View source for Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs''}}[[File:RandolphsExr.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 '' Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: With Select Cases Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District''], by William Hening and William Munford. Flatbush (N.Y.): I. Riley, 1809.]] 

[[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Randolph'sEx'rvRandolph'sEx'rs.pdf|''Randolph's Ex'r v. Randolph's Ex'rs'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 180 (1806),<ref>William Hening and William Munford, '' Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: With Select Cases Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District,'' (Flatbush (N.Y.): I. Riley, 1809), 1:180. </ref> was a case involving whether or not a bill of review with newly discovered evidence should be allowed when the Court of Appeals has already ruled on a case. 

==Background== 

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

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

===The Court's Decision=== 

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

==See also== 

*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]] 

==References== 

<references/> 

 

__NOTOC__ 

[[Category: Cases]]