Volume 5 — Virginia Reports

Pendleton's executors filed a bill, in the court of chancery, to compel a specific performance of a contract made, by Stewart, with their testator for a tract of land, deducting therefrom such parts, as it had been discovered, belonged to other people; with a correspondent deduction, from the purchase money. The answer insisted, that the land was not sold by the acre, but, at a fixed price, for the whole.

In an action of Assumpsit in the Superior Court of Spottsylvania county, James Stevenson complained of William Jones, in custody, &c. of a plea, &c. “for that, whereas on the day of , in the year 1803, at Fredericksburg, in Spottsylvania aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction, *&c. the said James bargained with the said William for one pipe of Madeira Wine, at the price of three hundred and fifty dollars, equal to 1051. which said price the said William then and there…

This was an appeal from the Superior Court of Law for Culpeper County. Judith and her children and grand-children, brought an action to recover their freedom. The usual issue was joined; and at the trial, the defendant Green¡ demurred to the evidence, which ivas joined in by the plaintiffs. !r. this demurrer, the evidence on both sides was spread upon the record.

WILLIS WILKINSON died intestate, leaving a widow and three children on the 22d day of Jipril, 1793, and administration of his estate was granted to Mrs. Wilkinson his widow, who was the mother of the said children. The children all died intestate, under age and withou^ issue? iQ the life-time of their mother, that is to say, two of them before, and the other upon the 10th day of May, 1793.

<p>Debt on a promissory note for 500 dollars, brought by David Thomas, suing for the benefit of Micajah Davis, against Tamerlane Davis, in the county court of Bedford, The defendant died pending the suit, and it was revived against his administrator. - The defendant in his lifetime, pleaded nil debet;, and the administrator, after the suit was revived against him, pleaded the statute of limitations; on which issues were made up. At the trial, the plaintiff filed two bills of exceptions to opinions of the court.</p> <p>1. It appeared from the first bill of exceptions, that it no otherwise appeared that the note had been transferred by the plaintiff Thomas to Micajah Davis, than that the suit was brought by Thomas for his benefit, as set forth in the declaration. And the defendant having adduced evidence to prove, that the debt demanded in this action had been paid by his intestate Tamerlane Davis, to the plaintiff Thomas, evidence was adduced, on the other side, to prove, that before the note was transferred by Thomas to Micajah Davis, the defendant’s intestate had promised to pay the debt or part of it to Micajah Davis; and thereupon, the plaintiff prayed the court to instruct the jury, that if they should find, that the defendant’s intestate, before the transfer of the note to Micajah Davis, promised to pay the debt or part thereof to him, and that Micajah Davis was induced by that promise to take a transfer of the note for valuable consideration, then they ought to find a verdict for the plaintiff, for so much as was so admitted by the defendant’s intestate to be due, or by him promised to be paid to Micajah Davis, notwithstanding it should appear that the debt had been fully paid to Thomas before the transfer: but the court refused to give such instrubtion to the jury; and. the plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>2. The defendant moved the court to instruct the jury, that if they should find, that the debt mentioned in the note had been paid by his intestate to Thomas, before his transfer of the note to Micajah Davis, they ought, upon the pleadings in the cause, to find for the defendant, notwithstanding they should find, that the defendant’s intestate, after he had paid the debt to Thomas, promised to pay Mieajah Davis the amount of the debt or part of it; which instruction the court gave to the jury; and the plaintiff excepted.</p> <p>There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant; to which the circuit court of Bedford, on the petition of the plaintiff, awarded a supersedeas. The circuit court held, that the county court erred in the instruction which it gave to the jury, mentioned in the second bill of exceptions, and therefore reversed the judgment, and remanded the cause to the county court for a new trial. And then the defendant appealed to this court.</p>

This was an action of ejectment in the District Court of King and Queen for one messuage and sixty acres of land ; and upon a special verdict found, the case appeai’ed to be as follows : John Guthrie, the elder, being seised in fee of the messuage and sixty acres of land in the declaration mentioned, and having three sons, to wit: James, Richard and John, (of whom James was the eldest and heir at law of his father) died in the latter end of the year 1761, having first made…

In an action of detinue for a female slave named Milley and four others her children, brought by Leslie's executor against Briggs, in the circuit court of Spotsylvania, there was a case agreed by the parties, to be taken by the court instead of a special verdict, stating the following facts: Neil M'Coul the elder deceased, by his last will and testament, bequeathed all his slaves to his wife for life, remainder to his two sons John and Neil; and among the slaves so…

The appellant Bream brought ejectment in the Superior Court of Mason county, against the appellees, for a tract of land lying in that county, and the parties being at issue went to trial.

This was an appeal, from a judgment of the district court, upon a forthcoming bond. It did not appear, by the record, that the defendant was called on the day to which the notice was given ; the cause however was continued, until the next day ; at which time he was called ; but, not appearing, judgment was rendered against him. A question was raised among the judges at the calling of the cause, whether the omission to call the defendant was not fatal to the judgment?

Benjamin Smith, late of Dinwiddie, died testate in 1802, but tlie executors named in his will having failed to qualify as such, and no person having applied for administration, the county court of Dinwiddie in 1803 (under the statute of 1792, 1 Old Rev. Code, ch. 92. § 61.) committed the administration of the testator’s estate with his will annexed to Butter Claiborne sheriff of the county for the time being.

RICE filed a bill in Chancery in the Borough Court of Norfolk, stating that he was security for' one William Black in a bond to Baird.

John Dunlop brought an action on the case against Theophilus Harris in the hustings court of Alexandria, and declared, “that whereas a certain Clingman & M’Gaw, formerly merchants of the said town of Alexandria, on the 2d day of November, 1797, at the town of Alexandria aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this court, by their certain note in writing, with their proper name and hand subscribed thereto, did promise to pay, to a certain John Towers, six months after date,…

William Rowlett late of Chesterfield, died in 1811, and by his last will and testament, devised and bequeathed the use of a parcel of land in Chesterfield, and of all his slaves (except four), all his stock of horses (except two), sheep, cattle and hogs, and all his household and kitchen furniture to his sister Mary Rowlett for life.

William Wilson and William .Herbert, surviving' administrators of Robert Adam deceased, brought their ^action for covenant broken against Janet Dow, assignee of Peter Dow, in the Superior Court of law of Loudoun county.

<p>The appellee, Robert Walker, was security for Edward Walker since deceased, in a bond to Jones Williams for the payment of 3,72/. This bond bore date on the 3d day of December, 1774. In October, 1774, Edward Walker bought a tract of land from Williams for the sum of 141/. but did not pay the purchase money; and on the 15th day of May, 1778, he gave his penal bill for the same in these words:</p> <p>“For value received this 15th day of May, 1778, I promise to pay or cause to be paid unto Jones Williams, the just and full sum of one hundred and forty-one pounds current money of Virginia on demand, with lawful interest. I bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators in the penal sum of two hundred and eighty-two pounds like money, as witness my hand and seal.</p> <p>EDWARD WALKER, (Seal.)”</p> <p>Robert Walker is executor of Edward Walker, who made some small payments in his life-time, and since his death Robert Walker has paid several considerable sums, but it is not stated in the record whether those payments were made out of his own money or out of the assets of his testator ; neither is it stated in the record that he gave any particular directions with regard to the application of them at the time of the payments. But Williams and his agents credited some on one bond, and some on the other, in the form of receipts. About the year 1784, Walker and Williams called on Colonel Fisher to take a list of the payments, which he did, and credited the bonds against it, reducing that in 1778 by the scale, but it did not appear that this reduction by the scale was with Williams’ consent. Nor is it stated in the deposition that the parties professed themselves satisfied with the account as stated, though it is said that the list of payments was taken from Williams himself. In the margin of the list, opposite to one of the payments are the words “ not on the bond.” Williams afterwards dying, Smith as his administrator, brought an action upon the bond to which Robert Walker was security; who pleaded payment, and on the trial of the issue gave Fisher’s deposition aforesaid in evidence. To rebut which, the plaintiff produced the other bond, and offered to prove by a witness, that it was given for the purchase of the land aforesaid, and that Edward Walker at the time of executing it promised to pay interest thereon from October 1774, and thereby to prove that it was for a specie debt. The District Court of Petersburg rejected the evidence, and the plaintiff excepted to that opinion. The bill of exceptions stated, that the testimony contained in it was all the evidence in the cause “ except what proved the bond on which the suit was brought paid, and except the deposition of Daniel Fisher above stated.” The Jury found a verdict for the defendant and the Court gave judgment accordingly. From which judgment the-plaintiff appealed to this Court.</p>

Benjamin Eicklin, being employed by William Oden, as his agent, to collect a debt from Beverly R. Waggoner, took a bill penal for the same, amounting to $257 30 cents payable to himself.

<p>1. Assumpsit — Declaration—Allegation of Jurisdiction.† —In an action of assumpsit in the Superior Court of a county, the declaration’s laying the venue in a different county, and omitting to state that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court, is not error sufficient in arrest of judgment.</p> <p>V’See Tllrberville v. Long, 3 H. & M. 809.</p> <p>2, Same — Several Counts — General Verdict. — A general verdict in assumpsit, assessing entire damages on several counts, none of which are defective, is not erroneous.</p> <p>**íSee Tidd's Pr. 801 — 2.—Lloyd v. Morris, Willes 113, and Rev’d. Code, 1st vol. ch. 76, sec. 38, p. 112.</p>

<p>i. Sale of Personalty — Retention of Possession by Vendor-* — Effect as to Parties.-†- — Although, in the case of an absolute deed of slaves, where the grantor remains in possession after the execution and recordingof the same, such deed is to be regarded as fraudulent and void as to creditors and subsequent purchasers, yet the same is obligatory, and cannot be impeached, as between the grantor and grantee and their representatives.</p> <p>See Alexander v. Deneale, 2 Munf. 341; Gay v. Moseley, ibid. 543. — Robertson v. Ewell, 3 Munf. 1</p>

Upon an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District.

<p>On the 11th December 1819, Feazle executed his bond to Dillard, fox 1253 dollars, payable the 10th January 1820; on which there was indorsed the following agreement— The within bond is to be paid to the said Dillard or his assignee, and I oblige myself not to procure any set-off, unless it is satisfactory to the person who holds it at the time it becomes due;” which was signed by Feazle. Dillard, however, continued to hold the bond till it was past due; and on the 27th August 1821, Feazle became Dillard’s surety in a bond to Burd for 363 dollars, payable the 27th February 1822. About the same time that Feazle thus became Dillard’s surety in the bond to Burd, Feazle’s bond to Dillard was assigned by Dillard to Campbell, as an indemnity to him for suretyships to a much larger amount which he had incurred for Dillard; but Feazle had no notice of this assignment of his bond to Campbell, when he joined Dillard as his surety in the bond to Burd; the first notice that Feazle had of the assignment was in November 1821. At the time of the assignment of Feazle’s bond by Dillard to Campbell, Feazle was aclmowledgedly entitled to credits for payments to Dillard, to the amount of 704 dollars. Dillard had then become embarrassed, and shortly afterwards, he took the oath of insolvency, and left the state. Campbell, the assignee, brought a suit on Feazle’s bond assigned to \úm\>y Dillard, and recovered judgment at law. And Burd had brought a suit against Dillard and Feazle on their bond to him for 363 dollars.</p> <p>But before Burd recovered judgment, Feazle exhibited his bill, in the superiour court of chancery of Lynchburg, against Dillard and Campbell, wherein he set forth the facts above stated, and insisted that ho was entitled, in equity, to set-off the amount for which he was bound as surety for Dillard in the bond to Burd; first, on the general ground, that he had incurred that responsibility for Dillard before notice of Dillard!s assignment of his own bond to Campbell, and tha,t Dillard was now insolvent; and secondly, on the special ground, that before he consented to become Dillard!s surety in the bond to Burd, being aware of Dillard’s embarrassments, he stipulated, and Dillard agreed, that if he should bo compelled to pay the debt to Burd, the amount thereof should be credited to him against his own bond to Dillard; an agreement verbal, at first, ho alleged, but afterwards reduced to writing, which was exhibited with the bill. And he prayed an injunction to restrain Campbell from executing his judgment for so much as he was bound to pay as Dillard’s surety to Burd. The injunction was awarded.</p> <p>Campbell, in his answer, controverted the allegations of the bill, as to the special agreement between Dillard and Feazle, for the allowance of a credit to the latter for the amount of the debt due to Burd, in case Feazle should be compelled to pa.y the same; and he alleged, that in April 1822, he and Dillard went together to Feazle’s house, in order to have a settlement of the credits to which Feazle was entitled on his bond to Dillard, then held by Campbell; that Feazle and Dillard referred the settlement between them as to those credits, to William Otey, who made the settlement accordingly, in the presence of all the parties, and ascertained the amount of credits to be 731 dollars, and indorsed the same on the bond; in which, however, there was an over credit of 27 dollars allowed by mistake, as was afterwards discovered, but as Otey’s award was final, the mistake had never been corrected: that,, at that settlement, Feazle mentioned his suretyship for Dillard to Burd, and proposed to take on himself the payment of that debt, and to take credit on his own bond for the amount, but Dillard refused to allow such credit, and denied that he had ever agreed to allow it; and that it was expressly agreed between the parties, that that settlement, so made by Otey, should be final.</p> <p>Dillard, having left the state, was proceeded against as an absent defendant.</p> <p>Otey was twice examined as a witness. In his first deposition (taken when Feazle was not present) he said, he was requested by Feazle, Dillard and Campbell, to meet them at Dillard’s house, in April 1822, for the purpose of settling the accounts between the parties, touching the credits claimed by Feazle against his bond to Dillard assigned to Campbell; that he and the parties met there accordingly, and the settlement was made; that it was his impression, that all the credits were then allowed, and Dillard and Feazle tboth expressed their satisfaction with the settlement, with the exception of one claim for a credit, which Feazle required should be entered on the bond, namely, a credit on account of his suretyship for Dillard’s debt to Burd, and which Dillard positively refused to allow, saying he had never agreed to allow such credit against Feazle’s bond to him, and in this Feazle at that time acquiesced; that it was the witness’s understanding, that the balance due on Feazle’s bond, after allowing the credits, as then adjusted, and indorsed on the bond by the witness, was to be paid to Campbell the assignee; and that there was a credit for above 20 dollars allowed, to which Feazle was not justly entitled, but having been inadvertently admitted, both parties agreed it should remain, as the settlement was a final one respecting the bond.</p> <p>In Otey’s second deposition, in answer to interrogatories put by Feazle, he said, that he was requested by Dillard, Feazle and Campbell, to settle the accounts between Dillard and Feazle, and to enter the credits, to which Feazle was entitled on the bond, at the time of the settlement, namely, in April 1822—that Feazle claimed a credit for the amount of the bond due to Burd [that in which Feazle was surety for Dillard\ which Dillard refused to allow, alleging that it was time enough to claim a credit for the same, when Feazle should have paid the money as surety.</p> <p>In pursuance of the settlement made by Oley, Dillard indorsed a credit on Feazlés bond, for 731 dollars, under date of the 1st April 1822, when the settlement was made. And there was a paper exhibited by Feazle with his bill, bearing the same date of the 1st April 1822, purporting to be an agreement signed by Dillard, in which Dillard agreed, that if Feazle should have to discharge the bond in which he was jointly bound with Dillard to Burd, and on which suit had been brought, then Feazle should have a credit on his bond to Dillard due the 10th January 1820. But there was no proof of the execution of this paper; and Otey, in his deposition, said he had no recollection of any such agreement being executed.</p> <p>Pending the suit, Burd recovered a judgment against Dillard and Feazle, and sued out execution for principal, interest and costs, amounting to 429 dollars, which Feazle was compelled to pay: and this was the sum which he claimed, in this suit, to have set-off against the judgment which Campbell as assignee of Dillard had recovered against him.</p> <p>The chancellor, on the hearing, dissolved the injunction which he had previously awarded to Feazle, and dismissed the bill with costs; from which decree Feazle appealed to this court.</p>

These were two suits brought in the Borough Court of Norfolk, by Lenox and others, against Catón 8? Veale„ As the two cases are exactly alike, only one of them will be noticed.

<p>a. Indemnity Bond-Action on — What Necessary to Sustain.* — By virtue of the act of Assembly concerning sheriffs, passed the 8th of February, 1803, (Key'd. Code, 2d yol. p. 160) any person claiming the property sold under an execution may prosecute an action of debt on the bond of indemnity, in the name of the sheriff or other officer to whom it was taken, without proving that any damage li as been sustained by such officer,</p> <p>a. Same — Same — Witness — Deputy Sheriff.†— The deputy sheriff, who sold the property under the execution, is not a competent witness, in an action in the name of the high sheriff upon the bond of indemnity, to prove that, in fact, the property was that of the person against whom the execution was issued.</p>

In this case, the Sheriff who took the forthcoming bond, included his commissions on the debt. The plaintiff released the commissions prior to the judgment. The original execution issued, and tbe Sheriff took the bond for the sum of 1,342/. 16s. sterling, and 4/. 5s. 10iZ. currency, conditioned for payment of 670/. 8s. sterling, and 2Z. 2s. 11<Z. currency : Endorsing, that his commissions were included in the bond ; and that the rate of exchange was from forty to forty-two.

David Trimble obtained a grant, dated the 31st October 1765, for 300 acres of land, lying in the then county of Augusla; and another grant, dated the 16th March 1771, for 140 acres; and in 1771, he… Held: by MJKnight. Yet David Steele and Brawford took and held possession, as tenants in common, accoi'ding to the true lines, as established by the grant to David Trimble, and the compromise between M’Knight and John Trimble.

<p>This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court of Prince Edward, upon" a forthcoming bond, which exceeded the amount of the execution by 23/. 6s. 7i-Judgment was rendered upon the 5th day of Jipril, 1796,-for the amount of the forthcoming bond, without any deduction ; and upon the 8th day of the same month, Marr offered to give credit for the excess, which the Court allowed, and made the following entry:</p> <p>“ Richard Marr, by his attorney, this day entered a credit of twenty-three pounds, six shillings and seven pence half-penny, on the forthcoming bond of the said Marr’s against Henry Bell and Cary Harrison, which credit bears date Jiugust the 27th, 1794, and on which said bond a judgment was' entered the fifth day of this month, being the amount of an error made by the Sheriff in taking the said bond, on the motion of said Marr, by his attorney, the said sum of twenty-three pounds, six shillings and seven pence half-penny, is entered as a credit for so much against said judgment, agreeable to the date last mentioned.”</p>

<p>Egleston issued a writ of fieri facias against Worsham, in the year 1794, which amounted to 6,940 lbs. of tobacco, and 21. 165. 6d. Property was taken thereon, and a forthcoming bond given by Worsham, on the 19th of August, 1794 ; which he forfeited. The condition of the bond recited the amount of the execution to he 7,342lbs. of tobacco and 21. 16s. 6d. including interest, costs and, Sheriff’s commissions. The District Court gave judgment for the- amount of the condition, and from that judgment Worsham appealed to this Court.</p>

Upon an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Wil-liamsburg District.

Upon the'6th day of August, 1794, Duncan M’Lochlin 8f Co. issued a writ of fieri facias against the estate of Wilkinson, who gave a forthcoming bond, which he forfeited.

Thomas Anderson, Sheriff of Buckingham, gave notice to Dreio his deputy, and his sureties, that he should move the District Court of Prince Edward, for judgment against them for 59/. 165. 9d. with interest thereon after - the rate of 15 per cent, per annum, from the 1st of September, 1794, till payment, and costs, which Drew, the deputy, had received by virtue of an execution issued from the District Court of Prince Edward, in favor of Lyle &?

<p>The question was, whether there can he an appeal from an interlocutory decree of the High Court of Chancery, before the final decree is pronounced, although the interlocutory decree may have decided the title or settled'the principles of the cause ?</p>

The question was, whether this Court had jurisdiction of a cause from the High Court of Chancery upon an appeal from an interlocutory decree pronounced there, and appealed from by consent of parties ?

This was an appeal from the Richmond Chancery Court. The suit was brought by William Coleman, administrator de bonis non of Wernick, against M’Murdo, administrator of Douglas, and Prentis.

<p>Debt on bond against administratrix; plea, fully administered; verdict, in general terms, that defendant has not fully administered; and judgment thereupon for the debt demanded, to be levied de bonis testatoris: Held, the verdict is insufficient to warrant the judgment.</p>

This was an appeal from a decree of the superiour court of chancery of Richmond, dismissing a bill exhibited by Poore against Price. The facts of the case were most earnestly controverted between the parties; but, in the opinion of this court, the following state of facts, alleged by Poore in his bill, was clearly .established by the proofs.

<p>Gibson brought an action of debt against Fristoe, R. Ralls and C. Ralls, upon a bond bearing date the 11th day of October, 1788, and given for payment of 149/. 12s. Id. specie, payable .on or before the first day of March, 1789, with lawful interest on the same, from the 17th day of December, 1787. The defendants first put in the plea oí payment', which was afterwards withdrawn by consent, and thereupon the defendants, after taking oyer of the bond, filed the following plea :</p> <p>The said defendants say, that they ought not to be charged with the said debt by virtue of the said writing obligatory, because they say, that on the 17th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1787, at the Parish of--, in. the County of Prince William, the said defendant, John Fristoe, was indebted to the said plaintiff, by bond, in the sum of four hundred and forty-five pounds, eleven shillings and two pence, sterling, with- interest thereon, from tiie first day of January, 1786, and on the said day and year aforesaid, at the Parish and County aforesaid, it was corruptly agreed between the said plaintiff and the said defendant John Fristoe, that the said plaintiff should forbear and give day for the payment thereof, until the first day of March, 1789; and that the said defendant John Fristoe, for the forbearance and giving day for payment thereof, for the time aforesaid, and in lieu of the aforesaid bond, should give and assign to the said John Gibson, a bond given by Jinn Brent, George Brent and Daniel Carrol Brent, to the said John Fristoe, for six hundred pounds current money; and also sundry bonds, given by the said Jinn Brent and George Brent, amounting in the whole, with interest then due, to the further sum of one hundred and eighty-seven pounds, nineteen shillings and ten pence half-penny; and that the said defendant should give his bond to the said John Gibson, for the further sum of one hundred and forty-nine pounds, twelve shillings and one penny, specie, payable on or before the said first day of March, 1.789: And afterwards, to wit, on the said 17th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1787, at the Parish and County aforesáid, the said defendant John Fristoe did assign and ' make over the said several bonds above mentioned unto the said John Gibson, and the said writing obligatory in the declaration mentioned, was then and there sealed, and as the deed of the said defendant, then and there delivered by the said defendant untQ the said plaintiff, for the forbearance and giving day for the payment of the money due from the said John Fristoe to the said plaintiff, on the bond first above mentioned, until the said first day of March, 1789; and in lieu of the said first mentioned bond, in performance and fulfilling, and according to the form and effect of the said corrupt agreement: Which said several' bonds so assigned by the said John Fristoe to the said plaintiff, together with the said writing obligatory, sealed and delivered by the said defendant to the said plaintiff, do exceed the sum which was due and owing from the said John Fristoe, unto the said plaintiff on the said first mentioned bond, with interest, at the rate of five pounds for every hundred pounds joe?’ annum, until the said first day of March, 1789. Whereby, the said writing obligatory in the said declaration above mentioned, by force of the Act of Assembly in that case made and provided, is become void in law; and this they are ready to verify; whereof, they pray judgment, if they ought to be charged with the said debt, and if the said plaintiff, his action thereof against them ought to hare or maintain, &c.</p> <p>The replication was as follows: “and the said plaintiff saysJ that he by any thing by the said defendants above in pleading alledged, ought not to be precluded from his aetion aforesaid thereof against the said defendants, because he saith that the said defendants, the writing obligatory aforesaid in the declaration aforesaid mentioned, to the said plaintiff did make, seal, and as their deed deliver, for a true and just debt to the said plaintiff from the said defendant John Fristoe, without that, that it was corruptly agreed between the said plaintiff and the said defendant John Fristoe, in manner and form as the said defendants have above in pleading alledged, and this he is ready to verify: Wherefore, he prays judgment and the debt aforesaid, together with his damages by reason of the detention of that debt to be adjudged him, &c. ”</p> <p>Nothing further was done towards an issue j and the jury found the following special verdict:</p> <p>“ We of the jury find, that the defendant John Fristoe was indebted by bond to the plaintiff on the 1st day of January, 1786, in the sum of 445/. 11s. 2d. sterling, payable in bills of exchange or in current money at the current exchange, when paid, with interest from that date. That the defendant on the 17th day of December, 1787, by agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, did make over and assign to the plaintiff sundry bonds amounting to 780/. currentmoney, at the value of 382/. ,8s. 2d. sterling, and the balance due to the plaintiff, being 106/. 17s. 2d. sterling, which at the rate of 40 per cent, exchange, amounted to 1491. 12s. Id. currency, the said defendant in pursuance of the settlement, signed by the plaintiff and referring thereto, in these words, to wit: Mr. John Fristoe, fyc. gave his bond on the 11th of October, 1788, with Rawleigh Ralls and Charles Ralls, his securities for that sum, payable on the 1st day of March, 1789, and bearing interest from the 17th of December, 1787: which last-mentioned bond is the bond in the declaration mentioned. That the amount of bonds assigned by the defendant to the plaintiff and the bond given by the defendant to the plaintiff as before-mentioned, exceeded the original debt and interest thereon due from the defendant to the plaintiff, 244/. 12s, 7d. currency. That the defendant about the time of assigning the bonds, intended to remove to Kentucky; and that the plaintiff afterwards declared that the defendant should not have gone to Kentucky, without having settled the debt. That the bonds so assigned have been fully paid up and satisfied to the plaintiff, together with the interest due to the times of payment. That the obligors, in the bonds so assigned, were at the time of the said assignments, deemed of sufficient estate and property to'satisfy and discharge the same. That, at the time of the writ being served upon the defendant for the before-mentioned bond of 1491. 12s. Id. currency, the said defendant acknowledged the debt to be a just one. If, upon the whole matter the law be for the plaintiff, we find for the plaintiff the debt in the declaration mentioned, and one penny damages; if for the defendant, then we find for the defendant.”</p> <p>The exhibit referred to in the verdict is in these words:</p> <p>Mr. John Fristoe to John Gibson. Sterling.</p> <p>To your bond payable the 1st of January, 1786, for goods sold you, £443 11 2</p> <p>To interest from 1st January, 1786, to the</p> <p>17th December, 1787, 43 14 2</p> <p>JÍ489 5 4</p> <p>1787. Cr.</p> <p>Dec. 17. By bonds of George Brent, Ann Brent and Dan. C. Brent, assigned to me, valued per agreement, £ 382 8 2</p> <p>106 17 2</p> <p>Exchange at 140 per cent, to make cur. 42 14 11</p> <p>£ 149 12 1</p> <p>The sum of one hundred and forty-nine pounds, twelve shillings and one penny specie, is due by a bond granted the 11th day of October, seventeen hundred and eighty-eight, by John ' Fristoe, Raioleigh Ralls and Charles Ralls, payable on or before the first day of March, seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, with interest from the seventeenth day of December, seventeen hundred and eighty« seven.</p> <p>JOHN GIBSON.</p> <p>There is amongst the papers filed in the cause, the bond ■ on which the suit is brought: and a list of seven bonds given by the Brents, amounting in the whole to 7801.: six of them for 30?. each, the first of which was payable in March, 1785 ; the second in March, 1786 ; the third in March, 1787 ; the fourth in March, 1788; the fifth in March, 1789 ; the sixth in March, 1790 ; the seventh bond was for 600?. and was likewise payable in March, 1790.</p> <p>At the foot of this list, is the following assignment; Dumfries, seventeenth day of December, seventeen hundred and eighty-seven. This day I have assigned unto John Gibson, the above seven bonds, amounting to seven hundred and eighty pounds current money, for the sum of three hundred and eighty-two pounds eight shillings and two pence sterling, in part of a bond due by me to him, as witness my hand and seal the day and date above mentioned. The above seven bonds are all due, and no part of which is received by me, or any of Mr. John Ralls, sen’s, executors, or any person for them.</p> <p>' JOHN FRISTOE, (Seal.)</p>

Michael Erskine, late of Monroe, in his lifetime, intending to give his son William a hundred acres of land, part of the land on which he lived, had a parcel surveyed and laid off for him, which appearing by the survey to be only ninety-four acres, he caused another parcel of six acres, by estimation of two of his neighbours, to be laid off and added to the other parcel of ninety-four acres, in order to complete the quantity of a hundred acres.

Robert T. Hooe brought an action on the case against William Wilson in the hustings court of Alexandria. The declaration contained two counts: The first states, That, upon the 19th of September, 1795, John Nicolson gave a note, in the city of Philadelphia, to William Moulder or order, for $2000, payable twelve months, afterwards, for value received.

Charles Crenshaw administrator of Nathaniel Crenshaw exhibited a bill against James Penn, Robert Ienn and Christopher Clark, in the superiour court of chancery of Lynchburg, setting forth, that James Penn executed a bond to Robert Penn for £ 500. and that the same was assigned by Robert to the plaintiff’s intestate in his lifetime, for valuable consideration j that the plaintiff had brought a suit upon this bond, and recovered judgment against James Penn, that, before that…

James Dailey deceased was, for some years, treasurer of the board of school commissioners for the county of Hampshire, and together with the appellant Naylor as his surety, executed three official bonds to the president and directors of the literary fond; the first dated the 5th February 1819; the second, the 18th December 1820; and the third, the 18th February 1823.

<p>The declaration in this case, was as follows : eeAlexander Pass complains of Richard Chichester in custody, &c. for this to wit, that whereas on the 12th day of April, in the year 1789, at the Parish of Friero, in the County aforesaid, the said Richard Chichester the defendant, well knowing the affections and love of the said Alexander Pass were fixed on a certain Millisent Chichester, daughter of him the defendant, and well knowing that the affections and love of his said daughter were fixed upon the said plaintiff, so that they the said plaintiff and the said Millisent were desirous of entering into the holy state of lawful matrimony, and the said defendant well knowing that before that time, to wit, the tenth day of April, in the year aforesaid, at the Parish and County aforesaid, the plaintiff had solicited his approbation and consent concerning the said intermarriage, and well knowing that the pecuniary circumstances of the plaintiff and his said daughter Millisent, would render it necessary for their comfort and well being, to be assisted by him the said defendant, at that time, and yet a wealthy man, by some portion or part of his wealth, if the said intended marriage should be carried into effect, he, the said defendant, on the said 12th day of April, in the year 17S9, at the Parish and County aforesaid, did consent that the said intermarriage might take place, and furthering and promoting the same, did promise to the plaintiff in order that the plaintiff might be induced to intermarry with his said daughter Millisent, that he, the said defendant, would do equal justice to all his daughters, as it should be convenient to him, thereby meaning that the estate, and provision and' advancement to be made and distributed by him among them should be equal, so that one should not be better advanced or provided for from time to time than another; and the said Alexander Vass in fact saith, that relying upon the consent and promise aforesaid of the said defendant, and in consideration thereof, he, the plaintiff, afterwards, viz: on the 15th day of October, in the year aforesaid, at the Parish and County aforesaid, did lawfully intermarry with the said Millisent, whereof the said defendant, on the day and year last mentioned, at the Parish and County aforesaid, had notice. And whereas afterwards, to wit: on the said 12th day of Aprils in the year aforesaid, at the Parish and County aforesaid, it was mutually agreed between the said Alexander Vass and Richard Chichester, that he the said Alexander Vass should marry Millisent, the daughter of him the said Richard Chichester, the defendant, and that he the said Richard Chichester, would do equal justice to all his daughters as fast as his convenience would permit him, in consideration that the said Alexander Vass performed the agreement aforesaid in all things on his part to be performed, he, the said defendant, then and there undertook, and faithfully promised to do and perform the agreement aforesaid in all things on his part to be performed, and the said plaintiff in fact saith, that he did perform all things in the said agreement on his part to be performed, whereof the said defendant afterwards, viz: on the 15th day oí October, in the year aforesaid, at the Parish and: County aforesaid, had notice. Nevertheless, the said defendant not regarding his several promises and undertakings aforesaid, but contriving to defraud and injure the plaintiff in these particulars, hath not kept or performed either of his undertakings and promises aforesaid, but hath altogether broken them and each of them, and though often requested, to wit: on the-day of-, in the year-, at the Parish and County aforesaid, to perform them and each of them, hath refused and still doth refuse to perform them and each of them, wherefore the plaintiff says he is damaged to the value of 2,0001. and therefore brings suit, &c.”</p> <p>The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and the plaintiff took issue. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 500?. damages.</p> <p>There was a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion, which set out a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff, dated the 12th of April, 1789, which acknowledges the receipt of one from the plaintiff, and consents' to the marriage: Adding, after some observations upon competency and contented minds, “my circumstances are such, that my daughters cannot expect large fortunes, but I shall endeavor to do them equal justice as fast as it’s in my power with convenience.”</p> <p>The bill of exceptions also set out another' letter from the defendant to Col. Gordon, dated the 24th of February, 1790; in which, after stating his own and the plaintiff Doctor Foss’s opinion, that the neighborhood of Lancaster Courthouse would be a good situation for a Physician, he asks- Col. Gordon’s opinion about it, and if a small tract of two or three hundred acres of tolerable land, with a house, could be bought there on reasonable terms, as he does not know how it would suit the Doctor to build; and that it appeared to him, that a plantation, with a house, ready fox1 their immediate possession, would answer best, he adds, “ my engagements (previous to this plan) for a tract of land adjoining me, and late advancement to Mr. Hathways for their lands, for my daughter Lee, renders it out of my power to make immediate payment, for the lands above-mentioned to be bought. I expect about fifty pounds could be paid in May next, which would probably be as soon as a title could be made, and the balance at two annual pay» ments after. If it would be any material advantage in the purchase, perhaps the whole balance may be advanced in May or June, 1791.”</p> <p>There was a N. B., not to confirm the contract before the defendant’s approbation was had; and another, that if a plantation of 400 acres should offer, it might make no odds, provided the terms were suitable.</p> <p>The bill of exceptions prayed a non-suit, or that the Court would direct the jury, that the evidence did not support the declaration, or else to declare their opinion to the jury, whether the promise contained in the letters was not Void for the uncertainty of it; but the Court gave it as their opinion, that it was not void for the uncertainty, but might he rendered sufficiently certain by averment, and refused to non-suit the plaintiff.</p> <p>The reasons in arrest of judgment assigned by the defendant, as stated in .the record, were, 1st. Because the promise laid in the declaration is uncertain. 2d. Because the declaration is insufficient and informal.</p> <p>The following papers were inserted in the record, but not made part thereof, by any order of the Court, or in any other judicial manner:</p> <p>1. A letter, dated the 2d of February, 1788, from the defendant to Mr. Hooe, the father of a gentleman who had married another of his daughters: which letter stated, that the defendant had agreed to give this daughter, Hooe, 500¿. Virginia currency, as soon as he could raise it with convenince out of his estate; and at his death, that he would make her proportion equal to that of his other daughters.</p> <p>2. A letter from the plaintiff to the defendant, dated the 10th of , 1789; in which, he asks his consent to marry his daughter.</p> <p>3. A letter, dated the 5th of January, 1790, from the defendant to the plaintiff, in which he says, there is nothing in his power to do, without distressing himself, which he will not do, to assist the plaintiff in settling himself to his satisfaction; that, if a plantation in the upper part of the country would he more agreeable to the plaintiff than a settlement in town, perhaps he could get off a contract with one Stewart for a tract of land in Shenandoah; that at the time he contracted with Stewart, he did not know that any of his own family would like that part' of the world for a settlement, and that this was his reason for attempting to sell it; that if the plaintiff liked Colchester or Dumfries better, the defendant would endeavor to procure a lot, or. would do any thing in his power in any place which the plaintiff might think most agreeable.</p> <p>4. Certificate from the Clerk of Fairfax County of a. lease from the defendant to Hancock Lee, who married another of the defendant’s daughters for 1241 acres of land, being recorded.</p> <p>5. The deposition of a Mrs. Johnston, concerning some conversations between her husband and the plaintiff, relative to the plaintiff’s addressing Millisent Chichester; and, also, some declarations of Mrs. Chichester in the presence of the plaintiff, prior to his paying his addresses to the young lady, that she approved of settling daughters’ fortunes on themselves, and would persuade Mr. Chichester to do so.</p>

Bowne & Co. gave a note to Fuller in the following words: “210 pounds, Virginia currency: — Sixty days after date, we promise to pay Robert Fuller, junior, or order, two hundred and ten pounds, value received.

<p>An appeal was taken by Sites from a decree of the superiour court of chancery of Staunton, and an appeal bond given, as then required by law in all cases, and the cause brought up to this, court, and docketed, before the statute of February 1825, authorizing appellate courts to allow writs of error and appeals, upon bond and security for the costs of the writ of error or appeal only, provided such writ of error or appeal shall not operate as a supersedeas to the judgment or decree. Supp. to Rev. Code, ch. 98. p. 127. In June 1827, after a rule duly entered and served on the appellants, the court made an order, that unless other and sufficient security should be given on or before the 1st July ensuing, the appeal should stand dismissed, as an act of the day on which the order was made. No new appeal bond was given. The court adjourned for that term; and at August term 1827, the appellants presented a petition to the court, praying that the appeal should be reinstated, or that a new appeal should then be allowed, upon the appellants giving bond and security for costs only, so that the appeal should not operate as a supersedeas to the decree. Upon this application, the court took time to advise; and the case was never afterwards mentioned, by bar or bench, till this term.</p>

<p>Sturtevant exhibited his bill against Goode, in the superionr court of chancery of Richmond, setting forth, that he was employed, as a carpenter and undertaker, by Goode, to build a dwelling house for him, according to a certain plan previously determined on; and Goode thereupon executed a covenant, importing that he had agreed with Sturtevant for the building of the dwelling house, and that he would pay him for the work, provided the whole should be done agreeably to articles of agreement between the parties, 1000 dollars at the commencement of the work, 1000 dollars within four months after the commencement of it, 1000 dollars within the next three months, and 2000 dollars within two months after the work should be completed: that this covenant of Goode was delivered to Sturtevant, but the agreement therein referred to, in which the particulars of the work to be done by Sturtevant were specified, was put into Goode’s hands, and he still retained possession of it. That, in the progress of the work, Goode, finding it convenient to have an addition made to the building originally intended, which Sturtevant agreed to make, executed another covenant to Sturtevant, whereby he agreed to pay him for such addition, when completed according to additional articles of agreement between them, the sum of 1500 dollars: that this second covenant of Goode was likewise delivered to Sturtevant, but the additional agreement therein mentioned was left in Goode's hands, and he still held it. That Sturtevant also executed a great deal of extra and very costly work, not stipulated in either of the written agreements, at Goode's special request, and upon his promise to make him a fair compensation for the same. That it was one of the stipulations in the agreements on Sturtevant?s part, that he should furnish materials; and he did furnish materials for the work, so far as it proceeded, and other materials to be used in completing it; but before it was completed, disputes arose between the parties, in consequence of which Goode refused to permit Sturtevant to. fulfil his whole contract, and put a stop to the work before it was finished. That Sturtevant's bill for the work actually done, including that done under both of the agreements and the extra work, at the stipulated and fair prices, amounted to 8658 dollars. That Goode had made various payments to Sturtevant on account of the work by him done, and Sturtevant was moreover indebted to Goode for provisions found and furnished by Goode to Sturtevant and his workmen, during the progress of the building, whereof there was a separate account between the parties, the amount of which it was agreed, should be deducted from the balance that should be found due to Sturtevant for the building, upon a final settlement. That there was a large balance due to Sturtevant, which Goode refused to pay; he also refused to come to a settlement of the accounts. That Sturtevant, thereupon, brought an action at law against Goode; but his counsel finding it impossible to prosecute that action, or even to frame his declaration, without a knowledge of the two. agreements between the parties, which were referred to in Goode's covenants to Sturtevant, and which were retained in Goode's possession, a written application was made to Goode for copies of those agreements, which he positively refused to furnish ; and Sturtevant being impeded and embarrassed in the prosecution of his action at law, by the want of these documents, that action was dismissed, by agreement between the parties, that each should pay his own costs, that such dismission should be without prejudice to any other suit or suits which Sturtevant might bring, that Goode should not, in such future suit, rely on the statute of limitations in bar of any item of Sturtevant's claims, and Sturtevant should waive the statute as to any set-oils which Goode should offer, and that Goode, as he had not before procured, so he would not afterwards procure, any assignments of claims against Sturtevant, for the purpose of set-off against his demands. And Sturtevant, having thus stated his case, prayed, that Goode might be compelled to produce and file the two agreements between the parties, which he yet retained in his possession; that accounts of all the transactions between them, might be taken; and the balance which should be found due thereon to Sturtevant, might be decreed to him: the bill placing Sturtevani's claim to relief in equity, on two grounds, specially stated, 1. that the two agreements between the parties which Goode held in his own possession, were indispensable to enable him to proceed at law, and Goode refused to furnish copies of them; and 2. that the accounts between the parties as they arose out of, and were referable to, several distinct contracts, were so various and complicated, that they could not be accurately adjusted in any proceedings at law, and that several actions at law would be necessary to enforce the several claims of Sturtevant upon the several contracts.</p> <p>Goode first demurred to the bill, because the case therein stated was not properly relievable in equity, and then he proceeded to answer it, and to state the facts on which he relied for his defence, if the court should entertain the jurisdiction.</p> <p>The chancellor sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill, without prejudice to any suit which the plaintiff might be advised to bring at law; declining jurisdiction upon the authority of Smith v. Marks, 2 Rand. 449. From this decree, Sturtevant appealed to this court.</p>

In January 1798, William Millstead exhibited a bill against James Colvert, Samuel Colvert, and Isabella Bruce, in the then high court of chancery, setting forth, that Robert Colvert of Charles county, Maryland, died in 1757, and by his will bequeathed to his wife Charity, the use of four slaves, namely, Fanny, Sarah, Sue and Hannah, until his son Samuel should attain to full age; at which time, or at that son’s death, if that event should first happen, he 'bequeathed one…

In an action on the case, brought by Syme against Jlyletfs executors in the District Court of King and Queen, the declaration contained several counts; 1. For flour, bacon and barrels sold and delivered; 2. A quantum vale-bat for the same; 3. For money laid out and expended. Plea, the general issue with leave.

The declaration, in this case, was upon a joint bond; but there were separate judgments, arising from the different times of serving the writ upon the respective defendants. Cited Brown v. Belches, 1 Wash. 9, in support of the judgment.

Upon a writ of supersedeas to a judgment in favour of Samuel Boggess and Henley Boggess demandants in a writ of right against Doddridge Pitt Chichester.

Barnett & Co. filed a bill to review a decree made by the court of chancery in a suit brought by them against Smith & Co., alleging new matters discovered since the decree. The answer denied the new allegations; and insisted that the merits of the cause had been already decided. The court of chancery dismissed the bill, upon a hearing, with costs; and the plaintiffs appealed to the court of appeals.

<p>In replevin by Maxwell for taking his goods and chattels, Light avowed the taking for rent arrear due by indenture on a demise for ten years. The plaintiff replied: 1. That the avowant did not demise, and issue thereon. 3. Entry by the defendant into parcel and expulsion of the plaintiff. 3. No rent arrear. 4. That defendant did not build certain walls on the premises. 5. .That defendant did not permit the plaintiff to clear and cultivate twenty acres of land in addition to the cleared lands. 6. That defendant entered and expelled the plaintiff from another parcel of the demised premises.</p> <p>Rejoinder to the 2d plea: That he entered by consent of the plaintiff, and issue. Demurrer to 4th, and 5th pleas. Rejoinder to the 6th plea: That the defendant did not enter and expel the plaintiff, and issue thereon. After which, follows this entry; “ and the said Peter Light by his attorney, demurs generally to the first and third plea aforesaid, of the said James Maxwell above pleaded. Which demurrer, the said James Maxwell by his attorney joins.”</p> <p>Upon the trial of the issues, the plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion, which stated that, the avowant offered a copy of an indenture of lease in evidence, the only probat of which was in these words: “ At a Court continued and held for Berkeley County, the ISth day of May, 1791. This indenture was proved by the oath of Moses Hunter a witness thereto, and ordered to' be recorded.</p> <p> Teste, </p> <p>MOSES HUNTER.”</p> <p>To which the plaintiff objected, because, it was only a copy, and not so proved and authenticated as to make it legal evidence. That the avowant then proved, that the plaintiff had acknowledged, that a deed which he said was the original lease, was in the .possession .of the plaintiff since the date of the said certificate, who did not produce it, though called on to do so, at the trial of the cause. That the plaintiff proved, that Moses Hunter, one of the subscribing witnesses to the said deed, is alive, and within the jurisdiction of the Court. That the Court permitted the deed to go in evidence, without any proof from the subscribing witnesses, that the Original had been executed, or that the said copy was a true copy of the original. Another bill of exceptions stated, that the Court directed the jury, that the said copy of the deed was sufficient to prove the demise. A third bill of exceptions, to same effect as the last.</p> <p>Verdict for the avowant in these words: “We of the jury, find for the avowant, and also find two hundred and twenty-five pounds Pennsylvania currency, of the value of one hundred and eighty pounds current money of Vifginia, to be rent in arrear and due from the plaintiff to the avowant.”</p> <p>After the verdict, the plaintiff filed a fourth bill of exceptions, which stated, that the landlord moved the Court for judgment for double the rent found by the jury to be in arrear, to which the plaintiff objected, and offered to prove to the Court, that the avowant had distrained for more rent than the jury had found due and arrear: which evidence,' the Court refused to hear, after the verdict received and the jury discharged, because ex parte, irregular and without notice.</p>

M'Catty having executed his bond to Wilson for 2212 dollars, Jackson, in his lifetime, undertook to guaranty the debt by a writing indorsed on the bond and signed by him; and upon this contract of guaranty, Wilson brought assumpsit against Jackson's administratrix, in the circuit court of Harrison. Plea, the general issue.

<p>In a suit against tlie assignor of a bond, the hand-writing of the assignors , prior to his own, need not be proved upon the trial of the cause.</p> <p>If the party gets the opinion of the Court upon a point of law in one shape, he shall not be permitted to object, that it was not given him in another.</p>

Chevallie as administrator of Chevallie, and Monteau as administrator of Monteau, filed a bill in the court of chancery, stating, That Chevallie as supercargo, and Monteau as master of Beaumarchais’s ship, th eer Roderigue, were severally entitled, bj die laws of Prance, to satisfaction out of the proceeds of the sales of the cargo, which was sold to the state of Virginia in the year 1778: that is to say, Chevallie for his commissions, £[5424. 1. 6. specie, with interest,…

In debt, brought by PindaWs executrix against Eib, in the circuit court of Harrison, the plaintiff in her declaration demanded 359 dollars,… Held: that the law on the demurrer was for the plaintiff; and then gave her judgment for 207 dollars, parcel of the debt in the declaration mentioned, with interest &c. and costs; and then subjoined the following, “ Memorandu/m, this judgment may be discharged by the payment of 152 dollars, with interest from the 27th January 1825 till…

<p>In a writ of right brought by Davies the demandant, against Miller and others, tenants, the ease on a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion, appeared to be as follows: John Miller being seised of the lands in fee, made his last will and testament in writing, dated the 21st of February, 1742, and admitted to record the next 'month; which, so far as concerns the present case, was as follows: “ I John Miller being weak, &c. do make my will, and dispose of my estate in manner following. ” Tiien after directing that his body should be buried at the discretion of his executors, he proceeds thus:</p> <p>“ Secundo, I give to John Berry during the life of my daughter Mary Berry wife to the said John one hundred acres of land, containing the plantation where I now dwell all on this side of the Creek and bounded &c., and after the death of my above-mentioned daughter Mary, ’tis my desire the said land should return to my son Chistopher Miller or his heirs. I give all my other lands to my son Christopher above named, containing one hundred and fifty acres including the plantation on which he now lives.” Then follow several bequests of personal property and a slave; and.then the last clause in these words:</p> <p>“ I leave all the corn and tobacco now upon the plantation to John Berry to pay my personal debts; this is my will and the way I desire my estate to be disposed of, revoking any other will or testament made by me formerly. ” The bill of exceptions further stated, that the said John Miller, the testator, left Christopher Miller his son in the will mentioned. And, also, as the demandant alledged and offered to prove, another Christopher Miller his grandson and heir at law. That this last named Christopher was the eldest son of the testator’s eldest son, who died in the life-time of the testator. That after the testator’s death, the said Christopher, his son, entered on the lands in question, claiming them by virtue of the following clause of the will: “ I give all my other lands to my son Christopher named above, containing one hundred and fifty acres, including the plantation on which he now lives;” the said Christopher, the alledged grandson, being then living. That after the death of Christopher the son, the tenants entered as his sons and devisees. That on the 16th of March, 1792, Christopher the grandson, claiming as heir at law of the testator John Miller, brought his writ of right for the same, which afterwards abated by the death of the said Christopher, who died without having recovered possession of the land; but, made his will on the 2d of June, 1792, attested by three witnesses, but proved only by one, on the 23d of September, 1793, and thereby devised the lands to the demandant. Whereupon, the tenants, without going into evidence on their part, moved the Court, that it appeared from the demandant’s own shewing, that the said Christopher, the testator, was not either at the time of making and publishing his said will, or at the time of his death, seised or possessed of the said lands, and, therefore, that the said devise was Void. That the Court was of this opinion, and instructed the jury accordingly. The jury found for the tenants. The Court gave judgment agreeable to the verdict. And the demandant appealed therefrom to this Court.</p>

The suit, in this case, was brought to foreclose a mortgage given to secure payment of a sterling debt; but, through mistake, the commissioner in stating the account calculated it, as current money; which, of course, greatly reduced the demand. This report however was, without observing the *'erro'r, confirmed, and an interlocutory decree made for a sale of the mortgaged property to satisfy' it. The defendants appealed to the court of appeals; where the decree was affirmed.

<p>A writ cannot issue from one District Court into another District, although against joint defendants.</p> <p>Evidence may be given to the jury on the plea of payment to a bond, that the plaintiff was absent in foreign parts beyond seas [and had not any known agent or attorney within the Commonwealth,] in order to extinguish the interest.</p>

On the 2d of June, 1774, Hawkins of Hanover county, gave his bond to Berkeley of the same county, in the penalty of ^1000; and the condition recites, That Berkeley had delivered to Hawkins sundry bonds for A2379. 10. with interest due from several persons named in the list thereto annexed, which Hawkins had undertaken to collect upon commission, and had promised to account with and pay to the said Berkeley the money, by him, received on account of the said bonds, as fast as…

J. G. Jackson, in his lifetime, sold and conveyed to Mary Turner, by deed dated the 22nd September 1812, warranting the title, a parcel of land in Harrison county, for 1567 dollars; which was fully paid by her to him. Mrs. Turner held the land for near four years, and made valuable permanent improvements on it.

Hunter, a man of colour, brought an action of assault and battery against Fulcher, in the Court of Hustings of the City of Richmond, to recover his freedom. An issue being made up on the plea of not guilty, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, upon the following ease. Burnley and Breckenridge employed Mr. Briggs, an attorney at law, to bring suit for them against Ozborne, the testator of Branch, in the County Court of Chesterfield. He obtained judgment for them in the year 1772, and in the year 1774, a replevy bond was given.

Johnson filed a bill in the court of chancery against Pendleton, the auditor of public accounts, and the attorney general, stating, that he sent a military certificate to the auditor, for the purpose of obtaining a warrant for the interest; but, there being a press of business, the certificate was left with the auditor, until he should have leisure to make out the warrant. That the plaintiff had frequently applied for the certificate and interest; but could obtain neither.

In January 1805, Adam Hickman and William Maulsby of Harrison county, being joint owners of a parcel of land in Harrison, called… Held: and conveyed Carpenter’s place to him. Maulsby was informed of the rescission of the first contract, and of the terms of the second contract; and acknowledged, that it was his duty to give up the two bonds of Eib which he held, and to look to Hickman for the amount, which he said had become due from Hickman to him, in the course of…

<p>The laws establishing Banks in Virginia, are public laws, and may be noticed by the Courts ex officio*</p> <p>The law of usury applies to the Banks, subject to the modifications produced by their charters.</p> <p>Taking interest in advance upon the whole amount of a note discounted at Bank, is lawful.</p> <p>Where tiie facts are agreed or found by the jury, it is the province of the Court to say whether they amount to usury or not.</p> <p>When a proposition is made for a loan of money, and the lender will only consent to lend a part of the money wanted, on condition that the borrower shall receive stock at a price much above the market value, to make up the deficiency, and the bargain is made on these terms, such contract is usurious.</p> <p>A loan on accommodation paper, and a discount on real paper, stand on the same footing, as to the right of a Bank to deduct the interest in advance on the whole amount of the note.</p>

<p>County Levy— Constitutionality — Who May Lay it * — The county levy is not contrary to the hill of rights and the constitution; and the county courts have power to lay it.</p> <p>Constitution — Construction— Words ot Exclusion— Extension † The construction would he unfair, which should extend words of exclusion in the constitution, used for one purpose, to other objects not contemplated by the framers, at the time.</p>

The plaintiff brought an action on the case against the College, in order to recover'553?. sterling, for arrears of salary due him as Professor of the Grammar School. Plea, non assumpsit, and issue. The jury found a special verdict, stating the College charter; the original statutes for arranging the Schools, of which the Grammar School was one, and several subsequent statutes.

This was an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Suffolk, affirming the grant of administration, upon the estate of William Keeling, by the county of Princess Anne, to the defendant Prances Keeling, widow of William Keeling, junior, son of the intestate William Keeling, senior, and mother of the children of the said William Keeling, junior, to whom, since the grant of administration to her, the guardianship of those children had been committed.

In an ejectment for 1000 acres of land in the County of Prince William, the jury found, that John Champe was, in his life-time, seised, in fee simple, of sundry tracts of land, and of the lands in the declaration mentioned, and thereof died seised in fee, on the first day of March, 1763, having duly made his last will and testament, bearing date the tenth day of December, 1759, whereby he devised as follows: “My will is that my son William Champe have all my lands in King…

<p>John Marshall being bound as surety for William Colvert executor of Samuel Colvert deceased in his executorial bond, and becoming apprehensive of loss by reason of his suretyship, Colvert, by deed dated the 7th March 1824, and duly recorded on the 8th April following, conveyed to Robert Colvin a parcel of 175 acres of land, and fifteen slaves by name (seven of which slaves were bequeathed to him by his testator, and six others were purchased by him at his own public sale of his testator’s estate), upon trust to indemnify Marshall against loss by reason of any waste or maladministration by Colvert of his testator’s estate, with power to the trustee to sell the slaves first, and apply the proceeds thereof to the purpose of the trust, and if that fund should prove insufficient, then to sell the land. After this deed was recorded, three writs of fieri facias, and five writs of capias ad satisfaciendum, upon judgments against Colvert, were sued out and delivered to the sheriff’. The writs of fi- fa. were levied on twelve (being all then living) of the slaves mortgaged by the deed of trust to Marshall; and Colvert being taken on the writs of ca. sa. took the benefit of the statute for the relief of insolvent debtors, surrendered in his schedule his equity of redemption in the subject mortgaged to Marshall, and was discharged from custody.</p> <p>While the slaves taken under the writs of fi. fa. were in the sheriff’s hands, Marshall exhibited his bill, in the superiour court of chancery of Fredericksburg, against Colvert, the sheriff, and the judgment creditors; setting forth the mortgage executed by Colvert for his indemnification; shewing, that he was exposed to danger of loss, though to an unascertained amount, by reason of waste committed by Colvert of the assets of his testator’s estate, and particularly, that there was a claim against the estate, upon a decree against the testator in his lifetime, from which an appeal had been taken, and was then pending in the court of appeals; shewing also the executions sued out against Colvert by his creditors, the levy of the writs of fi. fa. on the mortgaged slaves, and the surrender by Colvert of his equity of redemption for the benefit of the ca. sa. creditors; and praying an injunction to inhibit the sheriff from proceeding to sell the slaves until further order, and general relief.</p> <p>The chancellor, in vacation, awarded an injunction to restrain the sheriff, not from selling the slaves, but from paying over the proceeds of his sales thereof, to the creditors in the executions, or any of them, until further order.</p> <p>The sheriff proceeded to make sale of the slaves; and then put in his answer to the bill, with which he exhibited an account of his sales of the slaves, shewing 1721 dollars, net proceeds, in his hands. Whereupon the chancellor ordered him to deposit the money in the Farmers Bank at Fredericksburg, subject to future order in the cause. The deposit was made accordingly.</p> <p>But one of the creditors answered; and he only insisted, that, as his fi. fa. had been the first delivered, he was entitled to have satisfaction out of the balance that should remain after satisfying the purposes of the deed of trust under which Marshall claimed, in preference to any other of the creditors by execution.</p> <p>The chancellor, upon motion of the defendants, dissolved the injunction; and Marshall appealed to this court.</p>

<p>Martin Parks and three others exhibited a bill against Moses Rucker, in the superiour court of chancery of Lynch-burg,—alleging that John Parks died intestate shortly after the year 1775,* and that a female slave named Nelly was allotted to Elizabeth his widow, for her dower of his slave property, and Nelly had one child named Ben; that the widow married Mioses Rucker, and died in 1820; that the two slaves held by her were in her husband Rucker’s pos- . 1 session at the time of her death, and he still detained them; that the plaintiffs were uncles and aunts of the half blood, and heirs at law of John Parks, and that they had also purchased the rights of Benjamin Parks who was the eldest son of John Parks’s eldest brother, and who claimed .to be his only heir at law; that either as heirs at law themselves, or as assignees of Benjamin the- heir at law, they were now entitled to those slaves; and that Rucker was preparing to remove from the commonwealth, and had declared his intention to.carry the slaves with him. Therefore the bill prayed a writ of ne exeat against Rucker.</p> <p>Rucker, in his answer, controverted the right of the plaintiffs : he denied, that the slaves in question had been held by his deceased wife as dower slaves of her first husband; but he said, that the claim asserted in the bill had been the subject of a compromise between him and the plaintiffs, made many years ago, by which he acquired an undoubted absolute property in the slaves now claimed. And he denied, that he had any intention to leave the commonwealth or to remove the slaves.</p> <p>The plaintiff Martin Parks, having taken administration de bonis non of John Parks’s estate, the plaintiffs filed an amended bi^l, making him a party in that character, and making Benjamin Parks also a party, alleging, that Elizabeth, the widow of the intestate John Parks, had been his administratrix; that she qualified as such in 1786; that she had returned an inventory of his estate, and that the slaves in question had been allotted to her as her dower of her intestate’s estate; and praying that Rucker should render an account of his own and his deceased wife’s administration of John Parks’s estate, and an account of the profits of the slaves in question, and a decree against him for the slaves and the profits.</p> <p>Rucker demurred to the amended bill as altogether irregular, presenting a different case and claim from those shewn in the original bill. And then answering, he said that the administrator de bonis non of John Parks, had as such no colour of right. He admitted, that his wife had taken ad- ° J t ministration of her first husband’s estate; but he said, she had done nothing in that character; that the pretended inveutory was not signed by her; that there were never any accounts of administration to render: and that the plaintiffs, at this late day, had certainly no right to call for such accounts.</p> <p>The plaintiffs failed in the proof of their case; and, on the contrary, Rucker adduced very strong evidence to shew, that he was entitled to the slaves, even if they had ever been held by his wife as dower of her first husband’s estate, by a compromise between him and Benjamin Parks the heir at law.</p> <p>The chancellor dismissed the bill, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court.</p>

H. Cocke, and Sarah (formerly Sarah Clements) his wife brought a suit in chancery in the county court against Taylor, as executor of Thomas Williamson, to recover her proportion of the public certificates embraced in the following clause of Williamson’s will: ‘ ‘I also give to my said daughter the interest of four thousand pounds in the government funds, during her life; and at her death I give the interest of the above money one fourth to each of my grand children Sarah…

Debt, in the county court of Campbell, brought by Catharine Stockton against Robert Wright’s administrator, on a bond executed by Harrison, Clark, Alexander, Wilson, and the defendant’s intestate Wright, for 1054 dollars, payable the 18th August 1815.

Carter and Trent, were partners in trade. Carter died, leaving Carter his executor. Currie filed a bill in chancery against Trent, as surviving partner, and Carter, the executor, for relief concerning a lost bill of exchange. Pending the suit, Trent died. Carter’s answer stated that Trent had agreed to pay the partnership debts; and that the plaintiff might have made his debt out of the partnership effects.

In ejectment brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant in the district court of Staunton, the jury found a special verdict, which states, “That a patent issued to William Beverley and others for 118,491 acres of land, including those in the declaration mentioned, on the 12th of August, 1736: That Beverley in June 1750, gave a power of attorney to Lewis and Madison ; by virtue of which they conveyed 300 acres, part of 1he lands, contained in the said patent, to James…

<p>If I. give a mortgage (in lands to B. & Co. and then the agent of B. & Co. and I. agree to convey to II. on his securing the mortgage money j after which, H. gives a deed of trust on sundry slaves, for that and other debts to a succeeding agent of B. & Co., the 1st mortgage is discharged, though B. & Co. never conveyed to II.</p>

This was an appeal from a decree of the superiour court of chancery of Fredericksburg.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, affirming a decree of the County Court upon the following case. The bill stated, that Geiger, the father of the plaintiff, being possessed of lands, for which he had obtained a warrant from the proprietor’s office in the Northern Neck, and' had improved and cultivated, devised them to his wife, who was the plaintiff’s mother, and to whom the plaintiff was heir at law.

These were writs of supersedeas to foul- judgments of the General Court, two in the year 1786, and the other two in the year 1788, upon the following cases: ■ Gaskins was Sheriff of Northumberland, for the year 1785, and did not pay the amount of the taxes due into the treasury, within the time prescribed by law.

<p>Upon an Appeal from a Decree of the late Chancellor Wythe, pronounced the 10th of March 1803.</p>

This was an appeal from a judgment of the District .Court of King and Queen, upon a forthcoming bond. The judgment was for 206/. 10s. 2d. and costs, but to be discharged by payment of 103/. 5s. Id. with interest, to be computed after the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, from the 18th day of July, 1797, till payment, and the costs.

This was an appeal from the High Court of Chancery, where Adam Hall brought a bill against Hunter and others, stating, that Terence Popejoy had made an entry, with the Surveyor of Hampshire County, for 400 acres of land, lying in the said county, in the following words: “December 17th, 1783, Terence Popejoy entered 400 acres of land, adjoining the land of Ah.

John U. Wilkins filed his Bill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District against Samuel Pearce, to *be relieved against a mistake, which he alleged had occurred to his prejudice in an exchange of bonds, and shewed by an account stated.

This .was an action of ejectment, in which there was the following case agreed.

In assumpsit by Cooper against Noyes and Whitteker in the circuit court of Kanawha, the plaintiff declared, that he having recovered a judgment, in the county court of Kanawha, against one Morris and two others, for 110 dollars with interest and costs, and having thereupon sued out a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum, the same was executed on the body of Morris by the sheriff of Kanawha; and Morris being so taken and held in execution, the defendants here, in consideration…

The Appellee James Belches filed his Bill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Williamsburg district against Robert West, Thomas West, and Morgan Tomkies; stating that the complainant and Francis Willis were securities for Charles Grymes, in two bonds, to the said Tomkies; one for 1501. and the other for 821. 10s. Od. ; that the bonds were usurious, a loan of money at unlawful interest being intended by the parties, but *the usury covered by a sale of slaves for much…

Barrett 8? Co., as assignees of Emanuel Walker 8? Co., who were assignees of Theodorick Bland, brought an action of debt in the District Court o'f Williamsburg, upon a bond given by Tazewell to Bland, for payment of 900/. on or before the 25th day of December, 1786, under the penalty of 1800/.; which bond bore date the 13th day of March, 1785; was assigned to Walker By a judgment against Tayloe’s execu-> „4nn ln . tors, settled up to the 4th of May, 1792, 5 Before any plea…

Lange exhibited his bill against Jones and the executors of Adams, in the superiour court of chancery of Staunton, setting forth, that by articles of agreement between Lange and Adams in his… Held: and which Lange alleged to be within the bounds of Adams’s grant, by purchase from the devisees of Hughart, the original grantee thereof; that the parcel lay within the bounds of the grant to 'Hughart, and that it belonged of right to Jones.

This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Winchester. For a complete history of the cause, it is only necessary to refer to the following opinion.

<p>The answer of the defendant, when responsive to the bill, is conclusive, unless disproved.*</p> <p>If the defence be puvely legal, it should be made on the trial at law .†</p>

<p>i. Supersedeas Bond — Execution by Surety AIonet† — Ei-feci. — ABond forprosecuting a Writof Supersedes being- executed by a Surety only, without any principal obligor, is insufficient; and a Superse-deas issued thereupon ought to be quashed.</p> <p>See Bootes v. Holliday et al., 4 Munf. 323.</p>

Grigsby exhibited his bill against Weaver in the superiour court of chancery of Fredericksburg, setting forth, that in December 1815, Weaver lent him 1000 dollars in money, and two bonds of one Ewell for 466 dollars 66 cents; and that, on the 23rd May 1817, Grigsby with Foote as his surety executed a bond f.o Weaver for 1636 dollars 44 cents, to secure the payment of the money and bonds so lent by Weaver to Grigsby: that Weaver exacted of Grigsby usurious interest on the…

<p>In an action upon the case, brought by Pollard against Minnis, the declaration contained three counts. 1st. For money laid out and expended. 2d. For money lent. Sd. A special count, which stated that a certain Thomas Carter was indebted to the defendant in 148/. military certificates, by virtue of an instrument of writing, in the words following, viz: “ Mr. John Carter,—Dear brother, you’ll receive by Major Minnis a power of attorney to recover my five years full pay; as I stand indebted to him 148/. military certificates, with interest from the year 1784, I request you will discharge it out of those certificates obtained by you. On my return home, will furnish you with an account against the Major, which you must deduct.—I am, Dr. toother, your’s &c.</p> <p>THO’S CARTER.</p> <p>Jan. 8, 1791.”</p> <p>“ Received the above-mentioned power of attorney, and should I receive'the certificates from the Auditor’s office, the above order shall be complied with.</p> <p>J. CARTER, Jun.</p> <p>Feb. 3, 1791.”</p> <p>“ Richmond, June 20, 1791. I do hereby assign the within, contents to Robert Pollard, for value received, and do by these presents bind myself, my heirs, &c. to pay to the said Pollard, or to his assigns the certificates within mentioned, with legal interest thereon, from the first day of January, 1784, if he does not recover the same from doctor Thomas Carter, after pursuing the legal method for obtaining the same. Witness my hand the date above.</p> <p>C. MINNIS.»</p> <p>The declaration then states, that the plaintiff has not been able to obtain the certificates from Carter, although he has used due diligence, and pursued the legal method to obtain the same. In consideration whereof, the defendant became indebted to the plaintiff in 200/.; and being so indebted, promised to pay, &c. After which, follows a general assignment of breaches of the promises laid in the declaration. Plea, non assumpsit, and issue. Upon the trial of the cause, the defendant filed a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion; which stated, that the plaintiff offered in evidence to the jury, a record of a suit in Brunswick County Court, wherein Minnis was plaintiff, and Thomas Carter defendant, commenced upon the' 9th day of April, 1792; and, the declaration in which, contained three counts. 1st. For military certificates sold and delivered. 2d. A quantum valebat for military certificates sold and delivered. 3d. For money had and received. . The plea was non assumpsit, and there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for 173/. 3s. and costs. Upon which, a writ offierifacias was issued and was returned ‘ no effects.’ There is, in the said record, a copy of the before-mentioned writing from T. Carter to John Carter, and of the endorsements mentioned in the declaration: To which is annexed, a certificate of the Clerk of the Court, that the same were read on the trial. To the introduction of which evidence the defendant objected; but the objection was overruled by the Court. o The defendant likewise demurred to the same evidence; with the addition, that there was verbal testimony to prove that Thomas Carter was generally reputed insolvent from January, 1791. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 188/. 3s. 6d. damages, if the evidence is sufficient to support the plaintiff’s action; if otherwise, for the defendant. The County Court gave judgment for the plaintiff; the District Court affirmed that judgment; and, from the judgment of affirmance, Minnis appealed to this Court.</p>

In an action upon the case, brought by Wood against the executors of Carr, the declaration contained two counts : 1st. Indebitatus assumspsit for 50/. sterling, of the value of 50/. current money, for so much money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant’s testator, at his special instance and request; 2d. For money had and received to the plaintiff’s use. Plea, non assumpsit, and issue.

The. appellant had let two terms of this Court elapse, after the appeal was prayed, without bringing up the record; and, at this term, Copland, on behalf of the appellee, (having proved notice of the motion,) moved to docket the appeal, which the Court ordered to be done. . He then asked to be permitted to open the record, and having shewn there was no error, prayed an affirmance.

<p>Where the grantor of personal property remains in possession after an absolute eonxe} anee such conveyance wiO be deemed prima facie fraudulent.</p> <p>Huí, such possession is not conclusive evidence of fraud, but is open to expla^ nation „</p> <p>Therefore, where a woman about to be married makes a conveyance of her personal property to a third person, with the privity and approbatum of her mtomh d husband, the takes place a ftw minutes alter the conveyance ami the husband t,alces possession oi' the property after the nnrriage; the property thus convex ed will not be subject to the husband’s creditors, as his possession after marriage was not that of his wife, (she not being sulju-* ris,) and her short possession between the time of the conveyance and that oi’ the marriage, nut being sufficient, or of a nature to render the deed Iran» dub-nh</p> <p>Such a conveyance, although not recorded, is not void under the statute of frauds, (tvui supposing itio be a deed of trust.) against the creditors of the husband, aa dn* statute only applies to creditors of the grantor* The ease of Pierce V» Pursier }5 Crunch’s Rep. 154, reviewed and approved. Dissentients Green, Judge*</p> <p>Par; 1 declarations of a grantor previous to the execution of a deed, and at the very moment oi executing ita are admissible to explain the intention with which it was made. Per Carr, .1.</p>

This was an action of debt brought in the District Court of Prince Edward upon a three months’ replevy bond. The declaration was in the common form of a declaration upon a bond for payment of money. Plea, conditions performed, and issue.

This was a motion for a writ of supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court of Fredericksburg. The petition stated; that William Hewett in his life-time, was indebted to the petitioners for transactions on the 22d June, 1776.

<p>If the agreement of the parties, that the jury may render a privy verdict, be substantially performed, it is sufficient.</p> <p>If in ejectment the jury findcc for the plaintiff one cent damages,” the Court may extend the verdict, and'make it read : lt We of the jury find for the plaintiff the lands in the declaration mentioned, and one cent damages.”</p>

In Case, the plaintiff, in his declaration, complained of the defendant “of a plea of trespass on the case; for that, whereas, the said plaintiff being an inspector of lumber at Bmithfield, in the county aforesaid, and parish of Newport, in the year of-, by which business he obtained an honest livelihood, at the salary of fifty pounds per annum, which was paid him by the merchants of the aforesaid town of Smithjield; and whereas, the said plaintiff hath been used to inspect…

Isaac Moore exhibited a bill against John Baxter, in the superiour court of chancery of Greenbrier, alleging that in two bonds executed by John Irvin, Robert Dujfield, Moore the plaintiff, Baxter the defendant, and Robert Given, to James Dunlap, Moore was in fact a surety for Baxter : that Baxter being indebted to Dunlap, and Irvin indebted to Baxter, and Baxter wishing to apply the debt which Irvin owed him to the payment of the debt he owed Dunlap, and Dunlap being willing…

This was an action of debt brought by the Sheriff on- a forthcoming bond, payable to the Sheriff instead of the creditor ; and, upon non est factum pleaded, the jury found for the plaintiff. There was a motion in arrest of judgment, upon the following grounds: 1st. That the bond was not taken according to law. 2d. That the remedy was by motion. The District Court arrested the judgment, and the plaintiff appealed to this Court.

John G. Boisseau, late of Dinwiddie, died in the autumn of 1831, having some time before, with his own hand, written and signed the following instrument : “ Not having made any will so as to dispose of my property, and two of my sisters marrying contrary to my wish, should I not make one, I wish this instrument to prevent either of their husbands from having one cent of my estate,—say the husbands of my two sisters Martha Aldridge and Dorothy Aldridge,—nor either of them to…

John Baird 8; Co. brought an action of debt against Mattox, as heir and devisee of his father, upon a bond entered into by the father to John Baird 8? Co. for the payment of money. The defendant pleaded, nothing by descent; and, the plaintiffs took issue on the plea. The jury found, that the defendant had no assets by descent, and the County Court gave judgment for the defendant.

Blanton filed a bill in the high court of chancery stating, That he had given a bond to the defendant Brackett; upon which there was, in March 1797, a balance due of .£59. 19. 2. That there was an action of slander depending, at that time, in the district court between Anglea and the defendant Brackett; who expected that some damages would be recovered against him in it.

<p>Elizabeth, Chapman, administratrix of Richard Chapman, brought a bill in the High Court of Chancery against John Turner and Jedediah Turner, stating, that the said Richard Chapman being distressed, borrowed 30/. of John Turner, and as a security pledged and mortgaged a valuable negro woman of about 18 years of age, and worth 50/. That Tiirner took an instrument, by which it would appear, that the said slave was pledged as a security for the re-payment of money. That it was out of Chapman’s power to re-pay the money on the day; whereupon Turner claimed the slave as his property, and sold her and her two children to Jedediah Turner for 60/. which was less than their value. That Jedediah Turner at the time of buying, knew that the slave was only pledged; and had. read the mortgage or note. That the plaintiff had tendered the principal and interest, but the defendants refused to restore the property, and, therefore, the bill prayed a redemption.</p> <p>The answer of Jedediah Ttirner admits the purchase, and that prior thereto, he had seen the writing from Chapman to the other defendant. But, as he had never heard that Chapman wished to redeem, he had concluded that the purchase was absolute; and that his own bargain was not advantageous.</p> <p>The answei; of John Turner states, that Richard Chapman applied to him for a loan of money, but the defendant, being a poor man and wishing to vest the little money he had in personal property, refused. That Chapman at length offered to sell him the said slave, who was between 20 and 30 years of age for 30/. but with leave to re-pay it in a short time; in which case the slave was to be returned. That thereupon the defendant paid him the said 30/.; and it was stipulated, that if the money was not returned without interest, on or before the day for holding the Court in the county of Hanover, in the month oí July following, that the said Chapman’s right of redeeming the said slave should cease, and the slave become the absolute property of the defendant. That Chapman never re-paid the money or offered to redeem during his life-time; and that after Hanover Court aforesaid, he considered the slave as his own property. That the bargain was not advantageous. That the slave had had four children prior to the purchase, three of which she had overlain, and that upon discovering these facts he had offered to annul the contract, but Chapman refused.</p> <p>The wi'iting spoken of in the bill and answers, is in these words: “I this day received of Mr. John Turner, the sum of thirty pounds, and put a negro woman named Hannah, in his hands as security, and if he the 30/. is not paid at or before next July Hanover Court, the said Turner is to have the said negro for the said 30/. Witness my hand this 20th May, 1786.</p> <p>RICHARD CHAPMAN.</p> <p>Teste, James Parsons.55</p> <p>There was an amended bill, which stated, that Richard Chapman, in his life-time, on the day of 1786, tendered to John Turner 301. 13s. 0d. which he refused to accept. But, the answer of John Turner denies the tender.</p> <p>The deposition of a witness stated, that he had heard John Turner say, he had lent' Mr. Chapman 301. and had got a bill of sale, or some writing, by which Chap?nanha.d conveyed a negro woman to him; which was to be obligatory, if the money was not returned by a particular day. That he asked Turner, if the money had been tendered? To which he answered, not within the time. That the deponent then asked, when it was tendered? To which Turner answered, that it was after sun set, or some-time in the evening, or towards dark on the day that it became due. That the deponent then advised him to return the negro and get his money back, or try to get another bill of sale; for, in his opinion, Turner was only raising negroes for other people.</p> <p>There was no other evidence of the tender; and although the witnesses differed about the value of the slave, when bought of Chapman, yet none of them made her value to exceed the sum actually paid more than 10 or 15 pounds; and several represented her to have been under a bad character.</p> <p>There was no other proof of any agreement for redemption. Neither was it proved, that Turner offered to annul the sale; though one witness said he had frequently heard Turner, (who appeared to be uneasy at the slave’s habit of over-laying her children,) say, that he wished he had his money back.</p> <p>The Court of Chancery dismissed the bill with costs. From which decree the plaintiff appealed to this Court.</p>

In ejectment brought by Amos Thompson against Johnston, guardian of Hinton, for a tract of land, the declaration was “for a tenement with the appurtenances, lying on both sides of Sweeten’s fork of Sandy creek;” without mentioning the county.

Ejectment for a parcel of 1230 acres of land in Powhatan, brought by P. N. Nicholas and W. NeJcervis against JR. Crump, in the circuit court of that county. Held: that the law was for the plaintiff, and gave judgment accordingly; from which the defendant appealed to this court.

The question in this case was, whether a writ of distringas can be issued against the executors of a deceased Sheriff, in order to compel them to sell the property taken by one of his deputies under a writ of fieri facias ?

Staples’s bill states, that James Webster, about the year 1768, entered for about S682 acres of land in Amherst county. That about the 2d day of June, 1790, he surveyed the same, and before the said survey was returned, to wit, on the 23d of October, 1793, the said land was forfeited. That the said Webster, to deceive the public, never paid the taxes on the land, but kept back the survey to avoid the payment.

The bill stated, that Mary M’Donald, having devised her real and personal estate should he sold by the defendants, her executors, they advertised the lands for sale as follows: “ By virtue of the last will and testament of the late Mrs. Mary M’Donald, will be sold to the highest bidder, &e. that excellent seat, containing five hundred and, seventy-eight acres, &c.” going on to describe its qualities, &c. That on the day of sale, a proclamation was made to the following…

Debt, in the circuit court of Rockingham, by Clarke assignee of the sheriff of that county, against Carthrae and another, upon a prison-bounds bond executed by Carthrae and the other defendant as his… Held: that the law upon the demurrer was for the plaintiff; and a jury upon a writ of enquiry of damages, found for the plaintiff 1563 dollars with interest &c. for which the court gave him judgment.

This was ao ejectment brought in the Superior Court of ijouisa county, by John Doe, lessee of Robert, George, Nathan and Jlshley Bell, surviving sons and devisóos of George Bell, deceased, by his last wife, against David Gillespie. ■ At the trial, the jury found a special verdict, the substance of which is fully stated in the opinion of Judge Carr. The Superior Court gave judgment for the deferí» dant, and the plaintiff obtained a supersedeas.

Dishman filed a bill in the court of chancery to be relieved against a judgment obtained by Hord in a writ of right, upon the ground that the court refused to receive in evidence, some copies of deeds, the originals of which he would have deposed were lost, if he had not been prevented, by sickness, on his way to the trial. The answer insisted, that the verdict was conclusive.

One question in this cause was, whether the District Court erred in directing an issue, on the appeal from the County Court, to try the title of the petitioner to the lands whereon he desired to erect his mill, and reversing the judgment of the County Court in conformity to the finding of the jury?

This was an action of debt, brought for the benefit of Samuel Peniston, on a guardian’s bond; the declaration stated, that Thomas Morgan was appointed guardian, that the defendant and Thomas Woodlief were his securities; that Morgan was dead, intestate, without leaving any estate whatsoever, and assigned breaches of the condition of the bond, which was in the following words: “ The condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bound Thomas Morgan, his heirs,…

This was an ejectment brought in the District Court of Prince Edward by M’Roberts and wife, against Horde, who was a derivative purchaser under the devise to TheodoricJe, in the will of old Robert Munford mentioned in I Wash. 97. A ease, similar to the one stated in that of Kennon v. M’Roberts and wife, [1 Wash. 96,] was made for the opinion of the Court.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, and the material question in the canse was, what interest Winter Bray took in the slaves Peter and Dinah, under the following clauses of the will of Charles Bray deceased?

Jameson’s executors brought covenant, and declared in debt for military certificates ; the defendants failed to appear; and upon executing the writ of enquiry, the jury assessed damages for the plaintiffs; and the court gave judgment for the same and costs. To which judgment, the common bail obtained a writ of supersedeas from the court of appeals; and assigned for error, 1. That the action was debt. 2. That judgment was rendered for damages, instead of debt.

Randolph brought an action of debt against Banks in the county court; and Ross, on the 7th of November, 1797, became special bail for Banks; who was then confined in jail in Philadelphia, upon civil… Held: that the proceedings in the courts of one state are to have the same effect in another state: And here, the court of Pennsylvania has restrained the principal, which the courts of this state ought to regard, and give it the same effect, as if it was done here.

Mann brought an action of debt against John Drewry, in the hustings court of Richmond, on a promissory note for 673 dollars, and bail being required on the writ, Martin Drewry became bound as appearance bail for John the defendant.

This was a suit in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, in behalf of the appellants assignees of Nathaniel Burwell. for an account of the assets belonging to the estate of Elizabeth Graham deceased, and to subject a *tract of land (which, in her life time, was sold and conveyed by the said Burwell to a Trustee for the benefit of her and her children) to satisfy the claims of the Appellants, to whom the bonds taken for the purchase money were assigned.

In debt upon an administration bond, the declaration was in the common form of a declaration for payment of money, without styling the plaintiffs Justices, fyc.

<p>1. Loan of Slaves — Delivery to Owner and Re-Delivery to Loanee — Effect on Creditors. — A demand of slaves by the lender, who thereupon receives, and immediately re-delivers them to the Loanee, tobe held on the same terms, as before such demand, receipt, and re-delivery being in private is not sufficient to bar the rights of creditors, under the Act to prevent Frauds and Perj uries.</p> <p>2, Same — Five Years Possession by Loanee — Effect between Parties.* — A Loan of Slaves, though not declared by Deed in writing- duly recorded, and therefore void as to Creditors, the Loanee having continued in possession five years without such demand, as would bar their right, is neverthe. less effectual 'between the parties and their representatives. If. therefore, the Loanee die in possession of such Slaves, they are not to be considered assets belonging to his estate, nor can be recovered as such: being liable to his Creditors so far as their claims remain unsatisfied by the assets in the hands of his Executor or Administrator, but no farther.</p> <p>3. Same-Same — Chancery Practice. — In such case, if the Assets be deficient, a Court of Equity will give the Creditors relief, on a, Bill in their behalf against the lender and the Executor of Administrator of the Loanee; malting the Assets liable in the first place, solar as they extend; after which, it will allow the lender a limited time to make good the deficiency, and. in default thereof, direct a sale of the slaves.</p>

Debt in the circuit court of Henrico, by Judah against The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the city of Richmond, for 178 dollars, money had and received by the defendants to the plaintiff’s use. Held: that the law was for the plaintiff on both points, and gave him judgment; from which the defendants appealed to this court.

This was an appeal from the Fredericksburg Chancery Court, where Fanny Turner filed her bill against Thomas Broaddus and Rebecca his wife, and a great number of oilier parties, who were children of John Turner, George Turner, and Elizabeth Brock, and the heirs of Nathaniel »Anderson, and William Beazley and Maria his wife* The question arose on the will of William Watkins, dated the 35th clay of September, 1778.

In May, 1810, William Haymond and John Webster assignees of Edward Jackson, a Bankrupt, (so declared under the Act of Congress then in force,) filed their Bill in Chancery in the County Court of Harrison, against John Cutright and William Clark, to compel performance of a parol agreement of the defendant Cutright, to convey a tract of land to” the said Jackson, which, in violation of that agreement, he sold and conveyed to the defendant Clark, who purchased with -full…

Gloister Hunnicutt, a quaker residing in the county of Sussex, by his will, made on the 13th of April, 1781, and recorded in October of the same year, devised as follows: “My will and desire is, that the following negroes should be manumitted on or before the first month next 1782, viz. Tom, Joe, Charles, Ben, Jenny and her child Charlotte.

This was an. appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery. The bill states, that Blane, a merchant of London, in the year 1789, empowered William Hunter, of Alexandria, in Virginia, to transact business for him in the mercantile line; and especially, by his letter of the 23d of November, 1789, he gave him ample power to purchase grain, and draw on the said Blane, at the discretion of Hunter.

William 8. Archer, administrator of John Archer of Amelia, deceased, filed his bill in the Chancery Court of Richmond, against James Robertson and others, children and legatees of John Archer of Chesterfield, deceased, and the descendants of such of the children of the said John Archer as were dead.

Pulliam exhibited his bill against Winston and Scott, in the county court of Hanover in chancery, stating, that Pulliam executed his bond to Scott as administrator of Richardson, for 47 dollars, for the. hire of slaves of Richardson’s estate, which bond Scott assigned to Winston, who had brought a suit upon it, and recovered judgment on the law side of the court: that Pulliam had just set-offs against the claim, of which he was preparing to avail himself at law, but the…

The Appellees exhibited their Bill against the Appellant in Charlotte County Court in Chancery, setting forth, that, on the 9th of January 1807, they agreed with the said Legran d to sell him their right to a Tract of Land, lying in the County of Prince Edward on the waters of Appomattox, containing by estimation 912 1-2 acres, for the sum of four thousand dollars, payable in four equal annual instalments, with legal interest from that date; they to give him immediate…

ThePresident and Directors of the Conococheague Bank, assignees of Jesse Payne, who was assignee of Henry Payne, brought an action of debt in the County Court oi‘ Berkeley, against David. Rees, on a promissory note, executed by the latter to the said Henry Payne, negotiable and payable at the Conococheague Bank. The note was for $1899. It was endorsed in blank by Henry Payne, and afterwards, in the same manner, by Jesse Payne; and protested for non-payment.

Assumpsit by Wilson against Donally in the circuit court of Greenbrier, for moneys lent and advanced by Wilson, at Donalhfs request, to Richard Steele—for moneys lent and advanced by Wilson, at Donally's request, to Robert Steele—for moneys lent and advanced by Wilson, at Do - natty's request, to George Patrick—and for money due by Donally to Wilson on insimul computassent. Pleas non assumpsit, and payment, with notice of set-off.

Kelly brought indebitatus assumpsit against Mitchell in. the District Court of Northumberland; plea, non assumpsit, and issue. Afterwards on the 6th day of April, 1795, the parties by rule of Court, referred the cause to' the determination of Bellfield and Brewer, or their umpire, and agreed that the award shall be made the judgment of the Court. The order was, that the referees might proceed ex parte, if either side failed to attend after notice.

The appellee in this clause claimed of the commonwealth a balance which he stated to be due to him in consequence of his acceptance of certain bills of exchange, drawn by a certain Peter Penet, who, as it was contended, was duly authorized to act as commercial agent for the state of Virginia in France, during the revolutionary war. The bills are alleged to have been accepted on the faith and credit of the state of Virginia, as expressly pledged by the powers given to Penet.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery. The bill states, that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff as surviving partner of Mams 8?

This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Fredericksburg. Turner and others filed a bill against Scott and others, to restrain the defendants from proceeding on two judgments at law obtained by one of the defendants. The Chancellor awarded the injunction until the answer comes in. Afterwards, the answer was filed; and the Chancellor, on motion, dissolved the injunction, and the plaintiffs appealed.

This was an appeal from the Superior Court of Law for the town of Petersburg. Robert C. Adams, endorsee of Wilson Sr Orr, brought an action of debt against Whitworth Sr Yancey, on a promissory note, negotiable, &e., executed by the defendants to Wilson Sr Orr, purporting to be for value received, and endorsed by them to the plaintiff Tiie defendants pleaded Nil Debet, and several pleas of usury; and the plaintiff replied generally, on which issue was joined.

John Harrison, of Isle of Wight county, departed this life in August of the year 1790. His wife Eliza administered on his estate in due form of law, sold it on a credit of twelve months, and in the year 1791, married David Bradley, of the same county. In September 1792, David Bradley, by deed, (which was duly recorded in the same month,) emancipated the plaintiffs, who were slaves in his possession before his marriage.

This was an appeal from a decree of the superiour court of chancery of Staunton. The bill was exhibited by Nick against Hyde, alleging,.

This was an action of debt upon a bill of exchange drawn in Virginia, upon the second day of February, in the year 1793; whereby the drawer requested the drawee, to pay to the payee or his order, three hundred pounds sterling, for value in current money there received, and to place the same to account, with or without advice. The declaration stated the tenor of the bill as above; and that the same had been protested for non-acceptance and nonpayment.

Thomas Comer, by deed dated the 3rd August 1786, and duly recorded in the county court of Amelia,—reciting that he was justly indebted to Richard Jones in the sum of £ 520. and 20,000 pounds of tobacco, payable the 1st January 17S8,—mortgaged to Jones, eight slaves and their future increase, all his stock of horses &c. and household furniture, to secure due payment of the debts.

William Dandridge, esq., late of Henrico, being possessed of a considerable personal and real estate, and having a wife and several children, on the 1st September, 1802, made his last will, which contains the following bequests: “And first I do, in consideration and grateful acknowledgment of the affection I bear to my beloved wife; of the great attention and constant aid she has always afforded to me in all my sicknesses and distresses, together with the portion I received…

In Replevin, the defendant claimed cognizance as bailiff of William Lane, senr. for 108/. 135. 2d. rent, due on the first day of January, 1793, and that he entered and took the goods and chattels as a distress for the same; and concludes thus: “wherefore, he prays judgment, and a return of the said goods and chattels to be adjudged to him, together with his costs and damages, according to the form of the statute in that case made and provided.” Replication, 1.

This was an action on the case brought in the district court of Suffolk, by the ap-pellees, against the appellant. There are three counts in the declaration. 1st. Count for money had and received. 2d. Count for money lent and advanced. 3d. Count upon an inland bill of exchange, drawn by Wil-lock upon one Joseph Carey of Alexandria, payable five days after date, in favour of Esias Travers, or order, for 100 dollars.

A bill was exhibited in the superiour court of chancery of Clarksburg, by Donally Sp Steele against Ginatt, setting forth, that Slaughter and Ginatt, being each owners of salt works in Kanawha, severally leased the same to one Cheek; that Cheek delivered 35 barrels of salt to Slaughter, on account of the rent due to him, and Slaughter sold the salt to Donally Sp Steele; that Ginatt afterwards distrained the same salt, as the property of Cheek, for rent due by Cheek to him,…

M’ Call filed a hill in Chancery, in the County Court of Henrico, against Francis Graces,, setting forth that he had sold a tract of land and some cattle, &c. to Stochdell for 450/. to be paid in bonds, which were to be- assigned by Graves. That Graves immediately assigned bonds to the amount of 162/. 1 Iv.

Henry Harrison, eldest son and heir at law of Henry Harrison, deceased, filed his bill in the High Court of Chancery, setting forth, that his father, on the 4th of July, 1763, became bound in a bond as security for his brother Robert, of Charles City county, for payment of 708?. Os. 6c?. to John Syme.

Bierne sued out a fieri facias, upon a judgment of the county court of Monroe, against one Rose, for about 48 dollars, and put the process in the hands of a deputy of Herbert sheriff of that county.

In ejectment, for a tot (No. 39) of half an acre of land situate in the town of Winchester, in the county of Frederick, ^brought by the appellant against the appellee, the parties agreed a case, which was afterwards set aside by consent, and another substituted in its room, as follows: 1.

This was an appeal from a decree of the superiour court of chancery of Richmond. Held: made 200 bushels of wheat, about 18,000 pounds of passed tobacco, which he sold at 40s. per owt. and 4000 pounds refused tobacco, and 250 barrels of indian corn.

In a writ of right brought by Abraham Clements, heir at law of Abraham Clements deceased, who was heir at law of Ezekiel Clements deceased, against Robert Shaio, William Moore and James Parker, the pleadings were had at the Rules, and the jury found a special verdict, stating, that Benjamin Borden being seised of the lands in the count mentioned, by virtue of a patent dated the 24th of March, 1740, sold, but never conveyed it to Ezekiel Clements.

Lockridge exhibited a bill against Sharrot, in the superiour court of chancery of Greenbrier, stating, that Lock-ridge and Sharrot being together in Richmond, and Sharrot having twenty-two beeves for sale at that market, it was agreed between them, in order to enable Sharrot to get a better price for the beeves, that they should join in representing to the butchers, that Lockridge had offered 483 dollars for the whole “ lot of beeves,” though, in truth, no such offer had…

General Washington, in December 1769, presented a petition to the executive council of Virginia, on behalf of himself and the other officers and soldiers entitled to bounties in land under the proclamation of governor Dinwiddle of the 19th February 1754, praying that 200,000 acres of land be allotted to them, in pursuance of the proclamation, within a certain tract of country, on the waters of the Ohio, particularly described, and that the claimants might have the privilege…

Graves obtained a judgment (upon a motion) in the Hustings Court of Richmond, against Webb, for 7950Z. 17s. 6d. specie, being the penalty of the bond upon which a judgment had been obtained by William Reynolds against Graves as security to Webb; but, to be discharged by the payment of 1771/. 12s. Id., in military audited certificates, bearing an interest of six per centum per annum, to be computed from the first day of January, 1789, (the balance found due in military…

John Moore of Loudoun died in 1806, and by his last will and testament, after several devises of real estate and pecuniary legacies, bequeathed 500 dollars to his three grandchildren Beclcey, Polly and Peter Stump; and then directed, that all the residuum of his estate, real and personal, should be sold by his executors, and the proceeds of sales applied to the payment of his debts and legacies, and the overplus divided equally among his grandsons.

<p>In a writ of right (brought by John Jones against William Jones) the jury found a special verdict, which stated: That Thomas Jones, in his life-time, obtained a patent for 400 acres of land on the 10th of June, 1740. That John Jones, the demandant, obtained a patent dated the 10th of June, 1740, for a tract of land adjoining the said 400 acres, and containing 400 acres also. That William Jones, the defendant, on the 10th of June, 1740, obtained a patent for a tract of land adjoining the last mentioned tract; and, likewise, containing 400 acres. That the said Thomas, on the 12th of January, 1746, obtained a patent for 400 acres. That the said Thomas was father to the said John and William. That on the 10th day of September, 1755, an inclusive patent was obtained by the said Thomas, John, and William, for a tract of land containing 2762 acres; which included as well all the tracts for which patents were obtained by the said Thomas, John and William, severally as aforesaid, as 1162 acres never before granted. That the said Thomas, John and William, sold part of the said 1162 acres to Hog Glover. That the said Thomas died between the years 1766 and 1770; and, that the said John Jones is his eldest son and heir at law. That the said William is in possession of the said 400 acres, patented to his father on the 12th of January, 1746; which is the land in controversy. That John Jones, the demandant, is in possession of the 400 acres patented to his father on the 10th of June, 1740; and, of the tract for which he himself obtained a patent, as aforesaid, on the same day and year last mentioned. That, besides the tract of land in contest, the said William Jones is in possession of the tract for which he obtained a patent the 10th of June, 1740, as aforesaid; and, if upon the whole matter, the law be for the demandant, then the jury find for him; but, if thé law be for the tenant, then they find for him.</p>

<p>Dade drew an order on Madison, in favor of Tankersley, for 545 dollars, which Madison accepted. Tankersley brought a suit against Madison upon his acceptance, and recovered judgment for the contents of the order and interest. Then, Madison exhibited a bill against Dade and Tankersley, in the superiour court of chancery of Fredericksburg, alleging, that the order was drawn by Dade on him, for money by him lost to Dade at unlawful gaming, and praying an injunction to inhibit Tankersley from executing his judgment at law.</p> <p>Dade, in his answer, acknowledged, that the order was drawn by him for money which he had won of Madison at cards; and he said, that Tankersley, being apprised of the true consideration, gave him only 360 dollars for the draft of 545 dollars, and took it at his own risque.</p> <p>Tankersley, in his answer, declared, that he was wholly ignorant of the transactions between Dade and Madison, in consideration of which the order was drawn; that he had given Dade an adequate valuable consideration lor it; and that Madison accepted it without hesitation or objection, and had obtained indulgence, from time to time, on promise'of payment.</p> <p>Several depositions were taken and filed: but, in the opinion of the court of chancery, and of this court, there was no sufficient proof to establish the fact of the order being founded on a gaming consideration, as between Madison the drawee and Tankersley,—unless Dadds answer could be regarded as evidence of the fact against his co-defendant Tankersley.</p> <p>Both the original defendants having died, and the suit having been revived against their respective representatives, before the final hearing,—the court of chancery dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the bill as to Tankersley’s executor, and thus left him at liberty to execute his judgment at law for the whole debt; and it decreed, that Dadds administrator should pay the amount of the debt to Madison, provided Madison should not have the benefit of the decree, till he himself should have paid the debt to Tankersley’s executor. Madison, accordingly, paid the debt to Tankersley’s executor; and, thereupon, the court awarded him execution on the decree against Dade’s administrator, de bonis testatoris &c.</p> <p>Dadds administrator applied by petition to this court, for an appeal from the decree; which was allowed.</p>

A writ of scire facias was issued from the Clerk’s office of Spottslyvania County, directed to the Sheriff thereof, on the *17th of February 1813, in behalf of John Chilton against M’Carty Fitz-hugh and Henry Lee, jr. as special Bail for Henry Bee, sen’r. The Sheriff’s return was, “The within-named M’Carty Fitz-hugh and Henry Lee, jr. are not inhabitants of my bailiwick, and are not found within the same.” An alias writ of scire facias was issued, and directed in like…

Hugh West, the father of the appellants, Sybil, Jemima and Sarah, wives of William Deneale, Edward Adams and Henry Gun-nell, on the 13th day of March, 1767, made his last will and testament.

