Miller's Adm'r v. Cook's Adm'rs

Citations

• 77 Va. 806
• 1883 Va. LEXIS 115

Syllabus

<p>1. Decrees-Interlocutory.-When the further action of the court in the cause is necessary to give completely the relief contemplated by the court, the decree upon which the question arises is to be regarded not as final, but interlocutory.</p> <p>2. Appellate Court-Decisions.-Decision of such court upon a question decided by the court below, is final and irreversible; and upon a, second appeal in the cause, the question decided upon the first appeal cannot be reversed, and such decision is alike conclusive whether the decree appealed from was final or interlocutory.</p> <p>3. Decrees-Interlocutory-Modification-When remanded.-Where the decree affirmed, on its face, orders that the cause be referred to a master to take a further account and report, &c., such decree is interlocutory. Upon the cause being remanded to court below for further proceedings, such interlocutory decree may be modified upon exceptions to the master’s report on motion or otherwise. Steptoe v. Steptoe, 1 Munf. 339; Smith v. Blackwell, 31 Gratt. 291.</p> <p>4. Sequestration Acts-Unconstitutional.-The U. S. constitution, prohibiting a state from passing a law impairing the obligation of a contract and discriminating against citizens of another state, equally prohibits a state from enforcing as a law, an enactment sequestrating debts owing to loyal citizens, come that enactment from whatever source. Williams v. Bruffey, 6 Otto, 176.</p> <p>5. Idem-Personal representatives.-The credit allowed to administrators, &c., for money owing from them to loyal non-residents during the late war and paid by them tmder compulsion of the Confederate sequestration enactment, rests on other and higher ground than such enactment-Newton v. Bushong, 22 Gratt. 629, contra.</p>