{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Price v. Campbell (1799)''}} [[File:Pricev.Campbell1799.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V2PricevCampbell.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V2PricevCampbell.pdf|''Price v. Campbell'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1854V2PricevCampbell.pdf|''Price v. Campbell'']], 9 Va. (5 Call) 92 (1799),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 5:92. [[George Wythe]] owned the [[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia|first edition]] of this set.</ref> was a case involving usury.

==Background==
Campbell was the assignee of his father Robert, who had numerous debtors in England, making up a large part of Campbell’s fortune. A deed was given to Robert by a man called Braxton, promising a tract of land called Broadneck and some slaves, in case the bill was protested, but the deed would be void if Braxton paid him back. Robert wanted to further secure the amount of money, so he engaged with Brooke and Page as securities for whatever Braxton might owe him. Ultimately, Price was the executor for several of Robert's creditors, who was sued along with Braxton by Campbell to sell the lands and the slaves to satisfy his claim.

===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe ruled against Braxton and Price and decreed a payment of £2498 with a 10% interest rate to the time of the decree. He further decreed that in the event of default, the slaves would be sold and if that is insufficient the administrators of both Brooke and Page would pay the balance. Price, Braxton, and the other defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals found no usury in the original contract, because it was a sale of bonds rather than a loan (as is required for usury). It also found that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations as claimed by appellants. As a result, the Court of Appeals affirmed Wythe’s decision.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Price v. Campbell (1799)

2026-04-20T17:22:37Z

Gsmith:

File:Pricev.Campbell1799.jpg

2026-04-20T17:22:08Z

Gsmith:

Price v. Campbell (1799)

2026-04-20T17:21:12Z

Gsmith: Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Price v. Campbell''}} ''Price v. Campbell'', in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]] Media:CallsReports1854V2PricevCampb..."

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Price v. Campbell''}}

[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V2PricevCampbell.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V2PricevCampbell.pdf|''Price v. Campbell'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1854V2PricevCampbell.pdf|''Price v. Campbell'']], 9 Va. (5 Call) 92 (1799),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 5:92. [[George Wythe]] owned the [[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia|first edition]] of this set.</ref> was a case involving .

==Background==

===The Court's Decision===

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

2026-04-20T16:43:05Z

Gsmith:

President & Professors & Masters of William & Mary Coll. v. Hodgson

2026-04-20T16:35:52Z

Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''President & Professors & Masters of William & Mary Coll. v. Hodgson''}}
[[File:PresidentandProfessorsMastersofWilliam&MaryCollegevHodgson.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReport1809V2President&Professors&MastersofWilliam&MaryCollvHodgson.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReport1809V2President&Professors&MastersofWilliam&MaryCollvHodgson.pdf|''President & Professors & Masters of William & Mary Coll. v. Hodgson'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: With Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District''], by William Hening and William Munford. Flatbush (N.Y.): I. Riley, 1809.]]
[[Media:Hening&MunfordsReport1809V2President&Professors&MastersofWilliam&MaryCollvHodgson.pdf|''President & Professors & Masters of William & Mary Coll. v. Hodgson'']], 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 557,<ref>William Hening and William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: With Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District,'' (Flatbush (N.Y.): I. Riley, 1809), 3:482. </ref> was a case where the Court of Appeals discussed whether the Chancellor could grant an appeal from an interlocutory decree made during the vacation of the Court.

==Background==

The case came from the Superior Court of Chancery in Richmond, on an appeal allowed by the Chancellor in vacation from an interlocutory decree pronounced by himself at the preceding term. Unlike appeals from final decrees, appeals from interlocutory decrees were not a right, but rather were allowed only at the discretion of the High Court of Chancery for efficiency, furtherance of justice, or cost-saving purposes. These appeals were normally issued while the Court was in term, because it provided a fairer opportunity for the judge to exercise this discretion with all parties present. As a result, before rehearing the case, the Court of Appeals first had to address whether or not it had jurisdiction over the case, because the appeal was granted by the Chancellor in vacation - a power normally only exercised by the Court in term time.

===The Court's Decision===

The Court of Appeals dismissed the case, reasoning that Wythe had no power to grant appeals from interlocutory decrees in vacation. While an act of the legislature from January 23rd, 1798, enlarged the right of appeals and made it lawful for the High Court of Chancery to grant an appeal on interlocutory decrees at the discretion of the Judge, it made no mention of allowing such grants during vacation (while mentioning other specific actions that can be taken during vacation, such as discharging writs of ne exeat). The appeal was therefore found to be improvidently granted, and the case dismissed.
==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Price v. Campbell

2026-04-20T16:34:54Z

Gsmith:

2026-04-20T16:10:57Z

Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''President & Professors & Masters of William & Mary Coll. v. Hodgson''}}
[[File:PresidentandProfessorsMastersofWilliam&MaryCollegevHodgson.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReport1809V2President&Professors&MastersofWilliam&MaryCollvHodgson.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReport1809V2President&Professors&MastersofWilliam&MaryCollvHodgson.pdf|''President & Professors & Masters of William & Mary Coll. v. Hodgson'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: With Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District''], by William Hening and William Munford. Flatbush (N.Y.): I. Riley, 1809.]]
[[Media:Hening&MunfordsReport1809V2President&Professors&MastersofWilliam&MaryCollvHodgson.pdf|''President & Professors & Masters of William & Mary Coll. v. Hodgson'']], 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 557 (1790),<ref>William Hening and William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: With Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District,'' (Flatbush (N.Y.): I. Riley, 1809), 3:482. </ref> was a case where the Court of Appeals discussed whether the Chancellor could overturn an interlocutory degree made by a Court of Law during the vacation of the Court.

