Volume 6 — Virginia Reports

The appellee issued an execution, returnable to the clerk’s office, and directed to the sheriff of Berkeley county, ag-ainst the body of the appellant; who surrendered property, and then gave a forthcoming bond, which recited that the property was in the hands of Janies Campbell, high sheriff of Berkeley county.

THE appellants exhibited their Bill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond Bistrict, (in 1807) setting f~rtli, that the female plaintiff Mar~j was forinerly wife of Joel Tucker ancestor of the defenda~its;that she, being seized in fee in her own right of a parcel of land, called the Bowling Green, adjacent to the city of~ Richmond, consented, after much importunity from her husband Tucker, to join him in a sale of that property, hi consideration of a positive…

In an action of assumpsit brought in the county court of Henrico, by Ragland against Wills’s administrator, the jury having rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for 156 dollars with interest &c. were discharged. And then the defendant’s counsel moved the Court to set aside the verdict, and to award a venire de novo, on the ground of misbehaviour of the jury.

Cosby and Gregory, as surviving partners of James Mills & Co. brought suit in the District Court, against ■John Fox, the heir at law of John Fox, deceased, and Jinn Fox, William Fox, Thomas Booth Fox and Henry Fox, his devisees, upon a bond given by the said John Fox, 'deceased, wherein he bound himself and his heirs for payment of the sum of 4441. 4s. 9§.

<p>This was an Appeal from the Lynchburg Chancery Court. The following opinions give a full view of the subject.</p>

<p>In May 1846, a paper purporting to be the will of Jane Wood deceased, was offered for probat in the County court of Campbell, by Lewis Franklin, the nominated executor therein, and its admission to probat was opposed by John Rosser the son-in-law, and Patsy Depriest, the daughter of Mrs. Wood. The Court admitted the paper to probat, and the contestants appealed to the Circuit court of Campbell.</p> <p>The paper, after disposing of the property of the testatrix, all of which was personal, and was given to her daughter Mrs. Franklin and her children, concluded as follows: “In testimony, I have hereby affixed my name and seal, this 5th of February 1830.</p> <p>her ******** Jane + Wood, *seai.$” mark.</p> <p> Ro. R. Neighbours, </p> <p> Lindsay K. Cralle, </p> <p>his</p> <p>Daniel + Driskill."</p> <p>mark.</p> <p>It appeared in proof, that the subscribing witnesses, Robert R. Neighbours and Lindsay K. Cralle, were dead; and that their signatures were in their respective handwriting. It was also proved that the will was in the handwriting of Neighbours, as was also the name of the testatrix Jane Wood, and the words “ her mark;” and the name of the witness Daniel Driskill, and the words “his mark.” The witness Driskill was examined. He stated, That the cross mark in his name was made by himself; that his name was written by Neighbours, by his request, and that he authorized his name to be subscribed to the paper. That he subscribed the said will as a witness at the request of Mrs. Jane Wood. At the time he signed the will, Mrs. Wood sent for him, and said she wanted him to sign this paper as a witness for her, holding in his hand the paper propounded as the will of Mrs. Wood, and that the paper he held was the same paper. That at the moment she exhibited the paper and asked him to witness it, she did not say what it was, but told him in a few minutes afterwards, that it was her will. He regarded Mrs. Wood as being of sound mind, and capable of disposing of her property by will. That Neighbours, Cralle and Mrs. Wood were then present, and Mrs. Wood was standing by him when he attested the paper. That Neighbours and Cralle witnessed said will at the request of Mrs. Wood, and in her presence ; and they subscribed their names before he did. That when Mrs. Wood sent for him to sign the paper, she had not then made the mark in her name; and he was not certain that her name and the words “ her mark” were then written, but rather thought they were. That his name was written and he had made his mark as an attesting witness to the will, before the testatrix had signed it. After he had made his mark, he handed the pen to her, and she turned to Neighbours and said, “As you have written my name I will make my mark.” She then made her mark to the name which had been written by Neighbours. The will was not read in his presence. Witness stated he at one time thought he witnessed the will in the year 1829, but was then satisfied it was in 1830, in the fall of the year as he thought. He thought at one time it was in the spring, but on reflection, thought it was in the fall.</p> <p>Several witnesses were examined to prove declarations of Mrs. Wood, made subsequent to the execution of the will, as to the disposition she had made or intended to make of her property, but the testimony has no bearing upon the question upon which the case turned in this Court.</p> <p>The Court below admitted the paper to probat; and Rosser and Mrs. Depriest applied to this Court for a supersedeas, which was allowed.</p>

In an action of assumpsit brought by Robert Higgins against John Jolliffe, in the Superior Court of Frederick County, the declaration contained two Counts; the first special, on an order drawn by the defendant, August IS, 1810, on a certain Obed Waite, directing him to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $108 85, “which the defendant by the said order stated he had lodged in the hands of the said Waite, and was the property of Major Higgins, (meaning the said plaintiff,) as…

Samuel Love instituted an action of debt in the district court of Fredericksburg, against Philip Fitzhugh and Presley Thornton, and declared for “¿272. 15. sterling, the balance due on a bill for ¿[1100 sterling, being the principal of a protested bill of exchange, together with damages thereon at the rate of fifteen per centum, charges of protest amounting to ¿2. 12. 9. sterling, and interest on the said principal at the rate of five per centum per annum, from the *8th day…

Lewis Willis and Anne his wife, and John Taliaferro, brought a bill in the High Court of Chancery, stating, that on the 17th of April, 1762, the plaintiff Anne, daughter of Charles Carter, being about to intermarry with John Champe, jr. son of John Champe, it was agreed between the fathers, that the said Charles Carter should pay the said John Champe, jr. 1,000/.; and, that the said John Champe, the father, should give to his said son John Champe, jr. (amongst other things,)…

THE Judgment in the case between these parties, ~rc~ Ported in 1 J~1~f. 45,) being certified to the Superior Court of Greenbrier County, Ward flied a plea stating, in substance, that he was surety for William Long, in the bond on which the suit was originally brought; that the confession of judgment, with stay of execution, was given and accepted without his assent; and that thereby he was discharged; stating also, (as the fact was,) that the confession of judgment was ~n…

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of ■Spottsylvania County, where Thornton brought an action of trespass quare clausum fregit against Cooke. The subject is sufficiently explained in the following opinions.</p>

This was a writ of dower, brought by Nathaniel Gammel and Susan his wife, against James Thomas, in the circuit court of Elizabeth City, to recover dower of a parcel of land and the buildings thereon, in the town of Hampton, of which William Thomas deceased, first husband of the female demandant, was seized during the coverture. The tenant pleaded, 1.

IN March 1814, William Withers, surviving executor of Thomas Withers deceased, brought an action of detinue, for a slave, in the Superior Court of Fauquier County, against Janet Withers executrix of Enoch R. Withers; the declaration being in the common form, but charging the detention by the testator, as well ashy the defendant. Plea non detinet.

THE question in this case, arising on a special verdict in a suit for freedom, was, whether the appellces, who were slaves unlawfu1l~ brought from North Carolina into this Commonwealth, and kept therein more than a year, by the appellant, who had in them a life estate only, were entitled to freedom under the 2d. section of the Act of 1T9~; (cdi. of 17'94, 1803 and `14, C. 108.) The County Court of Itussel decided against them; but the Superior Court of law reversed the…

Preeland, Lenox & Co. brought indebitatus assumpsit against the executors of Field, who was surviving partner of Field & Murray, and declared 1. upon a quantum valebant for goods, wares and merchandizes sold and delivered. 2. Upon a quantum meruit, for work performed. 3. Upon an assumpsit of the testator for goods, wares and merchandizes sold and delivered. 4. Upon an insi-mul computasset, with the testator. The defendants plead non assumpsit, and the act of limitations.

THIS was au action of slander brought by the appellee against the appellant in the Superior Court of Kanawha County. The declaration charged the defendant with having said that the plaintifF was a peijured rascal, meaning thereby that the plaintiff was guilty of swear-lug falsely in a judicial proceeding where he was Icgaily called upon to depose, and a lawful oath administered to him.

<p>Where goods are. sold by a factor in Virginia for merchants in Britain, it is necessary to state the name of the factor in the declaration.</p> <p>So, if some of the partners reside in Great Britain and some in Maryland in Jbnerica.</p> <p>And a suit of this kind will be dismissed, after issue joined upon the merits, if the fact appear on the trial of the cause.</p> <p>And it will not prevent the dismission, that there are money counts in the declaration.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit brought by Adam Hickman, against George Arnold, and James Arnold, in the County Court of Harrison.

A capias ad satisfaciendum, sued out against-one Alexander for debt, was put into the hands of Hill, deputy -of Green, sheriff of Stafford, who served it on him; and Alexander, being in custody under the process, took the benefit of the statute for relief of insolvent debtors, surrendering his effects, as stated in a schedule, among which was the debtor’s interest (an equity of redemption in fee) in a parcel of land in Stafford.

The appellees brought debt against the appellant in the county court upon a bond. Plea, Payment, and issue. Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiff’s counsel moved the court to instruct the jury, that not more than eight years interest ought to be deducted, there being no evidence that any part of the principal or interest was paid; but there was no instruction given. Verdict and judgment for the principal debt, with interest from the 1st of April, 1797.

The appellee brought an action of assault and battery and false imprisonment on behalf of herself and several of her children, against the appellant in the county court. Plea not guilty, and issue. Pive successive juries were sworn, but neither of them rendered a verdict. In consequence of which, the parties, by consent, transferred the cause to the district court, where it was docketed and tried.

Royal, as executor of Peter Eppes, deceased, brought suit against Demoville as administrator of Temple Eppes, deceased, upon a bond given by the said Temple Eppes to the said Peter Eppes, deceased, conditioned for the quiet holding and enjoying a plantation devised to the said Peter Eppes, deceased, by his father Lewellen Eppes.

This was an action on the case brought in the Superior Court of Caroline County, by Anderson against Martin. The Defendant put in the plea of non assumpsit, on which issue was joined. At a subsequent term, the Defendant moved the Court for leave to file a-plea of the Act of limitations, which the Court refused: whereupon, the Defendant excepted. In the Bill of Exceptions, no reason is assigned why the plea was not sooner tendered.

This was an action of covenant brought in the Superior Court of Bath County, by Carlisle against Lockridge. The covenant was in these words: “Received of John Carlisle notes on men in Virginia, for collection, to the amount of nine hundred and ninety-six pounds, which I will be bound to him for the amount.

Thornton and Mary his wife, who was the daughter of Philip Rootes the elder, filed their bill in the court of chancery against Tranks, executor of Thorpe, one of the securities to the administration bond given by Philip Rootes and Thomas R Rootes, sons and executors of the said Philip Rootes the elder, Shackleford, surviving executor of Shackleford, another of the securities to the said bond, and against the legatees of the said Shackleford: Stating, That Philip Rootes the…

This was an appeal from the Superior Court of the County of Buckingham. For a full view of the case, and the points made in the argument, it is only necessary to refer to the following opinions.

THIS was a suit in the Superior Court of Chancery~ for the Richmond District, brought by Thomas Winn, jz~nr. against Benjamin Bowles, administrator of .M~ar'y Bowles, deceased, and .thigustine Bowles, defendai~ts;.-. for an account of the assets of the said decedent, and to recover (among other claims) the principal and interest of a Bond for 48l. 1s. 3d, executed by the said .T~far~q Bowles, in her life time, to John Winn executor of Here-kick Winn deceased, and~ by the…

1N Ejectmeiit, the declaration was, for ten Messuages, twenty cottages, one thousand acres of wood-laud, one thousand acres of arabic land, OIIC thousand acres of meadow and one thousand acres of pasture, lying aiid being in the County of Meck- lenburg, without setting forth any boundaries.The verdict was, We of the Jury find for the plaintiff his term yet to come in four hundred acres of land parccl of the premises in the declaration mentioned, and: in the possession of the…

<p>THE declaration in tliLs case was in the following wopds:-Middlesex County, to wit:-" William George Vidal coinplain~ of Iicnr~j Heffernan in custody, &c. of " a plea, br that the plaintiff, on the ~2d day of T)ecem"b'r 1807, at the County aL~)resaid, was possessed of "Seven negro slaves, named &c., of the price or value of "7001, and claimed the said negro slaves to be his own "propem slaves; and the defendant knowing that the " plaintiff was possessed of the said negro slaves, and cla~med the same as his own slaves, and the defendant " knowing that the plaintiff did not conceal the fact of the "said slaves being in his possession; yet the defendant, act"ing hi the character or office of a Justice of the peace for "the County of Middlesex aforesaid, on the 2~d day of " December 1807, at the County aforesaid, did, malici- " ously and corruptl'q, and with the intent to injure and " opvress the plain/i/f, and without probable cause, issue his certain writing directed to one JV~elsom Stamper, Constable, or any other Constable of the said County, " whereby he stated, that an information, on oath, f~om "John Roanc adni'r. of Thomas Roane deceased, that "Judy a negro woman, Martha, Seana, Noah, Caty and two other children had, within ten days then last past, "been feloniously taken, stolen and carried away out of the possession of said John Iloane administrator, from "the plantation of George Damel deceased, in the coun~ " ty aforesaid, and that the said John Roane had probable " cause to suspect, and did suspect that the said negro " slaves were concealed in the house or houses of William •` George Vidal of trbanna, and of the said County, Ia"bourer, and that therefore, in the name of the Coin- " monwealth, he authorized and required him with no-I « ccssary and proper assistance to enter,rin the day time, « into the house of the said William Gemge Vidal, and “ there diligently to search for the said slaves, or any part thereof, and if the said slaves, or any partitherc- “ °f? should be found upon such search, that he should « bring the same, and also the body of the said William « George Vidal before him or some other justice of the « peace for the said County, to be disposed of and dealt « with according to law, by virtue of which said writing « the said Stamper did forcibly enter the close of the plain- « tiffin the County aforesaid on December23d, 1807, « and did take and carry away, out of the possession of « the said Plaintiff, the said negro slaves, named &c., « and delivered the same into the possession of the de- <£ fendant, who, thereafter, on the same day at the Coun- « ty aforesaid, delivered the same into the possession of ££ the said John Roane, to the great injury of the said ££ plaintiff, and against the peace and dignity of the Com- ££ monwealth, whereupon the said plaintiff saith that he ££ is injured and hath damage to the value of 1000Í.; and ££ thereof he brings suit &c.”</p> <p>A demurrer to this declaration was filed, and after-wards withdrawn. The cause was tried, in the Superior Court of law, on the plea of not guilty, and a Yerdict found for the plaintiff for 36Z. damages;—subject to the Court’s opinion upon certain points reserved, viz. whether the plaintiff had set forth in his declaration, any cause of action against the defendant; and if so, whether he could have remedy therefor in this form of action.— The defendant died after the verdict, and, by consent, the suit was revived against Elliot Muse his administrator; after which the Court, being of opinion that the law was for the plaintiff on the points reserved, entered judgment for him, whereupon the said administrator obtained a Supersedeas, from this Court.</p> <p>In the petition for the Supersedeas, it was contended that, «if the defendant was liable to any action at all,itoughtto «have been Trespass, and not Case; and therefore the de- “ fendant’s demurrer ought, for that cause, to have been « sustained. 1 Chitty, 137.</p>

On the ISth August, 1791, John Miller, the plaintiff, entered, by virtue of a warrant, for 1000 acres of the land in question, in the surveyor’s office of Buckingham county ; and on the 25th July, 1796, by virtue of another warrant, he entered in the same office for 300 acres more, the residue of the land in question. The first entry is in these words : “Buckingham county, sc’t. August 15, 1791. No. 61.

WiLLIAM DUvAL surviving executor of Robert i)it~oal filed his fill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Riclimoiid District agaiiist the sons and heirs of Feterfield Trent, the tievisees and executors of ~lexander Trent deceased, Richard ~7V. Venabic a debtor of Peter-field Trent, and other defendants.

A forthcomhig bond was taken, without any penal sum mentioned in the obligatory part; but with a condition in the usual form. A judgment was obtained upon it in th~ County Court, and affirmed in the Superior Court, to which a Writ of Supersedeas was granted by a Judge of this Court.

The paper was deemed by the Court insufficient as a Will of real estate, but ordered to be recorded as a Will of personal estate. Both parties appealed from this decision; the widow, because the Will was rejected as to the real estate; and Samuel Jones, because the Will was ordered to be recorded as to the personal estate. The circumstances are sufficiently detailed in the following opinion.

<p>In an action on the case upon a note of hand, there must he an express assurap» citlaid in the declaration 5 merely reciting the note of hand in luce verba is not sufficient»</p>

UPON a Bill of Injunction exhibited by Robert Bun~ bar against ..~nthony Buck, David Henderson and others, the material circumstances of the case, appearing from the Bill, Answers and Evidence, were the following:- A contract was made in November 1807, between Ro~ bert Dunbar of Falmouth, and David Henderson of Fredericksburg, for the shipping of one thousand bushels of~ corn by liunbar, in a. Vessel belonging to David Henderson and Son, to be carried to the Island of…

<p>i. Injunction Bond* — Action on — Verdict.—In an action upon a Bond for prosecuting'an Injunction to stay proceedings on a Judgment at law, for a debt bearing interest; which injunction is dissolved & the bill dismissed; the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict for the amount of the principal sum with lawful interest to the time of finding such verdict, the costs at law and in Chancery, (costs being awarded to the plaintiff by the decree,) with damages on the said principal sum at the rate of ten per cen-tum per annum, during the pendency of the injunction; although the condition of the bond be, for payment of the “judgment, and costs of the injunction (if ruled tobe paid “by the complainant,”) — without mentioning interest or damages.</p>

' Francis Hill, late of Greensville county, by his last will and testament, devised and bequeathed real and personal estate to his wife, Sarah Hill, as a provision for her, for and during her life, with remainder to the testator’s nephews and nieces, children of his brother William Hill; but he left a part of his personal estate undisposed of by his will. He appointed Lewis Dupree his executor, who proved the will, and qualified as executor.

By deed of marriage settlement between Robert Robinson and Agnes Paries, executed before tbe marriage, and dated the 31st May 1815, Robinson conveyed a tenement he held in the city of Richmond, to Eldridge Roper in fee, upon trust, from and after the intended marriage, for the use of Agnes the intended wife and her assigns, for and during her life, remainder to the heirs of the husband; “ and upon trust to permit the wife to take and receive the rents and profits to her sole…

<p>L~ 1. The Commonwealth by - Patent granted "a "tract of "land, con- " taming "70,202 " acres," (within specified metes and bounds,) by a survey containing a• ~uvplus of 42,000 acres, held bytitles having legal preference to the warrants and rights upon which the `grant was founded. A reservation was therefore made, in favour of these titles, in general terms. It was decided that, under the terms of this Patent, the Grantee was entitled to recover in ejectment all the land within the metes and bounds thereof, except such as nziglzt size-a, tize.,nsel'ves entitled to, nder the said resez-ijatzon.</p> <p>2. A Deed of bargain and sale and release of land, from a person not in possession, to another in the same predicament, (the land being, at the time, held by a ~third person with adverse title,) passes nothing, and therefore does not divest the bargainor of his right to recover in Ejectment. - - -</p> <p>S. A cestey gee truet, after the purposes of the Deed have been satisfied, may naintain Ejectment~ upon a demise in his own name, although the legal estate is still in the trustee.</p> <p>4. A plaintiff inEjectment may recover under one or the ether of two demises, of the same land, from different persons.</p>

Gilliam, assignee, &c. brought an action of debt in the County Court of Cumberland, against Holman and Wilson, on a bill penal. The bill begins, “I promise to pay,’' &c. and concludes, “I bind myself, my heirs,” &c. ; without mentioning any name in the body of it. It is signed and sealed by both the Defendants. The Defendants demurred to the Declaration, anil filed a plea, on which issue was joined.

This was a bill filed in the Circuit court of Culpeper by Sarah J. Smith and her children (all of whom but one were infants) by their next friend, to enjoin a sale under a deed of trust executed by Adam Y. Smith, the husband of Sarah J. Smith, to Ambrose P. Hill, to secure debts due to Flint & Hill and others, all of whom were made parties defendants.

Wilkinson brought debt in the County Court of York, against Hunt, as administratrix of Charles Hunt deceased, and at the June rules obtained an office judgment. At the succeeding Quarterly Court, on the motion of the defendant, the office judgment was set aside, and she was permitted to plead.

This was an appeal from the Richmond Chancery Court. The controversy arose on a clause in the Will of Peter Lyons, deceased, in these words: “I give all the rest and residue of the money arising from the sales of my ■estate, and debts due to me, to all my dear ■grand children who shall attain their ages of twenty one years, to be invested in Bank Stock by my trustees, for the use or my grand children, or such of them as are now born, or may be born before distribution, and…

THIS was a suit brought in March 1809, in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Ricinnond District, but after-wards (by virtue of the Act of Assembly) transferred to that of Fredericksburg; in which, originally, Lewis Lunni executor of Thomas Jones deceased was plaintiff, arid Isaac Jones (a son of the decedent) was alone defendant.

Detinue, in the circuit court of Burry, brought by Harlan's administrator against Allen in his- lifetime, to recover a parcel of carpenter’s tools. The declaration counted on a bailment. Allen appeared, and pleaded non detinet; and after issue joined, pending the action, Allen died.

In ejectment the district court gave judgment for the defendant; and the plaintiff appealed to this court. Pending the appeal here, the appellee died; and now Warden, for the appellant, prayed a writ of scire facias against the heirs of the decedent, insisting that there was no difference, in this respect, between an ejectment and any other action.

The two Beals brought case against Win-slow in the county court, for taking and carrying away, (under colour of office,) a slave belonging to the plaintiffs, for taxes pretended to be arrear. Plea not guilty, with leave to give the special matter in evidence.

Caleb Tait, being the owner of two adjoining teñements in the town of Lynchburg, he, on the 16th of March 1812, leased one of them to the firm of Kyle if Mays, for five years commencing from that date, at £100 a year; and on that day, Kyle if Mays paid to him the rent for three years. Some time during the same year Tait rented to Dr. Humphreys the tenement adjoining that rented to Kyle if Mays, for one year at £100.

<p>1. A settlement of an Executor's administration account, certified by Commissioilers on a day subsequent to his death, and not appearing to have been made in his life time with notice to himself, nor, after his death, with notice to his executor, is erroneous, and ought not to be received as the ground of a decree against his estate.</p> <p>Quiere,-if an Executor die indebted to the estate of Ms testator, without any judgment or decree against him for the balance due; and his executor, -without notice of such debt, apply the assets of Ms estate to the payment of debts of inferió»' dignity;-is he guilty of a devastavit? =@ See R. Code of 1819, c. 104, § 60.</p>

The controversy in this case turned on the construe-lion of certain clauses in the Will of Zachariah Lewis deceased, which, together with the other circumstances, and the points made by Counsel, are sufficiently stated in the following opinions of the Judges of this Court, delivered Dec. 20, 1817.

A bill having been formerly filed in the court of chancery, to foreclose a mortgage of a tract of land and a mill in the county of Loudoun, executed by the appellant in the year 1774, to secure a debt due Dunlop & Son & Co. he set up in bar of the demand a payment into the treasury, under the act concerning debts due British subjects. The accounts between the parties were referred to commissioners, and an interlocutory decree was made for the sale of the mortgaged property.

Debt on a promissory note for 507 dollars, brought by Hortons 8f Hutton, as indorsees, against W. SfE. Held: and the defendants did not then make any objection, nor did they complain that he, James Townes, had exceeded his authority: that the defendants, afterwards, procured Joseph Townes to make certain assurances to protect them from the acts of James under their letter of attorney, and that the said note was provided for: and that…

This was an appeal from the Williams-burg- Chancery Court, where R. C. Christian and others filed their bill against Martin Sherman and others. The whole nature of the controversy is fully explained in the following opinions, and the points made in argument noticed by the Judges.

