change rule in West Virginia

1965Figgins, 27 W.

1960Va. 698 , 127 S. E. 644 , this Court held in point 2 of the syllabus that “Where a question has been decided by this Court, and parties relying on the decision, have transacted important affairs which would be seriously affected by a change of rule announced in said decision, this Court will adhere to it in subsequent cases however it might be inclined to hold if the question were res integra.” In Clark v. Figgins, 27 W.

1965Va. 698 , 127 S. E. 644 , this Court held in point 2 of the syllabus that “Where a question has been decided by this Court, and parties relying on the decision, have transacted important affairs which would be seriously affected by a change of rule announced in said decision, this Court will adhere to it in subsequent cases, however it might be inclined to hold if the question were res integra.” In Clarke and Company v .

1960Va. 698 , 127 S. E. 644 , this Court held in point 2 of the syllabus that “Where a question has been decided by this Court, and parties relying on the decision, have transacted important affairs which would be seriously affected by a change of rule announced in said decision, this Court will adhere to it in subsequent cases however it might be inclined to hold if the question were res integra.” In Clark v. Figgins, 27 W.

1925In Paulson v. City of Portland, 16 Ore. 450 , the court held that where a question has been decided by the court, and parties, relying on the decision, have transacted important affairs which would be seriously affected by a change of the rule, the same court will adhere to it in subsequent cases, however it might be inclined to hold if the question were res integra.

1907In Schaeffer v. Schaeffer, at page 685, Judge Brannon, quoting from the same author, says in reference to the term “substitution” used by Rapallo, Judge, in 105 N. Y., supra: “The term substitution is generally applied to limitation intended to provide for the death of prior devisees or legatees before the period of distribution. ” Summers v. Smith, 21 N. E. 191 , and Smith v. Kimball, 38 N. E. 1029 , Illinois cases, and Britton v. Thornton, 112 U. S. 526 , are leading cases and all in accord with the modern rule of construction.

1907In Schaeffer v. Schaeffer, at page 685, Judge Brannon, quoting from the same author, says in reference to the term “substitution” used by Rapallo, Judge, in 105 N. Y., supra: “The term substitution is generally applied to limitation intended to provide for the death of prior devisees or legatees before the period of distribution. ” Summers v. Smith, 21 N. E. 191 , and Smith v. Kimball, 38 N. E. 1029 , Illinois cases, and Britton v. Thornton, 112 U. S. 526 , are leading cases and all in accord with the modern rule of construction.

1907Martin v. Thayer, 37 W.

1907In Schaeffer v. Schaeffer, at page 685, Judge Brannon, quoting from the same author, says in reference to the term “substitution” used by Rapallo, Judge, in 105 N. Y., supra: “The term substitution is generally applied to limitation intended to provide for the death of prior devisees or legatees before the period of distribution. ” Summers v. Smith, 21 N. E. 191 , and Smith v. Kimball, 38 N. E. 1029 , Illinois cases, and Britton v. Thornton, 112 U. S. 526 , are leading cases and all in accord with the modern rule of construction.

1902Va. 610 , Judge SNYDER in delivering the opinion of the Court says: “It is now clearly the rule in equity that the statute of limitations, or objection in analogy to it, on the ground of laches, may be taken advantage of by demurrer as well as by plea.” And the reason given for the change in the rule is “the abolition and disuse of special replication in equity practice.” In Van Winkle v. Blackford, 33 W.