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

Peter Tinsley

2018-04-09T17:55:50Z

Sjmarlowe: Created page with "===Peter Tinsley=== <pre> {{PersonInfoBox |imagename=Filename.jpg |link= |name= |honorific= |1stoffice=In reverse order... first is last. |1stofficedates= |1stofficepreceded=..."

===Peter Tinsley===

<pre>
{{PersonInfoBox
|imagename=Filename.jpg
|link=
|name=
|honorific=
|1stoffice=In reverse order... first is last.
|1stofficedates=
|1stofficepreceded=
|1stofficesucceeded=
|2ndoffice=
|2ndofficedates=
|2ndofficepreceded=
|2ndofficesucceeded=
|3rdoffice=
|3rdofficedates=
|3rdofficepreceded=
|3rdofficesucceeded=
|4thoffice=
|4thofficedates=
|4thofficepreceded=
|4thofficesucceeded=
|5thoffice=
|5thofficedates=
|5thofficepreceded=
|5thofficesucceeded=
|6thoffice=
|6thofficedates=
|6thofficepreceded=
|6thofficesucceeded=
|7thoffice=
|7thofficedates=
|7thofficepreceded=
|7thofficesucceeded=
|borndate=
|bornplace=
|dieddate=
|diedplace=
|restingplace=
|residence=
|education=
|almamater=
|profession=
|spouse=
|relatives=
|knownfor=
|signature=Filename.jpg
}}Name, dates, introduction and basic biography.

==Specific details==
Additional details as needed.<ref>Please footnote sources</ref>

<blockquote>
Larger quote.
</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[George Wythe]]
*Other related Wythepedia pages.

==References==
<references />

==Further reading==
*Further reading.
*Even further reading.

==External links==
*Links to [https://books.google.com/ outside sources.]

[[Category:Aspects of Wythe's Life]]
[[Category:Biographies]]
</pre>

Chisholm v. Starke

2018-04-09T17:22:17Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Chisholm v. Starke''}}
[[File:CallChisholmvStarke1854v3p25.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V3ChisholmvStarke.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V3ChisholmvStarke.pdf ‎|''Chisholm v. Starke'']], 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:CallsReports1854V3ChisholmvStarke.pdf‎|''Chisholm v. Starke'']], 7 Va. (3 Call) 25 (1801),‎<ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Minor, 1854), 3:25.</ref> was a case where the court determined whether a step-father was entitled to his step-children’s remainder in slaves devised by their father.

==Background==
James Underwood's children sued their step-father and several other defendants concerning slaves in which they had a remainder in. According to Underwood’s will, a third of his slaves were to be left to his wife, Ann Underwood, for the duration of her life and then divided among their children. However, after remarriage to Mr. William Richardson, Ann’s slaves were sold by Richardson to several other defendants, one of which received the slaves without notice of the children's property rights.

===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe decreed that Richardson should give a £500 penalty to the children for selling their remainder as well as a £500 penalty for the loss of the slave and her children. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]
[[Category: Slavery]]

File:CallChisholmvStarke1854v3p25.jpg

2018-04-09T17:22:01Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Chisholm v. Starke" from volume 3 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. Category: Cases

First page of the opinion "Chisholm v. Starke" from volume 3 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. [[Category: Cases]]

Johnson v. Pendleton

2018-04-09T17:16:08Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Johnson v. Pendleton''}}
[[File:CallJohnsonvPendleton1833v5p128.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1833V5JohnsonvPendleton.pdf ‎|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5JohnsonvPendleton.pdf ‎|''Johnson v. Pendleton'']], 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.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1833V5JohnsonvPendleton.pdf|''Johnson v. Pendleton'']], 9 Va. (5 Call) 128 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:128.</ref> determined who is liable when a military certificate is lost at the auditor’s office.
__NOTOC__
==Background==
Johnson sued Pendleton, the auditor of public accounts, in Chancery Court. Johnson argued that he sent a military certificate to the auditor to obtain a warrant of interest, but at the time the auditor was busy. Johnson, left the military certificate with the auditor so that Pendleton could make out the warrant at his own leisure. On multiple occasions after coming to the auditor, Johnson son attempted to apply for the certificate and its interest, however, he could not obtain either. Johnson sued so either Pendleton or the State of Virginia can provide him with just compensation.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, but without prejudice.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallJohnsonvPendleton1833v5p128.jpg

2018-04-09T17:15:52Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Johnson v. Pendleton" from volume 5 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. Category: Cases

First page of the opinion "Johnson v. Pendleton" from volume 5 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. [[Category: Cases]]

