Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Va. 466

Horner v. Marshall's Administratrix

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided March 7, 1817

Supreme Court of Virginia · decided 1817-03-07

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.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1817-03-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1893

5 state decisions

20181718201830184018501860187018801890decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Chancellor Taylor refused, but the President of the Court of Appeals

(JUDGES ROANE, BROOKE, and CABEBB concurring, JUDGE COABTER being absent,)

¶2granted the Injunction.

¶3The cause was heard on the Bill, Answer, Exhibits and Examinations of Witnesses, by which the allegations in the Bill in relation to the partial mental derangement of the complainant, were amply supported; it appearing that, on the subject, to which the defamatory words related, he was insane, though his mind was sound in other respects. It appeared, also, in evidence, that Marshall refused to release the Judgments to Horner; determining to hold them as a security for his future good behaviour; though he repeatedly expressed an intention not to demand the money, and that his children never should receive it; and, sometime after the Judgments were obtained, "Horner and Marshall were publicly reconciled, and shook hands as a token of renewing their former friendship.

¶4Chancellor Taylor dismissed the Bill with costs, from which Decree the complainant appealed.

¶5The case was submitted here without argument; and, on the 7th of March, 1817, the Court reversed the Decree with costs, and, proceeding to make such Decree, as the Chancellor should have rendered, directed the Injunction to be re-instated and made perpetual; but, on the circumstances of the case, that the Appellant pay the costs in the Court of Chancery.

/5/va/466 · .json · Public domain