Case ID: va-dec_2/html/0667-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cardwell, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stuart v. Pennis.
    
      (Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,
    
    
      July 11, 1899.)
    
    [33 S. E. Rep. 1015.]
    Appellate Practice- — Court Equally Divided.
    Where the appellate court is equally divided the ruling of the lower court is affirmed.
    Same — Decrees—“Without Prejudice.”
    In this case it appeared to the court that the decree dismissing the bill should have been without prejudice to the right of the appellant to bring his action at law on the contract, and the decree was amended in that respect.
    Appeal from circuit court, Russell county.
    Bill by one Stuart against one Pennis. Prom a decree dismissing the bill, complainant Appeals.
    Modified.
    
      J. J. Stuart, W. E- Burns, and M. P. Burks, for appellant.
    
      II. A. Roiuth, W. W. Bird, Henry de Graham, and J. G. Gent, for appellees.
   Cardwell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case, which is a sequel of the case of Stuart v. Pennis, 91 Va. 688, 22 S. E. 509, the court being equally divided as to the right of appellant to have a decree for the specific performance of the contract in his bill mentioned, no opinion has been prepared ; but, it appearing to the court that the decree dismissing the bill should have been without prejudice to the right of appellant to bring his action at law upon said contract, if he be so advised, the decree appealed from will be amended in this respect, and, as amended, will be affirmed, with costs to appellee.