Johnson v. Brown

2018-04-09T17:14:02Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Johnson v. Brown''}}
[[File:CallJohnsonvBrown-21854v3p259.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V3JohnsonvBrown.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V3JohnsonvBrown.pdf|''Johnson v. Brown'']], 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. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1854V3JohnsonvBrown.pdf|''Johnson v. Brown'']], 7 Va. (3 Call) 259 (1802),<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), 3:259.</ref> is a case where the Court determined who would recover when two surveys were made for the same property and both were recorded.
__NOTOC__
==Background==
On November 20, 1749, William Davies surveyed 300 acres for his father, Robert Davies. On August 29, 1753, Robert sold the survey to J. Philips, who bestowed the land to his son. On May 23, 1789, Johnson purchased the land from Philip's son. On October 12, 1789, Johnson was also assigned the land from William Davies, paying £4 for consideration. On June 9th, 1792, the Land Office issued a formal patent of the purchase. In 1753, John Brown obtained a patent for 230 acres of land, 190 acres of which were included in Johnson’s patent. Brown sued Johnson in the High Court of Chancery for conveyance of the 190 acres.

===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe decreed in favor of Brown. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed.

==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallJohnsonvBrown-21854v3p259.jpg

2018-04-09T17:13:38Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Johnson v. Brown" from volume 3 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. Category: Cases

First page of the opinion "Johnson v. Brown" from volume 3 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. [[Category: Cases]]

Hunter v. Hall

2018-04-09T17:12:34Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hunter v. Hall''}}
[[File:CallHuntervHall1854v1p205.jpg‎|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1HuntervHall.pdf ‎|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1HuntervHall.pdf ‎|''Hunter v. Hall'']], 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:CallsReports1854V1HuntervHall.pdf ‎|''Hunter v. Hall'']], 5 Va. 205, 1 Call 206 (1798),<ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' 3rd., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 1:206.</ref> was a land dispute case where the plaintiff argued the defendant obtained a patent in the land fraudulently.

==Background==
Adam Hall was assigned 400 acres of land from Martin Brown. Hall had the land surveyed and returned the survey to the Register’s office. Hunter also had a location and survey of lands which included a large part of Hall’s land. When Hall attempted to obtain a patent in the land, Hunter entered caveat against him. After hearing of Hunter’s attempt to obtain a patent, Hall was going to enter a caveat against Hunter, however, the two parties agreed that the owner of the land would be determined on Hunter’s caveat against Hall. However, When the lower court dismissed Hunter’s caveat, Hunter still filed a patent for the land. Hall is suing Hunter for fraudulently procuring a patent and asks the court to grant him relief against Hunter’s patent.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe found in favor of the plaintiff. Wythe was under the opinion that even though the original owner of land obtained it with the sale of a small consideration, Hall still had good title to the land and should have the right to the land if the defendant has not engaged in unfair practice. Wythe gave the plaintiff the relied he sought. The Court of Appeals overturned the Chancellor’s decision and dismissed the case.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHuntervHall1854v1p205.jpg

2018-04-09T17:12:17Z

Sjmarlowe:

First page of the opinion "Hunter v. Hall" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. [[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHuntervHall1854v1p205.jpg

2018-04-09T17:12:08Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Hunter v. Hall" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. Category:Cases

Hord v. Dishman

2018-04-09T17:10:21Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hord v. Dishman''}}
[[File:CallHordvDishman1833v5p279.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1833V5HordvDishman.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5HordvDishman.pdf|''Hord v. Dishman'']], in ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1833V5HordvDishman.pdf|''Hord v. Dishman'']], 9 Va. (5 Call) 279 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1854), 5:279.</ref> discussed whether the Court of Chancery could give relief against a verdict and judgment obtained by the plaintiff, if sickness prevented the defendant from offering evidence.

==Background==
During a lower court case, Hord obtained a judgment against Dishman for a writ of right, which named Hord the rightful owner of a track of land. Dishman brought this suit against Hord in the Court of Chancery requesting relief for the judgment. Dishman argued that he was sick on the day of trial which prevented him from making an affidavit stating the original deeds were lost. Due to Dishman’s absence at the trial, the lower court would not admit copies of the deeds into evidence, which led to Hord’s favorable outcome. Dishman sought equity in the Court of Chancery concerning the effect his illness had on the case.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe called a mistrial and another jury found in favor of Dishman. Reflecting this decision, the Chancellor granted a perpetual injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHordvDishman1833v5p279.jpg

