defendant's trains.
Defendant issued to the firm, under the contract, an annual pass, on the expiration of which the firm applied for and secured a renewal, but, on the expiration of the latter, did not apply for another renewal. Held, that the question whether it was the duty of defendant to issue a renewal without application was to be determined by the jury, on the practical construction put upon the contract by the parties.
Error to circuit court, Caroline county; W. S. Barton, Judge.
Action by M. M. Knopf against the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
J. G. Mason and E. C. Moncure, for plaintiff in error. A. B, Chandler, for defendant in error.
Lewis, P. This was an action of trespass on the case in the circuit court of Caroline county against the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Rail-road Company, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful ejectment of the plaintiff, M. M. Knopf, from one of the passenger trains of the defendant company on the 27th of January, 1887. The plaintiff claimed the right to be transported by the said company in the train from which he was ejected by virtue of a certain written contract, dated the 4th day of April, 1885, and of which the following is a copy:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foley v. Foley, Record No. 0359-05-1 (VA 12/20/2005)
...is not only to be regarded, but, where there is any doubt, must prevail over the literal meaning of the contract. Knopf v. R., F. & P.R. Co., 85 Va. 769, 8 S.E. 787 [(1889)]. "No rule for the construction of written instruments is better settled than that which attaches great weight to the ......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Roanoke Oil Co.
...is not only to be regarded, but, where there is any doubt, must prevail over the literal meaning of the contract. Knopf R., F. & P.R. Co., 85 Va. 769, 8 S.E. 787. "No rule for the construction of written instruments is better settled than that which attaches great weight to the construction......
-
First Nat. Exch. Bank Of Roanoke v. Roanoke Oil Co. Inc
...is not only to be regarded, but, where there is any doubt, must prevail over the literal meaning of the contract. Knopf v. Richmond, F. & P. R. Co., 85 Va. 769, 8 S.E. 787. "No rule for the construction of written instruments is better settled than that which attaches great weight to the co......
-
Commonwealth Ex Rel. City Of Portsmouth v. Portsmouth Gas Co
...which the parties themselves have placed upon it. Virginian Ry. Co. v. Avis, 124 Va. 711, 716, 93 S. E. 638; Knopf v. R. F. & P. R. Co., 85 Va. 769, 778, 8 S. E. 787; Butler Bros. v. Virginian Ry. Co., 113 Va. 28, 35, 73 S. E. 441. It is quite true that grants of this character are to be st......