Roanoke National Bank v. Hambrick

Citations

• 82 Va. 135
• 1886 Va. LEXIS 17

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice at Common Law—Declaration—Demurrer.—Where declaration, though inartifieially commencing statement of cause of action with a quod cum, yet states the essential averments in direct and positive terms, it is sufficient.</p> <p>2. Idem—Pleading.—And in an action against a bank for negligence in failing to protest a note placed with it for collection, it is sufficient if the declaration avers it was so placed before its maturity, though ¿he date of the placing is not specified.</p> <p>3. Idem—Evidence—Renewal—Ratification.—The fact that cashier handed plaintiff, in lieu of old note which should have been protested, a renewed note, saying former was lost, and plaintiff retained latter some time, is not conclusive of plaintiff's ratification of the bank’s action, but evidence from which the jury might or might not infer such ratification.</p> <p>4. Idem—Instructions.—Instructions asked for which are not founded on the evidence in the case are properly refused. Bartley v. McKinney, 28 Gratt. 750.</p> <p>5. Idem—New trial—Evidence certified.—Appellate court will not reverse refusal of new trial by court below, unless after rejecting all exceptor’s parol evidence, and giving full force and credit to that of exceptee, the decision still appears wrong.</p>