2018-04-09T17:10:12Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Hord v. Dishman" from volume 5 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. Category: Cases

First page of the opinion "Hord v. Dishman" from volume 5 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. [[Category: Cases]]

Hopkins v. Blane

2018-04-09T17:09:14Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hopkins v. Blane''}}
[[File:CallHopkinsvBlane1854v1p361.jpg‎|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1HopkinsvBlane.pdf ‎|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1HopkinsvBlane.pdf ‎|''Hopkins v. Blane'']], 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:CallsReports1854V1HopkinsvBlane.pdf ‎|''Hopkins v. Blane'']], 5 Va. (1 Call) 361 (1798), <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), 1:361.</ref> was a dispute involving whether a London merchant was liable for a grain purchase.

==Background==
In 1789, Blane, a London merchant, appointed William Hunter from Alexandria, Virginia as his agent. Hunter’s duties were to buy grain for Blane and, at Hunter’s discretion, draw on Blane for payment. On February 22, 1790, Hunter purchased tobacco from Hopkins using Blane’s letter as surety. Hunter paid Hopkins an advance of ₤50 and left a balance of ₤400. Hopkins brought this suit against Blane in the High Court of Chancery to find Blane liable for the bills and pray an attachment against Blane so he can receive payment.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe, being of the mind that the agent, William Hunter, did not have the explicit power from Blane to purchase tobacco or any products outside of grain, dismissed the case with costs. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHopkinsvBlane1854v1p361.jpg

2018-04-09T17:08:57Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Hopkins v. Blane" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia", by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. Category: Cases

First page of the opinion "Hopkins v. Blane" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia", by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. [[Category: Cases]]

File:CallFlemingsvWillis1854v2p5.jpg

2018-04-09T17:07:13Z

Sjmarlowe:

First page of the opinion "Flemings v. Willis" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. [[Category: Cases]]

File:HeningMunfordFreelandsvRoyall1809v2p575.jpg

2018-04-09T17:06:30Z

Sjmarlowe:

First page of the opinion "Freelands v. Royall" from volume 2 of ''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: I. Riley, 1809. [[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHackettvAlcock1854v1p533.jpg

2018-04-09T17:05:56Z

Sjmarlowe:

First page of the opinion "Hackett v. Alcock" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. [[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHawkin'sEx'orsvMinor,Ex'orofBerkeley1833v5p118.jpg

2018-04-09T17:05:12Z

Sjmarlowe:

First page of the opinion "Hawkin's Ex'ors v. Minor, Ex'or of Berkeley" from volume 5 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R.I. Smith, 1833. [[Category: Cases]]

File:WashingtonHoomesvSmock1798v1p389.jpg

2018-04-09T17:04:40Z

Sjmarlowe:

First page of the opinion "Hoomes v. Smock" from volume 1 of ''Report of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798. [[Category: Cases]]

Hoomes v. Smock

2018-04-09T17:04:18Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hoomes v. Smock''}}
[[File:WashingtonHoomesvSmock1798v1p389.jpg‎|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1HoomesvSmock.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1HoomesvSmock.pdf ‎|''Hoomes v. Smock'']], 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, 1798.]]

[[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1HoomesvSmock.pdf ‎|''Hoomes v. Smock'']], 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 389 (1794),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' (Richmond: R. Nicolson, 1798), 1:389.</ref> was a case where the court determined whether the defendant knew he received a bond through illegal consideration, voiding the bond.

==Background==
Elliot obtained a judgment against Smock in County Court for recovery of a bond. Smock,later, sued Elliot in the County Court’s Chancery division claiming the bond was obtained through gaming consideration and an injunction should be placed against the judgment. Elliot argued that he knew the sum of bond was obtained through gaming but that he obtained the bond through a considerable consideration.
===The Court's Decision===
The County Court perpetuated the injunction. Elliot appealed to High Court of Chancery but while the appeal was pending, Elliot died. The appeal was revived by Elliot’s administrators where the lower court was affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the decree of the High Court of Chancery and the County Court and dissolved the obtained injunction.

==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:WashingtonHoomesvSmock1798v1p389.jpg

2018-04-09T17:02:44Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Hoomes v. Smock" from volume 1 of ''Report of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798. Category:Cases

Hooe v. Marquess

2018-04-09T17:01:29Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hooe v. Marquess''}}
[[File:CallHooevMarquess1833v4p416.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1833V4HooevMarquess.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V4HooevMarquess.pdf|''Hooe v. Marquess'']], in ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1833V4HooevMarquess.pdf|''Hooe v. Marquess'']], 8 Va. (4 call) 416 (1798), <ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 4:416.</ref> was a case where the court determined how much testimony and evidence was necessary when a petition claimed the defendant fraudulently obtained land.