<p>In February 1842, Josiah W. Ware instituted an action of assumpsit in the Circuit court of Fauquier county against James C. Ford, William Rust, Alfred Rust and Richard K. Littleton, late partners under the style of James C. Ford Sy Co., to recover the amount of an account for grain delivered by the plaintiff into the mill of the defendants. The process was served on all the defendants but Ford, who was returned no inhabitant ; and at the October term of the Court, there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for 768 dollars 42 cents, with interest thereon from the 28th of January 1839 until paid, and the costs.</p> <p>In October 1843, the defendants in the action at law, applied to the Judge of the Circuit court of Fauquier county, for an injunction to the judgment; which was awarded. In their bill, they charge that upon a fair settlement of the accounts between them and Ware, they will be found but little indebted to him. That the business of the firm was carried on in the county of Clarke. That Ford was the acting member of the firm, to whom its affairs were almost exclusively known. 'That at the time the judgment was obtained against them, he resided in another State, and was insolvent, and the defendants at law were unable to procure his personal attention and explanations of the accounts: That without Ford's explanations, they could make no defence at law.</p> <p>They further charge, that since the judgment was rendered, William Rust had discovered such information and papers in relation to the accounts between Ware and the firm of James C. Ford & Co. as shew clearly the gross injustice of the judgment; and which no reasonable diligence could have brought to light prior to the judgment. That on making discovery of the said papers and information, Ware is satisfied and admits that the sum due to him from the said firm, does not exceed 443 dollars; thus acknowledging an error of about 325 dollars. That this sum the said William Rust believes is more than is fairly due to Ware from the firm; and that upon a rehearing or new trial of the cause, little will be found due to him; as said Rust has heard since the judgment was rendered, that Ware claimed before the institution of his suit, only about 100 dollars as due to him from James C. Ford & Co. Ware is called oil to answer fully each and every allegation of the bill, and he is especially required to answer the charge, that he is satisfied and admits that the sum due to him from the said firm does not exceed 443 dollars. The prayer of the bill is for an injunction to the judgment, for a new trial or a reference of the accounts to a commissioner, and for general relief.</p> <p>Ware answered the bill. He said that during the years 1836, ’37 and ’38, he delivered into the mill of James C. Ford & Co. a large quantity of grain. That some time afterwards, Ford & Co. discontinued their business; and their mill books were placed for settlement in the hands of P. M. M’Cormick, as their agent. That when they discontinued their business, they were largely indebted to him for grain delivered into their mil], for the greater part of which he held their receipts, and not being able to come to an amicable settlement with them, he in the fall of the year 1841, forwarded said receipts and other evidences and statements of his demands, to his attorney in Fauquier, for suit and collection. That the suit was brought and was on the dociiet 0f the Court for trial at the May term 1842. That in the spring of 1842, he for greater certainty obtained from M’Cormick a statement from the mill books of the debits and credits contained therein arising upon his dealings aforesaid, and forwarded the same to his attorney for the purposes of his said suit. That at the May term of the Court, the plaintiff Littleton having examined the papers aforesaid, and expressed to this respondent’s attorney a desire to examine further into the case and to make enquiries of James C. Ford, the case was by the consent of said attorney, continued until the next term of the Court; at which term the verdict and judgment was rendered in favour of respondent.</p> <p>The defendant in further answering said, that he did not know, and therefore did not admit that the plaintiffs could not procure the explanations of Ford to aid them on the trial at law; and he denied that Ford’s personal attention or explanations were at all necessary or material to a full defence at law of said action. That the mill books were doubtless intended by Ford to commemorate all the transactions between the firm and respondent ; and after the lapse of time which 'had intervened since the date of the transactions, it was not to be expected he could give any explanations touching the accounts other than such as the books presented; and they were in the hands of the plaintiffs’ agent, and at all times accessible to them. That the damages assessed in the action was the balance found due to him upon a comparison of his receipts and the statement from the mill books furnished as aforesaid by M’Cormick. That it is possible that in ascertaining the balance there may have been error in the calculations, and injustice thereby done to the plaintiffs; but in regard to the allegation that since the judgment was rendered, William Rust had discovered such information and papers in relation to said accounts as shew clearly the gross injustice of the judgment, and which no reasonable diligence could have brought to light prior to the judgment, the respondent positively denies it, and charges that all the information and papers in relation to said accounts which plaintiffs had when they filed their bill, were accessible to them prior to the judgment; and could have been produced before the jury by the exertion of the most ordinary diligence. That the receipts and statement aforesaid, with the letters enclosing and explaining them, were filed with the proceedings in the cause, and accessible to the plaintiffs and their counsel, and shewed them before the trial, the nature and ground of his claim; and in fact, it was by an examination of these papers subsequent to the trial of the case, that said William Rust pretends to have discovered the error of 325 dollars, which he avers the respondent admits. And he therefore insisted that the plaintiffs were precluded by the said verdict and judgment from entering upon the enquiries concerning said accounts suggested in their bill; that all matters in issue in that case were finally adjudicated; and he relied upon that judgment in bar of the present demand.</p> <p>The defendant then went on to state that being at Fauquier courthouse at the October term 1843 of the Circuit court, he met with the complainant Wittiwm Rust, and at his request, attended on the examination of the papers in the action at law. That among said papers was one containing a statement of said accounts prepared in Court for the use of the jury when the case was tried, shewing the balance for which the verdict was found. That to the first two items of the said statement charged in the years 1836 and 1837, the said Rust objected, notwithstanding mill receipts for those items were filed, because in the statement of debits from the mill books was found an item of 60 dollars 27 cents, said to be the amount brought from book A up to and in-eluding January 28th, 1837; the said Rust insisting that from the face of the paper, it was to be presumed that the items in the statement charged in the years 1836 an¿ 1837, were entered in the account on book A, from which the said balance was taken. That Rust also objected to the item of 180 dollars 50 cents, charged in the said statement under date of February 17th, 1838, being for one hundred and eighty bushels and thirty pounds of rye, and corresponding with a mill receipt among the papers. That this objection was founded on the suggestion that three other items charged in the same statement, one for 89 dollars, under date of February 28th, 1838—one for 82 dollars, under date of January 29th, 1838, and one for 9 dollars 50 cents, under date of February 17th, 1838, all purporting to be for rye delivered at those dates, and amounting in the aggregate to 180 bushels 30 pounds, which said charges were taken from the list of credits furnished by M’ Cormele from the mill books, were intended to represent the same 180 bushels for which the aforesaid receipt was given. That respondent had no recollection of the items which composed the account, but from the statements and representations of Rust, thought it probable that errors had been committed in the particulars stated ; and being in want of money at the time, expressed his willingness to make a deduction of the alleged errors, if the said Rust would pay the residue in cash, or forthwith enter into a forthcoming bond for the amount, and confess judgment thereon at the then term of the Court; but that the said Rust refused to accede to the proposition. That it was not true he had ever said that not more than 100 dollars was due to him on the said accounts, and that under any statement of them, the balance due to him could not be reduced below the sum he had expressed himself as aforesaid willing to receive; if indeed, upon a fair exposition of facts, it could be reduced to that sum; but whatever may be the facts as to that matter, the plaintiffs were precluded from enquiring into the supposed errors by the verdict and judgment at law.</p> <p>A witness, Daniel Feagans, stated that the year after J. C. Ford Co. discontinued the milling business in the county of Clarke, the defendant Ware came to the said mill, then occupied by Ford and the witness, and commenced a conversation with the witness on the subject of a mill account which he had against Ford & Co.; and in that conversation, Ware said his mill account against said firm was about 100 dollars. And witness said William Rust came to the knowledge that the witness could prove the facts aforesaid, long since the judgment of Ware against Rust and others. And it was proved by another witness, that on the occasion when Rust and Ware examined the papers in the action at law, Ware stated that 443 dollars seemed to be the true amount which was due from J. C. Ford & Co. to him.</p> <p>The cause came on to be heard in the Court below in October 1844, when the Court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill with costs, whereupon the plaintiffs applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.</p>

Hackley brought case in the county court against Morton and Brockenbrough, as surviving partners of William Brock & Co. The declaration was upon an account stated, and a joint assumpsit of the defendants; who pleaded the act of limitations. Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiff offered in evidence an account against the company, signed by Brockenbrough after the dissolution of the co-partnery: *To which the defendant excepted; but the court suffered it to go to the jury.

This was a , motion for a writ of super-sedeas to a judgment of the district court. The petition stated, that Lyle obtained a judgment against Bowyer, and issued a ca. sa. upon it: To which the deputy sheriff made a return† in these words: “Executed, and bond taken for the prison rules. ” That the sheriff afterwards voluntarily permitted Bowyer to escape, and thereby subjected himself ío a motion, under the act of assembly, for the amount of the execution.

Lowry brought trover for three slaves, Esther, Will and Lucy, in the district court. Plea not guilty and issue. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon a demurrer by the defendant to the plaintiff’s evidence; which stated, 1.

<p>Husband and Wife — Trover for Slave Belonging to Wife — Joinder.‡—TUe wife need not be joined with the husband in an action of trover for a slave belonging to her.</p> <p>Demurrer to Evidence — Effect.§—A demurrer admits every • conclusion which the jury might have drawn from the evidence.</p> <p>Legacies — Assent ot Executor¶ — When Need Not Be Proved. — The assent of the executor need not be proved, where the legatee had possession during the lifetime of the testator.</p>

<p>1. Upon an issue devisavit vel non, the verdict of the jury in favour of the will, approved by the Court before which the issue is tried, concludes all mere questions of fact depending upon the credit to he given to the witnesses. And therefore in such case in an appellate court, it must be taken that all the requirements of the statute in order to establish a will, were satisfactorily proved: And the identity of the paper is one of the facts settled by the verdict.</p> <p>2. It is settled law that a subscribing witness may attest a will by making his mark, his name being written by another in his presence and at his request.</p> <p>3. The validity of such an attestation depends upon the signing the name of the witness by his authority and in his presence; and not upon the fact of his making a mark, or doing some manual act in connexion with the signature.</p> <p>4. Although there must be satisfactory proof that every statutory provision has been complied with, in order to establish a will, the law does not prescribe the mode of proof, nor that the will shall be proved as well as attested, by a specified number of witnesses.</p>

Mien brought a bill in the High Court of Chancery, to be relieved against a twelve months’ replevy bond, and stated that upon the 29th of October, 1788, he became security for Joseph Watson and Daniel Hawes in a twelve months’ bond to Payne, who was assignee of Durracott, administrator of Coles, That at the time of entering into the said bond, the plaintiff was an infant under the age of twenty-one years, to wit, only 18 or 19 years of age; and therefore, that the said bond…

Robert Bristow, a British subject, owned a tract of land in Virginia, when the revolution commenced, but died in Great Britain during the year 1776; and devised all his estate to his son Robert, who was an infant, and resided with him. In 1779, an inquisition was taken, and the land escheated as the property of Robert Bristow the elder.

IN assumpsit, by .Tarnes Daniel, and .~nne his wife, against John B. JWaciin, and William W. JJfaclin, the declaration charged, that the defendants were indebted to the p1aintifi~ ~mne while sole, in the sum of ~ISS6 ~O cents, for 49~ barrels of corn, (being the proportion of corn, belonging to the said ./inne while sole, of a certain crop n~ade, in pursuance of the last Will of her lirst husband William .Maciin, upon the plantathrn whereon he resided at tihe time of his…

In ejectment the jury find: That Joseph ¿chilly, being seised in his demesne as of fee of the premises in the declaration mentioned, did on the Uth day of March, 1699-1700, duly make and publish his last will and testament, wherein he devised in manner and form following, to wit: And, as for what wordly goods, my God hath been pleased to bless me withall, and after my just debts and funeral charges and expenses are fully satisfied, contented and paid, I give and dispose of…

In an action of assumpsit, brought by Francis Mas-tin against Alexander Kelly, administrator with the will annexed of Charles Martin deceased, in the circuit .court of Fauquier, ah order of court was made by consent of parties, in August 1822, referring the matters in controversy to John Scott, Thomas Jennings and John Marr, or any two of them, whose award should bp made the judgment of the court.

AFTER the decision of this Court, in the case of Newby's adminstrators v. Bankey, s H. & M. 66, a bill in eiuity was filed, against the said. administratois, by John Chowning, and Cataharine his wife, who was formerly Catharine Chowning, Lucy Street who has Lucy Chowning, and Churchill Blakey administrator of his deceased wife .thiiie, who was ~dnne Chow~ing, all daugh-. ters and devisees of William Chowning the elder, to recover the slaves of which Oswald .JSPewby was…

William L. Peatross in March 1847, applied to the Judge of the Circuit court of Pittsylvania for an injunction to restrain proceedings upon a judgment which had been recovered against him in that Court in 1838 by Daniel M’Laughlin. The bill stated that Peatross had been taken on a capias ad satisfaciendum which issued on the judgment, and that he had in March 1838, been discharged from custody upon taking the oath of an insolvent debtor.

<p>Husband and wife convey the lands of the wife in trust for themselves during their joint lives, with power to the wife to direct a sale and dispose of the proceeds either in her lifetime or by will, or to dispose of the land by will; and if the land is sold in her lifetime, and she dies without will, that the husband shall receive out of the proceeds of sale $ 2500, and the balance to go to certain other persons named. If the land is not sold during her life and the husband survives her, he shall hold and enjoy the land during his life. But if he, within three years from the wife’s death, require a sale of the land, the trustee shall sell it within six months; and out of the proceeds of sale shall pay the husband $2500. The husband survived the wife, and within three years from her death elected to have the land sold. The trustee was then dead, and by a friendly suit in chancery, a new trustee was appointed, who advertised the land for sale; but before the day of sale the husband died. Held :</p> <p>1. That the husband having elected within the three years to have the land sold, and take the $ 2500 in lieu of his life estate, the effect of such an election was an equitable conversion of the land into money.</p> <p>2. That the election of the husband was not defeated by his death before the sale was made; and his ex’or is entitled to have the sale made, and to receive $ 2500 out of the proceeds of said sales.</p>

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Suffolk, given in fa-vour of the defendant, in an action of debt, brought by Stone & Co. against Patterson. The declaration, as amended, is in debitor 13,000 dollars.

THIS was an action of debt brought by the appellant, as assignee of Daniel B. White, against the appellee, in the County Court of Spotsylvania.

This was an ejectment brotight in the Superior Court of Lancaster County, by Ball against Payne. The question between the parties, depended on the construction of a clause in the Will of Jas. W. Ball. The Superior *Court gave Judgment for the Defendant, upon a special verdict found by the Jury, and the Plaintiff appealed. The Counsel for the Appellant, cited Pells v. Brown, as it is reported in Eearne on Cont.

<p>In an. action by a white man against a free negro, a free negro is not a competent witness for the plaintiff, by statute, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 111. § 5.</p> <p>Two statutory provisions in pari materia are passed at different times, but both are incorporated in several statutes enacted at a general revisal of the statute laws: if there be., any difference between them, the court will look to the dates of the original enactments, and give effect to that which was last passed.</p>

Anderson’s executors having recovered a judgment against Lively in the hustings court of Williamsburg, he applied to the judge of the circuit court of James City, within two years after the judgment rendered, for a sur persedeas, which was allowed; and he entered into a supersedeas bond with surety, according to the statute. But, at that time, the office of clerk of the circuit court was vacant, so that the writ of supersedeas could not then be issued.

Perry brought indebitatus assumpsit against the defendants in the district court, and declared for money had and received. Plea non assumpsit; and issue. Commissions were awarded by consent to take the depositions of Blake, Yard, Walsh, Turner, White and others.

This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Clarksburg, where Thomas Batton filed a bill against John P. Singleton and Enoch Glasscock, alleging the following facts: That in 1820, the complainant Batton purchased of John E. Singleton a negro boy named Garrison, of about 13 or 14 years of age, at the price of 440 dollars, 340 dollars of which were paid by the complainant to the said Singleton, leaving 100 dollars still due: that Singleton shortly afterwards delivered…

<p>^ ^ vendor of land prepares a deed and signs it, which, describes the land, and states the amount and times of payment of the purchase money. This deed is never delivered, but is retained and preserved by the vendor. Upon a bill by the vendee for a specific performance of the contract. Held : The deed is a sufficient memorandum in writing of the contract, to satisfy the requirement of the statute of frauds and perjuries.</p> <p>2. The application for a specific execution of a contract is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. He who asks it must have shewn himself prompt and willing to comply with the contract on his part; and the prayer will not be granted if it would be inequitable towards the party against whom the prayer is made.</p> <p>3. In May 1827, B sold a tract of land to W, for which W was to pay one half the purchase money in hand, and the other half in twelve months, to be secured by deed of trust on the land. W paid only about one third of the cash payment; and after some months delay, B tendered him a deed and demanded a compliance with the contract. Whad then become embarrassed in his circumstances, and was unable to comply with his contract, and so continued until 1835. Upon his declining, when thus called on, to pay the amount due, B declared the contract was at an end; and that he would retain the money he had received, as some compensation for the damages he had sustained by the failure of W to comply with his contract. B then bought other land adjoining, built upon and improved it, and settled upon the land and cultivated it; and the land, which was the subject of the contract, could not be separated from the other land without injury to the latter. In 1836, W filed a bill for specific execution of the contract, and charged that he had made certain payments which B had refused to return. Held :</p> <p>1. Wis not entitled to a specific execution of the contract.</p> <p>2. He is entitled to recover back the amount he had paid, with interest; and the statute of limitations is no bar to his recovery.</p> <p>4. A defendant, though in default for want of an answer, ought to be permitted to file any proper answer, at any time before a final decree ; but the trial of the cause is not to be consequently delayed, unless for good cause shewn.*</p>

Davenport and others, brought a suit in the High Court of Chancery against Lawrason, administrator of Brown. The bill, among other .things, stated, that Brown, who was but little indebted, died possessed of some personal property, and entitled to compensation for his services as an officer during the warp which was, after his death, paid to the defendant Lawrason in certificates and warrants for the interest thereof, to the amount of 1260/. for certificates, and 581/. Is.

ON a motion by James II. ~1Iunford late Hig~l' Sheriff of Nottoway County, against 3 ames Rice, and sundry persons his sureties, it appeared (iuier alia,) from the notice and several bills of exceptions, that the plaintiff's motion was for the amount of a Jwlginent obtained against: himself, in behalf of the Commonwealth, for part of the Revenue Taxes in the said County for the year 1815, which the defendant Rice, as his deputy, had collected and failed to pay into the…

In debt on a bond for 400 dollars executed by Green and Street to Buckner, brought by Buckner in his lifetime, against both obligors, in the county court of Culpeper, the defendants pleaded payment,… Held: that the county court erred in not compelling the defendants to join in the demurrer to evidence, and therefore reversed the judgment.

This case was argued at great length, during six days, hy Green and Wickham for the appellants, and Stanard, Call and Leigh for the appellee, in the absence of the Re- ^ x a porter.

Turnbull brought an action for slander against Hook; and the damages laid in the writ were $500, but no damages were laid in the declaration. The jury found $1000 damages; and Turnbull had judgment for that sum in the district court. Hook appealed to the court of appeals. As no damages were laid in the declaration none can be recovered, 1 Esp. Nis. Pri. 513; for there is nothing to amend by, as the writ is no part of the record.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, in a cause removed thither from the County Court of Nottoway, by writ oí certiorari. The bill states, that William Watson made his will, and appointed several executors, but that Edward Jones was the acting-executor; who dying, Richard Jones became the acting executor. That Watson left four daughters, to whom he devised a tract of 2,650 acres of land.

Assumpsit by Henley against Colgin, in the circuit court of Henrico, upon a special undertaking and promise of Colgin to pay Henley 500 dollars, in part satisfaction of a debt due from one Gregory to… Held: was proper evidence for the purpose for which it was offered: to which opinions Coigin's counsel excepted. There was a verdict and judgment for Henley for 500 dollars, with interest from the 24th June 1826; from which Coigin appealed to this court.

This was an appeal from the Superior Court of Law for Greensville County, where John Chambliss brought an action of trespass on the case, against Thomas Cleaton, junior. The Declaration contains nine counts. The first three are common money counts. The remaining six are stated with sufficient minuteness in the opinion of Judge Carr, which follows. The subsequent proceedings will also be found in the same opinion. contended: 1.

<p>This was a suit instituted in the late High Court of Chancery, in August 1790, by .thithomy Thor mion. and .Ma.r~j his wife, to recover a legacy left her by the will of her father Philip Rootes, who died in the year 1756. It WaS *n ^he bill that Philip and Thomas Reid Rootes qualified as executors, and gave bond with Richard Shackleford and Thomas Thorpe, as their securities; that they had assets more than sufficient to pay the debts and legacies; that Thomas Reid Rootes died in 1762, insolvent; that Philip Rootes the younger wasted the assets and died intestate, while a suit at law was pending against him, brought by the complainants^ upon his administration bond; and that no person administered'on his estate:—that before his death he had mortgaged to Richard Shackleford a number of slaves, to indemnify him for becoming his security as aforesaid; that Thomas Thorpe and Richard Shackleford, having both departed this life, the complainant instituted a suit at law, upon the same administration bond, against the executors of the said Shackleford; that Zachari ah Shackleford, one of those executors, took possession of the estate which Philip Rootes the younger left, consisting of the remaining property of Philip Rootes the elder; that, in the progress of the suit against Shackleford’s executors, the cause was by a rule of Court submitted to arbitration, and an award made in favor of the plaintiffs for the sum of 391l. 13s. 4d. with interest thereon from December 1776; which award was made the judgment of the court .—that although the said order of reference was made by consent of parties, that fact did not appear in the record; in •consequence of which defect, the judgment was reversed by the General Court. Thcpersons made defendants to the Bill, were Graham Franks executor of Thomas Thorpe; Zachariah Shackleford surviving executor and legatee of Richard Shackleford, John Harwood administrator of William Shackleford the deceased executor and legatee, and Frauds Gaines and Frances his wife, and Richard Taliaferro, and Elizabeth his wife, who were also legatees of the said Richard Shackleford-, all of whom were called upon to account severally for the property which had come to their hands, out of which the plaintiffs prayed satisfaction of their legacy.</p> <p>Gaines and Wife demurred to the Bill; alledging that the plaintiff had a complete x'omedy at law; but the Chancellor ovcruled the demurrer; whereupon, they filed their answer, rendering an account of so much of the estate of Richard Shackleford as they had received.</p> <p>Zachariah Shackleford, by his answer, rendered a similar account; but denied that anypartof the estate oí Philip Rootes ever came to his hands.—He stated that he had been informed and believed, the greater part of that estate was taken possession of and disposed of by a certain John Rootes; and that some part of it was taken and: carried into Amherst County, by one Edmund Wilcox, who forgot or did not choose to return it; that most of the slaves mortgaged by Philip Rootes to Richard Shackle-ford as aforesaid, were sold by Rootes himself; or died before him; so that, at his decease, only two of those slaves were to be found. He denied that he ever assented to the submission to arbitration, which was made when he was under age, and his brother William was the acting executor at that time; but he admitted that, as agent for William, he attended the referees. He claimed also some credits, for payments to the plaintiffs, by Philip Rootes the younger; and contended that no action, either at law or in equity, could he maintained against him, until it should have been established by a previous decision that some default, subjecting the securities, had been committed by the executors of Philip Rootes the elder.</p> <p>The Chancellor having referred the accounts to a Commissioner, a report was returned, in conformity with which, a decree was pronounced, in May 1796, in favour ef the plaintiffs, for 391l 13s. 4d. principal, and 72l. 13s. 2d. interest to the 15th of May 1783, besides interest from that day, on the said principal; and it was ordered that, towards satisfaction thereof, the defendant Zachariah Shackleford, out of the estate in his hands to be administered of his testator Richard Shackleford, should pay 378l. 4s. 3d. with interest thereon from January 1789; the defendant John Harwood, out of the estate in his hands tobe administered of William Shackleford, 76l. 11s. with interest thereon from the 1st day of Jan. 1776; and the defendant Richard Taliaferro, 24l. 18s. 5d. with interest thereon from Nov. 1773; reserving to the two last mentioned defend ants, who had not answered, liberty to shew cause against this decree in the term next after being served therewith; —and also reserving liberty to the plaintiffs to resort to cour^ *n case ®ie in'incipal and interest due should no; be satisfied by those-defendants, to recover the deficiency against the other defendants.</p> <p>jn May 1799, the Chancellor declared so much of the said decree as related to Richard Taliaferro, to be irreguiar, (since no previous process had been served upon that defendant,) and directed new process; but made the decree absolute against John Harwood, who had shewn no cause to the contrary.</p> <p>. By virtue of a farther order of account, another Report was made by a Commissioner in December 1800; whereupon, it was decreed, on the 2d of June 1801, that Elizabeth Taliaferro administratrix of Richard Taliaferro (who had departed this life,) should pay to the plaintiffs the sum before decreed against him, and the farther sum of 157l. 4S. 5d., with interest on 87l. 15s. Od. from October 1795, until payment; and that the defendant Francis Gaines should also pay 165l. 3s. 4d., with interest upon 921. 5s. Od. from the period last mentioned, until payment, towards discharge of the principal and interest recovered by the decree of May 14th, 1796:—and tilt suit was dismissed as to all the other parties, the plaintiffs no farther prosecuting.</p> <p>From this decree an appeal being taken by the defendants Elizabeth Taliaferro and Francis Gaines, the Court of Appeals pronounced the following opinion and decree, the 5th of May 1806.</p> <p>« The Court is of opinion, that the testator Philip i‘ Rootes having set apart a particular fund for the pay- “ ment of his debts and legacies, and directed that his « whole estate should be chargeable with the payment of “ the latter, in case that fund should not prove suffici- “ ent;(1) and having also required that his sons, to whom « he devised his lands and other estates, either in pos- “ session, or when they should attain the age of twenty ~ one years, or in remainder after the death of his wife, “ should, upon receiving their parts of his estate, give “ security, (without naming any person to whom such “ security should be given,) for the payment of their pro-" portional parts of their sisters’ fortunes',(1) and having " constituted two of those sons, then of full age, his ex-" editors, and a third son John, when he should come 44 of age, his executor likewise; the requisition of seen-4* rity from those sons, respectively, on receiving their 44 estates, was thereby frustrated; hut security ought 44 to have been demanded, by those executors, of the testa44 tor’s fourth son George, when he should receive from 44 them the estate devised to him; and, in default of 44 taking such security, the executors or executor, by 44 whom the estate was delivered, thereby made himself 44 responsible for George’s proportion of his sister’s 44 fortunes; and all the four sons of the testator, viz, 44 Philip, Thomas Reid, John and George, their heirs and 44 representatives respectively, into whose hands any of 44 the estate of the testator Philip deceased was devised, 44 or came, and any person whatsoever to whom the real 44 estate of the said testator may have come by gift or 44 purchase from either of those sons or their heirs, ex-44 cept bona fide purchasers of the estate devised to his son. 44 George, were and are liable to contribution for the pay-44 ment of the testators daughters’ fortunes, in case of 44 any deficiency of the fund set apart by his Will for the 44 payment thereof:—that the securities of the executors, 44 Philip and Thomas Reid Rootes, are liable in the first 44 instance, only for the misapplication or wasting of the 44 funds so constituted by the testator for payment of the 44 said legacies, in case those executors, their heirs or 44 representatives, or those into whose hands those funds 44 shall be found to have been taken, shall he unable to 44 make good the same; hut, in case those funds shall be 44 found insufficient for the payment of the said legacies, 44 so as to render the estates descended or devised to the 44 testator’s sons, Philip, Thomas Reid, John and George, 44 liable to a proportional contribution for the payment of 44 those legacies, and if it shall he found that the said “4 executors neglected to take such security from George, íí upon delivering his estate to him, and that the es» “ tate of the said George, which can now be' resort- “ ed to for his proportional contribution, is insuffi- « cient, and that the estates or estate of the execu- “ tors or executor, by whom the estate of George “ was delivered into his possession, is also insufii- “ cient to discharge the said George’s proportion, then “ the said securities of the said Philip and Thomas Reid, “ will be further liable to make good the said George’s “ proportion of such contribution, and no farther; and « the balance, if any, which may thereafter remain un- « paid, must he raised by contribution from those into « whose hands the estate of the testator has come, by des- « cent, devise or gift from the testator; or either of his « four sons before mentioned, or as executor, or execu- ■« tor in his own wrong, or as administrator or trustee “ for cither of them, or into avIiosc hands his'lands may « have come by descent, devise or purchase, (except « bona fide purchasei’s of the estate devised to George as « as aforesaid,) according to the value thereof. And it ■« is further the opinion of this Court, that, in case it « shall be found that the sureties of the said executors are ■“ liable according to the principles herein before stated, •« the heirs, executors and legatees of those sureties, respectively, ought to be called upon to contribute their « proportional parts, so far as the estate to them des- « cended, devised, or otherwise come to their possession, .« may extend; the legatees and representatives of the “ said Richard Shackleford being (alone) chargeable with « the amount of the value of the slaves, or other effects, “ which he or they received from the said executors, or “ either of them, towards indemnifying him on account “ of his surety-ship aforesaid.” The decree Avas therefore reversed, and the cause sent to the Superior Court of Chancery held in Richmond, to be proceeded in accordjng to this opinion.</p> <p>In that Court, the cause was directed to be placed on the rule docket, and leave Avas given the plaintiffs to amend their Bill; Avhereupon, they filed an amended Bill, stating sundry additional circumstances, and making many new parties, among whom were Catharine Lewis and others, (purchasers of lands of, and under Philip Rootes, Thomas Reid Rooles‘And John Rootes.) Various proceedings, which need not here be detailed, were after-wards had in the Superior Court of Chancery.</p> <p>The grounds of the subsequent decree of this Court are sufficiently set forth in the opinion and decree itself.</p> <p>The cause, being transferred to the Court at Fredericksburg, (under the Act of Assembly,) came on to be heard, September 29th, 1815, upon the bill and amendments thereto, the answers of sundry defendants, exhibits, and several reports of Commissioners, and exceptions thereto taken by some of the defendants; whereupon, Chancellor JNnnsox, overruling all the exceptions, except one which claimed an additional credit for 110Z. paid on account of the legacy, " and being of opinion, " since it appears that Philip Rootes, one of the executors " of Philip Rootes the elder, paid two of the legacies de- " vised to the daughters of his testator respectively, and " that the specific fond, appropriated by the Will of the " said Philip Rootes the elder for the payment of debts " and legacies, was exhausted in the payment of debts, " and that the said executor was a large creditor of his “ testator’s estate upon his administration account, that “ therefore the securities of the qualified executors of *: Philip Rootes the elder, and their representatives were " not, and are not now responsible for any portion of the “ legacy due to the female plaintiff, and that the holders " of the real estate of which Philip Rooles the elder died " seised, who derived their titles, respectively, from his “ three sons Philip, Thomas R. and John, are liable to “ contribution for the payment of the value of said legacy, “ according to the reported value of the lands respec- " tively so held by them; it was therefore decreed and " ordered that, unless the defendants Catharine Lewis “ and others, purchasers of those lands as aforesaid, " should, respectively, pay to the plaintiffs certain sums “ of money, in the decree specified, on or before the 1st " day of April 1816, persons named as Commissioners, "should, after advertising the time and place of sale. “ for three weeks successively, in some newspaper printed “ in Fredericksburg, sell to the highest bidder for cash, “ so much of the lands, so held by each of the said de- *• fendants, of which the said Philip Bootes the elder died . “ seised, as would be sufficient to pay the respective sums “ decreed to be paid by the said defendants respectively, “ and should pay the same to the plaintiffs, or their “ agent; that the Commissioners acting herein should “ convey the lands sold to the purchaser or purchasers “ thereof, at his or their own proper costs and charges, “ and report their proceedings to the Court.”</p> <p>From this Interlocutory Decree, Catharine Lewis and the other defendants who held lands under John Bootes, were allowed an Appeal by the Chancellor.</p>

