Ronald v. Bank of Princeton

Citations

• 90 Va. 813
• 20 S.E. 780
• 1894 Va. LEXIS 73

Syllabus

<p>1. Negotiable Notes — Failure of purpose — Case at bar. — The hill avers that the note was delivered for one purpose and without the parties’ consent, was used for a different purpose, and that Solenberger v. Gilbert, 86 Va., 778, rules the case: Held : The averment of fact is not sustained by the proof.</p> <p>2. Chancery Practice — Irregularities—Waiver.—A consent submission of a cause for hearing is a waiver of irregularities at rules.</p> <p>3. Appellate Court — Too late.- — Where for the first time the point is raised in this court that a promise hi the note to pay, in case of a suit, five per cent collection fees and fifty dollars attorney’s fee, is an unenforceable penalty within the ruling of Rixey v. Pearre, 89 Va., 113 : Held : Too late now to raise the point.</p> <p>4. Destruction of Negotiability — Case at bar. — Conceding that such a promise might destroy the negotiability of the note, yet the averment that the note -was delivered for the sole purpose of being discounted, not having been proved: held, such concession would avail the appellants nothing.</p>