==Background==
Marquess sued Hooe and Bruce in the High Court of Chancery. Marquess claimed that in 1782 he purchased 90 acres of land from a man named Mott Grigsby, who had previously purchased the land from Charles Grigsby, since deceased. Marquess states that Charles Grigsby whose deed was recorded, but later destroyed then teamed up with the deputy clerk to create a substitute deed. This substitute deed was sold to Hooe and Grigsby and the clerk split the purchase money. Marquess claims that Hooe used this substitute deed to evict Marquess from the property and sold the land to Bruce. Marquess states that both Hooe and Bruce had notice of his previous purchase and prayed the court would convey the land back to him as well as account for the profits of the land.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe was of the opinion that the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the substitute deed and found in favor of Marquess. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHooevMarquess1833v4p416.jpg

2018-04-09T17:01:10Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Hooe v. Marquess" from volume 4 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. Category:Cases

First page of the opinion "Hooe v. Marquess" from volume 4 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. [[Category:Cases]]

Henderson v. Lightfoot

2018-04-09T16:59:37Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Henderson v. Lightfoot''}}
[[File:CallHendersonvLightfoot1833v5p241.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1833V5HendersonvLightfoot.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5HendersonvLightfoot.pdf|''Henderson v. Lightfoot'']], 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.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1833V5HendersonvLightfoot.pdf|''Henderson v. Lightfoot'']], 9 Va. (5 Call) 241 (1804), <ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:241.</ref> was a contract dispute case where the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff for a tract of land with land in Kentucky.

==Background==
In 1785, John Lightfoot sold a tract of land in Culpeper, Virginia to Callender and Henderson for ₤1050. Lightfoot took a ₤600 security for the property as well as ₤400 in bonds and goods and ₤200 two years later. The balance of the land was to be paid in about 4500 acres of land in Kentucky. Both Callender and Henderson failed to pay the balance with the said 4500 acres of land. At the time of suit, Callendar died without heirs in Virginia, and Henderson was the administrator of his own estate. Lightfoot sued Henderson in the High Court of Chancery for the payment of ₤450 with interest, instead of the land in Kentucky.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe found in favor of the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the decree of the High Court of Chancery.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHendersonvLightfoot1833v5p241.jpg

2018-04-09T16:59:14Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Henderson v. Lightfoot" from volume 5 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. Category: Cases

First page of the opinion "Henderson v. Lightfoot" from volume 5 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. [[Category: Cases]]

Hawkins's Ex'ors v. Minor, Ex'or of Berkeley

2018-04-09T16:57:33Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hawkins's Ex'ors v. Minor, Ex'or of Berkeley''}}
[[File:CallHawkin'sEx'orsvMinor,Ex'orofBerkeley1833v5p118.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1833V5Hawkin'sEx'orsvMinor,Ex'orofBerkeley.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5Hawkin'sEx'orsvMinor,Ex'orofBerkeley.pdf|''Hawkins's Ex'ors v. Minor, Ex'or of Berkeley'']], 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.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1833V5Hawkin'sEx'orsvMinor,Ex'orofBerkeley.pdf|''Hawkins's Ex'ors v. Minor, Ex'or of Berkeley'']], 9 Va. (5 Call) 118 (1804),<ref> Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:118.</ref> was a case involving a creditor who hired his debtor to collect his other debts, but failed to receive the money from his collection.

==Background==
Hawkins owed money to Berkeley. However, the two agreed that if Hawkins paid a portion of his debt, Berkeley would hire him as his own personal debt collector. For every debt Hawkins collected, the amount of the debt would be deducted from Hawkins’ balance. Hawkins gave a bond to Berkeley for the amount of £1000 and, per the agreement, Berkeley delivered to Hawkins a list of names of other bonds owed and commissioned Berkeley to be his personal debt collector. Hawkins received some collections and handed others to an attorney for suit, but he failed to give Berkeley his collections prior to his death. Berkeley sued Hawkins’ executors for the money and obtained a judgment against them. However, Hawkins’ executors counter-sued alleging that Berkeley had already been paid and that certain collections (such as those given to attorneys) were not chargeable to Hawkins.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe directed that an account be taken, upon which there was a balance reported against Berkley’s executor of about £412. The Chancellor decreed that the sum and interest starting from November 16, 1795 be paid to Hawkins. The Court of Appeals found that the Chancellor erred in his calculations and that multiple factors should be considered upon remand including the subtraction of interest accumulated during the Revolutionary War and money borrowed against the estate from the Hawkins’ Executors.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHawkin'sEx'orsvMinor,Ex'orofBerkeley1833v5p118.jpg