This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the General Court, rendered the 11th of June, 1796, in favor of the Auditor, against Robert Preston, one of the securities of Robert Craig, late Sheriff of Washington County. The judgment is as follows: “On the motion of the Auditor of public accounts, on behalf of the Commonwealth against Robert Preston, one of the securities of Robert Craig, late Sheriff of Washington County.

<p>This was an appeal from a decree of the superiour court of chancery of Williamsburg. The bill was exhibited by Ashley against King the administrator of Charles K. Mallory deceased, and Mallory’s widow and heirs, shewing that Mallory was indebted to Ashley, by specialty binding his heirs, in the sum of 1800 dollarsthat the administrator alleged that Mallory’s personal estate had been exhausted in payment of debts of equal or superiour dignity; and that Mallory left real estate, which descended to his heirs; and therefore praying an account of the administration, and, if necessary, a sale of the real estate to satisfy the debt due the plaintiff.</p> <p>The defendants answered, that Mallory’s personal assets had been duly administered and exhausted; that the only real estate he left was a house and lot in the borough of Norfolk ; and that this property had been sold under a decree of the circuit court of the U. States for the eastern district of Virginia, in a suit in which the U. States were plaintiffs, and the administrator, widow and heirs of Mailory, were defendants, to satisfy a debt due the U. States.</p> <p>The chancellor directed an account to be taken of King’s administration of the personal estate, and an account of the real estate of Mallory, and of the disposition thereof, if any, that had been made by his heirs.</p> <p>The commissioner’s report shewed, that the personal assets had been duly administered and exhausted; that Mallory left no real estate but the house and lot in Norfolk; and that the same had been sold under a decree of the federal circuit court, as alleged in the answers of the defendants, to the defendant King and one Lively. And he returned with his report, a copy of the record of the suit in the federal court; by which it seemed (though it did not certainly so appear) that the suit of the U. Slates against the administrator, widow and heirs of Mallory, was not commenced till after this suit was commenced by Ashley ; that Mallory had been collector of the port of Norfolk, and had given bond for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office, wherein he bound his heirs ; that he died largely indebted to the 'U. Stales ; that the object of that suit was, to subject his real estate in the hands of his heirs, to the debt due the U. States ; that the federal court had decreed a sale of the real estate, and that it had been accordingly sold to King and Lively, and the purchase money had been paid by the purchasers, before the interlocutory decree in this suit of Ashley, was made.</p> <p>Neither Lively, nor his co-purchaser King, in his own right, was made a party in this cause.</p> <p>The chancellor decreed, that the dower of Mallory’s widow should be assigned her, and that his real estate in Norfolk should be sold, subject to the dower right, and that the proceeds should be applied to the satisfaction of the debt due to Ashley.</p> <p>The defendant King, in his own right and as administrator of Mallory, and the widow and heirs of Mallory, applied by petition to this court, for an appeal from the decree ; which was allowed.</p>

This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the General Court entered on the 20th day of June, 1793, and is in these words: ic On the motion of the Auditor of Public Accounts, on behalf of the Commonwealth, against Robert Graham, for a judgment for a fine for failing to return to the Auditor’s office, an account of the amount of fees charged by him as Clerk of the Court of Prince William county, for services performed in the year 1788, and of the sums received for those fees:…

This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court, declaring, that a writing purporting to be the last will of George Glasscock deceased, was not in' fact his last will: because, “ there was produced at the same time, another writing, purporting to be the last will and testament of the said deceased; which appeared to have been legally executed.” The writing sought to he proved, as the last will of the deceased, was offered for probat in the District Court on the 6th…

<p>W. deputy of L. sheriff of F. county, gives a bond to his principal with five sureties, for the faithful discharge of the office of deputy sheriff; but L. not being satisfied with this security, W. and three other persons, as his sureties, give a second bond to L. with lilce condition, a memorandum being indorsed on this second bond, at the time of its execution, in conformity with a previous agreement, that L. should not resort to the second bond for indemnity for the misconduct of the deputy in office, so long as the sureties in the first bond should be resident in the state, and it should appear that he could be indemnified without recourse to the sureties in the second bond; L. the sheriff recovers judgment on the first bond against the sureties therein bound, for the amount of damages sustained by him by reason of the deputy sheriff’s misconduct in office: Held, the sureties in the first bond, have no right to contribution from the sureties in the second.</p>

Robert Stuart, executor of Thomas Stuart, brought an action on the case against the executors of John Madison, in the County Court of Botetourt. The declaration contained two counts, 1. For money had and received by the defendant’s testator to the use of the plaintiff’s testator; 2.

This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court, where an action of debt was brought, in Oct. 1792, by the assignee of a bond, with a collateral condition, and the declaration assigned the breaches. The defendant craved oyer of the bond and condition, and pleaded conditions performed. The plaintiff took issue, and obtained a verdict and judgment.

<p>If the demandant; in a writ of right* omits to set forth the boundaries in hjs count, it will be error, after verdict»</p> <p>Queerer If there *be several clauses in a will, an.d some of them, devising lands, are written in the testator’s own hand, though the others are not, whether the devise of the lands will he good, without two witnesses.</p>

<p>Upon a deed of conveyance of land from B. to L. there is a writing indorsed and signed by L. the bargainee, importing, that “it is understood that two acres of land in the deed conveyed, having been heretofore applied for the erection of a church, are excepted in the deed, and are to be located in the most convenient spot near the cross roadsB. the bargainor, conveys two acres of land near the cross roads, by metes and bounds, to S.; and H. claiming under L. brings ejectment for the two acres of land against S. claiming under B.—Held, the writing indorsed on the deed from B. to L. is part of the deed, and not a distinct executory contract 5 and, therefore, the defendant in ejectment giving B.’s deed to L. in evidence, has a right to give in evidence .the writing indorsed thereon also.</p>

John Smith brought a writ of right in the District Court of King and Queen, against Rachel Rowe, devisee and widow of Richard Rowe, deceased, and John Rowe, son and devisee of the said Richard Rowe, deceased, for one tenement and sixty-three acres of land, in the county of King and Queen. The common plea was put in for the tenants, and issue joined in the usual manner.

This was a suit brought in the county court by Isbell against Wilson, to recover freedom; and the parties agreed a case, which stated, That Matthew Whiting of Virginia, owned the plaintiff as a slave, on the 5th of October, 1778; and in the year 1781 or 1782, removed with part of his property (among which was the plaintiff) to Maryland; where he sold the plaintiff to the defendant; who brought her back to Virginia.

<p>* Ritchie 8? Co. brought indebitatus assumpsit, in the year 1768, against Lyne, for goods, wares and merchandizes, sold and delivered, and for money and tobacco, paid and advanced. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion ; which stated, “that the defendant offered in evidence, the depositions of John Taylor and Gabriel Mitchell, to the reading of which, the counsel for the plaintiffs objected; because, they appeared to have been taken in a suit between the said William Lyne as plaintiff, and Andrew Crawford defendant, lately depending in this Court, which abated by the death of the said Crawford; a copy of the declaration, in which suit was thereunto annexed. That the Court over-ruled the objection; it appearing, that the said Crawford was the same person mentioned in the plaintiffs’ declaration as fheir factor; that he had received due notice of the taking of the depositions; and that it did not appear that the plaintiffs had any other representative, than the said Crawford, in Virginia. That John Ryburn, who was afterwards the factor or agent for the said plaintiffs, in Virginia, as well as the said Crawford, received due notice of the taking of the said Mitchell’s deposition. That, the suit brought by the said Lyne against the said Crawford, was a cross-action, founded upon the same dealings, which gave rise to this cause; in which the said Lyne claimed a balance as due to himself, which balance the present plaintiffs would have been answerable for, in the opinion of the Court, had the said Crawford lived, and a recovery thereof taken place. That the evidence, in the said depositions contained, related to the said Lyne’s dealings with the said Andrew Crawford, as factor for the said plaintiffs; and, upon those dealings, this action is founded.” The declaration, referred to in the bill of exceptions, counted on a contract betwixt the said William Lyne and the said Andrew Crawford, without mentioning or referring to the said Ritchie &; Co. Verdict and judgment for the defendant; and from that judgment, Ritchie Co. appealed to this Court,</p>

Cropper exhibited a bill in chancery, in the county court of Accomac, against John Burton and Sarah his wife, and their infant children, Margaret, Samuel, Elizabeth, Catharine and George Burton, Thomas Bagwell, and Margaret Bagwell executrix of George Bagwell deceased,— setting forth, that Cropper, in 1819, sold and conveyed to John Burton a parcel of land in Accomac, for 2500 dollars, payable the 1st January 1825, with interest from the 1st January 1820, for which Burton…

<p>This was an appeal from the Williamsburg Chancery Court, where the Bank of the United States filed a bill against Heron, Plume and others, to set aside a deed of trust, made by Heron to Plume Co. which, the plaintiffs alleged, obstructed their execution. This deed was impeached, first, on the ground of fraud, and secondly, because it was not proved and recorded within eight months from its delivery; and then, it was recorded in the Clerk's office, which was not authorised by law. The grounds of this objection will fully appear by the following opinions.</p> <p>The Chancellor decreed, that the deed should he set aside, as void against the plaintiffs, and the defendants apOealed. ■*</p>

Graham and Trigg, brought trover against Eckhols in the District Court of New London, for three slaves, to wit: a woman named Hannah, a child named Judy, and a child named Hannah. Plea not guilty, and issue. The jury .found a special verdict, which was adjudged insufficient by the Court and quashed.

John Long brought ejectment against William Long for a tract of land. Which, by rule ^f court and consent of parties, was referred. Award in favour of the plaintiff.

Noel petitioned the County Court of Essex, for leave to build a mill. Writ of ad quod damnum granted, and inquisition taken. * After which, the record proceeds thus, “ On the motion of the said Sale, the said inquisition, for reasons appearing to the Court, is quashed; and it is further considered by.the Court, that the said John Sale recover of the said Taylor Noel, his costs about his defence, in this behalf expended.

Carter Braxton during his marriage, sold a mill with fifty acres of land attached to it. The mill was subsequently carried away by a freshet, as was another which was afterwards built upon the same site. A third mill, upon a more extensive plan, was then built by the purchaser. After the death of Braxton, his widow claimed dower in the mill; but *the chancellor being of opinion that she was not entitled to it, she appealed to the court of appeals.

<p>Absolute bill of sale, made in March, of a slave then hired to a third person for the year; at the end of the year, vendee applies to bailee to deliver him the slave, and bailee tells him he may have possession, yet vendee does not take actual possession, but leaves property in the hands of the bailee: Held, the failure to deliver the slave to the vendee at date of the bill of sale, having been prevented by the existing bailment to a third person, and the bailee after the expiration of the bailment becoming in effect bailee of the vendee, so that his possession was the vendee’s, or at least not the vendor’s, the bill of sale is good against the creditors of the vendor.</p> <p>The bill of sale was made for a full consideration actually paid at the time; but vendee executed a separate obligation to vendor, binding himself, if vendor would repay him the purchase money with interest within a year, vendee would redeliver the slave to him; and it does not appear, that the contract arose out of any treaty for a loan of money, and security for payment of debt: Held, the contract is a conditional sale, and not a mortgage.</p>

Chapman Austin and Nathaniel Whit-locke gave a forthcoming bond to the plaintiffs in December 1796: on which judgment was rendered against Austin alone; and, in April 1800, an execution issued, upon that judgment, returnable to the second day of June: which, as one of the bills of exceptions stated, was not returned.

Rucker brought trover against Wilson, for a military certificate issued to the plaintiff for the balance of his pay and subsistence to the 6th day of February, 1781, as a Captain of the State infantry.

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Prince George county.</p>

This was an appeal from a judgment of the districl court of Winchester, given for the defendants, in an ejectment brought by Henry Sleigh, and J3.1izabeth his wife, against Jacob, Isaac and Philip Strider, for twenty-one and an half acres of land in the county of Berkeley.

Benjamin Boxley, late of Halifax, died in 1814, having by his last will and testament, after sundry specific devises and bequests, devised and bequeathed as follows: “I lend to my beloved… Held: that the children were entitled to the property, and decreed that it should be allotted and delivered to them; and upon an appeal to the superiour court of chancery of Lynchburg, taken by Allen Wade the husband, the chancellor affirmed the decree; and then he appealed to this court.

This was an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Fredericksburg, reversing with costs, an order of the county court of Culpeper, giving leave to George Martin, to erect a water grist mill, on the north fork of Rappahannock river, and to erect a dam across that river, at Back’s old mill, he holding lands on one side of the stream, and condemning an acre of land on the opposite shore, in the county of Culpeper, the property of Carter Beverley, in the occupancy of…

<p>F. sues out a fi. fa. against R. for a debt, which is levied on slave in R.’s possession at the time; H. claiming title to the property, forbids the sale thereof; whereupon, F. gives the sheriff an indemnifying bond, and • the property is sold under the execution; H. brings suit at law against F. on the indemnifying bond; and pending that suit F. files bill in equity, shewing that H. claimed title to the property under a voluntary deed executed by R. impeaching that deed as fraudulent in law and in design against all R.’s creditors, previous and subsequent, and praying that it may be declared void and set aside as to him, but asking no discovery from the parties to the deed: Held, that, as the matters alleged in the bill would have been available to the plaintiff in equity, as a defence at law against H.’s action on the indemnifying bond, the court of equity has no jurisdiction of the case.</p>

This was an appeal from the Superior Court of Hanover county. An application was made by Harrison Ball, to the County Court of Hanover, for leave to turn a road. The usual steps were taken by the Court; and a report was made by the viewers in favor of the application. The motion was opposed by James Atkinson, and evidence introduced on both sides; and the County Court granted leave to turn the road. Atkinson appealed to the Superior Court.

The appellees instituted a suit in the county court of Powhatan, against Stegar, and filed their declaration on the 26th of February, 1798, stating, that a certain John Clack, and Samuel Stegar, the appellant, acknowledged themselves to be indebted to the executors of Richard Eggleston dec’d, of whom the testator of the plaintiffs was one, in the quantity of 6225 lbs. of nett tobacco, to be inspected on Janies river, to be paid on or before the 18th of February, 1803, in the…

' Clutton brought indebitatus assumpsit against William Garlington, in the County Court of Northumberland, for merchandize sold and delivered, and for services done and performed for the defendant, by the plaintiff, in the capacity of an overseer: Plea, non assumpsit, and issue. On the trial- of the cause, the plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion in admitting improper evidence to the jury. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Green-brier, where Edward and Thomas Hughes, filed their bill against Andrew Moore and William M’ Clung, praying for an injunction to a judgment at law. The Chancellor awarded the injunction, and finally decreed that it should be made perpetual. The defendant, M’Clung, appealed. The following opinions give so complete a history of fhe case, that no other report is necessary.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery. The bill stated, that John Thornton died seised of lands which descended on his daughters Mary, (the wife of Woodford,) Betty (the wife of Taliaferro,) his grandson Thornton Washington, and his granddaughter Mildred the wife of Minor. That,'in May, 1778, an act of Assembly passed, [9 Stat.

Flizabeth Braxton filed a bill against several persons in the court of chancery, to recover dower in her husband’s lands; and obtained a decree against the appellants, without any plea or answer in their behalf, although their mother had been appointed guardian ad litem. A bill to review that decree was offered on the part of the appellants, by Dilliard, as their next friend : 1. Because the yearly profits of the lands were rated too high. 2.

In June 1823, William Miller exhibited a bill in chancery, in the county court of Goochland, against Isaac Curd executor of Frederick Argyle, John Argyle, Thomas Curd and Benjamin Anderson,—stating that in August 1817, J. Curd, the executor of F. Argyle, sold Miller a parcel of land in Goochland, as land belonging to his testator’s estate, estimated to contain 1033 acres, for 27 dollars per acre, amounting to 27,891 dollars; for which Miller gave his three bonds for 9297…

In assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, the defendant suffered an office judgment and writ of enquiry to be awarded at the rules : which, not being set aside at the succeeding term of the court, when the cause was afterwards called for trial at another term, the defendant then offered to jilead the act of limitations, which the judge refused ; but, upon being informed, by the bar, that the practice had been uniformly otherwise in that court, the plea was received.

Milker Engle, by his will dated the 12th of January, 1760, devised as follows : “Touching such worldly estate, wherewith it hath pleased God to bless me in this life, I give, devise and dispose of the same in the following manner and form ; It is my will and I do order that, in the first place, all my just debts and funeral charges be paid and satisfied.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, affirming a decree of the County Court of Caroline. The bill states, that Hackett, the plaintiff, .being entitled to a tract of land, after the death of his relation, Martin Hackett, and for which he had a deed, agreed with Alcock to give him a title thereto; provided he would clear him of the legion, in which he had enlisted.

Gustavus B. Homer presented a Will to the Chancellor for the Richmond District, praying an Injunction to stay proceedings on the two Judgments obtained against him, for defamation, by Charles Marshall and by Charles Marshall and wife, which, after the death of the said Marshall, had been revived by actions of debt, instituted by his widow and administratrix.

This was a motion made by Ward, in April, 1798, in the District Court of New London, “ for a judgment, for the amount of a judgment obtained by John Wilson and George Adams, against the said William Ward, in September, 1797, for a trespass offered the said John Wilson and George Adams, by the said Daniel Tompkins, acting as deputy Sheriff under the plaintiff.” The motion was continued until September Court, 1798, when it was determined.

This was an action for money had and received to the plaintiff’s use, brought by Shore against Rose, in the District Court of Richmond. Plea, non assumpsit; and issue. Upon the trial of the cause, the jury found a special verdict, which stated, ie That the plaintiff sued out a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum against William Claiborne, who was taken thereon, and upon the 8th of March, 1790, committed to the District jail, of which the defendant is the keeper.

Debt, in the circuit court of Frederick, by the president, directors and company of the bank of Alexandria, assignees of Jonah Thompson, against the administrator of Eben Taylor, upon a promissory note negotiable at that bank, for 4800 dollars.

