Lemuel F. Smith

This case involved a dispute between Safway Steel Scaffolds of Virginia, Inc. and its former employee Norman Coulter over compensation under an employment contract for managing the company's Roanoke branch, which included a profit-sharing arrangement based on gross profits from invoices. The plaintiff sought an accounting and discovery after the contract was terminated, leading to disagreements about which invoices for business in the assigned territory should be included in calculating the branch's gross profits. The trial court initially awarded the plaintiff $7,005.21 plus partial costs, but on appeal the Virginia Supreme Court modified the decree to increase the award by $371.72 for automobile depreciation and to assign all trial costs to the defendant, while otherwise affirming the lower court's rulings on the invoice inclusions and contract interpretation. The court reasoned that the contract terms required inclusion of certain pre-termination business in gross profits and that the plaintiff substantially prevailed in the litigation, warranting full costs under equitable principles.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Louis H. Parker, owner of a motel in Prince William County, filed a claim with the county board of supervisors for $31,500 in damages, alleging that a sewage treatment plant constructed across the road created a nuisance through odors, insects, and debris that reduced his property's value. The board disallowed the claim, Parker received notice by mail, and he attempted to appeal to the circuit court by serving notice and depositing a check for costs, but did not file a proper appeal bond with surety within the thirty-day period after notice or the six-month maximum period under Code § 15-259. The trial court dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, rejecting Parker's request to convert the appeal into an original action, and the Supreme Court affirmed because the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal were not met and the board had neither refused to act nor consented to an original suit.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In Bundy v. Bundy, a husband deserted his wife and infant child without justification and took the child to North Carolina, prompting the wife to seek a divorce from bed and board, custody of the child, and support. The trial court denied divorce to both parties, awarded the wife custody and child support, but provided no alimony for the wife herself. On appeal, the court affirmed the custody award, the denial of divorce to the husband, and the child support amount, but reversed the denial of alimony to the wife. The core reasoning was that a husband has a legal and moral duty to support his wife according to his financial ability and their accustomed standard of living, regardless of whether she is destitute, and the evidence showed the wife's needs were not met without such support; the case was remanded to set a fair alimony amount.

family law

The case involved Grady J. Prentice, operating as the Prentice Poultry Plant, challenging a City of Richmond tax assessment that imposed a wholesale merchants' license tax on his poultry processing business under the city code, from which he claimed exemption as a manufacturer. The trial court ruled that Prentice was not a manufacturer and thus liable for the tax, and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that, under Virginia precedents, manufacturing requires a substantial qualitative transformation of raw materials into a product of substantially different character, which was lacking in Prentice's operations of buying, killing, cleaning, chilling, and selling poultry—even with significant mechanization and investment—making him subject to the tax as a wholesale merchant.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involves the appeal of Arlington Farrow's conviction for second-degree murder of Deputy Sheriff Hugh Conway Broadwell in Giles County, for which he received a 15-year prison sentence. The defendant sought reversal on grounds including denial of his motion for change of venue due to alleged local prejudice from newspaper coverage and jail visit restrictions, insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and errors in granting and refusing jury instructions. The court ruled that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying venue change because the defendant failed to show widespread prejudice overcoming the presumption of a fair local trial, the evidence including witness accounts and physical details justified rejecting the self-defense claim and supporting murder in the second degree, and the instruction assignments were procedurally deficient under appellate rules. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Mayflower Park Corporation sued Hodges Manor Corporation and Construction Associates for damages after the defendants, while developing a residential subdivision, installed larger drainage pipes and graded streets to channel increased quantities of surface water onto the plaintiff's adjacent land, and also entered the plaintiff's property without permission to deepen a ditch. A jury awarded the plaintiff $13,000, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the finding that the defendants had collected surface water into artificial channels and discharged it in greater volume and velocity onto the plaintiff's land. Virginia law permits landowners to protect their property from surface water as a common enemy but prohibits them from doing so by artificially concentrating and redirecting it to cause injury to others, a rule applied here based on the defendants' grading and piping changes. The court also upheld the damages instruction on repair costs, finding no prejudice to the defendants.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved members of the Norfolk Cooperative Milk Producers Association suing the association and one of its directors, James Halstead, to prevent him from serving as business manager and receiving a $5,000 annual salary for that role. The plaintiffs claimed that Code § 13-266(c) and the association's bylaws barred a director from receiving such compensation. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed. The court reasoned that the statute permits fair remuneration for directors' and officers' services and only prohibits contracts for profit that give directors preferential terms unavailable to regular members; it distinguished wages or compensation for labor from profit and found no violation here. The decision also noted that general corporation law allows directors to serve in other capacities for fair pay absent conflicting provisions.