2018-04-09T16:57:03Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Hawkin's Ex'ors v. Minor, Ex'or of Berkeley" from volume 5 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R.I. Smith, 1833. Category:Cases

Harvey v. Borden

2018-04-09T16:55:30Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Harvey v. Borden''}}
[[File:WashingtonHarveyvBorden1799v2p156.jpg|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2HarveyvBorden.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2HarveyvBorden.pdf|''Harvey v. Borden'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1799V2HarveyvBorden.pdf|''Harvey v. Borden'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 156 (1795),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 2:156.</ref> was a dispute between family members over a land inheritance.

==Background==
Benjamin Borden left a will selling all of his land, except for 5,000 acres and the land on which Borden lived on until the time of his death. The will stated that the remaining 5,000 acres should be evenly split between Borden’s five daughters. Further in his will, Borden appointed his three sons as the executors of his will and empowered them to execute deeds for the land which he directed to be sold. Joseph Borden, representing his sister and her husband, James Pritchard, brought this suit in the High Court of Chancery. Joseph is suing Harvey and his wife for the Pritchard’s allotment of the 1000 acres. According to Joseph, Harvey’s wife is the heir at law of the Benjamin Borden, Jr’s , the eldest son of Benjamin Borden, estate. Benjamin Borden Jr. purchased the shares of his four sisters and received a conveyance for Mrs. Pritchard’s share from her former husband, Worthington. Joseph argues that Mrs. Pritchard was unaware that her husband’s title to her land was invalid and that she receive her due land. Harvey argues that the land given to Mrs. Pritchard was from the 20,000 acres located on the James River and not the better land located on Catawha which belong to Benjamin Borden, Sr.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe found in favor of the Pritchards and decreed that Harvey should not only convey the 1000 acres to Mrs. Pritchard but also give her any profits made from the land since the commencement of the suit. The Chancellor left it up to the commissioners to determine which 1,000 acres to which Benjamin Borden, Jr. was entitled would be given to the Pritchards. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:WashingtonHarveyvBorden1799v2p156.jpg

2018-04-09T16:54:59Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Harvey v. Borden" from volume 2 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Bushrod Washington. Richomond: T. Nicolson, 1799. Category: Cases

First page of the opinion "Harvey v. Borden" from volume 2 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Bushrod Washington. Richomond: T. Nicolson, 1799. [[Category: Cases]]

Hackett v. Alcock

2018-04-09T16:53:21Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hackett v. Alcock''}}
[[File:CallHackettvAlcock1854v1p533.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1HackettvAlcock.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1HackettvAlcock.pdf|''Hackett v. Alcock'']], 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:CallsReports1854V1HackettvAlcock.pdf|''Hackett v. Alcock'']], 5 Va. (1 Call) 533 (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), 1:533.</ref> was a case where the court determined whether a party can recover from a penalty contract when the other party agreed to comply with the original contract but the penalty contract had no conditions for conveyance.

==Background==
Hackett was entitled to a tract of land from his relative. When Hackett obtained the deed he agreed to give Alcock the property if he cleared Hackett from the military legion Hackett enlisted in. Alcock agreed but allegedly was not satisfied with the deed and told Hackett to give him another bond as well. Alcock then drafted a penalty bill for 19,400 lbs of tobacco and about £5 without including any conditions for the conveyance. Hackett, who allegedly did not know any better, agreed to the bill. Alcock then sued Hackett for the penalty bill even though Hackett agreed to give Alcock an additional conveyance. Alcock said that he would drop the suit but secretly continued it and received a judgment for Hackett’s failure to further convey property. Hackett is suing for an injunction against the penalty bill.
===The Court's Decision===
The County Court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the case. Chancellor Wythe affirmed the decree of the County Court of Caroline. The Court of Appeals reversed with costs and dissolved the injunction as to the 3,400 lbs of tobacco in interest.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallHackettvAlcock1854v1p533.jpg

2018-04-09T16:53:01Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Hackett v. Alcock" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. Category:Cases

Granberry v. Granberry

2018-04-09T16:51:34Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Granberry v. Granberry''}}
[[File:WashingtonGranberryvGranberry1854v1p246.jpg|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1GranberryvGranberry.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1GranberryvGranberry.pdf|''Granberry v. Granberry'']], 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, 1798.]]

[[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1GranberryvGranberry.pdf|''Granberry v. Granberry'']], 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 246 (1793), <ref>Bushrod Washington, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798), 1:246.</ref> was a case where the heirs of an estate sued its executor for an official account of the estate and its upkeep.

==Background==
The Granberry heirs brought this case against the executor of their father’s estate for an account of the estate’s financial situation. While giving his report, the executor stated four exemptions to the estate to which Chancellor Wythe confirmed. The Granberry heirs appealed.
===The Court's Decision===
The Court of Appeals reversed the exemptions of the report and remanded to the High Court of Chancery for an inquiry to be made according the principles of the appellate judges.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:WashingtonGranberryvGranberry1854v1p246.jpg

2018-04-09T16:51:21Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Granberry v. Granberry" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798. Category: Cases

First page of the opinion "Granberry v. Granberry" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798. [[Category: Cases]]

Graham v. Woodson

2018-04-09T16:50:04Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Graham v. Woodson''}}
[[File:CallGrahamvWoodson1854v2p249.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V2GrahamvWoodson.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V2GrahamvWoodson.pdf|''Graham v. Woodson'']], 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:CallsReports1854V2GrahamvWoodson.pdf|''Graham v. Woodson'']], 6 Va. (2 Call) 249 (1800),
<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appealed of Virgina,'' 3rd ed, ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 2:249.</ref> was a case where the court determined whether a tenant, who purchased the property, could also exercise the early termination provision of his lease.

==Background==
Mathew Woodson leased to Graham Woodson some coal mines in Goochland for 20 years. In the lease there was an early termination provision for 5 shillings. In his will, Matthew left the rent of the leased property to his daughters with the remainder of the property after the 20 years to be bestowed to his son, Philip. Upon Matthew’s death, Philip sold the coal mines to Graham, who then payed the 5 shillings to terminate his lease agreement and take over the coal mines in fee simple. This case was brought by Mathew’s Woodson’s daughters for the loss of their interest in the coal mines. The plaintiff’s argued that the intent of their father was to at least provide rent to his daughters to sustain them, not allow Graham a way to purchase the coal mines under its value.
===The Court's Decision===
The Court of Chancery determined that Graham should pay the rent with interest. However, if he wanted to terminate his lease prior to the 20 years he could do so but must return the property to the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallGrahamvWoodson1854v2p249.jpg

2018-04-09T16:49:47Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Graham v. Woodson" from volume 2 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. Category: Cases

First page of the opinion "Graham v. Woodson" from volume 2 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. [[Category: Cases]]

Freelands v. Royall

2018-04-09T16:48:19Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Freelands v. Royall''}}
[[File:HeningMunfordFreelandsvRoyall1809v2p575.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2FreelandsvRoyall.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2FreelandsvRoyall.pdf |''Freelands v. Royall'']], in [http://wm-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/01COWM_WM:EVERYTHING:01COWM_WM_ALMA21593279330003196 ''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: I. Riley, 1809.]]

In [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2FreelandsvRoyall.pdf |''Freelands v. Royall'']], 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 575 (1808), <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: I. Riley, 1809), 2:575.</ref> the court determined under what circumstances an unconditional judgment by an executor can bar his relief in equity.

==Background==
John Clarke, Jr. the heir of the Clarke estate was indebted to James and Archibald Freeland for a total of about £1,136. To satisfy the debt, Clarke gave the Freelands a mortgage on a tract of land dated March 4, 1791. In 1792, Clarke died. The Freelands brought suit in the High Court of Chancery to foreclose on the property, but while the suit was pending another debt collector filed against the same property in the County Court of Prince Edward. There was a conference held between the multiple parties and in 1797, the property was foreclosed, sold, and purchased by the Freelands for £400. Since the total debt was not satisfied by the foreclosure, the Freelands went to collect the remainder of the debt from the rest of the estate. The executors of the estate brought suit for an injunction stating that the Freelands bought the foreclosed property for much less than its property value and the debt was satisfied.
===The Court's Decision===
In May 1803, Chancellor Wythe decreed that the injunction obtained by the Executors of Clarke against the Freelands should be made perpetual. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and dismissed the injunction of the Executors.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:HeningMunfordFreelandsvRoyall1809v2p575.jpg

2018-04-09T16:47:44Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Freelands v. Royall" from volume 2 of ''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...

File:MunfordFranklinvWilkinson1816v3p112.jpg

2018-04-09T16:45:54Z

Sjmarlowe:

First page of the opinion "Franklin v. Wilkinson" from volume 3 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by William Munford. New York: I. Riley, 1816. [[Category: Cases]]

Franklin v. Wilkinson

2018-04-09T16:44:17Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Franklin v. Wilkinson''}}
[[File:MunfordFranklinvWilkinson1816v3p112.jpg|link=Media:MunfordsReports1816V3FranklinvWilkinson.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1816V3FranklinvWilkinson.pdf |''Franklin v. Wilkinson'']], 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:MunfordsReports1816V3FranklinvWilkinson.pdf |''Franklin v. Wilkinson'']], 17 Va. (3 Munf.) 112 (1811), <ref>William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia,'' (New York: I. Riley, 1816), 3:112.</ref> was a case involving inadequate counsel during an appeal.

==Background==
Wilkinson owed a bond to Booker for losing at gaming. However, before his bond came due, Wilkinson won a larger sum of money against Booker. Wilkinson offered to cancel the debt if Booker would cancel his. Booker agreed but stated that he did not have the bond with him and would destroy the bond when he returned. However, instead Booker sold the bond to a third party who later it assigned it to Owen Franklin. Wilkinson sued for an injunction against Franklin claiming the bond was obtained by gaming proceeds. However, since the allegations of the suit had no evidence to support it, the injunction was dissolved. The case was not dismissed due to a motion by Wilkinson’s attorney to fight the decision. However, on the day of the hearing, Wilkinson’s counsel did not show up and Wilkinson who was advised not to give a deposition before the case had no evidence to show the bond was obtained through illegal gaming.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe was of the opinion that there was no error in the lower court’s decree and rejected the motion for leave to file a bill of review. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category:Cases]]

File:MunfordFranklinvWilkinson1816v3p112.jpg

2018-04-09T16:43:43Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Franklin v. Wilkinson" from volume 3 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by William Munford. New York: I. Riley, 1816) Category: Cases

File:CallFlemingsvWillis1854v2p5.jpg

2018-04-09T16:42:05Z

Sjmarlowe:

Ford v. Gardner

2018-04-09T16:41:07Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Ford v. Gardner''}}
[[File:HeningMunfordFordvGardner1809v1p71.jpg‎|link=Media:Hening&Munford1809V1FordvGardner.pdf ‎|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&Munford1809V1FordvGardner.pdf ‎|''Ford v. Gardner'']], in [http://wm-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/01COWM_WM:EVERYTHING:01COWM_WM_ALMA21593279330003196 ''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 2nd ed. Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809.]]

[[Media:Hening&Munford1809V1FordvGardner.pdf ‎|''Ford v. Gardner'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 71 (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'', 2nd ed. (Flatbush: I. Riley,
1809), 1:71</ref> was a case involving the validity of a will.

==Background==
The family members of Mary Gardner brought a suit against Francis Ford. Ford claimed that Mary had written a will giving him her entire estate. The Gardner family provided several witnesses stating that the document Ford possessed was not properly executed.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe affirmed the lower court’s decision in favor of the Gardner family. The Court of Appeals agreed.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:HeningMunfordFordvGardner1809v1p71.jpg

2018-04-09T16:40:17Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Ford v. Gardner" from volume 1 of ''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...

First page of the opinion "Ford v. Gardner" from volume 1 of ''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. 2nd ed. Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809. [[Category: Cases]]

Flemings v. Willis

2018-04-09T16:38:59Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Flemings v. Willis''}}
[[File:CallFlemingsvWillis1854v2p5.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V2FlemingsvWillis.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V2FlemingsvWillis.pdf|''Flemings v. Willis'']], 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. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1854V2FlemingsvWillis.pdf|''Flemings v. Willis'']], 6 Va. (2 Call) 5 (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), 2:5.</ref> was land dispute case.
==Background==
Anne Willis was the former widow of John Champe, Jr. As part of their marriage agreement, John Champe, Sr. agreed to give his son (John Champe. Jr.) all the land above Poplar Swamp. He also stipulated that if the marriage actually took place, he would also give John Champe Jr. his Lamb’s Creek estate, except for the farm. Upon John Champe, Sr.’s death, William Champe, his eldest son was in charge of executing his father’s will and never gave a deed for any of the property to John Champe, jr. except for an estate in fee-tail in the Poplar Swamp. In 1774, John Champe, jr. died conveying a life-estate of his real and personal property to Anne and the remainder to John Taliaferro. Anne, her husband Lewis Willis, and John Taliaferro brought this suit against William Champe’s devisees (the Flemings) for their portion of the property.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe declared in favor of Anne Willis. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallFlemingsvWillis1854v2p5.jpg

