Meade v. Wallen
| Decision Date | 20 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 811193,811193 |
| Citation | 311 S.E.2d 103,226 Va. 465 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bernard MEADE v. Paul Max WALLEN. Record |
Benjamin F. Sutherland, Clintwood, for appellant.
No brief or argument for appellee.
Before CARRICO, C.J., and COCHRAN, POFF, COMPTON, THOMPSON, STEPHENSON, RUSSELL and THOMAS, JJ.
On August 26, 1977, Bernard Meade and Paul Max Wallen entered into an agreement containing this critical provision:
BERNARD MEADE agrees to pay on the 5th. and the 20th. of each month, Fifteen (15) cents per Ton (2,000) lb. to enter upon and cross the property of BRENDA WALLEN AND PAUL M. WALLEN to haul coal and timber from Brown's property only.
Relying upon this agreement, Meade secured the right to mine coal and cut timber on the Brown property. At the time of trial in June, 1980, Meade had not yet mined any coal; however, during the years 1978 and 1979, he had cut timber on the Brown property and hauled it over the right-of-way on Wallen's land. Then, on April 21, 1980, Wallen directed Meade's timber contractor not to use the right-of-way further.
On May 3, 1980, Meade filed a bill of complaint for an injunction restraining Wallen from interfering with Meade's use of the right-of-way and for damages. After a hearing, the trial court enjoined Wallen from interfering with Meade's use of the right-of-way to haul coal, but held the agreement of August 26, 1977, "too vague to give Meade the right to haul timber" across Wallen's land. The court held further, however, that Meade could haul timber over the right-of-way by paying Wallen $1,050.00 in a lump sum, a figure the court established on the basis of the price Meade had paid a neighboring property owner for a right-of-way to haul timber.
The trial court apparently found the agreement "too vague" with respect to Meade's right to haul timber because the compensation stated in the contract was "per Ton" and the court supposed that timber cannot be priced by the ton but only by the thousand feet. If this was the basis of the court's finding, the court was in error. The court erred further in establishing a new and different compensation for Meade's right to haul timber across Wallen's property.
It is the function of the court to construe the contract made by the parties, not to make a contract for them. The question for the court is what did the parties agree to as evidenced by their contract. The guiding light in the construction of [the] contract is the intention of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Bowden
...instrument plainly declares. Wilson v. Holyfield, 227 Va. 184, 187, 313 S.E.2d 396, 398 (Va.1984) (quoting Meade v. Wallen, 226 Va. 465, 467, 311 S.E.2d 103, 104 (Va.1984)). The only interest, or perhaps more appropriately phrased, rate of return, that is provided for in the Note is the agr......
-
Freedlander, Inc. v. NCNB NAT. BANK OF NC
...have used, and courts are bound to say that the parties intended what the written instrument plainly declares.'" Meade v. Wallen, 226 Va. 465, 467, 311 S.E.2d 103, 104 (1984), quoting Magann Corp. v. Electrical Works, 203 Va. 259, 264, 123 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1962). Here, the contract speaks i......
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. CG Bellkor, LLC
...206, 213, 343 S.E.2d 312, 316 (1986) (citing Wilson v. Holyfield, 227 Va. 184, 187, 313 S.E.2d 396, 398 (1984); Meade v. Wallen, 226 Va. 465, 467, 311 S.E.2d 103, 104 (1984); Magann Corp. v. Electrical Works, 203 Va. 259, 264, 123 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1962)). Though generally non-recourse, the ......
-
Hutchens v. Capital One Servs.
...they have used, and . . . are bound to say that the parties intended what the written instrument plainly declares." Meade v. Wallen, 311 S.E.2d 103, 104 (Va. 1984) (internal citations omitted). "To state a claim for breach of contract under Virginia law, a plaintiff must plausibly allege in......