business & regulatory

This case involved a wrongful death action brought by the administrator of Nana Lucy Dickerson's estate against Ben Miller following her death in a car accident while riding in his vehicle after working late at a restaurant he managed. The trial court ruled that the decedent was a guest passenger under Virginia's guest statute, requiring proof of gross negligence, found the evidence insufficient, and set aside the jury's verdict for the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding that the evidence could support a finding that the decedent was a paying passenger because she performed extra cleaning duties in exchange for the ride home, which would allow recovery based on ordinary negligence, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the administratrix of Hubert Lee Obenchain's estate against John Allen Garst, alleging that Garst's gross negligence while driving caused Obenchain's death in a car accident; Obenchain had been a guest passenger in Garst's vehicle. A jury awarded the plaintiff $21,000, but the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish gross negligence, as the conflicting accounts from the defendant and the other passenger did not demonstrate an utter disregard for safety, and the defendant claimed he swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle. It further reasoned that the plaintiff's instruction was defective for omitting the requirement that the negligence be the proximate cause of the accident, though there was no evidence supporting a contributory negligence defense.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Mary E. West sued the City of Portsmouth for injuries from a fall on an allegedly defective brick sidewalk, claiming the city negligently failed to maintain it in a safe condition. A jury awarded her $5,000, but the trial court set aside the verdict and entered judgment for the city, which the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the evidence failed to show an actionable defect or that the city had actual or constructive notice of any defect, as the plaintiff's testimony was uncertain about the cause and no prior knowledge by the city was proven. The court noted that municipalities are not insurers of sidewalk safety but must exercise ordinary care, and here the plaintiff did not meet the required elements of proof for recovery.

torts & liability

The case involved National Linen Service Corporation challenging a Norfolk city ordinance that prohibited the use of common towels in food establishments and required sanitary paper towels instead. The company, which supplied roller and chained cloth towel systems to restaurants, sought to have the ordinance declared invalid and to enjoin its enforcement. The trial court upheld the ordinance as valid and classified the supplied towels as common towels, dismissing the suit. On appeal, the court held that the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the city's authority under its charter to protect public health, but reversed and remanded for a new trial to determine whether the specific towel systems met the statutory definition of common towels as those available for use by more than one person without laundering after each use.

business & regulatory

This case involved a suit by the administrator of George D. Crabbs' estate against Gladys E. Kellow to impose a resulting trust on the Grand Caverns real estate, which was titled in Kellow's name after its 1943 purchase, based on Crabbs having provided 49 percent of the funds toward the purchase price and related payments. The trial court overruled a demurrer regarding necessary parties and ruled that the estate held a 49/100 beneficial interest with a right to an accounting. The appellate court reversed, holding that no resulting trust arose because the evidence, including Crabbs' repeated oral and written statements, a signed memorandum, his tax filings, and his will, demonstrated that the funds were provided as gifts or to repay prior loans rather than to acquire any ownership interest in the property.

property

This case concerned whether a husband, found guilty of desertion in a prior divorce from bed and board decree, could obtain a merger of that decree into an absolute divorce from the bonds of matrimony under Virginia Code § 20-121. The trial court granted the merger on the husband's motion, but the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence failed to show either that no reconciliation was probable or that the separation had continued without interruption since the bed and board decree. The court reasoned that the statute's requirements of continuous separation and lack of probable reconciliation were not met because the parties had resumed marital relations, including sexual intercourse on multiple occasions and the wife performing wifely duties during weekend visits over several months. Because the guilty party could not force a merger that even the innocent party could not obtain on these facts, the court remanded with directions to dismiss the motion.

