modification rule in West Virginia

1948Co., 76 W.

1929Co., 76 W.

2024We have previously stated that “the precedent of this Court supports the proposition that children are entitled to permanency to the greatest degree possible.” In re Isaiah A., 228 W.

2014Harper & Son, Inc., 160 W.Va. 399 , 235 S.E.2d 362 (1977), has become necessary in recognition oí the singular status the law affords homesteads, insofar as limiting damages to market value occasionally fails to fully compensate the homeowner, particularly in less affluent neighborhoods.

2014Harper & Son, Inc., 160 W.Va. 399 , 235 S.E.2d 362 (1977), has become necessary in recognition oí the singular status the law affords homesteads, insofar as limiting damages to market value occasionally fails to fully compensate the homeowner, particularly in less affluent neighborhoods.

1959Va. 9, 31 , 54 S. E. 2d. 182, the present rule adhered to by this Court is stated “that recitals in a decree, though not conclusive, are presumptively correct and will prevail in the absence of record evidence which necessarily contradicts them”, citing Taylor v. Taylor, 128 W.

1959The same reasons impel a modification of the doctrine of verity in the court’s decree as to service and return of process, * * In The Calhoun County Bank, etc. v. Ellison, Admr., 133 W.

1948Va. 473 , 56 S. E. 209 .” We see nothing in this case which would call for any departure from the rule laid down by the cases cited above, and there would appear to be no special equitable considerations such as require a modification of that rule as applied to the case at bar as was indicated in Seal v. Gwinn might be done.

1945A modification of that rule is made in the case of Nuttallburg Smokeless Fuel Co. v. National Bank, 89 W.

1945Va. 438 , 109 S.E. 766 .

1926Gross Receipts, 82 U. S. 284 , Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry.

1923Va. 625 , 63 S. E. 402 , we held the latt.er statute mandatory, but refused to- reverse the case, because the defendant did not object to the modification of his instruction in proper time, hence his right was waived.

1923The modification consisted solely in the interpolation by the court after the words “verbal or written” of the words, “or under such facts and circumstances as clearly imply a promise or intention to pay therefor.” Without this modification the instruction would not have 'come up to the requirements of the law as declared in Swiger v. Evans, supra, relied on by defendant.