Virginia v. West Virginia
Citations
- 238 U.S. 202
- 35 S. Ct. 795
- 59 L. Ed. 1272
- 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1614
Syllabus
<p>This controversy being one between States, referred .to this court in reliance upon the honor and constitutional obligations of the parties, it has been determined only after, the amplest' opportunity for hearing and with full recognition of every existing equity.</p> <p>West Virginia is entitled to have the assets in the Virginia sinking fund and those'specifically appropriated for payment of the debt applied in reduction of her share of the debt in the same proportion (23J^%) as she is\\liable therefor.</p> <p>The properdate for the division of the assets in the sinking fund and the taking, account of the indebtedness to be divided between Virginia and West Virginia is January 1,1861, as fixed by the contract.</p> <p>In proving market value, accredited price-currents, lists and market reports, including those published in trade journals and newspapers which are considered trustworthy are admissible in evidence.</p> <p>Shares of stock represent the proportionate interest of the shareholders in the corporate enterprise; and a rule that this interest should, in the absence of supporting testimony, be taken as actually worth the par of the shares would be artificial, and not justified by any exigency in the administration of justice.</p> <p>An asset consisting of a debt due in a Confederate State which was paid in full in Confederate money should not for that reason be valued in adjusting accounts as of 1861 at less than the face value.</p> <p>In estimating the value of bank stocks at book value an allowance of five per cent, for liquidation and realization is proper.</p> <p>After considering all the exceptions to the Master’s second report in this case, held that there should be deducted from West Virginia’s share (23J^%) of the principal debt of Virginia on January 1,1861, already fixed, 220 U. S. 1, 35, at $7,182,507.46, the same proportionate part of the value of the assets in the sinking fund on that date and retained by Virginia amounting to $2,966,885.18, so
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “a material fact is ‘genuine’ ... if the evidence is such that a reasonably jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party”
- “[D]iffer-ences between the colonies were taken to the Privy Council for settlement.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hughes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.