Gillespie v. Coleman, 36 S.E. 377 (Va. 1900). · Go Syfert
Gillespie v. Coleman, 36 S.E. 377 (Va. 1900). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the sustaining or overruling of a demurrer to a declaration is not final. to make it final in the former case, there must be a judgment of dismissal.”
28 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carter v. Brooks (vaccgreensville, 2009-01-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1905 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1905 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Carter v. Brooks (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
Greensville Cir. Ct. · 2009 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the sustaining or overruling of a demurrer to a declaration is not final. to make it final in the former case, there must be a judgment of dismissal.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Kalley v. Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc.
Fairfax Cir. Ct. · 2007 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the sustaining or overruling of a demurrer to a declaration is not final. to make it final... there must be a judgment of dismissal.
discussed Cited "see" Smiley v. Provident Life & Trust Co. (2×)
Va. · 1907 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gillespie v. C oleman, 98 Va. 276 , 36 S. E. 377 , and authorities cited, especially Trevilian v. Louisa R.
Gillespie
v.
Coleman and Others
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Jun 14, 1900.
36 S.E. 377
Camm Patteson and A. S. Hall, for the plaintiff in error., H. D. Flood and F. W. Hubard, for the defendants in error. •
Buchanan.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #45,029 of 633,719
Citer courts: Greensville County Circuit Court (2) · Fairfax County Circuit Court (1)
Buchanan, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The action, of the conrt in sustaining demurrers to the plaintiff’s original and amended declarations is complained of. The order of the court upon neither demurrer was final. In sustaining the demurrer to the original declaration, leave was given to amend, and, pursuant to that order, an -amended declaration was filed. The court was of opinion that the amended declaration was not sufficient, and sustained the demurrer to it, but did not dismiss the case.

[*277] From some chancery orders, although there is no final decree in the case, it is provided by statute that an appeal may be taken. Code, sec. 3454. But the statute makes no provision for a writ of error in an action at law until there is a final judgment. Code, sec. 34o4. • .,. 1

The sustaining or overruling of a demurrer to a declaration is not final. To malee it final in the former case, there must be a judgment of dismissal. See Hancock v. R. & P. R. Co., 3 Gratt. 313; Trevillian v. Louisa R. R. Co., 3 Gratt. 312; Jeter v. Board, 27 Gratt. 910; Tucker v. Sandridge, &c., 82 Va. 532; 4 Minor’s Inst., 1064-66 (3d ed.); 2 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Pl. & Pr., 114, &c., where authorities generally are collected.

. From anything that appears in the record, this case is'.still pending in the trial court, and another amended declaration might be filed there, and further proceedings had in the case.

FTo final judgment -having been rendered in the case, :this writ of error must be dismissed as improvidently awarded..

Writ of error dismissed.