2018-04-09T16:38:41Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of "Flemings v. Willis" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. Category:Cases

First page of "Flemings v. Willis" from volume 1 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. [[Category:Cases]]

Fleming v. Bolling

2018-04-05T20:01:51Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Fleming v. Bolling''}}
[[File:CallFlemingvBolling1854v3p75.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V3FlemingvBolling.pdf ‎|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V3FlemingvBolling.pdf ‎|''Fleming v. Bolling'']], 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. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1854V3FlemingvBolling.pdf ‎|''Fleming v. Bolling'']], 7 Va. (3 Call) 75 (1801), <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), 3:75.</ref> was a case where the court determined whether a book of debtors (people who owed the descendant) was a beneficial conveyance and could be used by its owner to extinguish the owner’s debt from the estate.

==Background==
Edward Bolling devised his estate among his siblings. To his older brother, Robert, Edward left a book as well as of the debts owed to him and any debts he owed. To his brother Archibald, Edward left the rest of his estate that was not already given. Upon Robert’s death, Archibald sued Edward’s testator, Fleming, for an account of the rest of Edward’s estate. Archibald actually owed Edward and was hoping that Robert’s inheritance would be passed to Archibald and extinguish his debt as well as give Archibald more money.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe decided that Edward giving his book (book of debtors) to Robert was not a beneficial conveyance and that Archibald’s debt to the estate would not be extinguished. He also decreed that the assets Robert thought he inherited from Edward’s property (debts owed Edward) were actually Archibald’s and should be given to Archibald. Fleming, the executor of Edward’s estate, appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallFlemingvBolling1854v3p75.jpg

2018-04-05T20:01:29Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Fleming v. Bolling" from volume 3 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. Category:Cases

First page of the opinion "Fleming v. Bolling" from volume 3 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Ed. Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854. [[Category:Cases]]

Eppes v. Tucker

2018-04-05T19:59:53Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Eppes v. Tucker''}}
[[File:CallEppesvTucker1833v4p346.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1833V4EppesvTucker.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V4EppesvTucker.pdf |''Eppes v. Tucker'']], 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.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1833V4EppesvTucker.pdf |''Eppes v. Tucker'']], 8 Va. (4 Call) 346 (1790), <ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 4:346.</ref> was maritime dispute where the court determined whether the owner of the shipper is entitled to damages when the master, before he reached his port of destination, strands the vessel to avoid capture by the enemy.

==Background==
Eppes sued Tucker regarding a contract between them where Tucker would ship six hogsheads of tobacco to a port in Europe. According to the agreement, one half of the tobacco would be maintained by Tucker to cover freight and risk costs. However, the other half would be sold by the master of the ship for specific merchandise that Eppes requested. The ship enter South America and the master sold the tobacco. However, upon arriving in Virginia, Eppes did not receive any of the various goods he requested. Eppes asked the court obtain an account of the transaction and grant him general relief.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe adjourned the case, by consent of the parties, to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals decided that Tucker was responsible for the merchandise saved from the wreck. However, they exempted the crew for any loss or damage done to the ship while protecting the goods (during salvage).

==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]

File:CallEppesvTucker1833v4p346.jpg

2018-04-05T19:59:29Z

Sjmarlowe: First page of the opinion "Eppes v. Tucker" from volume 4 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. Category:Cases

First page of the opinion "Eppes v. Tucker" from volume 4 of ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'', by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833. [[Category:Cases]]

Eppes v. Randolph

2018-04-05T19:57:49Z

Sjmarlowe:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Eppes v. Randolph''}}
[[File:CallEppesvRandolph1854v2p124.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V2EppesvRandolph.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V2EppesvRandolph.pdf |''Eppes v. Randolph'']], 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. Richmond: A. Smith, 1854.]]

[[Media:CallsReports1854V2EppesvRandolph.pdf |''Eppes v. Randolph'']], 6 Va. 124, 2 Call 125 (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), 2:125.</ref> was a case where the court determined if creditors could recover when the indebted landowner conveyed his estate to his sons in order to avoid the loss of his estate.

==Background==
Richard Randolph was greatly indebted and knowing that his entire estate would go to his creditors upon death, wrote a will conveying property, some of which had already been seized, to his sons. Eppes and other creditors sued requesting a discovery of Randolph’s personal estate and that if the personal state is insufficient, that the creditors can satisfy the debt with the land conveyed to Randolph’s sons.
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with costs. The Court of Appeals reversed.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__
[[Category: Cases]]