This was a writ of supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court of Prince Edward. The petition stated, that Anderson instituted one suit against the petitioner, and the petitioner two against Anderson in the County Court. That all three were by rule of Court referred to four arbitrators, or any three of them; and that the money awarded to the said Anderson, if any, was to be paid to the Sheriff, for the benefit of his creditors.

This was a controversy respecting a codicil to Neil Calvert’s will. Held: that the appellants might go into the whole evidence, and were not confined to the enquiry into the testator’s sanity and signature.

In May 1844, Madison W. Helms filed his hill in the Circuit court of Floyd county, in which he alleged that he sold and conveyed to Thomas B. Woolwine two tracts of land lying in the county of Floyd, containing together about three hundred acres, for the sum of 600 dollars. That 400 dollars of the purchase money had been paid, but that 200 dollars was still due.

This was an appeal from a decree from the High Court of Chancery, where Campbell, as assignee of his father Robert Campbell, brought a bill, stating, that the said Robert Campbell purchased divers bills of exchange drawn by Carter Braxton on sundry persons in Britain, payable to the said Robert Campbell, to wit: one for 200/. sterling, drawn on . One drawn on Edward Harford for 200/. sterling; another on Robert Young for 1811/. 3s. 11 d. sterling; another on Robert Cary S?

<p>A purchaser of land for an aggregate sum, without reference to any specific quantity, having gotten all the land for which the parties supposed they were contracting, is not entitled to any abatement from the purchase money, because the conveyance to him, and the patents under which he derives title, embrace other land, held by a third person under a better title.</p>

On the 6th of April 1846, James M’Cluny, of the firm of James M’Cluny & Co., obtained from Ephraim Barnes, a justice of the peace for the county of Brooke, a warrant of attachment against the estate of Edward Howard, an absconding debtor, returnable to the next County court.

This was an appeal from the Winchester •Chancery Court, where Colin Auld filed his bill against Alexander and others. The whole case is stated in the following opinion.

<p>1. Ifa suit against an infant in the Superior Court of Chancery, be fully defended by his guardiafl appointed by the cou~i. ty court, whose answer is ye-calved on his behalf, under the sanction and authority of the superior Court; he must be aqually bound by such defence, as if such guardian had been, in form, appointed guardian ad litern: but if the suit abate as to such guard~ ian, by ins death, before the decree; a guardian ad litcee ought to be appointed, notwithstanding all the testimony and accounts were taken befor~ his death.</p> <p>2. Under the parttcular circumstances of this case, no interest was permitted to be charged against a trustee on the monies from time to time in his hands, and no commissions were allowed him for his trouble; bL1L on closing his accounts, iuterc~t was allowed on a balance in his favour.</p> <p>3. A charge by a ttustee, for articles sold, and cash lent, b~/ine the creatioe oj'tJ~ frurt, ought iiot to be allowed, without proof thereof by disiutercated testimony.</p> <p>4. rt appears, from the decree in this case, that the points decided by Chancellor TArLo1~, concerning the evidence requisite to prove disbursements by a trusice, UI execution ofthe trust, and as to disbursements made without the consent of co-tru~ tees, were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. -=- See 4 H. end M. 415, 423</p>

Hipkins died testate after the year 1792, leaving a wife and grand children; but no child alive. The wife renounced his will; and the principal question in the cause was, What proportion of her husband’s estate the wife was entitled to? The chancellor decreed dower in the lands and slaves; and a moiety of the goods and chattels in absolute property. Bernard, the executor, and the grand children, appealed to the court of appeals.

This was an appeal from the Superior Court of Law for the County of Fauquier. The executor of Britton brought an action of debt against White on a bill penal executed by the latter to the Plaintiff as. executor. The bill was for $181'57 cents, payable on demand, and the penalty, in case of failure to pay, was in double that sum.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, in a suit wherein the executors of Way les were plaintiffs, against David Meade Randolph, Richard Randolph, Ryland Randolph and Brett Randolph, sons and devisees of Richard Randolph, deceased; the hill stated, that in December, 1772, the said Richard Randolph, deceased, being indebted to Bevins in 740/. sterling, executed his bond, binding himself, his heirs, &c. for payment of the same; that Wayles was security…

A Judgment in Ejeetment for three hundred acres of land, having been obtained agahist Henry Jones in his life time, a scire facias was issued after his death, to revive it, against Henry Jones, Zacharzah Jones, George Smith, and .T~fildred his wife, heirs and devisees of the deceased; wlii cli writ was eXecute(l on Henry .Jones only, the other lefendants being returned, no inhabitants of this Coin~nonwealth.

Assumpsit, by the administratrix of Ellis against Butterworth, in the circuit court of Petersburg. There were several counts in the declaration, but all of them were general counts in indebitatus assumpsit. The only material counts were counts for money paid, laid out and expended,—for money lent and advanced, 'by Ellis to and for Butterworth,—for money had and received by Butterworth to the use of Ellis; and a count on an insimul computassent between Butterworth and Ellis.

This case is an appeal from the court of chancery. In the bill filed by the appellants, it is stated that a partnership in trade formerly subsisted between John Davies and Alexander Fulton, which lasted about three years.

This was an appeal from the Superior Court of Raw of Caroline County, where Vidal brought an action of debt against Rowe, administrator of Gardner, on a bill penal, said to have been executed by the said Gardner in his life-time. The Defendant pleaded, 1st, that the writing aforesaid is not the Deed of the said Gardner; 2d, payment; and 3d, fully administered. On these pleas, issue was joined.

This was a writ of right tried in the Circuit court of Preston county, in which John Evans and wife were demandants and Jesse Spurgin was tenant. On the trial the demandant demurred to the evidence, and the tenant joined in the demurrer; and it was agreed by the parties that the jury should be discharged without rendering a verdict, and that the Court should render a judgment upon the demurrer to evidence. Both parties claimed under the title of John Staley.

<p>REUBEN ALLEN sen., of Shenandoah County, on the 1st of September 1779, made his last Will, (admitted to probate in November following,) by which he beqtieathed to his daughters, Hannah who afterwards married George .~ird, and .Tlfary who afterwards married Benja~min Hawkins3 10001. each, without adding the word "specie," or the words "current moneif;" one third part thereof to be paid by each of his sons, Thomas, ..~arom and John, upon their respectively attaining the age `of twenty one years; of whom Thomas died, shortly after the testator, under age and unmarried. The testator devised to his said sons all his lands (which, at the date of the Will and after-wards, were very valuable,) and three fourths of his personal estate; and died unh~cumbered with debt. The Will directed farther, that, in case his son Thomas .~l-.ten should die before he arrived at the age of 21 years, or married, or, if married, should die without heir, then the estate bequeathed to him should be equally divided between his sons Aaron and John Allen, they or his executors paying his daughters’ proportion of his estate bequeathed them, at such time as tho’ he the said Thomas Allen had lived to the age of twenty one years.</p> <p>Upon this Will, the surviving sons Aaron and John contended, that the legacies to the daughters should be reduced by the scale of depreciation: the daughters’ husband insisted that it was the testator’s intention to give them each 1000l. in specie.</p> <p>A suit in the Superior Court of Chancery was therefore brought, in their behalf, against Aaron Allen and John Allen, sons, heirs and devisees, and Joseph Moore administrator of Richard Moore who was executor of the deceased.</p> <p>The other circumstances of the case, considered important by this Court, are set forth in its opinion.</p> <p>Chancellor Shown had “some doubt as to flic real in- « tention of the testator; yet, upon consideration of all the «evidence, aud all the circumstances, was of opinion, “ that his intention would he most probably carried into *< effect by adopting that interpretation of his Will which •“ appeared most just, and by decreeing the legacies in “ the currency of the present day. He would have de- « creed the appropriation, towards this object, of the « monies which appeared to be in the hands of the Exec- ('• iitor: but that it was thought most proper to leave that “ matter to the County Court, where a suit was pending « against the executor, and where justice could be done “ between him and the other defendants in this cause.” The suit appearing to have been compromised between the plaintiffs and the defendant John Allen, the decree therefore was, that the defendant Aaron Allen do pay to the plaintiffs Hawkins and wife the sum of 500k, with 5 per cent, interest on 160k 13s. 4ck part thereof, from the 1st of October 1793, until paid, and with like interest on the residue thereof from the 1st of October 1795, until paid: (the aforesaid several periods being the dates at which it appeared that Thomas and Aaron Allen would have attained their respective ages of 21 years, if they had both lived;) that he do pay to the plaintiffs Bird and wife the like sum of 500k with like interest from the dates aforesaid; and that he pay the costs of this suit. It was farther decreed that, if the said defendant should fail to make the said payment on or before a given day, certain persons named as Commissioners should, after advertising &c., sell the land devised by the testator as aforesaid to the said Aaron Allen, or so much thereof as would be necessary, to satisfy this decree, &c. The Bill was dismissed as against the defendants Joseph Moore and John Allen, but without costs.</p> <p>From this decree, an appeal was taken.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Daw of Kanawha County. The following opinions will give a full view of the matters in controversy.</p>

<p>1. Actionsin theCourts of this state, upon con■tracts entered into, or personal injuries committed, any where.</p> <p>In general, it is not necessary to state, in the declaration, where the contract arose, or the injury was committed:—but this is sometimes necessary; and, then, for the sake of obviating the objection of a variance, or the like, the plaintiff is permitted to state, by a fiction, under a videlicet, that the place is within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is brought; which fiction, being in furtherance •of justice, cannot be traversed.</p> <p>2. In cases, in which the plaintiff does not use this fiction, the defendant is not, in general, permitted to aver that the cause of action arose in another Country, unless he wishes to justify the act by the laws of that Country; or to shew, thereby, -that he is not responsible in the particular form of action in question; in which cases, the locality of tile act forms an essential part of his defence:—but such plea does mot go to the jurisdiction of the Court, but only to the justification of the defendant.</p> <p>3. It is a principle, that, if a parly be justified, as to a transaction, in the Country or place in which it is committed, he is justifiable every where.</p> <p>4. Case for malicious prosecution, and not tresspass vi et armis, is the proper action against a person who, maliciously and without probable cause, sues out anati tacbmcut, and canses it bo levied on the property of another.</p>

Turpin and others, as vestry men and church wardens of the parish of Manchester, in the county of Chesterfield, exhibited their bill against the overseers of the poor, in the court of chancery,… Held: in the cases of Turner v. Turner, 1 Wash. 139, and of Elliott v. Lyell, 3 Call, 269, that every attempt by the legislature to impair antecedent rights was unconstitutional and void.

