Skip to main content

Tate v. Tate

Citations

  • 85 Va. 205
  • 7 S.E. 352
  • 1888 Va. LEXIS 29

Syllabus

<p>1. Bonds&emdash;Possession&emdash;Ownership&emdash;Case at bar.&emdash;Bond of L., dated 1860, for $3,000 payable to A. was in B.’s possession in 1866, endorsed with credit “for $1,678, Confederate money,” as of June, 1863, and claimed by him. L. died in 1865, A. in 1876. In A.’s life-time, in 1869, B. notified one of L.’s administrators that he held and claimed the bond, and in 1874 exhibited it to the other, A. living near, being related to, and surety on the bond of said administrators, and neither he, in his lifer time, though needy, nor, after his death, his administrator, nor his family, ever claimed the bond. The credit corresponded with M.’s receipt to L., only latter specified that the $1,678 was to be credited on L.’s “ notes ” due M. There was no assignment of the bond endorsed thereon, or other evidence of B.’s ownership. In 1870, B. brought two actions of debt on bonds of L., executed to C. and in B.’s possession, without assignment or other proof of ownership, and two actions of assumpsit on a draft and on an open account against L.’s administrators. In July, 1885, in suits (heard together) against administrators of J. and of T.&emdash; who, for a consideration, had, in 1865, in writing, undertaken to pay the debts of L.&emdash;M. set up this bond for $3,000, less the credit aforesaid, as a debt of L. to him, which was allowed and reported by the commissioner, and was excepted to on the ground that said bond “was without assignment, and the only claim to ownership was the isolated fact of possession ”;</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>By all the facts and principles of this case, M.’s ownership of the $3,000 bond is established. Brown v. Taylor, 32 Gratt. 135 ; Hodnett v. Pace, 84 Va. 873.</p> <p>2. Bill of Review&emdash;After-discovered evidence&emdash;Case at bar.&emdash;The alleged after-discovered evidence set up as grounds for reviewing and reversing the decree in this case, was hearsay and inadmissible, merely cumulative, and might, by use of reasonable d

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • factfinding by a master commissioner

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fauntleroy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.