salutary rule in Virginia

2017Under this standard, the prevention doctrine applies when a promisor is at "fault" and "is the cause of the failure of performance of a condition upon which his own liability depends" because "[i]t is a well settled and salutary rule that a party cannot insist upon a condition precedent, when its non-performance has been caused by himself." Id. (quoting Amies , 174 N.E. at 438 ).

2017Under this standard, the prevention doctrine applies when a promisor is at "fault" and "is the cause of the failure of performance of a condition upon which his own liability depends" because "[i]t is a well settled and salutary rule that a party cannot insist upon a condition precedent, when its non-performance has been caused by himself." Id. (quoting Amies , 174 N.E. at 438 ).

1990Our Supreme Court, in Gardner v. Warden, 222 Va. 491 , 281 S.E.2d 876 (1981), recognized this salutary principle, stating, A guilty plea is a waiver of constitutional rights;. . . . such a waiver is constitutionally sufficient only when it is voluntary and intelligent; the waiver is to be accepted only after the trial judge has made a determination that it is [voluntary and intelligent]. *140 Id. at 494, 281 S.E.2d at 878 .

1990Our Supreme Court, in Gardner v. Warden, 222 Va. 491 , 281 S.E.2d 876 (1981), recognized this salutary principle, stating, A guilty plea is a waiver of constitutional rights;. . . . such a waiver is constitutionally sufficient only when it is voluntary and intelligent; the waiver is to be accepted only after the trial judge has made a determination that it is [voluntary and intelligent]. *140 Id. at 494, 281 S.E.2d at 878 .

1990Our Supreme Court, in Gardner v. Warden, 222 Va. 491 , 281 S.E.2d 876 (1981), recognized this salutary principle, stating, A guilty plea is a waiver of constitutional rights;. . . . such a waiver is constitutionally sufficient only when it is voluntary and intelligent; the waiver is to be accepted only after the trial judge has made a determination that it is [voluntary and intelligent]. *140 Id. at 494, 281 S.E.2d at 878 .

1969And it matters not whether such profit or advantage be the result of the performance or the violation of the duty of the agent if it be the fruit of the agency." On behalf of the plaintiff the case of Bell v. Real Estate Corp, 206 Va. 853 (1966), is cited.

1955In Rowland Kable, 174 Va. 343, 368 , 6 S.E.(2d) 633, Mr. Justice Spratley, speaking for the court, said: "In Waddy Grimes, 154 Va. 615, 647 , 153 S.E. 807, 817 , the majority rule is stated thus: 'There is a distinction to be made between transactions occurring directly between a trustee and his cestui que trust, and those transactions in which the trustee deals with himself in respect to the trust estate.

1955In Rowland Kable, 174 Va. 343, 368 , 6 S.E.(2d) 633, Mr. Justice Spratley, speaking for the court, said: "In Waddy Grimes, 154 Va. 615, 647 , 153 S.E. 807, 817 , the majority rule is stated thus: 'There is a distinction to be made between transactions occurring directly between a trustee and his cestui que trust, and those transactions in which the trustee deals with himself in respect to the trust estate.

1955The most usual way in which evasions of this salutary rule are attempted is in purchases of the trust estate by or in the interest of the trustee. * * *.'" Swineford Virginia Trust Co., 154 Va. 751, 759 , 152 S.E. 350, 353 , quoting from 26 R.C.L., at page 1325.

1955The most usual way in which evasions of this salutary rule are attempted is in purchases of the trust estate by or in the interest of the trustee. * * *.'" Swineford Virginia Trust Co., 154 Va. 751, 759 , 152 S.E. 350, 353 , quoting from 26 R.C.L., at page 1325.

1955In Rowland Kable, 174 Va. 343, 368 , 6 S.E.(2d) 633, Mr. Justice Spratley, speaking for the court, said: "In Waddy Grimes, 154 Va. 615, 647 , 153 S.E. 807, 817 , the majority rule is stated thus: 'There is a distinction to be made between transactions occurring directly between a trustee and his cestui que trust, and those transactions in which the trustee deals with himself in respect to the trust estate.

1948Co., ante, p. 240, 46 S. E. (2d) 369 , it is said: “We have held repeatedly that this is a salutary rule and requires that the ground of objection be stated with reasonable certainty in the trial court.” This brings us to a consideration of what is the measure of damages for breach of this contract.

1945Williston on Contracts, Vol. 2, section 677; Dolan v. Rodgers, 149 N. Y. 489 , 44 N. E. 167 ; In re Casualty Co., 250 N. Y. 410, 419 , 165 N. E. 829 . ‘It is a well settled and salutary rule that a party cannot insist upon a condition precedent, when its non-performance has been caused by himself.’ Young v. Hunter, 6 N. Y. 203, 207 . ‘It is as effective an" excuse of performance of a condition that the promisor has hindered performance as that he has actually prevented it.’ Williston on Contracts, Vol. 2, section 677.

1945Williston on Contracts, Vol. 2, section 677; Dolan v. Rodgers, 149 N. Y. 489 , 44 N. E. 167 ; In re Casualty Co., 250 N. Y. 410, 419 , 165 N. E. 829 . ‘It is a well settled and salutary rule that a party cannot insist upon a condition precedent, when its non-performance has been caused by himself.’ Young v. Hunter, 6 N. Y. 203, 207 . ‘It is as effective an" excuse of performance of a condition that the promisor has hindered performance as that he has actually prevented it.’ Williston on Contracts, Vol. 2, section 677.

1945Williston on Contracts, Vol. 2, section 677; Dolan v. Rodgers, 149 N. Y. 489 , 44 N. E. 167 ; In re Casualty Co., 250 N. Y. 410, 419 , 165 N. E. 829 . ‘It is a well settled and salutary rule that a party cannot insist upon a condition precedent, when its non-performance has been caused by himself.’ Young v. Hunter, 6 N. Y. 203, 207 . ‘It is as effective an" excuse of performance of a condition that the promisor has hindered performance as that he has actually prevented it.’ Williston on Contracts, Vol. 2, section 677.

1945Williston on Contracts, Vol. 2, section 677; Dolan v. Rodgers, 149 N. Y. 489 , 44 N. E. 167 ; In re Casualty Co., 250 N. Y. 410, 419 , 165 N. E. 829 . ‘It is a well settled and salutary rule that a party cannot insist upon a condition precedent, when its non-performance has been caused by himself.’ Young v. Hunter, 6 N. Y. 203, 207 . ‘It is as effective an" excuse of performance of a condition that the promisor has hindered performance as that he has actually prevented it.’ Williston on Contracts, Vol. 2, section 677.

1942The case of Johnston v. Kelley, 171 Va. 239 , 198 S. E. 485 , is recent authority for this very salutary rule, although the circumstances in that case were quite different from those here.

1942The case of Johnston v. Kelley, 171 Va. 239 , 198 S. E. 485 , is recent authority for this very salutary rule, although the circumstances in that case were quite different from those here.

1940Va. 361 , 135 S. E. 163 , a case involving a similar crime to the one in judgment, under similar circumstances, said: “It is with extreme reluctance that we have decided to reverse the judgment complained of, and do so only under constraint of a salutary rule of evidence invoked by the defendant.” We must reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case, for to do otherwise would be to do violence to a fundamental principle of the law of evidence.

1918Standard Paint Co. v. Vietor & Co., 120 Va. 595 , 91 S. E. 752 .

1918Standard Paint Co. v. Vietor & Co., 120 Va. 595 , 91 S. E. 752 .

1910We are well aware of the established and salutary principle under a long line of decisions by this court, coming down to Dunlop v. Tennant, 97 Va. 235 , 33 S. E. 620 , and some later, that trustees, partners or agents cannot by fraud, deceit or concealment of facts, make and retain profits out of their cestui que trust, associate or principal; but that is not this case.