,~2r2nistead Hill and Sally his wife filed a bill in the S ape-nor Court of Chancery for the Richmond district against Francis Lynch and Sally his wife, who, at the same time, filed their answer, to which the plaintiffs replied generally; which bill aiid answer, with the exhibits, were by consent presented to the said Court, for it's opinion and decree thereupon.

IN this case, a petition was presented to this Court by Philip Norborne Nicholas Attorney General of the Commonwealth, on behalf of said Commonwealth, to be allowed an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, dismissing a bill exhibited by the Petitioner against Andrew Broaddus and Jane C. Broaddus, in conformity wiih the 13th section of the Act of 1792, concerning incestuous marriages; edition of 1794, 1803 and 1814, p. 195.

John Turner married Susan Dowles, who was the relict and executrix of William Dowles, and during the coverture administered the estate of William Dowles in her right; and then died, leaving… Held: that the law on the demurrer was for the defendant, and accordingly gave judgment for her; to which this court, on the petition of the relator of the plaintiffs, allowed a supersedeas. The cause was argued here, by Lyons for the plaintiffs in error, and Daniel for the defendant.

UPON an appeal granted by a Judge of this Court from an order of the Superior Court of Chaiiccry t~r th~ Richmond District, dissolving an Injunction, which had been granted, upon a bill exhibited by William Scott and ~Wary his wife (formerly ~Wary Da'vis) and Richa'ra. U. Claiborne their trustee, to prevent the sales under executions against the Complainant Willian-t Scott, of ccitam property covered by a I~eed of marriage settlement.

AN action of Debt was brought in the County Court of Middlesex, by ~mne B. Carter administratrix with the will annexed of Charles B. Carter deceased, who was assignee of Garter Be'oerley, against Eleanor Worrneleij, Ralph Wormeley and Warner L. Worrneley, upon an obligation in the following words:- Whereas it appearing, by the Will of Ralph Wormeicy Esqr. deceased, that his daughter Jane had not been provided for as had beei~ promised to her at her marriage with Carter…

A writing purporting to be the nuncupathre Will of Chiltom Wilson deceased, was exhibited on the 3d day of July 1815, to the County Court of Richmond, for probate, by Thomas Weeden, anti contested by Isaac Bartlett and others.

This was an appeal from the Richmond Chancery Court, where the Administratrix of Thomas Faulkner filed her bill against John M. Harwood, to. injoin a Judgment recovered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff. All the facts of the cause are sufficiently detailed in the opinions which follow.

<p>1 Ifamo~ tion for a new trial, on the ground that the var-dict is contraryto evi~ dence, be overruled, a bill of exceptions to the Court's opillion ought not t~ state all the evidence given in th the Jury, but only the facts appCar~. ingto the Court to have beei~ proved~</p>

This was an action of debt brought in the County court of Wood county, by John G. Stringer against James Henderson.

ELIZABDTH FINnLAY an infant by alexander Findlay h~r guardian, exhibited a Bill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, stating, that she was the niece and heir at law of WiUiwim King late of Abingdon in the County of Washington, who died, some time in the year 18u8, seised and possessed, among other estate, of certain salt works of great value, in that Coimty; having first made and duly published his last Will, in which, among other clauses, was the…

Micajah Durham and Nancy his wife, brought an action of detinue against Moses Dunkly, for a slave named Jenny. The whole case is so fully unfolded in the following opinion, that it is unnecessary to give it here.

Assumpsit, by Ashby against Green, in the circuit superiour court of Culpeper. There were two counts in the declaration. The first was a general count for money had and received by the defendant to the plaintiff’s use.

<p>1. A County court professing to proceed under the act of 1819, in opening a road, it is not necessary that the record of their proceedings shall shew that the County court had previously dispensed with the act of 1835 in relation to roads, and retained the act of 1819.*</p> <p>2. In such a case a party who opposes the opening the road should call for the production of the previous order of the County court dispensing with the act of 1835, and spread the whole evidence on that question, on the record. And if he fails to do so, it will not be presumed in an appellate court, that the County court, though professing to proceed under the act of 1819, acted without lawful authority.</p> <p>3. A County court makes an order opening a road through the land of a person who had made himself a party, and opposed the opening of the road; but the Court omits to direct the damages assessed to this party to be paid to him. At the next term, by the consent of the applicant for the road and the contestant, the order is set aside, and the cause reinstated on the docket. Held : That the order reinstating the cause by the consent of the parties was proper.</p> <p>4. Persons unite in the petition for the opening of a road, but they do not become parties on the record. Some of them are appointed viewers of the route of the proposed road. Held : That this is not good ground for quashing the proceedings.</p> <p>5. It is proper that the County court should direct that the damages assessed by the jury to the owner of the land through which the road is opened, and the costs of the inquest, should be provided for and paid out of the county levy. But it is error to direct all the costs of the applicant for the road to be thus provided for and paid. His costs, except the costs of the inquest, should be recovered against the contestant.</p>

<p>This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Lynchburg. The case is fully reported in the opinions of the Judges.</p>

<p>In trespass guare clausum fregit, the declaration charges that the defendant, on a certain day, with force and arms, broke and entered the plaintiff’s close, situate, &c., and then and there ejected, &c., the plaintiff from the possession of said close, and kept and continued him so ejected, &c., for a long space of time, viz: from thence hitherto; whereby the plaintiff, for and during all that time, lost and was deprived of the use and benefit of the said close, to wit: at the county aforesaid. On demurrer. Held : The count is good.</p>

On the 10th of May 1837, Mayberry and Kincheloe sold to George Thorpe two lots in the town of Parkersburg, for 200 dollars, payable on the 10th of May 1838. They did not make Thorpe a deed, hut gave him a paper by which they bound themselves to convey to him the lots upon the payment of the purchase money ; and he executed to them his bond for 200 dollars, payable on the 10th of May 1838, with interest from the 10th of May 1837.

This was an action of assumpsit brought in the Circuit court of Jackson county by Hampton, Smith & Co. against Michael. On the trial of the cause the defendant objected to a part of the deposition of William C. M’Kibbon, which was offered in evidence by the plaintiffs, and the objection was sustained, and the plaintiffs excepted.

Edmund Tait, being the owner of lands on Blaclcivaier creek in Campbell county, on which it was supposed there were several valuable mill seats, and having made a dam across the stream, and commenced other works and collected materials for building mills thereon,—by articles of agreement, dated the 15th January 1813, between him, Edmund Tait, his brother Caleb Tait, and Charles Deison, it was covenanted and agreed, 1.

In November 1840, Benjamin Wright instituted a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Jackson county, against John and Samuel Greer, Nehemiah Smith, and Ephraim S. Evans, late high sheriff of the county, for the purpose of setting aside certain assignments of bonds, and conveyances of real and personal property, made by John Greer to Samuel Greer, on the ground that they were made with intent to defraud the plaintiff.

<p>.Legacies* — Lapsed—Case at Bar.- A testator directing a tract of land to be sold, when the time is out lor which it is leased, and the money to be divided between certain children of his, to them and their heirs forever; the legacy does not lapse by the death of any of them, after that of the testator, •and before the expiration of-the lease, but is a vested interest, and belongs to their legal representatives.</p>

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, where William Minor and Mildred his wife, and Lawrence Washington, executor, and Griffin Stith send Frances his wife, executrix of Thornton Washington, deceased, brought a bill, stating, that John Thornton died intestate in 1777, and that his personal estate devolved on his daughters, Mary, the wife of Woodford, Betty the wife of Taliaferro, on Thornton Washington his grandson, and his grand-daughter Mildred,…

<p>1. Executors — Decree for Legacy — Fund Liable for Payment of.† — Tt seems, that, where a decree against executors, for a legacy. Is made upon their confessing assets, suificlent to satisfy the same, (without specifying whether such assets consist of money or other property;) such decree may with propriety direct that, they pay the legacy and interest, with the costs of the suit, out of the said assets, if so much thereof they have; if not, out of their own estates.</p> <p>2. Same-Same- Refunding Bond.l — A decree against executors for a legacy, tho’ made upon confession ol assets, and without their expressly demanding bond and security from the plaintiff, is yet erroneous, if it do not require such bond and security to be given before the defendants be compelled to pay the legacy.</p> <p>See Stovall’s executor v. Woodson and wife, 2 Munf. 303; Rootes v. Webb, 4 Munf. 77.</p>

IN a suit for a legacy, brought by Brooks aml wife ngaiust IJichard •!fcRae and Daniel m~pes executors of John .7~fcJ1ae jr. who was executor of Jehn Mcllae semr.

This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Wvthe, where Jenny, and her three children, obtained ieave to sue in forma pauperum, for their freedom. The Chancellor decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants appealed. The whole case is given in the following opinions.

UPON the trial of this cause, which was an action for freedom, iii the Superior Court of Ohio County, the Court instructed the Jury, that, in the case of slaves brought into this State, from any of the United States, before the Act of 1792,(1) the fact of the master's hay-lug taken the oath required by law withing ten (lays afIcr removal, would be presumed from a lapse of twenty years possession without claim of freedom on the part of the slave; so as to throw the onus…

ON the 2~d of June 1807, Daii,iel Bagby filed in the Clerk's office of Buckingham County Court a Caveat, previously entered with the Register of the Land office, against the issuing of a Grant to Peter Guerrant jr. for 4~0 acres of land, lying in the said County, described in the said Caveat as being part of a survey of 500 acres of land surveyed for the said Guerra'nt, oii the 2ud of February 1806, by John Patterson the County Surveyor; 1st, because the original entry of…

This was an action of assumpsit in the Circuit court of Harrison county, by William M. and Allison Dunnington against the President and Directors of the Northwestern Turnpike Road, for work and labour and materials furnished for the Corporation. The declaration contained only the common counts. The defendants appeared and pleaded non assumpsit, on which plea the plaintiffs joined issue.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, in a suit brought by Jane Anderson. by her next friend, against George Anderson and others. The hill states, that the plaintiff, before her marriage with George Anderson, was entitled to the remainder in certain slaves after the death of her mother, Rebecca Tucker.

<p>i. Devises — Charge on Estate Generally — What Does Not Constitute*— Case at Bar. — A testator devised to the President and Professors of a College, and their successors in office forever, 500 bushels of Corn "to be paid them annually on the 25th of December, for the establishment and support of a free school; directing that 1000 acres, part of a certain tract of land, to be laid off by metes and bounds within twelve months after his decease.” stand pledged for ever, for the full and complete execution of this devise. By other clauses, he bequeathed sundry pecuniary legacies to a large amount; directing particularly, in each bequest, payment to be made by his Executors. He also emancipated all his slaves, and devised to his sisters all the residue of his estate. It was decided. that the devifee to the free school was not a charge upon the estate generally, but upon the 1000 acres of land only.</p>

The Culpeper Agricultural & Manufacturing Society brought an action of debt against William H. Digges and Whiting Digges, who were the obligors in a note under seal, executed to the “President and Managers of the Culpeper Agricultural and Manufacturing Society. ” The Declaration avers that the said note was executed to the Plaintiffs, by the name and style of “The President and Managers of,” &c. The Writ was executed and appearance bail given.

UPON ai~ appeal from a Decree of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District.

This was a foreign attachment in chancery, brought by Janes against Gall his absent debtor, in the county court of Pendleton.

