Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia - User contributions [en]

Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt

2026-09-10T13:07:53Z

File:MunfordRichardson's ExecvHunt1814v2p143.jpg

2026-09-10T12:37:38Z

Gsmith:

Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt

2026-09-10T12:33:58Z

Gsmith: Created page with "Richardson’s Ex’r v. Hunt {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt''}} ''Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt'', in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by William Munford. New York:..."

Richardson’s Ex’r v. Hunt

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt''}}

[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Richardson'sEx'rvHunt.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Richardson'sEx'rvHunt.pdf|''Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by William Munford. New York: I. Riley, 1814.]]

[[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Richardson'sEx'rvHunt.pdf|''Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt'']], 16 Va. (2 Munf.) 148 (1811),<ref>William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (New York: I. Riley, 1814), 2:148. </ref> was a case involving .

==Background==

===The Court's Decision===

On June 4, 1805, the Court of Chancery decreed in favor of the Sarah Hunt. The Court of Appeals reversed the decree.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs

2026-09-03T17:34:46Z

Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs''}}[[File:RandolphsExr.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], 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&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 180 (1806),<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), 1:180. </ref> was a case involving whether or not a bill of review with newly discovered evidence should be allowed when the Court of Appeals has already ruled on a case.

==Background==

This case was a special court of appeals case based on the same facts as Randolph v. Randolph. A special court of appeals is created whenever all or a majority of the Supreme Court of Appeals judges are interested in a case brought before them. The prior case involved two brothers, John Randolph and Richard Randolph, Jr., and the estate of their father, Richard Randolph Sr. John was the younger brother, who was looked after by Richard after their father's death. Richard advanced John several sums of money before he reached maturity, so John owed a bond to him. Once John was of age, he paid a debt owed by his father's estate to the Hanburys, on behalf of Richard, the executor of the estate.

After Richard's death, his son, David Meade Randolph, the executor of his estate, was assigned John's bond and sued for its payment. The representatives of John's estate argued that the bond had been settled by John's payment of Richard's debt to the Hanburys. John's representatives were dismissed by Chancellor Wythe, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. However, they filed a bill of review upon the discovery of new evidence, namely of a receipt proving that John had paid the debt to the Hanburys. The High Court of Chancery sustained the bill of review and issued a perpetual injunction to the judgment of David Meade Randolph relating to John's bond. should be perpetual. As a result, David Meade, as Richard Randolph's executor, appealed.

===The Court's Decision===

The Court of Appeals reversed the decree, dismissing the injunction and dismissing the case. They found that the bill of review should not have been allowed in the first place, because the new evidence did not provide any basis to reverse the earlier decree.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs

2026-09-03T17:34:20Z

Gsmith:

Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs

2026-09-03T17:32:51Z

Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs''}}[[File:RandolphsExr.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], 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&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 180 (1806),<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), 1:180. </ref> was a case involving whether or not a bill of review with newly discovered evidence should be allowed when the Court of Appeals has already ruled on a case.

==Background==

This case was a special court of appeals case based on the same facts as Randolph v. Randolph. A Special Court of Appeals is created whenever all or a majority of the Supreme Court of Appeals judges are interested in a case brought before them. The prior case involved two brothers, John Randolph and Richard Randolph, Jr., and the estate of their father, Richard Randolph Sr. John owed a bond to Richard, which involved advances of money made to him before he reached maturity. Once John was of age, he paid a debt owed by his father's estate to the Hanburys, on behalf of Richard, the executor of the estate. After Richard's death, his son, David Meade Randolph, the executor of his estate, was assigned John's bond and sued for its payment. The representatives of John's estate argued that the bond had been settled by John's payment of Richard's debt to the Hanburys. John's representatives were dismissed by Chancellor Wythe, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. However, they filed a bill of review upon the discovery of new evidence, namely of a receipt proving that John had paid the debt to the Hanburys. The High Court of Chancery sustained the bill of review and issued a perpetual injunction to the judgment of David Meade Randolph relating to John's bond. should be perpetual. As a result, David Meade, as Richard Randolph's executor, appealed.

===The Court's Decision===

The Court of Appeals reversed the decree, dismissing the injunction and dismissing the case. They found that the bill of review should not have been allowed in the first place, because the new evidence did not provide any basis to reverse the earlier decree.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs

2026-09-03T17:32:34Z

Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs''}}[[File:RandolphsExr.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], 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&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 180 (1806),<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), 1:180. </ref> was a case involving whether or not a bill of review with newly discovered evidence should be allowed when the Court of Appeals has already ruled on a case.

==Background==

This case was a special court of appeals case based on the same facts as Randolph v. Randolph. A Special Court of Appeals is created whenever all or a majority of the Supreme Court of Appeals judges are interested in a case brought before them. The prior case involved two brothers, John Randolph and Richard Randolph, Jr., and the estate of their father, Richard Randolph Sr. John owed a bond to Richard, which involved advances of money made to him before he reached maturity. Once John was of age, he paid a debt owed by his father's estate to the Hanburys, on behalf of Richard, the executor of the estate. After Richard's death, his son, David Meade Randolph, the executor of his estate, was assigned John's bond and sued for its payment. The representatives of John's estate argued that the bond had been settled by John's payment of Richard's debt to the Hanburys. John's representatives were dismissed by Chancellor Wythe, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. However, they filed a bill of review upon the discovery of new evidence, namely of a receipt proving that John had paid the debt to the Hanburys. The High Court of Chancery sustained the bill of review and issued a perpetual injunction to the judgment of David Meade Randolph relating to John's bond. should be perpetual. As a result, David Meade, as Richard Randolph's executor, appealed.

