Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Munf. 442

Birchett v. Bolling

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided March 3, 1817

Supreme Court of Virginia · decided 1817-03-03

<p>l. An Agreement to build a Tavern in partnership, at the joint expence and risk, and for the joint benefit, of the contracting parties, to be held by them in fee simple,decreed to be specifically performed» at the instance of a partner, wliofurnished the grouud for the purpose, and had fully performed the Contract on his part ? notwithstanding many of the partners were unwilling to carry it into effect, because, in their opinion, a.change of circumstances had rendered the scheme unprofitable.</p> <p>2. An Attack• anent ought not to be awarded against a paity for refusing obedience to a Decree, which as yet remains general and uncertain, and the extent of which, as it relates to him, he cannot ascertain without applying to the Court for a farther Decree.</p> <p>3. A Decree ought not to be reversed for uncertainty, in matters, as to ^hich it is only inter* locutory, and may be perfected by application to the Court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1817-03-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1917

7 state decisions

2018171820183018401850186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1March 34, 1817,

Judge Roans

¶2pronounced the Court’s opinion, as follows ;

*456“ The Court is of opinion that the first Decree is correct, which provides that the agreement among the proceedings should be carried into specific execution, and in effect allows that that execution may be perfected, on application to the Court, from time to time, by any of the parties interested, by means of an account or accounts, the sale of shares, or otherwise ; as to all which, the Decree is considered as only interlocutory. But the Court is of opinion, that the Decree upon the attachment is erroneous, as it subjects the Appellants to that process, for refusing obedience to a Decree, which as yet remains general and uncertain, and the extent of which, as it relates to them, they had no adequate means to ascertain. The last Decree is therefore reversed with costs ; and the cause is to be sent back, to be finally proceeded in pursuant to the principles of the first Decree, which are approved, as above, by this Court
/5/munf/442 · .json · Public domain