Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia"

Aubrie Hardy
6 years ago
Views:

2 IN THE Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia AT RICHMOND. Record No VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Appeals held at the Supreme Court of Appeals Building in the City of Richmond on Tuesday the 15th day of October, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS SECTION 3, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff in Error, agoiinst GRIFFITH-CONSUMERS COMPANY, Defendant in Error. Upon a writ of error and S'U!persedeas to a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Arlington County on the loth day of December, On 1nature consideration of the stipulation of counsel agreeing that the statement of proceedings and evidence of the trial of this case be printed as a part of the printed record, leave is hereby granted the plaintiff in error to have the said statement of proceedings and evidence printed as an addendum to the printed record at the cost of.the said plaintiff in Arror.

3 2 Supreme Court of.appeals of Virginia ADDENDUM Rec 'd H. G. T. COLUMBIA HEIGFITS SECTION 3, INC. v. GRIFFITII-CONSUMERS COMPANY STIPULATION. IT IS STIPULATED By and between the parties hereto, through their counsel, that the Statement of Proce.edings and Evidence in the above captioned case shall be printed as part of the printed record on appeal. The printed record on appeal does not contain the Statement of Proceedings and Evidence, and the parties stipulate that, subject to the approval of this Court, that said Statement of Proceedings and Evidence be included in the printed record, and that the expense of the reprinting shall be at the cost of the Appellant, Columbia lieight.s Section 3, Inc. FRIEDLANDER & FRIEDLANDER By MARK P. FRIEDLANDER Attorneys for Appellant. BENDHEIM,FAGELSO~BRAGG AND GIAMITTORIO By ALBERT H. GRENADIER Attorneys for Appellee. FRIEDLANDER & FRIEDLANDER MARK P. FRIEDLANDER MARK P. FRIEDLANDER, JR. BLAINE P. FRIEDLANDER HARRY P. FRIEDLANDER 1437 North Courthouse Road Arlington, Virginia

4 Columbia Heights Section 3 v. Griffith-Consumers Co. 3 BENDHEIM.FAGELSON,BRAGG AND GIAMMITTORIO LEROY S. BENDHEIM BERNARDM.FAGELSON ROY C. BRAGG GEORGE M. GIAMMITTORIO 126 South Royal Street.Alexandria, Virginia. page 48 ~ STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE OF THE TRIAL OF ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE. FROM: WALTER T. McCARTHY, JUDGE: To Albert H. Grenadier, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff, Mark P. Friedlander, Esq., and Harry P. Friedlander, Esq., Counsel for Defendant : The plaintiff, Griffith-Consumers Company, a Delaware Corporation, by an oral agreement, agreed to furnish fuel oil to, and to service, heating plants of defendant, Columbia Heights Section 3, Incorporated. Plaintiff undertook performance and delivered fuel oil and undertook to service said plants. For its deliveries and service, it sent to defendant between the 7th and loth of each month, a statement showing balance for the preceding month, the preceding month's charges, credits and the existing bal~ ance. The defendant made several complaints to plaintiff about consumption of oil, and plaintiff checked the same. Plaintiff's testimony '\Vas that upon these checks it set the controls only to find upon return that defendant's agent had changed its adjustments. Defendant claims that the equipment was improperly adjusted by plaintiff and that consumption was 25% excessive. It denied its agents changed plaintiff's settings. On January 29, 1959, plaintiff checked the controls of defendant's heating plant and replaced a relay, and plaintiff put on its ticket: ''Send out Rl61A Relay when in stock. Signed Shearer".

5 4 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia Defendant 's_testi.mony was that in the beginning of Febr~ary, 1959, before the relay had been replaced, the. defendant terminated its business relationship with the plaintiff and plaintiff submitted its bill payable February 28, Plaintiff denied ever being notified of such a cancellation. Testimony showed delivery of oil through February 5, On March 18, 195:9, plaintiff delivered, wrapped, a new re~ lay to replace the relay taken out of the defendant's reserve equipment stored on the site and this package was receipted for by the resident manager in the building. A dispute arose as to the February bill and payment was made by defendant of $3, to the plaintiff with the express understanding that the defendant did not waive any of its rights in thus paying the admitted portion of the bill. Defendant informed plaintiff it would not pay the page 49 ~ remainder ; but offered to accept service of process and to defend any suit for the remaining balance of $4, in either the District of Columbia or Arlington County, Virginia. At No time from the beginning pf the business relationship to the filing of the motion for judgment did plaintiff ever charge interest on any portion ot the account. The qef~ndant asserted that the statute of limitation began to run at the date the February bill became due, to-wit: February 28, The plaintiff claimed the statute of limitation begari to run at the date the relay was delivered, to-wit: March 18, Plaintiff filed suit on Marc.h 8, 1962 and it 'vas heard Novern ber 2, THE COURT, after hearing the evidence, found that the evidence did not show that neglig~nce of the plaintiff caused loss to the defendant. THE COURT further found that defendant's contention of termination of contract in early February was not proven. THE. COURT also ruled that the statute of limitation began to run March 18, 1959, the date of the delivery of the relay and not _as the defendant contended. THE COUR.T entered a judgment for the plaintiff for $4, (to which defendant noted exception).

6 Columbia Heights Section 3 v. Griffith-Consumers Co. 5 THE COURT rendered judgment for interest from June 18, 1961 (to which defendant excepted). Attached are the statements presented by counsel. February 11, A Copy-Teste: WALTER T. McCARTHY, Judge. H. G. TURNER, Clerk.

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Charles D. Griffith, Jr., Judge. In this appeal, we consider whether an attorney who

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Charles D. Griffith, Jr., Judge. In this appeal, we consider whether an attorney who Present: All the Justices CAROLYN J. WALKER v. Record No. 031844 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 10, 2004 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL EYE CARE SPECIALISTS, P.C., d/b/a AAPECS, ET AL.