===The Court's Decision===

The Court of Appeals reversed the decree, dismissing the injunction and dismissing the case. They found that the bill of review should not have been allowed in the first place, because the new evidence did not provide any basis to reverse the earlier decree.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs

2026-09-03T17:32:20Z

Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs''}}[[File:RandolphsExr.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], 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&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 180 (1806),<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), 1:180. </ref> was a case involving whether or not a bill of review with newly discovered evidence should be allowed when the Court of Appeals has already ruled on case.

==Background==

This case was a special court of appeals case based on the same facts as Randolph v. Randolph. A Special Court of Appeals is created whenever all or a majority of the Supreme Court of Appeals judges are interested in a case brought before them. The prior case involved two brothers, John Randolph and Richard Randolph, Jr., and the estate of their father, Richard Randolph Sr. John owed a bond to Richard, which involved advances of money made to him before he reached maturity. Once John was of age, he paid a debt owed by his father's estate to the Hanburys, on behalf of Richard, the executor of the estate. After Richard's death, his son, David Meade Randolph, the executor of his estate, was assigned John's bond and sued for its payment. The representatives of John's estate argued that the bond had been settled by John's payment of Richard's debt to the Hanburys. John's representatives were dismissed by Chancellor Wythe, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. However, they filed a bill of review upon the discovery of new evidence, namely of a receipt proving that John had paid the debt to the Hanburys. The High Court of Chancery sustained the bill of review and issued a perpetual injunction to the judgment of David Meade Randolph relating to John's bond. should be perpetual. As a result, David Meade, as Richard Randolph's executor, appealed.

===The Court's Decision===

The Court of Appeals reversed the decree, dismissing the injunction and dismissing the case. They found that the bill of review should not have been allowed in the first place, because the new evidence did not provide any basis to reverse the earlier decree.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs

2026-09-01T15:58:06Z

Gsmith:

2026-09-01T15:46:47Z

Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''White v. Atkinson''}} [[File:WhitevAtkinson_(1800).jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V2WhitevAtkinson(1800).pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V2WhitevAtkinson(1800).pdf |''White v. Atkinson'']], 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:CallsReports1854V2WhitevAtkinson(1800).pdf |''White v. Atkinson'']], 6 Va. 375, 2 Call 376 (1800),<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), 2:376. </ref> was a case involving the Court of Chancery issuing a decree against the direction of the Court of Appeals.

==Background==

In ''[[White v. Atkinson (1795)]]'', the Court of Appeals reversed and annulled the decision of the Court of Chancery. The case then went back before the Court of Chancery, which affirmed the decree of the Court of Appeals but also added to it without a bill of review. The Court of Chancery found that White should have been given the option to abandon the conveyance of land at issue in ''[[White v. Atkinson (1795)]]'', at which point he would forfeit his eighteen pounds and improvements upon the land and be forced to pay Atkinson for his occupation. White appealed.

===The Court's Decision===

The Supreme Court reversed the portions of decree changing the terms of abandonment, finding that the Court of Chancery was precluded from changing a decree from the Court of Appeals once they have sent the case back for further proceedings.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]
*''[[White v. Atkinson (1795)]]''
==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

White v. Atkinson (1800)

2026-09-01T15:08:03Z

Gsmith:

2026-08-27T17:10:11Z

Gsmith:

White v. Atkinson (1795)

2026-08-25T17:51:09Z

Gsmith:

White v. Atkinson

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''White v. Atkinson''}}

[[File:WhitevAtkinson (1795).jpg|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2WhitevAtkinson.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2WhitevAtkinson.pdf|''White v. Atkinson'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1799V2WhitevAtkinson.pdf|''White v. Atkinson'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 94 (1795),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,''(Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 2:94. </ref> was a case involving...

==Background==

In November 1779, Coleman, an agent for Atkinson, contracted to sell White some of Atkinson's land.

===The Court's Decision===

Chancellor Wythe decreed that Atkinson should convey the land to White in proportion to the

The Court of Appeals reversed and annulled Wythe’s decision.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

File:WhitevAtkinson (1795).jpg

2026-08-25T17:50:45Z

Gsmith:

White v. Atkinson (1800)

2026-08-25T17:47:48Z

Gsmith:

White v. Atkinson (1800)

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''White v. Atkinson''}}

[[File:WhitevAtkinson_(1800).jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V2WhitevAtkinson(1800).pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V2WhitevAtkinson(1800).pdf |''White v. Atkinson'']], 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:CallsReports1854V2WhitevAtkinson(1800).pdf |''White v. Atkinson'']], 6 Va. 375, 2 Call 376 (1800),<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), 2:376. </ref> was a case involving...

==Background==

===The Court's Decision===

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

2026-04-21T18:18:14Z

Gsmith:

{{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 a bill of exchange and whether or not it was usurious.

==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 named Braxton. It promised 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]]