Case ID: va_147/html/0919-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Holt, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richmond.
    John S. Moon, et als. v. Washington-Beaufort Land Company.
    No. 2.
    May 27, 1926.
    Error to a judgment of the Court of Law and Chancery of the city of Norfolk, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for money. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs assign error.
    
      Reversed and remanded..
    
    The opinion states the case.
    
      James E. Heath, for the plaintiffs in error.
    
      Savage efe Lawerence, for the defendant in error.
   Holt, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is in all respects like that of John S. Moon and others v. Washington-Beaufort Land Company, this day decided, ante, page 912, 133 S. E. 498, save that it is an action on a note and not on account. The two were heard together. The evidence was the same and instructions were the same, but since the endorsers were not entitled to a judgment over, that entire recovery was transferred to the first case. The jury’s verdict was: “We, the jury, find for the defendant.” For the reasons stated it also must be reversed and remanded. These two should be again heard together and the single issue to be covered by one verdict should be the ascertainment of the actual value of the potatoes delivered and accepted.

Reversed and remanded.