Rohanna v. Vazzana
| Decision Date | 22 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 4281,4282,s. 4281 |
| Citation | 84 S.E.2d 440,196 Va. 549 |
| Parties | VIRGINIA ROHANNA AND GEORGE ROHANNA v. PATSY VAZZANA AND SAM VAZZANA, PARTNERS, TRADING AS VAZZANA BROTHERS, AND OTHERS. VIRGINIA ROHANNA AND GEORGE ROHANNA v. PATSY VAZZANA AND SAM VAZZANA, PARTNERS, TRADING AS VAZZANA BROTHERS, AND OTHERS. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Sacks & Sacks, for the appellants.
Jett, Sykes & Howell, for the appellees.
These appeals involve separate suits instituted for the purpose of enforcing mechanics' liens. The facts and circumstances are the same in each suit, and by agreement they were consolidated on appeal. One case grows out of work performed by appellees on the home of appellants located in the city of Norfolk, and the other involves the construction of a new dwelling by appellees for appellants in Norfolk county.
Judgments were obtained against the Rohannas by Vazzana Brothers as general contractors amounting to $11,589.19 on the new construction in the county, and $9,533.88 for the remodeling of the home in the city.
Several materialmen who furnished supplies on the jobs were granted personal judgments against the Rohannas in the decrees appealed from, and the entry of such judgments is assigned as error. It was stated by counsel for the materialmen in argument before us that they do not insist upon the affirmance of these personal judgments and it was agreed that the decrees appealed from should be modified so as to eliminate them. Code of 1950, § 43-22; Nicholas v. Harrisonburg Building and Supply Co., 181 Va. 207, 211, 24 S.E. (2d) 452, 453.
The Rohannas answered the bills filed against them by Vazzana Brothers and set up numerous defenses. They also filed a special plea based on the assertion in the answers that '* * * the plaintiffs are barred from recovering any balance due from said defendants * * * because the amount claimed * * * is an alleged balance due under a verbal contract for the erection of the building on Carrene Drive, Norfolk County, and the repairs and alterations to the building numbered 9226 Marlow Avenue, the aggregate amount of which as shown in the plaintiffs' bills of complaint is in excess of $20,000, and that the plaintiffs * * * Vazzana Brothers, being general contractors, and having failed to comply with Title 54, Chapter 7, Volume 7, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, are therefore barred from collecting any alleged balance * * *.' Code, §§ 54-113 to 54-145, both inclusive, as amended.
The chapter of the Code here referred to requires that any person who undertakes to bid upon or to construct any building or other thing, if the undertaking is to cost twenty thousand dollars or more, secure a State license before engaging in the undertaking. A failure to comply with the statute precludes a recovery by the contractor on his contract. Bowen Electric Co. v. Foley, 194 Va. 92, 98, 99, 72 S.E. (2d) 388, 392, 393.
On motion of Vazzana Brothers, a hearing was had on the special plea, at which Vazzana Brothers took the position that the statute had no application in a situation where two separate and distinct jobs and contracts were involved, neither of which amounted to twenty thousand dollars. Upon the conclusion of the testimony taken on the motion the Rohannas requested and were granted leave by the court to withdraw the special plea.
Some time thereafter when the suits came on for hearing counsel for the parties stated to the trial court that a settlement had been agreed upon; whereupon the court ordered the terms of settlement dictated into the record. The settlement provided that the defendants, Virginia Rohanna and George Rohanna pay to Vazzana Brothers $11,500, and that 'if within sixty days Virginia Rohanna and George Rohanna have not paid the sum * * * then it is here agreed by Virginia Rohanna and George Rohanna, individually and through their attorney, Herman Sacks, that a judgment shall be entered in the respective suits * * * for the full amount sued for * * *.'
The trial court, in its opinion, says:
This contention was disregarded by the court and judgments were entered in accordance with the plaintiff's motion. Several days thereafter defendants appeared and moved the court to set the judgments aside on the ground that they were predicated upon an illegal consideration. Thus the defendants were here attempting to reassert the defense originally relied upon in the special plea which had previously been withdrawn. The court refused to disturb the judgments, hence this appeal.
Before us,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silling v. Erwin
...In the quaint but appropriate language of Scotch law, "a man shall not be allowed ... to approbate and reprobate." Rohanna v. Vazzana, 196 Va. 549, 84 S.E.2d 440, 442 (1954). Based upon the foregoing analysis,16 the Court finds the principles of equitable estoppel prevent the Plaintiff from......
-
County School Bd. of Henrico County, Vir. v. Rt
...... to approbate and reprobate" at the same time. Silling v. Erwin, 885 F.Supp. 881, 897 (S.D.W.Va.1995) (quoting Rohanna v. Vazzana, 196 Va. 549, 84 S.E.2d 440, 442 (1954)). The Court recognizes that the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that, in general, estoppel does not apply to local ......
-
Vepco v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., Record No. 081294.
...court rules and litigation strategy. Wilroy v. Halbleib, 214 Va. 442, 445, 201 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1974) (quoting Rohanna v. Vazzana, 196 Va. 549, 553, 84 S.E.2d 440, 442 (1954)). It is not a doctrine primarily directed to the interests of the litigants. Nevertheless it is an equitable doctrin......
-
In re Bay Vista of Virginia, Inc.
...Inc. v. Lavani, Case No. 95-2072, 1996 WL 276990, at *4 (4th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision) (quoting Rohanna v. Vazzana, 196 Va. 549, 553, 84 S.E.2d 440, 442 (1954)). To the extent Count Three asserts a cognizable cause of action, it appears there is no basis to conclude such an ac......