The Defendants pleaded several pleas, which, with the subsequent proceedings, are fully set forth in the following opinion. A conditional verdict was rendered, and Judgment given for the Defendants. The Plaintiff appealed. Attorney General, for the Appellant,, contended, that the verdict was insufficient, and destitute of the necessary precision. It submits to the Court a mere abstract principle of Law.

IN an action for breach of Coveiiant, brought by the appellees against Lewis Spindle, the (leclaration Con-tamed two Counts; each stating certain articles of agreement under seal, made the 5th of February, 1807, between James JIIiller (testator of the plaintift~s,) and the defcnth~iit, by which the said .T~'Iiller bound himself to ~nake mid execute deeds of conveyance for a certain tract of land which he had sold to the said Spindle, on the following terms; viz, that the…

This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Fredericksburg, where Sawney, a coloured man, filed his bill against Robert C. Carter, to recover his freedom. The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the following opinion.

IN detinue, instituted by the appellants against the appellee, it appeared from a special verdict, that the plaintiffs John Timberlake and Margaret his wife, (late Margaret Mien,) and Patsy Mien an infant by Garrett Minar her guardian, claimed the slave in the declaration mentioned, under the following clause in the last Will of Nancy Woolfolk deceased; viz; “I give unto my beloved “ nephew John Mien, the following negroes, to wit;” (inserting their names;) “ them and their…

By deed bearing date the 1st day of November 1843, Charles G. Reynolds and Frances his wife, conveyed to James A. Lems and John Welch the one moiety of a tract of land on the Kanawha river, with the salt wells, fixtures, &c., thereon, and other personal property, in trust to secure certain enumerated creditors. These creditors were divided into three classes, the two first of which were creditors by judgment, and were very numerous.

<p>In an action on the case, brought by Pendleton against Spotswood, in the District Court, the declaration was as follows: Benjamin Pendleton complains of Alexander Spotswood in custody, &c., of this, to wit: that whereas, first day of October, 1790, there was an appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Spotsylvania, depending in the District Court holden at Fredericksburg, in which appeal the said Alexander Spotswood was appellant, and the said Benjamin was appellee, when and where it was agreed by said Alexander Spotswood, that if the said Benjamin Pendleton would agree to have the said appeal dismissed, that he, the said Alexander, would pay him the full amount of the debt, damages and costs then due on said appeal, and the said Benjamin avers, that he did agree to have the said appeal dismissed, and it was in consequence dismissed; and he doth moreover aver, that the amount of the debt, damages and costs then due upon the .appeal was 222/. 5s. 7J-. Of which the said defendant had notice, by reason of all which premises the said defendant became liable to pay to the said plaintiff, the said 222/. 5s. 7S-, and being so liable, he afterwards, to wit: on the day and year last mentioned, at the county aforesaid, in consideration thereof, undertook and faithfully promised that he would pay the said 222/ 5$. 7a. to the said Benjamin, whenever he should be afterwards thereto required. Nevertheless the said Alexander, although often required, hath not yet paid the said 222/. 5s. 7g. to the said Benjamin, but hitherto to pay the same hath refused and still doth refuse to the damage of the said plaintiff of sixty pounds, and, therefore, he brings suit, &c. Plea, non assumpsit, and issue. Upon the trial of the cause, the defendant filed a bill of exceptions, which stated, that “ the defendant moved the Court to. instruct the jury, that the 10 per cent, before the appeal was dismissed, was not due, and was not included in the contract stated in the declaration. It appealing, also, from the record, that the appeal mentioned in the declaration was dismissed in the year 1791; but the Court, being divided, did not instruct the jury, for the following reasons: because it depended upon the evidence, what the parties agreed was due, at the time the contract was made for the dismission, and because the jury were the judges of the said contract, which was verbal.”</p> <p>There is a copy of the order for dismissing the appeal, copied by the Clerk into the record, which is in these words: “Fredericksburg District Court, April 30th, 1791. Alexander Spotswood, appellant, against Benjamin Pendletbn, appellee, upon an appeal. .This suit being agreed between the parties, it is dismissed.”</p> <p>There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to this Court.</p>

<p>By articles of agreement under seal, between Samuel Moore in his lifetime and Jonathan Fitz Randolph, Moore contracted to sell Fitz Randolph 100 acres of land, for 360 dollars, 70 dollars to be paid in cash, and the residue in four equal annual instalments of 70 dollars each, with interest from the date of the contract, with the following covenant to convey the land: “ And the said Samuel Moore doth promise and oblige himself upon the payment of the said sums, to make to the said Jonathan a good and sufficient title in fee simple to the said 100 acres of land.” Before the whole of the purchase money was paid, but after the last instalment fell due, Moore died, without having made any conveyance of the land to Fitz Randolph; and Fitz Randolph paid the balance of the purchase money to Moore’s administrators. And then Fitz Randolph brought an action against Moore’s administrators, on the covenant to convey, in'the circuit court of Harrison, declaring that he had performed all the covenants on his part stipulated to be performed, and alleging, as the breach on Moore’s part, that he had failed to convey the land. Moore’s administrators pleaded, 1. conditions performed, on which an issue was made up, and 2. that Moore died before payment of the purchase money was completed, leaving many heirs, some adults, some femes covert, and some infant grandchildren resident in another state, and that upon the payment of the purchase money being completed, his surviving children tendered Fitz Randolph a deed of conveyance with special warranty against themselves, which he refused to accept. To the second plea, Fitz Randolph demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer. And, upon the trial of the issue on the plea of conditions performed, there was a verdict and judgment for Fitz Randolph, for the purchase money with interest.</p> <p>Whereupon, Moore’s administrators exhibited a bill against Fitz Randolph and all the heirs of Moore, in the superiour court of chancery of Clarksburg, setting forth the facts, and alleging, particularly, that Moore had put Fitz Randolph in possession of the land, immediately after the agreement for the sale thereof, was executed, and ho had ever since and still held the possession; that Moore lived some time after the last instalment of the purchase money fell due, but that not being paid, he had not executed a conveyance of the land in his lifetime; and that, on the payment being made by Fitz Randolph to his administrators, they offered to procure a conveyance to him from the surviving children of their intestate, with a covenant of special warranty against themselves, and a covenant binding the estate to them descended from their father; but Fitz Randolph refused to receive the conveyance, unless his infant grandchildren, who resided in another state, should be parties thereto, and insisted, that the administrators should procure their title, which they were unable to do in consequence of the infancy and non-residence of these heirs. And the bill prayed, that the heirs of Moore should be decreed to make a proper conveyance of the land to Fitz Randolph, and that he should be compelled to accept the same, and enjoined from executing his judgment at law against them, the administrators. The injunction was awarded.</p> <p>Fitz Randolph, in his answer, insisted, that though he might have resorted to a court of equity to claim specific execution of the agreement, he had a right also to elect his remedy at law for the breach of the covenant, and having elected to pursue his remedy at law, he was entitled to the benefit of it. He said further, that he had reason to believe that Moore’s title was defective ; that he had a right to a conveyance from him with general warranty, which would, have been a sufficient assurance of the title, as Moore was solvent; and he was not bound to accept a conveyance with general much less with special warranty from his heirs, who were dispersed, and some of them insolvent; that a conveyance from the surviving children of Moore, was tendered him, as alleged in the bill, after he had brought his action at law, but he refused to accept it, because it was not su°h an assurance of the tide as he had a right to require, and because he had elected to pursue his remedy at law for damages for breach of the contract,</p> <p>The chancellor,—being of opinion, upon the authority of Spindle’s adm’x v. Miller’s ex’ors, 6 Munf. 170. that, as Moore bound himself to make the conveyance to Fitz Randolph, without binding his heirs also, Fitz Randolph was not bound to accept a conveyance from the heirs, but had a right to waive the contract, and recover back the purchase money, as he had done in his action at law,—therefore, dissolved the injunction. Moore’s administrators appealed to this court.</p>

This was an appeal from the Fredericks-burg Chancery Court, where James W. Kelly and others, filed their bill against William Stone and George Kemper, executors of John Kelly, deceased. The whole subject of controversy is fully explained in the following opinion.

ON the 9th of ~ecember 1799, Washingtom Bowie, a Citizen a~id resident of the State of ~Maryland, sued out of the Clerk's office of Fairfax County in Firgiinia, a Writ of Subp~na and Attachment in Chaiicery against William B. Magrv~dcr and Thomas L. Washington, Mer.~ chants and partners trading under the firm aid style of William B. Magruder & Co. (both of whom were inhabitants of Maryland,) and William, H. Washington and John L'uke residents of the said County of Fairfax,…

B. and S. Gordon, brought an action of debt in the County Court upon a promissory note, for 707 The declaration demanded the seventy pounds only, without any mention of interest, and concluded to the plaintiffs damage thirty dollars. The defendant took oyer of the note, which was in these words: 61 Messrs. Samuel and Bazil Gordon, Falmouth, Gentlemen, I will ninety days after date hereof pay to you or order seventy pounds for value received of Robert B. Foss.

Stevenson’s administrator gave the following notice on a forthcoming bond: “ Dumfries, October 9, 1797, Gentlemen, Please take notice, that oh the fifth day of the next District Court, to be held at Dumfries,'or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, a motion will be made for judgment on a bond granted by Richard Graham (now deceased,) and Cumberland Wilson to John Stevenson, administrator of William Stevenson, dated the seventeenth day of December, seventeen hundred…

The hill states, that Copland, being disposed to lay out - some money, which he had by him, in the fall of 1795, he mentioned it to Hicks %• Campbell, and told them, if they would purchase some military lands for him out of his own money, that he would allow them á commission of 5 per cent.

This was an appeal from the Superior Court of Law for Stafford County. The administrators of William Drum-mond, deceased, brought an action of debt against the administrator of Alexander Roane, deceased, on a Judgment which had been obtained against Roane and Al-cock for the sum of SOI. 19s. 10d., and one penny damages; which Judgment *was to be discharged by the payment of 251. 7s. 434, and the damages and costs, to wit, $8 1 cent.

Roberts filed a bill in the high court of chancery, stating, That on the 10th of March, 1727, Robert Carter the younger, obtained a grant for 11,000 acres of land… Held: until after the purchase. That Charles Carter told the defendant he never promised to confirm leases to those who had none. That the defendant submits how far Charles Carter’s promises, without consideration, bound him ; and how far Robert Carter’s promises bind, after the length of time which has elapsed.

This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Richmond, where Cousins filed his bill against Grymes, Rhodes and Moore, praying for an Injunction to prohibit a sale of certain goods which had been conveyed (fraudulently, as he alleged) by Deed of Trust from Grymes to Rhodes; or, that the goods might be returned by Moore ■ the auctioneer, to the other Defendants; or, to stay $1,500 in the *hands of Moore, if a sale should be thought proper; or to grant a Ne Exeat.

ON the 5th of October 1807, Fleet agreed to sell Ha'a3~ kins a tract of land, supposed to contain three hundred and seventy acres, at fifteeii dollars per a~re, and put hint in possession) according to contract, about the end o~ the safi~e year. ~Fhe land was heIdi ~artIy~ undei a P~tent for S5~ acres; the rc~ith~e was a ~maI1 tract, purchased of one Ho~man, which afterwards was surveyed and found to contain upwards of nineteen acres.

This was an action brought in the Circuit court of Kanawha, by Wiley P. Woods against Friend & Williams as common carriers..

Alexander M’Daniel conveyed sundry slaves to William Cook, in trust, to secure a just debt. Before this deed of trust was acted on, M’Daniel died, and administration of his estate was granted to Abner Whitton. Cook, in execution of the trust, sold seven of the mortgaged slaves, three of them females, to William Whit-ton, the father of Abner, for 4420 dollars, and made him a bill of sale for them.

Milly Mana and others brought suit in August 1815, against Joseph Givens and Magdalen Reynolds, in Botetourt *County Court, in forma pauperis, to recover freedom ; and issue was joined on the question of freedom or slavery.

<p>Tate, assignee of William and James Donald 8? Co.? brought debt in the County Court against Nicholas Meade, upon a penal bill. The defendant pleaded payment. And on the trial of the issue, the plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions, stating, that the defendant introduced the deposition of William Meade, who said, that some time before the above Company’s agent Robert Montgomerie left the County of Bedford, the deponent paid him a sum of money, he thinks about thirty pounds, perhaps a little more or less, in discharge of a debt due by Nicholas Meade the defendant, to the said Company, for which they had his the said Nicholas’s bond or note, which when applied for . the deponent was informed by the said Montgomerie, that it had been sent off with the books of the Company, and in lieu thereof he obtained a receipt in full of the debt aforesaid: Which receipt is either lost or mislaid. That, the money so paid, was not in discharge of aught that was due from the deponent to the said Nicholas, but was paid by the deponent at the special request of the said Nicholas, who thereby became indebted to the deponent in the sum so paid. That the defendant also introduced a witness who said, that William Meade was heard to say, that Nicholas had paid him the money he had advanced to William and James Donald Sf Co. before' the bringing of the suit. That the plaintiff objected to reading of the deposition aforesaid, as illegal evidence; but, that he was over-ruled by the Court.</p> <p>Verdict and judgment for the defendant. Whereupon, the plaintiff appealed to the District Court.</p> <p>The District Court was of opinion that the judgment was erroneous, in this, “ that the County Court permitted the deposition of William Meade who was interested in the event of this suit to go as evidence to the jury. ” It therefore reversed the judgment, with costs; set aside the proceedings subsequent to the issue; and sent the cause back to the County Court for further proceedings to be had therein. Meade appealed from the judgment of the District Court to this Court.</p>

This was an appeal from the Richmond Chancery Court. The following opinions will give a full view of the case. It was submitted without argument.