family law

The case involved Aubrey Wright, who was convicted of grand larceny under Virginia Code § 18-169 for receiving stolen money and aiding in concealing the thieves, knowing the funds had been taken from John W. Pick. The trial court overruled a motion to set aside the jury verdict and imposed the one-year penitentiary sentence fixed by the jury. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Wright received more than the statutory amount of fifty dollars in stolen money and assisted in hiding the principal offenders and the proceeds.

criminal law

This case was a wrongful death suit brought by the administrator of Homer Cary's estate against Hotel Rueger, Inc., after bellboy George Frazier shot and killed Cary during an argument on a hotel elevator about money Frazier allegedly owed the Cary brothers from prior unlawful activities involving women. At trial, the court struck the plaintiff's evidence and entered judgment for the defendants, finding insufficient proof that Frazier acted within the scope of his employment. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, holding that the dispute was a personal matter unrelated to Frazier's duties of delivering ice or operating the elevator, did not arise from any hotel business or service, and stemmed instead from an independent motive, so the hotel bore no vicarious liability. The court distinguished cases involving negligent elevator operation or arguments tied directly to employment tasks, noting the shooting occurred on the elevator only by coincidence.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Sterling Insurance v. Dansey, the insured sued his accident and health insurer to recover for total disability benefits after a brain hemorrhage, and the insurer denied the claim on grounds that the insured had made material misrepresentations in his 1948 policy application by answering that he had never had diabetes and by describing prior medical treatment only as a check-up. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for the insured in the amount of $1,535, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed. The court held that the evidence supported the jury's finding that the insured had not knowingly made false statements, that he had made a full and frank disclosure by identifying his physician and signing an authorization for further information, and that the insurer had not clearly proved the statements were material misrepresentations under the applicable statute treating application answers as representations rather than warranties. The opinion noted conflicting medical testimony on whether the insured had diabetes prior to the application and emphasized that the insurer had received the physician's report opportunity before issuing the policy.

business & regulatory

This case involved the interpretation of a holographic will that gave the testator's wife possession and full control of his property for her lifetime, with the remainder to go to a Methodist orphanage and church after her death. The court was asked to determine whether the widow received a life estate or a fee simple title to the real and personal property. The court decided that the widow acquired fee simple title in the real property and an absolute estate in the personal property, rendering the remainder over void. The reasoning centered on the testator's grant of absolute power of disposal without expressly creating a life estate, which under Virginia precedent like May v. Joynes vests the first taker with an absolute estate.

propertyfamily law

The case involved two defendants, Roy Spradlin and Frank Jackson, who were jointly indicted under the maiming statute for felonious and malicious assaults on Charles M. Hamilton and Gordon H. Richards. A jury convicted each defendant of assault and battery on both victims, sentencing them to jail time and fines, after they raised an alibi defense that the jury rejected. On appeal, the sole issue was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, particularly as to whether each defendant personally committed violence against both victims. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence established the defendants were present and participated in a concerted group assault, making them liable as aiders and abettors regardless of which specific injuries each inflicted.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute over an insurance policy covering a truck purchased under a conditional sales contract, with Union Trust Corporation holding a lien as loss payee under a simple loss payable clause. After the truck was damaged, the insured settled her claim with Provident Fire Insurance for $700 without the loss payee's consent or participation, leading Union Trust to sue for the full amount of its lien. The court held that the loss payee's rights were no greater than those of the insured and that it was bound by the good-faith settlement between the insured and insurer, as the policy authorized them to determine the loss amount and contained no requirement to involve the loss payee. The trial court's larger judgment was reversed, with final judgment entered only for the $355.67 the insurer admitted owing.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Harlow v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted by a jury of robbing Arthur Smith and sentenced to nine years in prison, based on the victim's identification and testimony linking a stolen watch to the defendant. On appeal, the defendant assigned error to the trial court's giving of improper jury instructions requested by the Commonwealth and refusing proper ones requested by the defense. The Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, holding that the assignments of error failed to comply with Rule 5:1 § 4 and Code § 19-257 because they did not point out the specific errors with reasonable certainty, as required by longstanding precedent interpreting those provisions. The court noted that only errors properly assigned and preserved can be considered, though it briefly observed that review of the instructions showed no prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure