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

Picket v. Morris

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 17:17:50 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 6 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Picket v. Morris''}} [[File:~~WytheAmblerVWyld1852~~.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf \|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf \|''Picket v. Morris'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799.]] [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf \|''Picket v. Morris'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 255 (1796),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,''(Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 2:255. </ref> was a case involving .		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Picket v. Morris''}} [[File:PicketvMorris.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf \|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf \|''Picket v. Morris'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799.]] [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf \|''Picket v. Morris'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 255 (1796),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,''(Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 2:255. </ref> was a case involving .

File:PicketvMorris.jpg

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 17:17:34 GMT

Gsmith uploaded File:PicketvMorris.jpg

New page

Picket v. Morris

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 17:16:23 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 6 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Picket v. Morris''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Picket v. Morris''}} [[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf \|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf \|''Picket v. Morris'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799.]] [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf \|''Picket v. Morris'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 255 (1796),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,''(Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 2:255. </ref> was a case involving .

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

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



	==Background==		==Background==

Picket v. Morris

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 17:16:04 GMT

Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Picket v. Morris''}} link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMorris.pdf |''Picket v. Morris'', in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799.]] Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2PicketvMor..."

New page

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

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

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

==Background==

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

===The Court's Decision===

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

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 17:01:15 GMT

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 6 April 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart''}}
	[[File:PendletonsExcr.jpg\|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]		[[File:PendletonsExcr.jpg\|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]
	In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], 10 Va. (5 Call) 1 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:1. </ref> the court determined whether a purchaser could be relieved in equity ~~when buying 1100 acres “more~~ or ~~less” and it turns out to be~~ less.		In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], 10 Va. (5 Call) 1 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:1. </ref> the court determined whether a purchaser could be relieved in equity in a contract for a specific amount of land, conditioned by the words "more or less."

	==Background==		==Background==

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

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

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

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

Wythe and Committee to Congress, 6 April 1776

Gwsweeney — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:54:05 GMT

External links

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 6 April 2026
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 6:		Line 6:

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
			{\|
			\| width="5%" style="padding-right: 50px; vertical-align: top;" \|



			\| width="95%" style="vertical-align: top;" \|

	The committee to whom the letters from major general Schuyler, dated the seventh and nineteenth, and from William Paulding, esq., chairman of the convention of New-York, dated the twenty sixth days of March last, were referred, have examined the matters thereof, and come to several resolutions thereupon, which are as followeth: viz.		The committee to whom the letters from major general Schuyler, dated the seventh and nineteenth, and from William Paulding, esq., chairman of the convention of New-York, dated the twenty sixth days of March last, were referred, have examined the matters thereof, and come to several resolutions thereupon, which are as followeth: viz.

			\|-
			\| width="5%" style="padding-right: 50px; vertical-align: top;" \|

			agreed

			\| width="95%" style="vertical-align: top;" \|

	Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the the committee of inspection and observation of Albany be desired to examine state and settle the accounts of expenses <sup>which shall be laid before them by general Schuyler</sup> incurred in the taking of Ticonderoga and Crown-point, and report the same to congress.		Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the the committee of inspection and observation of Albany be desired to examine state and settle the accounts of expenses <sup>which shall be laid before them by general Schuyler</sup> incurred in the taking of Ticonderoga and Crown-point, and report the same to congress.

	Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that mr Robert Yates be appointed secretary to the commissioners for indian affairs in the northern department, and be allowed at the rate of ~~<tt>~~Two hundred fifty</tt> ~~dollars by~~ the ~~year~~.		\|-
			\| width="5%" style="padding-right: 50px; vertical-align: top;" \|

			(a)
			agreed

			\| width="95%" style="vertical-align: top;" \|

			Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that mr Robert Yates be appointed secretary to the commissioners for indian affairs in the northern department, and be allowed at the rate of '''Two hundred fifty''' dollars by the year.

			\|-
			\| width="5%" style="padding-right: 50px; vertical-align: top;" \|



			\| width="95%" style="vertical-align: top;" \|

			Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the contract made the sixteenth day of March last, between the committee of the convention of New York and mt Abraham Livingston for supplying the troops employed for the defense of that colony with the rations allowed by congress, <sub>^</sub><sup>and with</sup> fuel, and other necessities, be confirmed; but that the said convention be desired to <s>prevail upon</s> <sub>^</sub><sup>acquaint</sup> mr Livingston if he will [ ] <s>he</s><sup><s>it will be for th</s></sup> waive so much of the contract as concerns the supplying the Pennsylvania battalions serving in the said colony; <s>and if he will not consent to do so, that these battalions be withdrawn</s> it will be for the good of the public.
			\|}

	Resloved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the contract made the sixteenth day of March last, between the committee of the convention of New York and mt Abraham Livingston for supplying the troops employed for the defense of that colony with the rations allowed by congress, <sub>^</sub><sup>and with</sup> fuel, and other necessities, be confirmed; but that the said convention be desired to <s>prevail upon</s> <sub>^</sub><sup>acquaint</sup> mr Livingston if hew will [ ] so much of the contract as concerns the supplying the Pennsylvania battalions serving in the said colony; <s>and if he will not consent to do so, that these battalions be withdrawn</s> it will be for the good of the public.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Line 22:		Line 53:

	==See also==		==See also==
	*~~[[S. Bassett French Biographical Sketch]]~~		*Philip Schuyler to John Hancock, referred to Wythe & Committee, 7 March 1776
	*~~Other Related Wythepedia Pages~~		*Philip Schuyler to John Hancock, referred to Wythe & Committee, 2 April 1776

	==References==		==References==
Line 31:		Line 62:
	*Read this book in [https://books.google.com/ Google Books.]		*Read this book in [https://books.google.com/ Google Books.]

	[[Category: ~~Biographies (Articles)~~]]		[[Category: Letters and Papers]]

File:WytheAndCommittee6April1776p2.jpg

Gwsweeney — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:24:59 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 6 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Summary ==		== Summary ==
	~~Page one~~ of ~~reports~~ from [[George Wythe]] and ~~committees~~, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-308-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.]		Endorsement of a report from [[George Wythe]] and committee, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-308-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.]

File:WytheAndCommittee6April1776p1.jpg

Gwsweeney — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:24:18 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 6 April 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Summary ==		== Summary ==
	Page one of ~~reports~~ from [[George Wythe]] and ~~committees~~, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-309-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.]		Page one of a report from [[George Wythe]] and committee, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-309-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.]

			[[Category: Letters and Papers]]

Wythe and Committee to Congress, 6 April 1776

Gwsweeney — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:23:30 GMT

Created page with "thumb|right|350px|Page one of reports from George Wythe and committee, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-309-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.] Introduction and summary.<ref>Please footnote sources.</ref> ==Document text, 6 April 1776== ===Page 1=== <blockquote..."

New page

[[File:WytheAndCommittee6April1776p1.jpg|thumb|right|350px|Page one of reports from George Wythe and committee, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-309-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.]]]
Introduction and summary.<ref>Please footnote sources.</ref>

==Document text, 6 April 1776==
===Page 1===

<blockquote>
The committee to whom the letters from major general Schuyler, dated the seventh and nineteenth, and from William Paulding, esq., chairman of the convention of New-York, dated the twenty sixth days of March last, were referred, have examined the matters thereof, and come to several resolutions thereupon, which are as followeth: viz.

Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the the committee of inspection and observation of Albany be desired to examine state and settle the accounts of expenses which shall be laid before them by general Schuyler incurred in the taking of Ticonderoga and Crown-point, and report the same to congress.

Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that mr Robert Yates be appointed secretary to the commissioners for indian affairs in the northern department, and be allowed at the rate of <tt>Two hundred fifty</tt> dollars by the year.

Resloved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the contract made the sixteenth day of March last, between the committee of the convention of New York and mt Abraham Livingston for supplying the troops employed for the defense of that colony with the rations allowed by congress, ^and with fuel, and other necessities, be confirmed; but that the said convention be desired to <s>prevail upon</s> ^acquaint mr Livingston if hew will [ ] so much of the contract as concerns the supplying the Pennsylvania battalions serving in the said colony; <s>and if he will not consent to do so, that these battalions be withdrawn</s> it will be for the good of the public.
</blockquote>

===Page 2===
[[File:WytheAndCommittee6April1776p2.jpg|thumb|right|350px|Endorsement of a report from George Wythe and committee, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-309-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.]]]
<blockquote>
no 10 April 19th 1776. Report of the com- mittee on genl Schulyers letter of the 2 april 1776 [ ] in 19 do —
</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[S. Bassett French Biographical Sketch]]
*Other Related Wythepedia Pages

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*Read this book in [https://books.google.com/ Google Books.]

[[Category: Biographies (Articles)]]

File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776P2.jpg

Gwsweeney — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:58:18 GMT

Gwsweeney moved page File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776P2.jpg to File:WytheAndCommittee6April1776p2.jpg without leaving a redirect

New page

== Summary ==
Page one of reports from [[George Wythe]] and committees, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-308-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.]

File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776P1.jpg

Gwsweeney — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:58:08 GMT

Gwsweeney moved page File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776P1.jpg to File:WytheAndCommittee6April1776p1.jpg without leaving a redirect

New page

File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776.jpg

Gwsweeney — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:55:32 GMT

Gwsweeney moved page File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776.jpg to File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776P1.jpg without leaving a redirect

New page

File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776P2.jpg

Gwsweeney — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:55:22 GMT

Gwsweeney uploaded File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776P2.jpg Page one of reports from George Wythe and committees, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-308-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.]

New page

File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776.jpg

Gwsweeney — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:54:40 GMT

Gwsweeney uploaded File:WytheAndCommittee6-19April1776.jpg Page one of reports from George Wythe and committees, including letters from General Schuyler, and the Committee for Indian Affairs, Northern department, dated read April 19, 1776. Image from [https://www.fold3.com/image/347050/p-s-vol-5-page-309-us-continental-congress-papers-1774-1789 Fold3.]

New page

Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:43:32 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 6 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart''}}
	[[File:~~WytheAmblerVWyld1852~~.jpg\|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]		[[File:PendletonsExcr.jpg\|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]
	In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], 10 Va. (5 Call) 1 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:1. </ref> the court determined whether a purchaser could be relieved in equity when buying 1100 acres “more or less” and it turns out to be less.		In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], 10 Va. (5 Call) 1 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:1. </ref> the court determined whether a purchaser could be relieved in equity when buying 1100 acres “more or less” and it turns out to be less.

File:PendletonsExcr.jpg

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:43:06 GMT

Gsmith uploaded File:PendletonsExcr.jpg

New page

Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:21:36 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 6 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart''}}

	[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg\|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]		[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg\|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]

	In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], 10 Va. (5 Call) 1 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:1. </ref> the court determined whether a purchaser could be relieved in equity when buying 1100 acres “more or less” and it turns out to be less.		In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf\|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], 10 Va. (5 Call) 1 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:1. </ref> the court determined whether a purchaser could be relieved in equity when buying 1100 acres “more or less” and it turns out to be less.



	==Background==		==Background==

Pendleton's Exc'r v. Stewart

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:20:48 GMT

Created page with " {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart''}} link=Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'', in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]] In Media:CallsReports..."

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart''}}

[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]

In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1Pendleton'sEx'rvStewart.pdf|''Pendleton's Ex'rs v Stewart'']], 10 Va. (5 Call) 1 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:1. </ref> the court determined whether a purchaser could be relieved in equity when buying 1100 acres “more or less” and it turns out to be less.

==Background==

James Pendleton entered into an agreement to buy 1100 acres of land, more or less. The land was sold at a fixed price, rather than by the acre. After the sale, the executors found the land belonged to various other people and greatly diminished the quantity of the land. Stewart argued that he offered to cancel the contract, but the James refused. He, then, withheld the purchase money and sued Stewart in the High Court of Chancery for specific performance of the contract and a corresponding deduction in the purchase money.

===The Court's Decision===

Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals reversed reasoning that Wythe should have conveyed the land to James’s testators after Stewart received the full amount of the purchase money due.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Payne v. Dudley

Gsmith — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:12:38 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:12, 6 April 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Payne v. Dudley''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Payne v. Dudley''}}
	[[File:Payne_v._Dudley.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 196 (1793),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798), 1:196.</ref> was a ~~debtor/creditor~~ case.		[[File:Payne_v._Dudley.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 196 (1793),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798), 1:196.</ref> was a case involving debtors and creditors.

	==Background==		==Background==

	William Payne, John Payne’s executor, sued in the High Court of Chancery stating that John Payne owed a debt to Fleet, who obtained a judgement against him in 1766. William Dudley, Fleet’s executor, was looking through his papers and found the same bond against John Payne. William Dudley then sued in a different ~~court~~ than the one the original judgement was obtained. William Payne was unaware of this second proceeding and could not plead at bar, thus a second judgment was made against John Payne in 1789. William Payne sued Dudley in the High Court of Chancery to obtain relief from the second judgment. William Payne argued that in 1766 John Payne gave a large part of his property to John Semple to the pay the debt in question, thus the debt was satisfied. In his answer, Dudley denied any knowledge of the 1766 judgment and insisted that the debt was still unsatisfied.		William Payne, John Payne’s executor, sued in the High Court of Chancery stating that John Payne owed a debt to Fleet, who obtained a judgement against him in 1766. William Dudley, Fleet’s executor, was looking through his papers and found the same bond against John Payne. William Dudley then sued in a court different than the one where the original judgement was obtained. William Payne was unaware of this second proceeding and could not plead at bar, thus a second judgment was made against John Payne in 1789. William Payne sued Dudley in the High Court of Chancery to obtain relief from the second judgment. William Payne argued that in 1766 John Payne gave a large part of his property to John Semple to the pay the debt in question, thus the debt was satisfied. In his answer, Dudley denied any knowledge of the 1766 judgment and insisted that the debt was still unsatisfied.

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

	Since the 1766 judgment was based solely on confession, without specifying any precise sum, Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with the belief that the equity sought was not admitted by the answer and not supported by evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.		Since the 1766 judgment was based solely on confession, without specifying any precise sum, Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with the belief that the equity sought was not admitted by the answer and not supported by evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

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

William Paulding & New York Committee of Safety to John Hancock, referred to Wythe & Committee, 26 March 1776

Gwsweeney — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 15:42:49 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 1 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In February, the [[Wikipedia:Provincial Congress\|Provincial Congress]] received two resolutions from the [[Wikipedia:Continental Congress\|Continental Congress]]. The first one stated that $35,000 dollars would be provided to the Committee of Safety of New York to support the troops and the second resolution said that it was the committee's role to contact the proper people to supply the troops with rations and other necessities. Paulding and the committee enclose copies of the two resolutions. In response to the resolutions, Paulding and the committee say that the Provincial Congress wrote up a contract to fulfill them. They say that they don't mention the contents of the contract in the letter because they have enclosed a copy of the contract. [[George Wythe]], [[Wikipedia: Benjamin Harrison V\| Benjamin Harrison]], and [[Wikipedia: ~~John~~ Adams\| ~~John~~ Adams]] were possibly on a committee whose role was to find ways to fund the troops which would explain why they were referred.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=WRwnLrT1mM4C&pg=PT139&lpg=PT139&dq=wythe+committee+troops&source=bl&ots=qMZMspKyp1&sig=TpsG-mz4xkUnC9C2a2x8m-Q6fE8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs5vuYzbvVAhWI8CYKHV0TB9kQ6AEISjAG#v=onepage&q=Washington's%20troops&f=false Jefferson's Second Father by John Bailey]</ref>		In February, the [[Wikipedia:Provincial Congress\|Provincial Congress]] received two resolutions from the [[Wikipedia:Continental Congress\|Continental Congress]]. The first one stated that $35,000 dollars would be provided to the Committee of Safety of New York to support the troops and the second resolution said that it was the committee's role to contact the proper people to supply the troops with rations and other necessities. Paulding and the committee enclose copies of the two resolutions. In response to the resolutions, Paulding and the committee say that the Provincial Congress wrote up a contract to fulfill them. They say that they don't mention the contents of the contract in the letter because they have enclosed a copy of the contract. [[George Wythe]], [[Wikipedia: Benjamin Harrison V\| Benjamin Harrison]], and [[Wikipedia: Samuel Adams\| Samuel Adams]] were possibly on a committee whose role was to find ways to fund the troops which would explain why they were referred.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=WRwnLrT1mM4C&pg=PT139&lpg=PT139&dq=wythe+committee+troops&source=bl&ots=qMZMspKyp1&sig=TpsG-mz4xkUnC9C2a2x8m-Q6fE8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs5vuYzbvVAhWI8CYKHV0TB9kQ6AEISjAG#v=onepage&q=Washington's%20troops&f=false Jefferson's Second Father by John Bailey]</ref>
	[[File:NYCommitteeofSafetytoWytheetal26Mar1776p1.jpg\|right\|thumb\|300px\|<p>"New York Committee of Safety to John Hancock, 26 March 1776, pg 1." Image from ''The Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789.''</p>]]		[[File:NYCommitteeofSafetytoWytheetal26Mar1776p1.jpg\|right\|thumb\|300px\|<p>"New York Committee of Safety to John Hancock, 26 March 1776, pg 1." Image from ''The Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789.''</p>]]
	==Letter text==		==Letter text==

Philip Schuyler to John Hancock, referred to Wythe & Committee, 7 March 1776

Gwsweeney — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 18:04:43 GMT

Page 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:04, 25 March 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:
	[[File:SchuylertoWytheetal7Mar1776p2.jpg\|right\|thumb\|250px\|<p>"Philip Schuyler to John Hancock, 7 March 1776, pg 2." Image from ''The Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789.''</p>]]		[[File:SchuylertoWytheetal7Mar1776p2.jpg\|right\|thumb\|250px\|<p>"Philip Schuyler to John Hancock, 7 March 1776, pg 2." Image from ''The Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789.''</p>]]
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	The heavy Cannon from New York are at ~~[?]~~ and the reparations were making for transporting them by Land, which would occasion a vast and needless Expence, as they could not be sent from this place, if they were nowhere, nor from Fort George until the Lakes open. One of the Committee who had them in Charge collect upon me this Day for my Advice; which was, to leave them on Boar as of the Vessel, and to come up the River as the Ice should give Way. There is a prospect that the River will be navigable in a very few days.		The heavy Cannon from New York are at Poughkeepsie and the reparations were making for transporting them by Land, which would occasion a vast and needless Expence, as they could not be sent from this place, if they were nowhere, nor from Fort George until the Lakes open. One of the Committee who had them in Charge collect upon me this Day for my Advice; which was, to leave them on Boar as of the Vessel, and to come up the River as the Ice should give Way. There is a prospect that the River will be navigable in a very few days.

	Governor Trumbull has desired me to mention to Congress, the Necessity of appointing person to liquidate the Accounts of the Taking of Tyconderoga &c. It is really very necessary that it should be done. Perhaps the Committee of this City might be thought competent to it.		Governor Trumbull has desired me to mention to Congress, the Necessity of appointing person to liquidate the Accounts of the Taking of Tyconderoga &c. It is really very necessary that it should be done. Perhaps the Committee of this City might be thought competent to it.

	I should be happy, if I could with any propriety render myself at New York immediately but until all is in proper Train for the Northern Service, which cannot be until the Lakes are open I judge it would be prejudicial to the Service for me to leave this; Altho I stand in great Need of ~~[Relocation?]~~, as the frequent letting of Blood, which is thought necessary for my Disorder, weakens me much; but I am nevertheless much better than I have latterly been, and hope a Change of Air will perfectly restore me.		I should be happy, if I could with any propriety render myself at New York immediately but until all is in proper Train for the Northern Service, which cannot be until the Lakes are open I judge it would be prejudicial to the Service for me to leave this; Altho I stand in great Need of relaxation, as the frequent letting of Blood, which is thought necessary for my Disorder, weakens me much; but I am nevertheless much better than I have latterly been, and hope a Change of Air will perfectly restore me.

	I have just received Accounts from the posts above that the Slay-men refused to carry the heaviest Cannon I ordered from Fort George &c.		I have just received Accounts from the posts above that the Slay-men refused to carry the heaviest Cannon I ordered from Fort George &c.

Payne v. Dudley

Gsmith — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 16:38:29 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 24 March 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:
	==Background==		==Background==

	Payne, John Payne’s executor, sued in the High Court of Chancery stating that John Payne owed a debt to Fleet who obtained a judgement against ~~John~~ in 1766. William Dudley, Fleet’s executor, was looking through his papers and found the same bond against John Payne. William Dudley then sued in a different court than the one the original judgement was obtained. William Payne was unaware of this second proceeding and could not plead at bar, thus a second judgment was made against John Payne in 1789. William Payne sued ~~William~~ Dudley in the High Court of Chancery to obtain relief from the second judgment. William Payne argued that in 1766 John Payne gave a large part of his property to John Semple to the pay the debt in ~~questions~~, thus the debt was satisfied. In his answer, ~~William~~ Dudley denied any knowledge of the 1766 judgment or that the debt ~~had been satisfied~~.		William Payne, John Payne’s executor, sued in the High Court of Chancery stating that John Payne owed a debt to Fleet, who obtained a judgement against him in 1766. William Dudley, Fleet’s executor, was looking through his papers and found the same bond against John Payne. William Dudley then sued in a different court than the one the original judgement was obtained. William Payne was unaware of this second proceeding and could not plead at bar, thus a second judgment was made against John Payne in 1789. William Payne sued Dudley in the High Court of Chancery to obtain relief from the second judgment. William Payne argued that in 1766 John Payne gave a large part of his property to John Semple to the pay the debt in question, thus the debt was satisfied. In his answer, Dudley denied any knowledge of the 1766 judgment and insisted that the debt was still unsatisfied.

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

	Since the 1766 judgment was based solely on ~~William Payne’s~~ confession, Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with the belief that the equity sought was not admitted by the answer and not supported by evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.		Since the 1766 judgment was based solely on confession, without specifying any precise sum, Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with the belief that the equity sought was not admitted by the answer and not supported by evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

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

Diary and Autobiography of John Adams

Gwsweeney — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:34:03 GMT

Show changes

Diary and Autobiography of John Adams

Cemiller03 — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 06:07:40 GMT

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DISPLAYTITLE:"Diary and Autobiography of John Adams" (1823)}}
+{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Diary and Autobiography of John Adams'' (1823)}}
-===by John Adams===
+'''by John Adams'''
 Source Text: Adams, John. ''Diary and Autobiography of John Adams,'' edited by L. H. Butterfield. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962.
@@ Line 107: / Line 110: @@
 Resolved that it be an instruction to the said Committee to receive and insert a Clause or Clauses, that all Seamen and Mariners on board of Merchant Ships and Vessells [''sic''] taken and condemned as Prizes, shall be entitled to their pay, according to the Terms of their contracts, untill [''sic''] the time of condemnation.</blockquote>

Payne v. Dudley

Gsmith — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:11:15 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:11, 23 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Payne v. Dudley''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Payne v. Dudley''}}
	[[File:~~WytheAmblerVWyld1852~~.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 196 (1793),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798), 1:196.</ref> was a debtor/creditor case.		[[File:Payne_v._Dudley.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 196 (1793),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798), 1:196.</ref> was a debtor/creditor case.

	==Background==		==Background==

File:Payne v. Dudley.jpg

Gsmith — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:09:41 GMT

Gsmith uploaded File:Payne v. Dudley.jpg

New page

Payne v. Dudley

Gsmith — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:06:33 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 23 March 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Payne v. Dudley''}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Payne v. Dudley''}}
			[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 196 (1793),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798), 1:196.</ref> was a debtor/creditor case.
	[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf\|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 196 (1793),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798), 1:196.</ref> was a debtor/creditor case.



	==Background==		==Background==

Payne v. Dudley

Gsmith — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:04:37 GMT

Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Payne v. Dudley''}} link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf|''Payne v. Dudley'', 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:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf..."

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Payne v. Dudley''}}

[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1798V1PaynevDudley.pdf|''Payne v. Dudley'']], 1 Va. (1 Wash.) 196 (1793),<ref>Bushrod Washington, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1798), 1:196.</ref> was a debtor/creditor case.

==Background==

Payne, John Payne’s executor, sued in the High Court of Chancery stating that John Payne owed a debt to Fleet who obtained a judgement against John in 1766. William Dudley, Fleet’s executor, was looking through his papers and found the same bond against John Payne. William Dudley then sued in a different court than the one the original judgement was obtained. William Payne was unaware of this second proceeding and could not plead at bar, thus a second judgment was made against John Payne in 1789. William Payne sued William Dudley in the High Court of Chancery to obtain relief from the second judgment. William Payne argued that in 1766 John Payne gave a large part of his property to John Semple to the pay the debt in questions, thus the debt was satisfied. In his answer, William Dudley denied any knowledge of the 1766 judgment or that the debt had been satisfied.

===The Court's Decision===

Since the 1766 judgment was based solely on William Payne’s confession, Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with the belief that the equity sought was not admitted by the answer and not supported by evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

==See also==

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

[[Category: Cases]]

Norton v. Rose

Gsmith — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 15:58:57 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 23 March 2026
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:
	[[File:Nortonv.Rose.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2NortonvRose.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2NortonvRose.pdf\|''Norton v. Rose'']], 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.]]		[[File:Nortonv.Rose.jpg\|link=Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2NortonvRose.pdf\|thumb\|right\|300px\|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2NortonvRose.pdf\|''Norton v. Rose'']], 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:WashingtonsReports1799V2NortonvRose.pdf\|''Norton v. Rose'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 233 (1796),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 3:482. </ref> was a case ~~involving~~ an ~~agreement for~~ the ~~payment of money~~.		[[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2NortonvRose.pdf\|''Norton v. Rose'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 233 (1796),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 3:482. </ref> was a case asking whether a bond, in the hands of an assignee without notice, is discharged of the original equity existing against it.

	==Background==		==Background==

	Norton ~~Rose~~ promised to pay George Anderson £450 to settle a debt.		Norton promised to pay George Anderson £450 to settle a debt. Charles Harris owed money to both Norton and Anderson. Norton attempted to claim a credit for the proceeds of a quantity of goods, which were in the hands of Harris, and which he wanted to apply to his debt to Anderson. However, both Harris and Anderson claimed that no money had been paid, and that Harris was insolvent. Anderson and Norton then drew up an agreement for payment, and Anderson assigned his bond to Rose, who purchased it for valuable consideration. Rose was a bonafide purchaser who did not make an inquiry into whether or not any equity attached to the bond. Norton brought this case against Rose and Anderson, attempting to discount his debt against Anderson.

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

	Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case against Rose. However, since Anderson failed to respond in Court to Norton’s complainant, Wythe gave a default judgment to Anderson. On Norton’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court reversed Wythe’s decision and remanded the case back to the High Court of Chancery for further proceedings.		Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case against Rose. However, since Anderson failed to respond in Court to Norton’s complainant, Wythe gave a default judgment to Anderson. On Norton’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court considered the Virginia Act of Assembly of 1748, which allowed bonds to be assigned and permitted all discounts that the defendant could prove. In England, equity does not follow bills of exchange, because they are intended as a form of currency passing money from one country to another, and allowing equity to follow would make commerce considerably more difficult. However, the Court found that in Virginia, the legislature explicitly distinguished between bills of exchange and bonds in the Act of 1748. Bonds are intended to more easily settle debts, and they rarely ever leave the country or even the neighborhood where they were first circulated. Therefore, the equity of a debt does follow the assignee of a bond or obligation. The Court found as a result that Norton should be allowed to set off and discount against the debt claimed by Rose. The Court reversed Wythe’s decision and remanded the case back to the High Court of Chancery for further proceedings.

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

Diary and Autobiography of John Adams

Cemiller03 — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 04:10:18 GMT

Volume 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:10, 22 March 2026
Line 97:		Line 97:

	Same day Resolved that Mr. J. Adams, Mr. Wythe and Mr. Sherman be Committee to prepare Instructions for the Committee appointed to go to Canada.</blockquote>		Same day Resolved that Mr. J. Adams, Mr. Wythe and Mr. Sherman be Committee to prepare Instructions for the Committee appointed to go to Canada.</blockquote>

			====Page 367-368====
			<blockquote>
			[Benjamin Harrison V] was descended from one of the most ancient, wealthy and respectable Families in the ancient dominion, and seemed to be set up in Opposition to Mr. Richard Henry Lee. Jealousies and divisions appeared among the Delegates of no State more remarkably, than among those of Virginia. Mr. Wythe told me, that Thomas Lee the elder Brother of Richard Henry was the delight of the Eyes of Virginia and by far the most popular Man they had. But Richard Henry was not. I asked the reason, for Mr. Lee appeared a Schollar [''sic''], a Gentleman, a Man of uncommon Eloquence, and an agreable [''sic''] Man. Mr. Wythe said this was all true but Mr. Lee had when he was very young and when he first came into the House of Burgesses moved and urged on an Inquiry into the State of the Treasury which was found deficient in a large Sum, which had been lent by the Treasurer to many of the most influential Families of the Country, who found themselves exposed, and had never forgiven Mr. Lee. This he said had made him so many Enemies, that he never had recovered his Reputation, but was still heartily hated by great Numbers.</blockquote>

			====Page 371-372====
			<blockquote>
			Tuesday March 19. The order of the Day again. Mr. Harrison reported that the Committee have come to sundry Resolutions, which they directed him to lay before Congress. The Report of the Committee being read Resolved that a Committee of three be appointed to draw a Declaration pursuant to said Report and lay the same before Congress. The Members chosen Mr. Wythe, Mr. Jay and Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wythe was one of our best Men, but Mr. Jay and Mr. Wilson, tho [''sic''] excellent Members when present, had been hitherto generally in favour of the dilatory System.

			Resolved that it be an instruction to the said Committee to receive and insert a Clause or Clauses, that all Seamen and Mariners on board of Merchant Ships and Vessells [''sic''] taken and condemned as Prizes, shall be entitled to their pay, according to the Terms of their contracts, untill [''sic''] the time of condemnation.</blockquote>