Ocean Accident Corp. v. Haley
| Decision Date | 16 June 1932 |
| Citation | 158 Va. 691 |
| Parties | THE OCEAN ACCIDENT AND GUARANTEE CORPORATION, LIMITED v. BEATRICE HALEY, EXECUTRIX, ETC. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Hudgins, Gregory and Browning, JJ.
EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF — Reasonable Notice to Opposite Party's Attorney — Case at Bar. — In the instant case defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error on the ground that the provisions that reasonable notice to the opposite party or his attorney of the time and place at which the bills of exception were to be tendered under section 6252 of the Code of 1919 were not complied with. It appeared that on the last day on which the bills of exception could be tendered, at 1:18 P.M. counsel for the opposite party was served with notice that at 2:45 P.M. of that day the bills of exception would be presented for the signature of the judge. The notice was served upon counsel just one hour and twenty-seven minutes before the bills were to be presented. Counsel was engaged in the trial of another case but he appeared and objected to the signing of the bills of exception on the ground stated. The court adjourned the matter until 5:30 of the same day. The matter was taken up at 5:30, when two additional bills of exception, of which counsel had no previous notice, were presented, at which time the judge signed them.
Held: That the provision of section 6252 of the Code of 1919 was mandatory and that the notice was not reasonable within the plain meaning of the terms of the statute, which are jurisdictional. The case was therefore dismissed.
Error to a judgment of the Law and Equity Court of the City of Richmond. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.
The opinion states the case.
James H. Price, W. K. Mathews, Williams & Mullen, Guy B. Hazelgrove and Ralph T. Catterall, for the plaintiff in error.
Allen & Jefferson, for the defendant in error.
At a former term of this court the writ of error by which the case was placed upon the docket was dismissed on motion made to that end by counsel for the defendant in error on the ground that the requirement of Code, section 6252, as to the giving of reasonable notice, to the opposite party or his attorney, of the time and place at which the bill or bills of exception are to be tendered, was not complied with. The plaintiff in error filed a petition to rehear which was granted and the case was reheard.
The court is of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Va. Home for Incurables v. Coleman
...S.E. 251; Omohundro Palmer, 158 Va. 693, 164 S.E. 541; Scholz Standard, etc., Ins. Co., 145 Va. 694, 134 S.E. 728; Ocean Accident Corp. Haley, 158 Va. 691, 164 S.E. 538. 7, 8 In view of the above established legal principles, it is manifest that Rule XXIV cannot be construed to provide a se......
-
Va. Home For Incurables v. Coleman
...Omohundro v. Palmer, 158 Va. 693, 164 S. E. 541; Scholz v. Standard, etc., Ins. Co., 145 Va. 694, 134 S. E. 728; Ocean Accident Corp. v. Haley, 158 Va. 691, 164 S. E. 538. In view of the above-established legal principles, it is manifest that the provisions of rule XXIV cannot be construed ......
-
Bacigalupo v. Fleming, 4769
...had not had 'reasonable time' to examine the transcript and appear before the Court (sic).' He relies upon Ocean Accident & Guaranty Corp. v. Haley, (1932) 158 Va. 691, 164 S.E. 538; Town of Falls Church v. Myers, (1948) 187 Va. 110, 46 S.E.2d 31; and Steingold v. Seaton, (1948)187 Va. 923,......
-
Snead v. Com., 4927
...facts of each particular case. It relies on Bacigalupo v. Fleming, 199 Va. 827, 102 S.E.2d 321; and Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Limited v. Haley, 158 Va. 691, 164 S.E. 538. In Bacigalupo v. Fleming, supra, counsel for the appellant delivered to opposing counsel a transcript of......