==Background==

The case came from the Superior Court of Chancery in Richmond, on an appeal allowed by the Chancellor in vacation from an interlocutory decree pronounced by himself at the preceding term. Before a rehearing of the case, the Court of Appeals addressed whether or not it had jurisdiction over the case, due to the appeal being granted by the Judge in vacation from an interlocutory decree - a power normally only exercised by the Court in term time.

===The Court's Decision===

The Court of Appeals dismissed the case reasoning that Wythe had no power to grant appeals from interlocutory decrees in vacation.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

President & Professors & Masters of William & Mary Coll. v. Hodgson

2026-04-14T15:30:38Z

Gsmith:

President & Professors & Masters of William & Mary Coll. v. Hodgson

2026-04-14T15:30:18Z

Gsmith:

2026-04-06T17:17:50Z

Gsmith:

File:PicketvMorris.jpg

2026-04-06T17:17:35Z

Gsmith:

Picket v. Morris

2026-04-06T17:16:23Z

Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Picket v. Morris''}} [[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf |''Picket v. Morris'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799.]] [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf |''Picket v. Morris'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 255 (1796),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,''(Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 2:255. </ref> was a case involving .

==Background==

In 1785, Morris bought 2,000 acres of land in Kentucky from Littlepage. The transaction cost £600, to which Morris paid £400 as a bond, payable at a future date, and promissory note for £200 which at the time of litigation had been discharged.

===The Court's Decision===

Upon hearing the case, Chancellor Wythe dissolved the injunction and perpetuated the residual effect of the injunction. Additionally, Wythe decreed that Morris should assign to Picket the judgment he obtained against Stockdell. Finally, Wythe dismissed the case for the claim against Littlepage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Chancellor’s decree. The Court really looks at the Court of Chancery’s jurisdiction particularly in cases masked with issue of law and issues of equity.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Picket v. Morris

2026-04-06T17:16:04Z

Gsmith: Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Picket v. Morris''}} ''Picket v. Morris'', in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799.]] Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMor..."

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Picket v. Morris''}}

[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf |''Picket v. Morris'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799.]]

[[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf |''Picket v. Morris'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 255 (1796),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,''(Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 2:255. </ref> was a case involving .

==Background==

In 1785, Morris bought 2,000 acres of land in Kentucky from Littlepage. The transaction cost £600, to which Morris paid £400 as a bond, payable at a future date, and promissory note for £200 which at the time of litigation had been discharged.

===The Court's Decision===

Upon hearing the case, Chancellor Wythe dissolved the injunction and perpetuated the residual effect of the injunction. Additionally, Wythe decreed that Morris should assign to Picket the judgment he obtained against Stockdell. Finally, Wythe dismissed the case for the claim against Littlepage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Chancellor’s decree. The Court really looks at the Court of Chancery’s jurisdiction particularly in cases masked with issue of law and issues of equity.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart

2026-04-06T17:01:15Z

Gsmith: /* Background */

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart''}}
[[File:PendletonsExcr.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]
In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], 10 Va. (5 Call) 1 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:1. </ref> the court determined whether a purchaser could be relieved in equity in a contract for a specific amount of land, conditioned by the words "more or less."

==Background==

James Pendleton and William Stewart entered into the following agreement: <blockquote>Memo. of an agreement between William Stewart of the county of K. G. and James Pendleton of the county of Culpeper. The said Stewart has agreed to sell to said Pendleton 1100 acres of land (more or less) adjoining said Pendleton, for the sum of £ 330, to be paid at four equal yearly payments, the first to commence on the 25th of December, 1784. Witness our hands and seals this 30th day of September, 1783.</blockquote> The land was sold at a fixed price, rather than by the acre. After the sale, the executors found the land belonged to various other people and greatly diminished the quantity of the land. According to Stewart, he offered to cancel the contract, but Pendleton refused and then withheld the purchase money. A judgment was issued against him, and after his death, Pendleton's executors sued Stewart in the High Court of Chancery for specific performance of the contract and a corresponding deduction in the purchase money based on the deficiency.

===The Court's Decision===

Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the wording of "more or less" did not contain any warrant to a certain quantity of land, and therefore Pendleton was not entitled to any deduction. However, the Court ruled that rather than dismissing the case, Wythe should have conveyed the land to Pendleton’s testators as it was described in the contract after Stewart received the full amount of the purchase money due.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]