Lawrence v. Nelson, 4882
| Decision Date | 26 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 4882,4882 |
| Citation | 106 S.E.2d 618,200 Va. 597 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALMETA LAWRENCE v. WILLIE FREEMAN NELSON, ET AL. Record |
Herman A. Sacks (Sacks & Sacks, on brief), for the appellant.
William A. Redfern, Jr.; J. James Davis; Devany & Redfern, on brief, for the appellees. Submitted on brief by appellees.
JUDGE: I'ANSON
This suit was instituted by Almeta Lawrence, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, for specific performance of an oral contract between the appellant's mother, Elnora Freeman, who was deceased at the time of the institution of this suit, and Willie Freeman Nelson, Jafrus Freeman, Jr., Lloyd Freeman and Johnny Freeman, hereinafter referred to as the appellees, to convey to appellant's mother certain real estate upon performance of certain conditions. The trial court ordered, by agreement of counsel, an issue out of chancery and two questions were submitted to a jury:
'1. Did the respondents Willie Freeman Nelson, Jafrus Freeman, Lloyd Freeman and Johnny Freeman orally promise to convey the property at 1440 Atlantic Avenue, consisting of lots 14 and 15, to Elnora Freeman, upon the condition that Elnora Freeman would pay off the mortgage and pay the taxes on the property?
Both of these questions were answered in the affirmative.
After considering the evidence heard ore tenus and the findings of the jury, the chancellor in a written opinion held that the agreement relied on was not certain and definite as to its terms and that the acts alleged to have been done pursuant to the agreement could (if proven in a proper action) be fully compensated in damages, and entered a decree dismissing the bill and the amended bill. To this decree we granted an appeal.
The appellant's sole assignment of error is that the decree of the trial court is contrary to the law and the evidence.
The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decree of the lower court on the ground that the appellant has failed to comply with Rule 5:1. § 3(e) of the Rules of this court.
The statement of facts presented to the trial court for certification is very little more than a recital of the allegations in the bill and the amended bill and the questions presented to the jury and its answers. The record is incomplete and omits the necessary summary of the evidence, or a transcript thereof, on which the jury based its findings and the chancellor his decision.
The appellant has not complied with Rule 5:1. § 3(e) of the Rules of this Court.
In Whitlow v. Grubb, 198 Va. 274, 276, 93 S.E.2d 134, 135, the late Chief Justice Hudgins said (at 198 Va. 276, 93 S.E.2d 135): ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES v. Cherry
...evidence was not material.5 In sum, given the record before us, we presume the trial court to be correct. See Lawrence v. Nelson, 200 Va. 597, 599, 106 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1959) (holding that where appellant has not made the evidence on which a decree is based part of the record on appeal, it ......
-
Twardy v. Twardy
...whether the lower court has erred." Justis v. Young, 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255, 256-57 (1961); see also Lawrence v. Nelson, 200 Va. 597, 599, 106 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1959); Mick v. Bristol, 180 Va. 15, 20, 21 S.E.2d 758, 761 (1942); Tyree v. Blevins Funeral Home, 176 Va. 213, 215, 10 S.......
-
Commonwealth v. Spinola
...or so much thereof as is necessary and sufficient for us to give full consideration to the assignment of error.Lawrence v. Nelson, 200 Va. 597, 598-99, 106 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1959) (citations omitted). Although the Commonwealth may rely on a third party, such as a court reporter, to execute f......
-
Ford v. Commonwealth
...Rule 5A:7(b). As he concedes, appellant was responsible for ensuring the record on appeal was complete. See Lawrence v. Nelson, 200 Va. 597, 598-99, 106 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1959) ("An appellant who seeks the reversal of a decree on the ground that it is contrary to the law and the evidence has......