<p>After a cause has been once folly decided, by a Court of Common Lav, Equity will not grant relief.*</p>

<p>Though where one resorts to equity for relief against usurious debt not yet paid, he shall be required to pay only the principal advanced to him, without even legal interest, according to the 3rd section of the statute of usury of Virginia; yet where the debtor seeks, in equity, an account of and decree for money already paid on usurious contract, the measure of relief is the excess paid above principal and legal interest; and if his payments exceed principal and legal interest, the surplus with interest shall be decreed to him.</p> <p>The plea of usury is a defence personal to the debtor; and so the purchaser'of land subject to a previous lien, cannot object that the lien is usurious, but is bound to discharge the lien, as part of the price of the land.</p> <p>A. mortgages land to B. and then executes a deed of trust to secure another debt to C.—a bill in chancery is filed by B. against A. to foreclose the mortgage, and A. resists the foreclosure on the ground that the debt secured by the mortgage is usurious; pending this suit, the land is sold under the deed of trust for the debt due C. and C. becomes the purchaser for the amount of the debt due him, the land being so sold by the trustee to C. subject to B.’s mortgage, A. the mortgagor being present and admitting that the mortgage debt was to be paid, and C. having no notice of B.’s mortgage being usurious; C. takes possession, and after-wards sells the land to B. the mortgagee; many years after, and after B.’s death, the suit, brought by B. against A. to foreclose . the mortgage, is dismissed by B.’s representatives: upon a bill brought by A. to set aside the sale to B. and to redeem the mortgage, Held, 1. The sale shall not be set aside; and 2. as C. -- jrarchased subject to B.’s mortgage, and then sold to B., this sale toTB. was,, in effect, a payment'of the debt due on A.’s mortgage to B.; so that, though the mortgage debt was usurious, yet having been thus paid, A. is entitled only to the excess above principal and legal interest, with interest on such excess.</p>

James Gee and Mary his wife, and William Henry Gee and Bavinia Norfleet Gee, infants, filed their hill in the high court of chancery, against William Blunt and Elizabeth his wife, and John Wilkinson, acting executors of Cordall Norfleet deceased, and co-executors with the plaintiff James Gee, of Sarah Jones deceased, stating, that the said Cordall Norfleet, by his will made in 1788, gave a tract of land to Cordall N. Bynum ; a tract of land in North Carolina, and another in…

<p>Four persons were jointly indicted for an assault upon a Magistrate in the execution of his office. The defendants appeared and traversed the indictment. Before the trial, one of them died; and, as to him the prosecution abated. A jury were afterwards sworn to try the issue as to the other three; and they brought in a joint verdict against the whole, and assessed a joint fine of 106/. against them: For which the District Court rendered a joint judgment; and to that judgment the defendants obtained a writ of supersedeas from this Court.</p> <p>The single question made in the cause was, whether, in a joint indictment -against several for an assault and battery, the jury can assess and the Court give judgment for a joint fine ? Or, in other words, whether the jury ought not to have assessed and the Court rendered judgment for separate fines against each of them?</p>

This was an action of debt brought in the District Court by Bogle Sp Co. against Sullivant, upon a bond. The defendant plead ñon est factum; and the plaintiffs took issue. Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiffs filed a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion; which stated, “ that the plaintiffs offered in evidence to the jury, proof of the hand-writing of the subscribing witnesses to the bond; and that the said witnesses were dead.

<p>The declaration in this case was as follows: “ Thomas Harrison and Thomas Bullett, acting executors of the last will and testament of Cuthbert Bullett, deceased, complain of John Hammitt, that he render unto them the sum of one hundred and twenty pounds, specie, which from them he unjustly detains; for that the said defendant, on the 15th of October, in the year of our Lord 1788, at the county aforesaid, by his certain writing obligatory here to the Court shewn, sealed with his seal, and dated the day and year aforesaid, agreed, in consideration of a lot of land in the town of Newport, known and distinguished by number thirteen, together with the improvements on the same, to pay the said Cuthbert 135/. specie, on or before the first day of April then next ensuing the date of the said obligation, with interest thereon from the first day oí January then next ensuing the date of the said obligation. Nevertheless, the said defendant, though often requested, did not pay to the said Cuthbert, in his life-time, the aforesaid sum of money, or any part thereof, but the same to pay refused, and still refuses to pay the same to the plaintiffs, to the damage of the plaintiffs 300/., and therefore they bring suit, &c.” Plea, conditions performed; and the plaintiff took'issue. The suit was then referred; and after-wards, at a subsequent Court, the record proceeds thus: el October, 1795, order reference set aside and continued.” On the trial of the issue, the defendant filed a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion, which stated, that the plaintiffs offered in evidence to the jury an agreement in these words: “ Agreement between Mr. John Hammitt and Cuthbert Bullett: Cuthbert Bullett sells Mr. Ham-mitt lot number thirteen, in the town of Newport, with the improvements, for one hundred and twenty-five pounds, specie, payable with interest from the first day of January, on the first day of next April, and rents him both his ferries during the said Bullett’s life, at fifteen pounds, specie, per annum, for the first four years, and after, during the remainder of the term, at the annual rent of twenty-five pounds per annum; the said Bullett is to have and retain the rent for the present year. Witness their hands and seals, this 15th day of October, 1788.</p> <p>John Hammitt. (Seal.)</p> <p>Cuthbeht Bullett. (Seal.)</p> <p> Teste. </p> <p>William Davis.</p> <p>Burwell Bullett.”</p> <p>That the defendant objected to the same going in evidence to the jury, as being variant from the writing declared on; but that the objection was over-ruled by the Court, who permitted the said writing, to go in evidence to the jury.</p> <p>Verdict that the defendant hath not performed the conditions in the declaration mentioned, as the plaintiffs by replying have alleged, and assessed .the damages to 61/. 5s. 9d. Judgment for the plaintiff for 125/. specie, the debt in the declaration mentioned, together with the damages aforesaid, and costs.</p>

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery. The bill states, that Thomas Payne, in November, 1784, requested the appellant to take charge of a final settlement or commutation certificate, amounting to 628/., and to keep the same for him, as a friend/ and furnish him with certificates or money for his purposes. That such certificates were then of little value.

Crump brought an action of covenant against Macon, in the County Court of New-Kent, and declared that the defendant by his certain writing, sealed with his seal, and to the Court now here shewn, &c. covenanted and agreed with the plaintiff, to refer all accounts and agreements existing between the parties in their own rights and the said Crump, as executor of William Clopton, as well in suit as otherwise, to the consideration and determination of William Clayton, William…

This was an appeal from the Wythe Chancery Court, where David M ’ Gavock filed a bill against Thomas Jackson. The whole subject is so fully unfolded in the following opinions, that it is only necessary to refer to them.

By an inquisition of office, taken by the escheator of the city of Richmond, the jury duly impanneled, sworn and charged to inquire, what lands and tenements Margaret and Patience, Barnes late of the said city deceased, died seized of, and whether they left any heir, or made any disposition of such lands in their lifetime, and whether they were aliens at the time of their death,-—found, that the said Margaret and Patience long before their death, were seized of a lot in…

Baker, in November 1794, filed a bill in chancery in the county court, against Richardson, stating that Richardson sold the equitable title to a tract of… Held: that fraud shall not be protected by the statute. 3 Ves. jr. 39, 724. It is admitted that part performance is enough ; and here was such a performance, for. Baker gave his bond for the money; which the vendor accepted ; and therefore is bound in conscience to convey the land, which was to be the consideration for it.

A scire facias having issued against the defendant, as the acceptor ,of three several hills of exchange, dated 12th April 1813. payable twelve months after date, drawn by the Earl of Moira, whereby he (Ridge,) became indebted to Austen (the holder) in that sum and interest, as found by an inquisition, under a commission on an extent against him, as receiver general for the county of Oxford ; the defendant pleaded a general traverse : and the case coming on to be tried before…

Mahon filed a bill in the superior court of chancery stating, That he leased an unimproved lot of land in Norfolk, of Marsden, at £30 per annum, for ten years; and was to be at liberty to remove the houses he might errect on it.

Detinue for two slaves, by Mason against Lane, in the circuit superiour court of Sussex. Plea, the general issue. Held: that the law on the case agreed was for the plaintiff, and gave him judgment: to which this court upon the petition of Lane, allowed a supersedeas.

This is a supersedeas to a judgment of the district court of Fredericksburg, reversing a judgment obtained in the county court of Caroline, by the appellants against the testator of the appellees.

Debt, in the circuit court of Goochland, on a promissory note negotiable at the Farmers Bank, for 1181 dollars, by Crouch Sp Co. the holders, against Edwin Watkins the • maker, and 'Thomas Watkins the indorser, of the note.* There were several counts in the declaration.

Anderson brought debt in the county court upon a judgment in that court for ¿144. 17. 2X- and costs ; but declared for ¿144. 7. 2%. and the costs. Plea, No such record; and issue.

Leavell and others brought trespass against Ballard, for breaking their close, and taking away a negro woman slave. The declaration laid the charge by way of quod cum, or recital; and the defendant pleaded not guilty.

Love filed a bill in chancery against Brax-ton and Ham, stating, That, upon the 1st of July, 1783, Braxton, being indebted to him, gave him a power of attorney to receive, from Power, the proceeds of the sale of a moiety of an estate in England, or to sell it himself, for the purpose of paying the said debt. That Ham, with full knowledge of the premises, had since purchased and obtained a conveyance of the estate from Braxton ; and was about to leave the commonwealth.

This was an appeal from the Lynchburg Chancery Court. The following opinion gives a full view of the ease, which was submitted without argument.

' Branch and others entered into a bond, on the Sth of March, 1784, to Benjamin Harrison, .as governour of the state, and his successors, in ^10,000, with the followiug condition annexed, viz. “ The condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bound Benjamin Branch do, and-shall truly and faithfully collect, pay and account for all taxes imposed in this said county, by virtue of an act of assembly intituled, ‘ an act to •amend and reduce the several acts of…

This was an action of Slander, brought by Hancock, against Hook in his life time.

This was an appeal from the General Court. The whole ease is so fully discussed in the opinions of the Judges, that any other report would be unnecessary.

Jackson, Bragg & Co. presented, in August 1780, a petition to the county court of Chesterfield, to lay out a road from Pocahontas to their grist mill on Swift creek, lately erected ; to which there was no established road : And, at the October court following, the commissioners, for that purpose appointed, having made their report, directed a road *to be laid out from Charles Cogbill’s, and thence down an old road, (to or from what place,' does not appear), and by different…

This was an action for Ereedom, in behalf of the Appellant, against the Appellee, in the County Court of Kanawha.

<p>A bond for 520 dollars was executed by Samuel Perrin, Park Perrin, Henry Perrin, and Sterling Langford, to John Green; the three last obligors being sureties for the first named obligor. The bond was assigned by Green to John Jones, who brought suit upon it, and recovered judgment against -Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin (Lang-ford being dead), and sued out a fieri facias against the three Perrins, which was levied on two slaves, the property of Samuel Perrin, the principal obligor; who, thereupon, gave a forthcoming bond, for the delivery of the property at the day and place of sale, in which Park and Henry Perrin (his sureties in the original bond, and co-defendants in the execution) and Fendall Ragland joined; the condition of the bond reciting, that Park and Henry Perrin and Ragland were sureties tendered by Samuel Perrin. The forthcoming bond was forfeited ; and execution having been awarded thereon against Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin and Ragland, Jones sued out a fieri facias against them. This execution was levied on the property of Henry Perrin, and 229 dollars, part of the debt was made by the sale of his property; and then Ragland paid the sheriff the balance of the debt, which was now 400 dollars. By this time, Samuel and Park Perrin had become insolvent.</p> <p>Henry Perrin made a motion (under the statute 1 Rev. Code, ch. 116. p. 460.) against the executor of Langford, one of his co-sureties in the original bond, in the circuit court of Hanover, to recover one half of the 229 dollars, which Henry Jerrin had been compelled to pay under the execution upon the forthcoming bond: alleging, that as Lang-ford was bound in the original bond, with Park Perrin and himself, as sureties for Samuel Perrin, and as Samuel and Park were insolvent, and JJenry had paid 229 dollars of the debt, the executor of Langford was bound to contribute one half of that sum to him, as his co-surety. Langford’s executor insisted, that the original debt for which he was bound as co-surety with Park and Henry IJerrin for Samuel, and the judgment for the same, were absolutely discharged by the forthcoming bond executed by the three Perrins and Ragland, for the forthcoming and delivery of the property of Samuel Perrin, the principal debtor, taken in execution to satisfy the original judgment; and so Lang-ford’s estate was absolved from all liability on the original bond, and the judgment thereon rendered, and consequently, from any duty to contribute to the sureties in the forthcoming bond. The court held, that Langford’s executor was bound to contribute a moiety of the money which had been levied of JJenry Perrin’s property, under the execution upon the forthcoming bond; and gave judgment for Henry Perrin accordingly. Langford’s executor applied to this court for a supersedeas to the judgment; which was awarded.</p> <p>Fendall Ragland also made a motion against Samuel, Park, and Henry Perrin, to recover of them, the 400 dollars which he had paid in satisfaction of the balance due upon the execution sued out by Jones, on the forthcoming bond, against Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin, and Rag-land. Ragland insisted, that as the three Perrins were ^le defendants and debtors against whom the execution on the original judgment was issued, on which the forthcoming bond executed by the three Perrins and Ragland was taken, the Perrins were all principals in the forthcoming bond, and Ragland was their surety • and so they were all three bound to refund to him the 400 dollars he had paid in satisfaction of the balance due on the execution upon the forthcoming bond. Park and Henry Perrin insisted, that though the execution sued out by Jones on his original judgment, was against Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin, it had been in fact levied on the property of Sa/muel Perrin, the principal debtor, and the forthcoming bond having been given for the delivery of Samuel’s property so taken in execution, Park and Henry Perrin and Ragland were joint and co-sureties for Samuel Perrin in the forthcoming bond ; and that, therefore, Park and Henry Perrin were only bound to contribute as co-sureties with Ragland, and not, as principals, to refund him the whole amount he had paid. The circuit court held, that Park and Henry Perrin, as well as Samuel, were principals in the forthcoming bond, and Ragland was the only surety therein; and gave judgment for Ragland, accordingly, against Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin, for the whole sum of 400 dollars by him paid, with interest <fec. And to this judgment, upon the petition of Park and Henry Perrin, a supersedeas was. awarded by this court.</p>

The county court of Chesterfield caused application to be made to the county court of Dinwiddie, to appoint commissioners to meet those appointed by the court of Chesterfield to let the re-building of Pocahontas bridge across Appomattox river at Peters-burg. The court of Dinwiddie refused ; and thereupon the court of Chesterfield applied to the district court for a mandamus to compel it.

By deed dated the 4th August, 1810, John Wright and wife conveyed a parcel of 186 acres of land in Orange, and some trivial articles of personal property, to Thomas Graves, his heirs, executors &c. in trust to secure payment of a debt of £ 22. with interest &c. to John Payne. There was no clause of warranty in the deed ; and though it purported to convey the land to the trustee in fee, the only title which the grantors had was a dower light therein of Mrs. Wright.

An act of assembly, passed the 9th day of January,' 1804, -authorized commissioners to raise a sum of money, by way of lottery, for the benefit of William and -Mary college. By the scheme of the commissiohers, which was advertized, each holdér of a ticket was to receive the prize drawn against his ticket; but nothing, if the paper drawn against it was a blank : and the last drawn ticket was to- be entitled to a prize of $10,000.

seals of the said Wood and the said Mickie, by which the said Mickie covenanted to give the said Wood 100/, each year, as long as the said Wood lived, for which he, the said Mickie, was to have her, the said Wood’s, land and negroes, &e. The breach assigned was the non-payment of the said 100/, annually. Issue was joined on the pleas of covenants performed, and covenants not broken.

Higginbotham f Co. exhibited a bill against Robertson, executor of J Brown, and C. Powell, in the superiour court of chancery of Lynchburg, alleging, that Brown, in his lifetime, and Powell leased a farm of Sophia Crawford for a term of years, and cultivated the same in partnership, and divided the profits: that Powell, at the same time, was the agent and manager for the plaintiffs in mercantile business carried on by them in the neighbourhood of the farm : that during the…

A writing purporting to be the last will and testament of Mrs. M. Worsham late of Chesterfield, was offered for probat, by W. Vaden, one of the executors therein named, in the circuit court of that county, at June term 1831; and the probat was contested by the administrator of E. Worsham deceased, who was a son of the testatrix. The will disposed of personal property only.

A capias ad respondendum was issued against the defendants, and returned “ not found,” as to one of the defendants, and as to the other, that he confined himself to the house, and would not be seen by the sheriff. An attachment was awarded against the defendants; but, it did not specify the names either of the plaintiffs or deiendants. but only describes them as “ the above named defendants. ” The sheriff returned, that it was levied on one ox-cart.

This was an action for fraud and deceit in the sale of a slave, brought by Brugh against Shanks, in the county court of Botetourt. The declaration charged, that the defendant sold the slave to the plaintiff for a full price, knowing the slave to be of unsound health at the time, and fraudulently concealing the defect from the plaintiff. Plea not guilty. There were two trials of the issue, upon which the juries could not agree in a verdict.

Appeals from decrees of the superiour court of chancery of Wythe, in two cases, one between Kane’s administrator and heirs, plaintiffs, and Koger and Sailing defendants, and the other between the same plaintiffs, and Koger, Sailing and Preston, defendants. The case was argued here by Johnson for the appellants, and Draper and Baldwin for the appellees.

This was a supersedeas to an order of the circuit superiour court of Mason, affirming an order of the county court made upon the application of Smith, establishing a new road from one public road to another before established.

This was a suit in forma pauperis, for the recovery of freedom, brought in 1828, by Betty, Pleasant, and their children against Horton, in the circuit court of Kanawha, The pleadings were in the… Held: that they were not free, and gave judgment for the defendant. A petition was presented to this court, on behalf of the paupers, praying a supersedeas to the judgment; which was allowed.

<p>A scire facias having issued against the defendant, as the acceptor of three several bills of exchange, dated 12th April 1813, payable twelve months after date, drawn by the Earl of Moira, whereby he (Ridge,) became indebted to ,/lusten (the holder) in that sum and interest, as found by an inquisition, under a commission on an extent against him, as receiver genera] for the county of Oxford; the defendant pleaded a general traverse: and the ease coming on to be tried before the Lord Chief Baron, at the siftings after Trinity Term, the jury found a verdict for the Crown.</p> <p>In Michaelmas Term, Clarke obtained a rule to show cause why a verdict should not be entered for the defendant, or a new trial granted.</p> <p>From the report of the evidence, given on the trial, it appeared to have been proved, that a little before Lord Moira’s departure for India, his Lordship had drawn four bills for one thousand pounds each, payable to his own or» der, twelve months after date, which were accepted by Ridge, his Lordship’s regimental agent.</p> <p>That they were then handed over, endorsed by Lord Moira, generally, to Major James, his Lordship’s confidential friend, and who had been employed in obtaining money for his Lordship, through the medium of such bills, ever since the year 1802, by getting them discounted for that purpose, and often at the house of Austen 8c Maunde, but more particularly with Austen, who usually furnished cash for them.</p> <p>' That Major James, (having previously had a communication with Maunde on the subject of getting the bills negotiated,) took them himself to the banking house of Austen, Maunde 8c Co., in Henrietta street; where, after several interviews with Maunde (without seeing Austen on the business,) he at length received from Maunde 36001. Os. 0d. (three thousand six hundred pounds) for the four bills, which he immediately gave to Lord Moira. Major Janies was known to Austen 8c Co. to be the agent of Lord Moira, and to be procuring the money for him.</p> <p>It was also in evidence, that Lord Moira’s bills, so drawn and accepted, bad become much depreciated in the market; which was explained to mean, that they were not negotiable for so much in value as they purported to be drawn for, and that fifteen pound, per cent, per annum, was commonly required and received for discounting them. Major James had himself no interest in the bills, but was merely the agent of Lord Moira; and had not endorsed them, nor was there any other endorsement on them but that of Lord Moira. On that evidence, the counsel for the defendant objected that the transaction was usurious; for that it' was quite clear, that the money given for the bills in question, was in the way of discounting them for Lord Moira, and not as buying them of Major James.</p> <p>His Lordship left it to the jury to say whether the transaction before them was merely colourable on the part of the house of Austen 8c Maunde, and was a discounting of the bills; or whether it was a fair and bona fide purchase of the bills by them. If the former, directing them to find for the defendant; if the latter, for the Crown; when the jury found a verdict for the Crown.</p> <p>Dauncey and Nolan, shewed cause; contending, that what had been done in respect of the bills, was on the face of the transaction a mere sale, and not a discount; when the Court calling on the counsel who were to support the rule:</p> <p>Clarice and Peake submitted, that the transaction was a discounting, and not a purchase of the bills, and therefore usurious; that the money given for them was a personal advance to Lord Moira himself alone, on his credit, at a premium of 152. Os. 0t2. (fifteen pounds) per cent. being considerably above the usual discount. Major James was not a third person holding the bill for his own benefit, as having received it for money due to him from Lord Moira, nor does he endorse it, or make himself liable; if he had, it would have been a loan to him, and therefore, equally usurious; but, he is identified with Lord Moira, who was at the time distressed for money, and was precisely one of the persons meant to be protected by the statute, (12 Jlnne, chap. 16,) against the mischievous consequences of their necessities, and the language of the act is most general: or, if transactions of this sort may be legalized as a sale, the beneficial provisions of that act will be frustrated. A party selling a bill is released from all responsibility on it.</p> <p>Not so here Lord ¡Moira, whoso sale it was, if the bill was sold, for it was sold for hip benefit, and in fact by himself; for the mere agency of a third person can make no sort of difference in the act itself, which was a discounting of these bills at more than five per cent.</p> <p>Dauncey and Nolan, contra, contended, that it was a mere question of fact for the jury, whether this was a sale by Major James, or a discounting for Lord Moira; and their finding ought to be conclusive.</p> <p>It was in evidence that no one would take these bills for their full amount; therefore, they were sent into the market to be sold to any one who would purchase them on speculation. They had in the market a specific value assigned them, and the house of Austen fy Co. had given for them all that they were considered to be worth. This is an instrument on which any one, becoming legally possessed of it, might sue, and therefore may be the subject matter of sale. If the issue of the bill was fair at first, subsequent usury does not vitiate it. If Austen 4’ Maunde had endorsed these bills over to a third person they would have been available in his hands; so also are they in the hands of the Crown.</p>

This was a writ of-error to a judgment of the Superior Court of Law for Chesterfield county, rendered against the plaintiff in error, by which he was sentenced to imprisonment in the jail of the county, without bail or main-prize for the space of two years and six months, and afterwards till he should make his fine with the Governor, by the payment 'of one thousand dollars, the fine assessed by the jury, or until he.be discharged by due course of law.

<p>A survey of land made for The Loyal Company or its assignee, under orders of the colonial council, tho’ recognized by the statute of 1779 for settling the rights of claimers to unpatented lands, and held valid by the court of appeals, not being carried into grant, does not, any more than a survey under a treasury warrant, vest any legal title in the company, or its assignee; and land so surveyed for the company, is still waste and unappropriated land, within the meaning of the land laws, subject to location, survey and grant, upon a treasury warrant, and such grant passes the legal title to the junior locator, tho’ equity may relieve the conqmny against it, for fraud practised by him in procuring the grant.</p> <p>Therefore, where a survey was made upon the rights of The Loyal Company for J. and J. assigned the survey to P. and P. assigned it to F. and F. holding under the survey, and having full notice of the lien of the company on the land for its dues, locates it under a treasury warrant, has it surveyed, and gets a grant for it, tho’ this was a fraud in F. the grant passed the legal title to him.</p> <p>And a purchaser from F. without notice of the rights of the company, or of F.’s fraud in procuring the grant, acquires the legal title, and cannot be affected by the equity of the company.</p> <p>The doctrine of actual notice to a purchaser of a legal title, of equitable rights of third persons, of presumptive evidence of actual notice, and of constructive notice, considered.</p> <p>A bis pendens can only affect a purchaser of the subject in controversy from a party to the suit.</p>

. This was a writ of error to a judgment of the Superior Court of Eaw for Chesterfield county, rendered against the plaintiff in error, by which he was sentenced to imprisonment in the jail of the county, without bail or mainprize for the space of two years and six months, and afterwards till he should make his fine with the Governor, by the payment of one thousand dollars, the fine assessed by the jury, or until he be discharged by due course of law.

<p>At the Superior Court of Law held for Albemarle, the Grand Jury made the following presentment: “ We, on our oath, present David Isaacs, and Nancy West, (a free mulatto woman) for outraging the decency of society, and violating the laws of the land, by cohabiting together in a state of illicit commerce, as man and wife, without being lawfully married,” &c. &c.; on the evidence of two persons named. The defendants were summoned to shew cause why an Information should not be filed against them, and that Court adjourned to the General Court the following question of law, viz: “ Whether, admitting the facts presented by the Grand Jury to be true, an Information will lie for the said offence, at the suit of the Commonwealth ?”</p>

This was a case adjourned to this Court by the Superior Court of Law for Lewis county. The statement of the case is fully set out in the opinion of the Court, which was de» livered by

<p>The plaintiff sued out of the clerk’s office of Orange-County Court an execution against the goods and chattels of the defendant, for the sum of $205 44, with interest on the same from 27th October, 1821, till paid. The execution bore date the 27th July, 1822; was returnable on the fourth Monday in September following, and having come into the hands of the sheriff, was returned by him with this endorsement, “ Not executed by order of plaintiff’s attorney.”</p> <p>Another execution issued in the name of the same plain» tiff, on the same judgment against the goods of the defendant, bearing date the 10th October, 1823. Immediately thereafter, the defendant moved the County Court of Orange to quash the last, execution, on the ground that the amount of the judgment on which the execution issued, was paid to the plaintiff’s attorney after the rendition of the judgment, and before the emanation of the said execution. In support of his motion, the defendant gave in evidence the first mentioned execution, with the return thereon, and a receipt of Edmund Banks, the attorney for the plaintiff, in the words and figures following: “ Received 25th November, 1822, from Col. Laurence T. Dade, one hundred and fifty-four dollars and seventy cents in money; also, the bond of William Quarles, for one hundred and seventy dollars and thirty-nine cents, payable in four months, atKj a jraft on Anthony Buck, for three hundred dollars, at ten days sight; which, when paid, will be in full of the executions of James Smock, and Peter Smock against him in Orange County Court. Edmund Banks, Attorney.” The plaintiff admitted, that the amount of the draft on Anthony Buck had been received by the said Banks, the attorney, but there was no evidence of the payment of Wm. Quarles’s bond, either to Banks or Smock, nor had it ever been returned or accounted for to Dade. The defendant also gave in evidence the execution from the same office against the goods and chattels of the defendant, in the name of Peter Smock, (as mentioned in the receipt,) for S 354, with interest from 22d December, 1820, till payment, bearing date the 27th July, 1822, and returned, “Not executed by order of the plaintiff’s attorney;” for the collection of which last execution, also, the said Banks Was attorney. The Court being of opinion, that the said receipt and other facts, were sufficient to sustain the mption, gave judgment that the execution of 10th October, 1823, should be quashed. The plaintiff excepted to the opinion of the Court, and spread all the foregoing facts on his bill of exceptions.</p> <p>The plaintiff obtained from a Judge of this Court a Supersedeas to the judgment, it being allowed on the petitioner’s entering into bond with security in the penalty of fifty dollars.</p> <p>The case came on before the Superior Court of Law for Orange, and the Judge thereof adjourned for decision to this Court the following questions:</p> <p>1. Ought the Judge in the present case to have directed bond and security to be given in the penalty of $ 63 33, and does the law respecting.an appeal by the plaintiff or demandant, apply to a Writ of Error or Supersedeas ?</p> <p>2. Does the law authorise the County Court to quash an execution upon such evidence as was before it, and did it enter a correct judgment in quashing such execution ?</p> <p>3. All and every question arising out of the record ?</p>

<p>When a prisoner, who has been remanded for trial by the Examining Court to the Superior Court, on a charge of Felony, and against whom a Bill of Indictment has been found by the Grand Jury, applies to the Superior Court to be let to bail, on tbe ground that there is only a slight suspicion of guilt against him, that judgment, and the finding of the bill, are not conclusive evidence against the application, but the Court may examine other evidence.</p> <p>But it is a question for the exercise of the sound discretion of the Court, and if the Court is satisfied that there is material evidence for the Commonwealth that is not before the Court, was not before the Examining Court, or spread on the record, the Court ought not to sustain the motion.</p>

<p>Taking a chance in a raffle, at twenty dollars, or any less sum, although the property raffled for exceeds that sum, (the raffling being at a private house) does not bring the person within the operation of the gaming act.</p> <p>The winner of the thing raffled for (it exceeding § 20,) does come within the operation of the law, although neither of the losers (the loss of each being less than 20,) comes within if.</p> <p>If the prize is won by two or more individuals in partnership, but the share of the gain of each is less than 20, neither of them is embraced by tht* law.</p> <p>The taking a chance in a raffle is not the same offence as the purchase of a fo^ reign lottery ticket, and is, therefore, not liable to the penalty preset ibed for the latter offence, by the latter part of the 27th section of the gaming act.</p>

This was an adjourned case from the Superior Court of Halifax. The prisoner was indicted for the murder of Thomas Boyd, and was convicted fay the jury of murder in the second degree. On the last day of the Court, he moved the Court to grant him a new trial, on the following facts and statement.

<p>Qu. If a husband be prosecuted and convicted of an unlawful marriage, and the wife is not prosecuted, can a judgment of separation be pronounced on the verdict?</p> <p>The repeal of a law, prescribing a punishment for an offence, without a proviso, that offences committed before the operation of the new law, shall be punished under the old, excuses offenders under the repealed law. This is again decided, after repeated adjudications to the same effect.</p>

<p>A juror, who having heard the testimony of a witness in the cause, and then formed an opinion on it, and was doubtful whether he had expressed the opinion or not, though he thought it most probable he had expressed it, but declared that at the time of the trial he had no prejudice against the prisoner, or his cause, and that he could, as he believed, give the prisoner as fair a trial as if he had not heard auy thing on the subject, is an impartial juror, and a challenge against him for cause ought to be overruled.</p>

This was an adjourned case from the Superior Court of Cumberland. The prisoner was indicted for feloniously, maliciously, and unlawfully shooting, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable, and kill, a negro man slave of the name of Armistead, the property of Andrew Houston. The indictment was framed on the act against shooting, stabbing, maiming and disfiguring, passed 9th February, 1819.

<p>This was a Writ of Error to a judgment of the Superior Court of Henrico. The plaintiff in error was tried on an indictment for the forgery of a check for ten dollars, purporting to be drawn by one John Mien, jr. on the Cashier of the Farmers’ Bank of Virginia; he was convicted and sentenced. At the trial, six exceptions were taken to the opinion of the Court, on questions arising therein; all of these were embodied in one bill.: it is deemed proper fo state two of those points only, on one of which the judgment was reversed, there being no error in the others. The bill stated, that “on the trial a witness was introduced, who stated, that he was paying-teller of the Farmers’ Bank of Virginia, and was such teller on the day an which the offence charged in the indictment was alleged to have been committed, and for some years before, and ever since, and as such, in the constant practice of paying checks drawn on the said Bank; and proved that the check, on which the indictment was founded, was paid at the said Bank; to the admission of which evidence the counsel for the prisoner excepted, there being no other proof than the statement of the said witness, that he the said witness was what he represented himself, and no evidence except his own that he was properly authorised to pay checks on the said Bank, which objection was overruled.”</p> <p>“On tho same trial, a book, said by the last, mentioned witness to be in his own hand-writing, and to be the book in which he the said witness-daily entered thg names of the persons, whose orders or checks were paid at the said Bank, and the amount of such checks was offered in evidence by the Attorney for the Commonwealth, to the admission of which evidence the accused also objected, which objection, however, was overruled by the Court, who permitted it to go to the jury.”</p> <p>In discussing this subject in conference, the Judges were of opinion, that it did not sufficiently appear from the hill of exceptions, that the teller’s book was offered in evidence in connection with the evidence of the teller himself, and that therein there was error. From this opinion, the Judge who had sat in the Court below dissented, being of opinion that, taking both exceptions together, that fact did sufficiently appear.</p>

<p>At the Hustings Court for the City of Richmond, in May, 1827, an indictment was preferred to the Grand Jury by the Attorney for the Commonwealth against Charles Wortham, for unlawful gaming at faro, and was found “& true bill.” It charged that he, on the 10th February, 1827, unlawfully did game by playing at a game called faro, a game played with cards, at a house of public resort, caue(i thg Chocolate House, on Twelfth street in the said City of Richmond, and within the jurisdiction aforesaid, contrary to the form of the act, &c. At the foot of the Indictment was written as follows: “ Wm. H. Mien, the witness called on, sworn and sent to the Grand Jury by the Court, on the motion of the Attorney for the Commonwealth, and certified by order of Court. (Signed) Th: C. Howard, Clk.” The defendant having been summoned, appeared and moved the Court to quash the Indictment. The ground of this motion was, that there was no prosecutor’s name and surname written at the foot of the Indictment, it not appearing from the records in the Court that the said bill of Indictment was sent to the Grand Jury, who found the same in consequence of a previous presentment by a Grand Jury, made on the information of any two of their own body, or the testimony of a witness, called on either by the Court, or the Grand Jury. The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted to the opinion of the Court.</p> <p>He moved the Court to quash the Indictment on another ground; that the Indictment has not followed the words of the statute. This was also overruled, and the defendant again excepted.</p> <p>The defendant then pleaded, that a presentment was made against him on the 26th February, 1827, at the Court of Hustings for the City of Richmond, for the same identical offence charged in the Indictment; and that, on the 25th May, 1827, on the motion of the Attorney for the Commonwealth in this Court, it was ordered, that the said presentment be dismissed; and thereupon, the said defendant was discharged, and he vouched the record, and so, he concludes, that he has been heretofore wholly acquitted of the said offence, &c. To this plea, the Attorney for i he Commonwealth, after craving oyer of the record in the plea mentioned, demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer, and the Court sustained the demurrer, and overruled tile plea.</p> <p>The defendant also tendered two other pleas, in the first of which he set forth that on the 26th February, 1827, a certain presentment was made against him by the Grand Jury in the said Court for the same identical offence charged in the said Indictment, and that afterwards, the defendant .having appeared to answer the same, the Attorney for the Commonwealth withdrew the prosecution of the said presentment, and he vouched the record. The second plea was, that, the general one that he had been heretofore acquitted, and discharged of the same offence now charged against him, without vouching the record. The Attorney for the Commonwealth, moved the Court to exclude both of these pleas, which was done, and the defendant excepted. The defendant then pleaded not guilty, and issue being joined on it, a verdict was rendered for the Commonwealth, and judgment pronounced against the defendant</p> <p>The defendant then applied for, and ohtained a Writ of Error to the judgment of the Hustings Court, from the Superior Court of Henrico, and an issue having been made up on the said Writ of Error, that Court adjourned to thisCourt the following question: “Ought the judgment of the said Hustings Court against the plaintiff (in error) to he reversed by this Court for any of the reasons set forth in the petition, or appearing on the record?”</p>

The defendant was indicted at the Superior Court of King George, in October, 1826, for cruelly beating his own slave.

This was an appeal from a decree of the circuit superiour court of Greenbrier. The bill was exhibited in the superiour court of chancery of Greenbrier, in 1822, by Richard Williams against Andrew Lewis, setting forth, That Williams was, in 1774, in possession of a parcel of land, lying on Culbertson creek in the now county of Green-brier, within the limits of the Greenbrier Company’s grant, which Williams had settled and improved.

<p>This was an adjourned case from the Superior Court of Law for the county of Cumberland.</p>

This was an adjourned case from the Superior Court of Law for Harrison county. The plaintiff, for the benefit of Benjamin J. Bryce, had brought his action of debt against the defendants in the County Court, upon an Ipdemnifying bond executed by them under the 25th section a(Jj. 0f Assembly, concerning executions.

<p>II. makes an affidavit, that L. liad engaged to pay certain taxes; L. says, that the affidavit is false, and that he will have II. indicted for perjury; H. brings an action against L. for those words, to which L. pleads justification: Held, that the burden of proof, at the trial, does not rest on plaintiff to prove that defendant had engaged to pay the taxes; but it rests on defendant to prove, that plaintiff’s affidavit to that effect was false, tho’ such proof involves proof of a negative.</p>

<p>This was an adjourned case from the Superior Court of Law for Henrico county.</p>

Assumpsit upon a parol submission to arbitration and an award, brought by Bierly against Willia/ms in the circuit superiour court of Rockingham.

This was a Writ of Error to the judgment of the Superior Court of Law for Kanawha county, by which the plaintiff in error was sentenced to imprisonment in the Penitentiary for the term of ten years.

At October term 1834, Hendrick and one Hays were indicted upon the statute against thefts and forge-' ries, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 154. There were three counts in the indictment, on which he was convicted. Held: that he. was an impartial juror; and the prisoner challenged him.- peremptorily. 4.

This was an adjourned case from the Superior Court of Law for the county of Richmond.

At June term 1834, Hurd was indicted on the statute against thefts and forgeries, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 154. The indictment was presented by the grand jury on the 10th June.

<p>The act of Assembly, passed 11th February, 1825, entitled, “an act to prevent the sale of foreign lottery tickets within this Commonwealth,” does not come within the operation of the 29th section of the gaming lav/, and is, therefore, not to he interpreted as if it were a remedial law, but like other penal laws.</p> <p>A gssarantee, (or written assurance or promise, whereby the warrantor binds himself that he will pay the prize which may be drawn to a certain number in a lottery,) when sold by the proprietor of a lottery, or a duly authorised agent of the proprietor, is strictly a lottery ticket, although it is not written in the usual form of lottery tickets; and the sale of such guarantee by such proprietor or his agent, is forbidden by the said act of 1825.</p> <p>If an individual opens an office, and sells guarantees as a substitute for lottery tickets, he the vendor holding the tickets themselves for the, benefit of the purchaser, he sells those things which are substantially lottery tickets, and such sale is forbidden by the said act.</p>

<p>Upon, the trial of a presentment on the statute 1 Rev. Code, ch. 111. § 13. against the occupier of a tenement in N. for knowingly permitting more than 5 slaves to be and remain at one time on his lot or tenement, without consent of the owners,—if the prosecutor prove the assemblage of more than 5 slaves, the onus probandi lies on the defendant, to shew the consent of the owners.</p>

At April term 1835, Murry was indicted upon the statute against thefts and forgeries, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 154. There were two counts in the indictment.

<p>At the trial of an indictment for retailing ardent spirits without license, “to persons to the jurors unknown,” defendant offers proof that the persons to whom he sold the same were known to the grand jury at the time the indictment was found: Held, this is not a material variance between the proof and the charge in the indictment; for it is not necessary in indictments for such offence to name the person to whom the liquor was sold, and so the words “ to persons to the jurors unknown” are surplusage.</p>

The proceedings in. this case were founded on an act of assembly, passed in January 1817, entitled “ an act concerning James White f Sess. Acts of 1816-17, p. 193.

Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Petersburg. Anderson, a free negro, was tried for grand larceny, in the corporation court of Petersburg, sitting as a court of oyer and terminer, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for five years. He was prosecuted and tried, under the provisions of the statute of 1831-2, ch. 22. § 11. (Supp. to Rev. Code, ch. 187. p. 248.) in the same manner in which slaves are prosecuted and tried.

Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Spotsylvania. Held: at the time the presentment was made, real estate exceeding 300 dollars in value: concluding with a verification. The defendant demurred generally to the replications. And the court, with the defendant’s consent, adjourned the following questions to this court: 1.

Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Smyth. Sanders was indicted for unlawful gaming by playing with cards. The indictment contained two counts; one charged, that the playing took place at the tavern, and the other at the store-house, of Robert BeaUie. Plea, not guilty.