The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-04-17
INTERESTING OPINION READ
In the Supreme Court Of Appeals Yes
teTday.
THE JUDGMENT ON A NOTE REVERSED.
What Judge Lewis Had To Say About the
Matter-Corbin Against the Plant
crs' National Bank.

An opinion was rendered yesterday in the
Supreme Court Of Appeals of Virginia boy
Judge Lewis in the case of Corbin against the
Planters National Bank Of Richmond This
was an action of assumpsit in the Corporation
Court of Danylle. wherein the Planters Ma
tional Bank was plaintiff and T. j. Corbin was
defendant and the opinion of the court be-
low was reversed.
On the 18th of July. 1857. s. +. Cobb.. i'm
the city Of New York executed his promissory
note for $4,000 payable ninety DAYS after
date TO ms own order, at his Office in that
city.
1t is admitted that 10y the laws Of New
York the note was negotiable. but It doe. not
appear that 10y those laws II wa protcstable.
After being endorsed by Cobbs. Corb.n and
I. =. Flournoy. Jr 10 was discounted for the
latter by the Planters National Bank two DAYS
after MS date and the proceeds put % his
credit m the bank
The note was not paid at maturity and was
protested by New York notary.
JOINT ACTION OF DEBT.
On the 25th Of February 1858, the bank in
stituted Joint action OF debt in the said Cor
poraton Court against the maker and endors-
ers OF the note, III which active process was
AT the April term of the court. 1883, C0rbin
and tlournoy demured to thodeclaration and
pleaded ME debet whereupon the court over
ruled the demurrer and continued the ease o.
the following July term.
May goth Flournoy confessed Judgment in
the clerk = Office for the debt claimed i'm the
declaration and costs. and at the July term
there was Judgment 10y default against
CObbs and discontinuance as to Corbin.
Afterwards the present action was instl-
tuted against CorOin alone, and the dcclara-
ton alleges the insolvency of CObbs and Flour
nOy.
The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and
Especial plea Of former adjudication"
Al the April term 1899, neither party reouir-
IN jury the court. after hearing the eyi-
dence, entered up Judgment for the plaintiff
iof e5,OOl4l, with interest. which Is the judg-
ment complained of.
SOLUTION Easy
In his opinion Judge Lewis said that the
case involved several important questions of
fculty
He says the defendant in support of the
point uadeln the special plea relies upon m,
decision Of tins court i'm the case of Beazlev
vs. Slmms II Virginia, G44, but that case Is
not IA point"
ne RUE, moreover, announced in that case
mas i since been changed by the new Code
ia, wa an action against two joint Obligors
~ "nich process was served on one of the
defendants only. and there was a indictment
ssainst that one and "a dscontinnance IA to
,hv othef' and m subsequent action against
pom II was held that the cause of action was
suit. d" 'Ho Ais'
Afterwards, however. the present Code of |
n,nIihia Was adopted, which after providing |
lnsl "heie IN any action against two or more /
. IelehuaiIs inc process is served on part of |
theni. lhe pialntih may proceed to Judgment |
a. TO any so served, and either discontinue il |
''is 10 The others, OF, from time 10 time AZ the |
process IS served as to such others. proceed ~ |
judgment as 70 them. until judgment be- oh. |
tanned against ALL ~ o"-
He SAYS that clearly tho princinla 10
cided In the case cited could not govern this
case.
This being 50, he says the next oues-
ton IL whether upon the evidence which is
~ cut IN the bill Of exception. the bank was /