Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Stephens v. Cobun''}} [[File:CallStephensvCobun1854v2p439.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V2StephensvCobun.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V2StephensvCobun.pdf|''Stephens v. Cobun'']], 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:CallsReports1854V2StephensvCobun.pdf|''Stephens v. Cobun'']], 6 Va. (2 Call) 371 (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), 2:371. [[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 were the Court determined whether a judgment by the Board of Commissioners concerning land law could be impeached.
__NOTOC__

==Background==

In the spring of 1767, John Stephens and his family settled on Cobun’s Creek. John Stephens and Jonathan Cobun agreed to establish a property line between the two families which included 400 acres down the creek. John built a house on the land and cleared ten acres of land to raise a crop. For four years the boundary line between John and Jonathan went undisputed. However, five years after John's death, John’s widow sold the land back to Jonathan Cobun, who later sold it to the defendant, James Cobun. George Stephens, John Stephen's son, was a minor at the time of the sale. George's mother left him and he lived off the support of his friends. Henry Stephens, George's adult representative, informed the Board of Commissioners of George's claim in the property. Henry argued that since George was a "poor and ignorant" minor, who could not assert his claims and the time of sale and did not have money to support his claim against James. Henry prayed the court to order James Cobun to convey the land and give George any additional relief.

===The Court's Decision===

The County Court found in favor of the plaintiff. Chancellor Wythe reversed the conveyance stating that the plaintiff’s ancestor had no title and that the judgment of the commissioners was final. The Court of Appeals affirmed Chancellor Wythe’s decision.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

2026-10-13T15:32:10Z

Gsmith:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Stanard v. Brownlow''}} [[File:MunfordStanardvBrownlow1816v3p229.jpg|link=Media:MunfordsReports1816V3StanardvBrownlow.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1816V3StanardvBrownlow.pdf|''Stanard v. Brownlow'']], 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, 1816.]]

[[Media:MunfordsReports1816V3StanardvBrownlow.pdf|''Stanard v. Brownlow'']], 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 229 (1812),<ref>William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,''(New York: I. Riley, 1816.), 4:139. </ref> in this brief case, the Court examined

==Background==

===The Court's Decision===

The procedural posture of this case consisted of Chancellor Wythe dismissing the bill and later being reversed by the Court of Appeals. It was ordered that the injunction was to be awarded to the appellee and a stay on the proceedings for judgment were filed. The stay was dismissed.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

2026-10-08T16:30:40Z

Gsmith:

Spotswood v. Dandridge

2026-10-08T16:30:27Z

Gsmith: