Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia - Recent changes [en]

Robertson v. Campbell

Gsmith — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 17:32:52 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 15 September 2026
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Robertson v. Campbell''}} [[File:~~WytheAmblerVWyld1852~~.jpg\|link=Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf\|''Robertson 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. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]]		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Robertson v. Campbell''}} [[File:RobertsonvCampbell.jpg\|link=Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf\|''Robertson 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. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]]

	[[Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf\|''Robertson v. Campbell'']], 6 Va. (2 Call) 421 (1800),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:115. [[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 .		[[Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf\|''Robertson v. Campbell'']], 6 Va. (2 Call) 421 (1800),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:115. [[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 whether a conveyance of slaves was a mortgage or a conditional sale.

	==Background==		==Background==

	Robertson’s brother was sued by Wilson, a creditor in Philadelphia, for 240,000 lbs of tobacco. In order to pay the debt, Robertson, Shore, and M’Connico became surety to Wilson.		Robertson’s brother was sued by Wilson, a creditor in Philadelphia, for 240,000 lbs of tobacco. In order to pay the debt, Robertson, Shore, and M’Connico became surety to Wilson. Campbell and Wheeler advanced 20,000 lbs of tobacco to Roberts, and in return he gave them four slaves - two shoemakers and a woman and her child. When the original creditor, Wilson, tried to remit the damages against Roberts, Campbell and Wheeler refused to accept this and demanded an account be taken of what was due. The parties took the case to the Court of Chancery, where they disagreed over whether the conveyance was a mortgage or a conditional sale.

	===The Court's Decision===		===The Court's Decision===

	Chancellor Wythe decreed in favor of Campbell and Robertson appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the decree.		Chancellor Wythe decreed in favor of Campbell and Robertson appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the decree, finding that the conveyance was a mortgage rather than a conditional sale, citing to ''[[Chapman's Adm'x v. Turner]]''. The Court held that the slaves were intended to be security for the loan of 20,000 lbs of tobacco, rather than a permanent sale, and once their profits had discharged the interest, they should be returned to Roberts. The Court also held that the contract was usurious and void because the slaves' profits exceeded the legal rate of interest.

	==See also==		==See also==

	*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]		*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]
			*''[[Chapman's Adm'x v. Turner]]''


	==References==		==References==

File:RobertsonvCampbell.jpg

Gsmith — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 16:22:10 GMT

Gsmith uploaded File:RobertsonvCampbell.jpg

New page

Robertson v. Campbell

Gsmith — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 16:21:29 GMT

Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Robertson v. Campbell''}} link=Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf|''Robertson 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. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]] ''Robertson v. Campbell'', 6 Va. (2 Call) 421 (1800)..."

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Robertson v. Campbell''}} [[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf|''Robertson 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. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]]

[[Media:RobertsonvCampbell.pdf|''Robertson v. Campbell'']], 6 Va. (2 Call) 421 (1800),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:115. [[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==

Robertson’s brother was sued by Wilson, a creditor in Philadelphia, for 240,000 lbs of tobacco. In order to pay the debt, Robertson, Shore, and M’Connico became surety to Wilson.

===The Court's Decision===

Chancellor Wythe decreed in favor of Campbell and Robertson appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the decree.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Robert's Widow v. Stanton

Gsmith — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 15:28:36 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 15 September 2026
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''~~Robert~~'s Widow v. Stanton''}} [[File:~~WytheAmblerVWyld1852~~.jpg\|link=Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|''~~Robert~~'s Widow v. Stanton'']], 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.]]		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Roberts's Widow v. Stanton''}} [[File:MunfordRobert'sWidowvStanton1814v2p129.jpg\|link=Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|''Roberts's Widow v. Stanton'']], 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:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|''~~Robert~~'s Widow v. Stanton'']], 16 Va. (2 Munf.) 129 (1811),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (New York: I. Riley, 1814), 2:129. </ref> was a case involving .		[[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|''Roberts's Widow v. Stanton'']], 16 Va. (2 Munf.) 129 (1811),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (New York: I. Riley, 1814), 2:129. </ref> was a case involving appointment of a guardian ad litem.



	==Background==		==Background==

	In November 1797, William Stanton sued Wilson Miles Cary, the executor of George William Fairfax regarding ~~William’s~~ purchase of land in Culpeper County. The land purchased in or about 1791, was ~~supposed to be an estate~~ of Fairfax, which under his will was supposed to be sold by his executors. Cary was the only acting executor in the country and his agent sold the land and procured a deed to be made only by Cary.		In November 1797, William Stanton sued Wilson Miles Cary, the executor of the estate of George William Fairfax, regarding Stanton's purchase of land in Culpeper County. The land, purchased in or about 1791, was part of Fairfax's estate, which under his will was supposed to be sold by his executors. Cary was the only acting executor in the country and his agent sold the land and procured a deed to be made only by Cary. However, Joseph Roberts surveyed the land and found it to have imperfect title, at which point the Commonwealth granted the land to him. Stanton brought suit and when Roberts died, it abated to Sarah Roberts and her eight children, who were Roberts's heirs at law.

	===The Court's Decision===		===The Court's Decision===

	Chancellor Wythe confirmed his former ruling. The Court of Appeals reversed and annulled Wythe’s ruling.		The Richmond Court of Chancery found for Stanton and ordered Sarah Roberts to give him possession of the land along with costs. She submitted a bill of review to Chancellor Wythe, claiming that several of the defendants were infants and therefore should have been appointed a guardian ad litem. Chancellor Wythe confirmed his former ruling, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and annulled Wythe’s ruling, finding that a guardian ad litem should have been appointed for the infant defendants. The validity of Cary's conveyance was also questioned, and so the Court ruled that upon remand the residuary legatees of Fairfax's estate be added as parties.

	==See also==		==See also==

	*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]		*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]



	==References==		==References==

File:MunfordRobert'sWidowvStanton1814v2p129.jpg

Gsmith — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 14:39:38 GMT

Gsmith uploaded File:MunfordRobert'sWidowvStanton1814v2p129.jpg

New page

Robert's Widow v. Stanton

Gsmith — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 14:38:25 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:38, 15 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Robert's Widow v. Stanton''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Robert's Widow v. Stanton''}} [[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg\|link=Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|''Robert's Widow v. Stanton'']], 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.]]

	[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg\|link=Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|''Robert's Widow v. Stanton'']], 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:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|''Robert's Widow v. Stanton'']], 16 Va. (2 Munf.) 129 (1811),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (New York: I. Riley, 1814), 2:129. </ref> was a case involving .		[[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎\|''Robert's Widow v. Stanton'']], 16 Va. (2 Munf.) 129 (1811),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (New York: I. Riley, 1814), 2:129. </ref> was a case involving .

Robert's Widow v. Stanton

Gsmith — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 14:37:02 GMT

Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Robert's Widow v. Stanton''}} link=Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎|''Robert's Widow v. Stanton'', 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.]] Medi..."

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Robert's Widow v. Stanton''}}

[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎|''Robert's Widow v. Stanton'']], 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:MunfordsReports1814V2Robert'sWidowvStanton.pdf ‎|''Robert's Widow v. Stanton'']], 16 Va. (2 Munf.) 129 (1811),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (New York: I. Riley, 1814), 2:129. </ref> was a case involving .

==Background==

In November 1797, William Stanton sued Wilson Miles Cary, the executor of George William Fairfax regarding William’s purchase of land in Culpeper County. The land purchased in or about 1791, was supposed to be an estate of Fairfax, which under his will was supposed to be sold by his executors. Cary was the only acting executor in the country and his agent sold the land and procured a deed to be made only by Cary.

===The Court's Decision===

Chancellor Wythe confirmed his former ruling. The Court of Appeals reversed and annulled Wythe’s ruling.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Journal of the Convention of Virginia

Aevrountas — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 14:21:26 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 14 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 16:		Line 16:
	\|pages=		\|pages=
	\|desc=		\|desc=
	}}This is a journal of Virgina's convention of the ratification of the U.S. Consititution compiled and published by Augustine Davis a prominent printer in Virginia during the Revolutionary War (1775–1783) and the Early Republic period.<ref> Augustine Davis (c. 1752 or 1753–1825) (Davis, Augustine (c. 1752 or 1753–1825)) [http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Davis_Augustine_c_1752_or_1753-1825] </ref> The Yorktown native entered the publishing trade at ~~one of two versions of~~ the Virginia Gazette in Williamsburg, becoming co-owner in 1779. He eventually followed the state government's relocation to Richmond and in 1786 established the Virginia Independent Chronicle, later named the Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser.<ref>Ibid.</ref> A supporter of a strong federal government, he reprinted essays from The Federalist and supported ratification of ~~what became~~ the U.S. Constitution. Davis became prosperous in the 1790s, ~~investing well~~ and ~~receiving~~ government printing contracts.<ref>Ibid.</ref>		}}This is a journal of Virgina's convention of the ratification of the U.S. Consititution. It was compiled and published by Augustine Davis. Davis was a prominent printer in Virginia during the Revolutionary War (1775–1783) and the Early Republic period.<ref> Augustine Davis (c. 1752 or 1753–1825) (Davis, Augustine (c. 1752 or 1753–1825)) [http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Davis_Augustine_c_1752_or_1753-1825] </ref> The Yorktown native entered the publishing trade at the Virginia Gazette in Williamsburg, becoming co-owner in 1779. He eventually followed the state government's relocation to Richmond and in 1786 established the Virginia Independent Chronicle, which was later named the Virginia Gazette, and General Advertiser.<ref>Ibid.</ref> A supporter of a strong federal government, Davis reprinted essays from The Federalist and supported ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Davis became prosperous in the 1790s, a result of good investments and government printing contracts.<ref>Ibid.</ref>

	Despite Virginia's growing population ~~his~~ printing volume remained unchanged, ~~leading~~ to complaints about the scarcity of documents in the western region of the state. The General Assembly removed him as public printer in 1798.<ref>Ibid.</ref> ~~Davis supported the Federalist Party in 1800 and advocated the prosecution of James Thomson Callendar and other Jeffersonian editors under the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798).~~ Eleven months after Thomas Jefferson became president, Davis lost his position as Richmond's postmaster. Although declining in political influence, he continued to publish his newspaper under various titles until 1821 before retiring comfortably.<ref>Ibid.</ref>		Despite Virginia's growing population, Davis's printing volume remained unchanged, which led to complaints about the scarcity of documents in the western region of the state. The General Assembly removed him as public printer in 1798.<ref>Ibid.</ref> Eleven months after Thomas Jefferson became president, Davis lost his position as Richmond's postmaster. Although declining in political influence, he continued to publish his newspaper under various titles until 1821 before retiring comfortably.<ref>Ibid.</ref>

	==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==		==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==

Journal of the House of Burgesses

Aevrountas — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 13:38:06 GMT

Virginia. House of Burgesses.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:38, 14 September 2026
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|pages=		\|pages=
	\|desc=		\|desc=
	}}		}}
			The Journal of the House of Burgesses recorded the occurrences of each session of the House.

	~~Although~~ the first ~~session~~ of the ~~General Assembly was convened July 30~~, ~~1619~~, the ~~first printed journal~~ of the House of Burgesses was ~~that~~ of ~~1732~~.<ref> ~~Journals~~ of the House of Burgesses of ~~Virginia~~ : ~~Virginia. General Assembly~~. House of Burgesses ~~: Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive~~ (~~Internet Archive~~) [https://archive.org/details/~~journalsofhousb1619virg]~~ </ref> ~~From 1732 on, this is a reprint~~ of the ~~original: Virginia. General Assembly~~. House of Burgesses. ~~The Journal of~~ the House of Burgesses, ~~published in~~ Williamsburg, Va. ~~<ref> Ibid~~. ~~</ref>~~		The House of Burgesses was part of Virginia’s General Assembly, which was the first legislative body in British North America.<ref>"House of Burgesses," Matthew Gottlieb, Encyclopedia Virginia, last modified August 26, 2024, https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/house-of-burgesses/ </ref> It filled a similar role to the British House of Commons, for it "granted supplies and originated laws."<ref>"House of Burgesses," Britannica, last modified Sep 06, 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/House-of-Burgesses </ref> The governor and council filled the role of the king and House of Lords, as they "enjoyed the right of revision and veto."<ref>Ibid.</ref>

			The House of Burgesses was reformed into the House of Delegates by the first Virginia Constitution. <ref>"The Constitution of Virginia," Randolph-Macon College, accessed Sept 9, 2026, https://amendments.rmc.edu/constitutionva/ </ref> On May 6,1776, during the last session of the House of Burgesses, the House’s journal entry for that day simply read "several Members met, but did neither proceed to business, nor adjourn, as the House of Burgesses : Finis."<ref> "Preface," in Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1773-1776, ed. John Pendleton Kennedy (Richmond, Virginia, 1905), vii. https://archive.org/details/journalsofhouse1773c1776virg/page/n13/mode/2up </ref> "The assistant clerk may have intended to dramatically illustrate the conclusion of royal government in Virginia and filled the page so nothing else could be written there."<ref> “Final Meeting of the House of Burgesses, 1776," DBVa Library of Virginia, accessed September 14, 2026, https://www.lva.virginia.gov/collections/educator-resources/dbva/items/show/189</ </ref> However, this volume owned by Wythe concluded in 1775 and would not have included this entry.

			Wythe held several roles in the House of Burgesses, including Committees Clerk (1748), the Williamsburg seat (1754-1756), the William & Mary Representative Seat (1758-1761), and the Elizabeth City County Seat (1761-1768). His personal connection to the body, as well has his interest in Virginia’s history and government, would give him reason to own these volumes in his personal library.

	==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==		==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==

Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt

Gsmith — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 13:07:53 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:07, 10 September 2026
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Richardson’s Ex’r v. Hunt~~



	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt''}}
			[[File:MunfordRichardson's ExecvHunt1814v2p143.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.]]

	[[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 division of a residuum.

	[[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==		==Background==
			Sarah Hunt was one of seven residuary legatees of the last will of Turner Richardson. She and her husband, Elijah Hunt, brought suit in the Richmond Court of Chancery against John and Samuel Richardson, the executors of Turner Richardson's estate, to recover her share of the estate. According to a clause in the will, she was entitled to one-seventh of the estate, in money, the value of which would be determined by neighbors. At trial, Elizabeth Ellis, another legatee, testified as to the valuation and sale of the estate, while also admitting that she had an interest in the outcome of the lawsuit.


	===The Court's Decision===		===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.		On June 4, 1805, the Court of Chancery decreed in favor of the Sarah Hunt and ordered the defendant to pay her one-seventh of the estate, plus interest. The Court of Appeals reversed the decree, finding that the other residuary legatees, who were not added to the case, were necessary parties. The Court of Appeals also found that Elizabeth Ellis's testimony had been improperly admitted and could not serve as evidence due to her bias as an interested party in the suit. The case was then sent back with the stipulation that all legatees be made parties and that Elizabeth Ellis's testimony not be read into evidence.

	==See also==		==See also==

	*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]		*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]



	==References==		==References==

File:MunfordRichardson's ExecvHunt1814v2p143.jpg

Gsmith — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:37:38 GMT

Gsmith uploaded File:MunfordRichardson's ExecvHunt1814v2p143.jpg

New page

Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt

Gsmith — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:33:58 GMT

Created page with "Richardson’s Ex’r v. Hunt {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt''}} 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:..."

New page

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]]

Journal of the House of Delegates of Virginia

Aevrountas — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 14:00:37 GMT

Virginia. House of Delegates.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:00, 9 September 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:
	}}		}}
	Published by various presses<ref>Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, 2009, rev. 2023.) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433. "Published in Williamsburg by Alexander Purdie from 1776 to 1778; John Clarkson and Augustine Davis from 1779 to 1780. Published in Richmond by John Clarkson and Thomas Nicolson in 1780; John Dunlap and James Hayes from 1781 to 1781; James Hayes in 1783 and in 1785; Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis in 1784; John Dixon and John Hunter Holt in 1786; Augustine Davis and Thomas Nicolson in 1787; John Dixon, Augustine Davis, and Thomas Nicolson in 1788; John Dixon in 1788 to 1790; Augustine Davis from 1791 to 1797; Meriwether Jones and John Dixon in 1798; Meriwether Jones from 1799 to 1803; and Samuel Pleasants from 1804 to 1806."</ref> from the earliest days of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the ''Journal of the House of Delegates'' records the work and calendar of the legislature.		Published by various presses<ref>Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, 2009, rev. 2023.) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433. "Published in Williamsburg by Alexander Purdie from 1776 to 1778; John Clarkson and Augustine Davis from 1779 to 1780. Published in Richmond by John Clarkson and Thomas Nicolson in 1780; John Dunlap and James Hayes from 1781 to 1781; James Hayes in 1783 and in 1785; Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis in 1784; John Dixon and John Hunter Holt in 1786; Augustine Davis and Thomas Nicolson in 1787; John Dixon, Augustine Davis, and Thomas Nicolson in 1788; John Dixon in 1788 to 1790; Augustine Davis from 1791 to 1797; Meriwether Jones and John Dixon in 1798; Meriwether Jones from 1799 to 1803; and Samuel Pleasants from 1804 to 1806."</ref> from the earliest days of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the ''Journal of the House of Delegates'' records the work and calendar of the legislature.

			Wythe himself served as the speaker of the House of Delegates in 1777 after his return from the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.<ref> Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe Teacher of Liberty'' (the Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 38.</ref> His involvement in the House of Delegates, alongside his longstanding commitment to his home state and its government, would surely give him a strong interest in holding a copy of these records in his personal library.

			The House of Delegates was officially created by the original Virginia Constitution, which was ratified in 1776. But before the state constitution was ratified, the state legislature had already existed in a different form, and the constitution “essentially converted the existing House of Burgesses to the House of Delegates, and added a state Senate.”<ref> “The Constitution of Virginia,” Randolph-Macon College, accessed Sept 9, 2026, https://amendments.rmc.edu/constitutionva/ </ref> The state constitution was structured to keep the executive office of the governor weak, and to give the legislature most of the power.<ref> “First Virginia Constitution, June 29, 1776,” Education @ Library of Virginia, accessed Sept 9, 2026, https://www.lva.virginia.gov/collections/educator-resources/online-classroom/stc/entries/first-virginia-constitution-june-29-1776 </ref> It was intended to establish a republican structure of government. Nonetheless, despite its focus on republican structures, it was established “without any clear means for a popular vote,” and “the convention simply declared the constitution to be in effect and it remained so until its replacement five decades later.”<ref> Randolph-Macon College, “The Constitution of Virginia.”</ref> Further, the members of the House of Delegates and the state Senate, rather than citizens of the state, elected representatives into national legislative bodies: first the continental congress, and later, the United States Senate.<ref> Education @ Library of Virginia, “First Virginia Constitution.”</ref> Like many other structures of American government at the time, the system implemented by the first Virginia Constitution, and the resulting work of its legislature, can be recognized as only selectively republican.

	==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==		==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==