<p>An actIons In the name of the assignee of a bontl with a collateral condition., dated in 1?T4? is not maintainable®</p> <p>What a bond, with a collateral condition®</p>

Robert Patton the elder, in an action oí assumpsit against Helen Tennent administratrix of John Tennent deceased, upon the assumpsit of the intestate, recovered a judgment for 307 dollars, with interest and costs; but as the administratrix pleaded fully administered, and debts of superiour dignity, as well as the general issue, and the verdict was for her on those two pleas, judgment was rendered for Patton, to be levied of assets quando acciderint.

This was an action of debt, brought upon an indemnifying bond, in the County court of Grayson, by Hail, sheriff, at the relation of Micajah Forkner, against Archibald Stuart and Thomas J. Boyd. The action was to recover damages for the sale of two slaves, Armstead and David, who had been levied on and sold as the property of Jonathan Cook; and who the relator Forkner claimed as his own property. The defendants pleaded two pleas.

SOME time about the year 1771, ~Tosep1i Cabefl became bound, as the surety of Wilhiaia Megginson, in a bond to George Kippen & Co. British merchants, for the sum of 511l. 17s. 8d. payable May 11th 1771. En the year 1777, William .i3fegginsom died, leaving to his son Joseph C. Megginson, by Will, nearly all his estate both real and personal, which was very considerable.

<p>If the demurrer to evidence shews that the plaintiff ought not to recover, the Court cannot set it aside and award a new trial, but ought to enter judgment for the defendant»</p> <p>Where the plaintiff’s evidence is not doubtful and uncertain, but defective only, the defendant may demur.</p> <p>In such a case, if the Court does set aside the demurrer and award a new trial, the defendant may appeal.</p> <p>And if the defendant offers to appeal, and the Court refuses it, this Court will reverse the judgment, notwithstanding there was a continuance, by consent, at a subsequent term, and after that, a verdict and judgment for the plain» tiff.</p>

<p>Similar Case to That of Jones, <Scc. v. Roberts, (ante, 187).</p>

These were two actions of debt, brought in the Superior Court of Law held in Peters-burg, by the Farmers’ Bank of Virginia, one against Allison, and the other against Caldwell who were co-obligors in a bond with Frayser, conditioned for the said Frayser’s faithful performance of the duties of the office of Accountant in the said Bank. The two cases are similar in their circumstances, with only two exceptions which are mentioned in the opinions which follow.

The appellee exhibited a bill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Staunton District, against Daniel Rufifner, Joseph Rufifner and Samuel Henry, setting forth that he executed his bond to Joseph Rufifner and Samuel Henry executors of J. Rufifner, for $119.60, that Joseph Rufifner assigned it to Daniel RufEner; that the complainant paid the money to Samuel Henry, without notice of the assignment, and took his receipt, to which one John Henry was subscribing witness; that…

<p>1. Upon a Bill of In. junction Iii-ed, t~ new trial at law wa~ grante4; verdict was found for the complainant, but contified by the iudge to b~ against the weight of evidence; another trial being- directed, a second verdict was found as before; whereupon, the Judge certified with the verdict all the evidence given to the Jury; _ from which it clearly appeared that Hie merits of the case were against the complainant. The Court of Appeals thex-eupon, did not award another trial, hut dissolved the Injunction, and dismissed the Bill with costs.</p> <p>2. The assignor and assignee of a bond being made defendants to a bill exhibited by the obligor, for an Injunction and for general relief; he alledging that he paid the money to the assignor without notice of the assignment; if that allegation be afterwai-ds disproved, whereupon the Injunction is'dissolved, and the Bill dismissed as to the assignee; the cause ought yet to be retained and farther pro», rne.ded in, to give the complainant relief against the assignor.</p>

<p>l.On a warrant of unlawful entry and detainer against two, the warrant is executed on one, but not on the other. The plaintiff may proceed against the one upon whom the warrant has been executed.</p> <p>2. No further proceedings can be had upon that warrant, against the one upon whom it has not been executed before the return day thereof.*</p> <p>3. So much of the judgment of the Court below as affects the appellant, being affirmed, although the appellate Court reverses so much of the judgment as affects a third party who has not appealed, costs will be given to the appellee as the party substantially prevailing.</p>

In an appeal, by M’Candlish, from a judgment of the superior court of law at Williams-burg, the case appeared to be, That, in the year 1814, Buey L. Paradise died intestate. That, within the last seven years, she had two grand children (alien friends) living beyond sea, and it is not suggested that they are dead. That Mrs. Hopkins and Mrs. Hodg-son, being the daughters of a deceased sister, are her nieces ; the first of whom resides in Virginia, and the latter in Alexandria.

<p>This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery; where Josiah Woodson and wife and others, brought a bill against Graham, and Philip Woodson; stating, that Matthew Woodson leased to Graham some coal mines in Goochland, for the term of twenty years; in which lease there is a proviso, that if Graham should , think fit to surrender the lease before the expiration of the term, he should have liberty to do so, on paying the sum of five shillings. That this lease was made for the sole object of providing more competently for the lessor’s daughters; and was subsisting at the death of Matthew Woodson; who devised the same, or, which is the same thing, the monies arising therefrom, to his daughters, the plaintiffs. That the defendant P. Woodson, being entitled by devise from the said M. Woodson to the reversion of the said coal mines, after the expiration of Graham’s lease, the said Graham, after the death of Matthew Woodson, purchased the said reversionary interest; and, thereupon, surrendered the lease, and gave notice thereof to the executrix and devisees aforesaid of Matthew Woodson. That this was done by Graham, to obtain the land for less than its value. That, by this means, the rights of the plaintiffs will be defeated, if the surrender should be allowed to prevail against them; which they insist it ought not, as the plaintiffs are entitled either to the money, or to the unexpired term of years in the land itself. The bill, therefore, prays an account and payment of the rent till the regular expiration of the lease by efflux of time; or, otherwise, that he may deliver possession of the lands to the plaintiff, during the residue of the term for which the lease was granted, and for general relief.</p> <p>The answer of Graham admits the lease, and devise; insists upon his right to surrender, under the express words of the lease; and that it was on account of the right to do so, that he had agreed to give so high a rent. That the lease being defeasible in its nature, those claiming the benefits, were subject to the disadvantages of it. That the uncertainty of its duration, was frequently spoken of in conversations between the defendant and the said M. Woodson. That, after searching for coal for some time, without any competent success, the defendant, in the lifetime of the said M. Woodson, had determined to annul the lease, unless he should, in a short time, find a body of coal which promised more. That things were in this state when the said M. Woodson died; and, in a short time afterwards, the apprehensions of the lease being ruinous to him increasing, he determined to abandon, when he was informed that the defendant P. Woodson would sell; and conceiving that a purchase would be the best means of recovering his expenditures already made upon the lease, he bought the fee simple. That this circumstance induced him to make greater exertions in seeking for coal; which, after great expense, he at length found in such a degree as to promise success. Yet, notwithstanding these prospects, he is willing to relinquish his interest in the coal lands, on receiving his expenditures, without interest, and a reasonable hire for the slaves which have been employed on them.</p> <p>The answer of Woodson says, Graham, during the treaty for the reversion, frequently told him, he would give up the lease to his sisters, so as to prevent the defendant from receiving any benefit from it. That he "sold his right to Graham, without any intention of defrauding the plaintiffs.</p> <p>The depositions prove M. Woodson’s intention of providing for his daughters by the lease. That Graham, when he bought the fee simple, secured £ 100 each to the two youngest daughters, if they were satisfied. And one of the witnesses says, that after the purchase, Graham, in a conversation,- said to the defendant Philip, that if he had thrown up the lease, he should have done it in favor of the legatees, and not of Philip, as that seemed to be his father’s will.</p> <p>The Court of Chancery decreed the defendant Graham to pay the rents with interest; and if he should choose afterwards to abandon the lease, to deliver the possession of the lands, during the unexpired term thereof, to the plaintiffs. From which decree, Graham appealed to this Court.</p>

This was an action of trespass on the case in the Circuit court of Scott county, by John Larkey against Edley Hickam. The original and alias capias were regularly issued, and returned “ not found; and then a pluries capias issued, which was blank as to its date, and was not signed by the clerk.

This was an appeal from a decree of the superior court of chancery, ordering Jones to convey a tract of land to the representatives of Hubbard.

A written agreement ivas made between Isaac Baker an¿ josepjh Glass, in the following words: “ Memorandum 6 2-3 acres, to Joseph Glass, on the follow- “ ing conditions; for two dollars per acre, provided they will suit Joseph Glass on his return from Kentucky; “ then the said Isaac Baker is to take a house and lot in ee Middletown in Berkeley county, Virginia, to he valued hy two persons what said property is worth in Cash, or *'■' to allow said Joseph Glass fifteen hundred…

<p>1. A joint action of trespass, assault and battery, lies against husband and wife for an assault committed conjointly by both.</p> <p>2. In a joint action of assault and battery against husband and wife for a joint assault, there may be a verdict and judgment against the one, and in favour of the other.</p>

<p>This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery; where Clinch, as executor of Holl, together with the children of Holt, brought a bill against Skipwith, stating, that on the 23d of May, 1777, SMpioith leased of Holt, an estate for twenty years, at 1501. per annum, with a proviso for payment of the further sum of 501. per annum, provided there should be peace between G. Britain and America; the said 50to commence with the peace. That another lease was afterwards executed between the said parties, in every respect like the former, except that the latter is dated on the 31st of August, 1778, instead of the 23d of May, 1777. That the only reason for executing the second lease was, that the first had not been recorded. That the plaintiffs can prove that specie and not paper money was contemplated in the said lease. The bill states the plaintiffs’ rights to the rents under the lease; the deed for which it states to have been lost; And prays, that the defendant may be compelled to pay the rents and perform the other covenants in the lease, and for general relief.</p> <p>The answer admits the two leases; but states, that the second was a-new contract, as there had been a misunderstanding between the parties relative to the first Denies that it was a specie contract; and says, it would not have been worth above a fourth or third of the nominal rent, had it been payable in specie. States, that the taxes, owing to the unjust valuation of the land by the commissioners, are excessively high, with other circumstances and difficulties, which have attended the contract.</p> <p>The deposition of a witness states, that Skipwith informed him that there was a lease of a date prior to that of August, 1778, but, that the last had been executed at the particular request of Holt, although there was very little variance between them.</p> <p>Another witness says, he understood from all he could learn from either party, that the rent was to be paid in specie, or (what he understood by that expression,) good money-</p> <p>Another witness says, he witnessed the original lease, which he has lately seen; and at the bottom was a note, in the hand-writing of Holt, as the deponent was informed, in these words, “this lease renewed the 31st August, 1778;” but the deponent knows nothing of the last mentioned lease.</p> <p>Another witness says) the plaintiff, Clinch, told him that the defendant had paid Holt the first year’s rent in paper money, as appeared by Holt’s books; and that he believed the reason why he did not annually pay it, to have been, because Holt would not receive it.</p> <p>Another witness says, he lived with the defendant in 1778, and wrote the last, lease, which he attested as a witness.</p> <p>The two deeds appear to be the same, except as to their dates.</p> <p>The Court of Chancery was of opinion, that the rents were payable according to the value of money at the date of the first lease, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the same benefits under the last lease, as if it had been executed on the date of the first. That Court, therefore, decreed the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs, 300/. of the present current money of Virginia, for the arrearages of the rents on the 1st of January, 1784, (taken for the date of the peace;) and 1,044/. of like money for the arrearages to the 1st of January, 1797, with liberty to sue writs of scire facias from time to time to recover future arrears, and that upon all trials at law, the defendant should admit the deed of 31st of August, 1778, to be of like force as if executed in May, 1777: Prom which decree Skipwith appealed to this Court. And the plaintiff likewise petitioned for an appeal, because the Court had scaled the rents instead of decreeing them in specie; and because interest was not allowed upon the rents.</p>

The executors of Robert Gilchrist brought an action on the ease, in the District Court, against Taliaferro, and declared for this, to wit: ee That whereas John Taliaferro deceased, in his life-time, to wit, on the 17th day of June, 1787, by his certain writing obligatory sealed with his seal, did acknowledge himself to be held and firmly bound unto James Robb in the sum of three hundred and thirty pounds fourteen shillings and four pence, conditioned to pay the sum of 165/.…

Noel Quesnel filed a bill in the high court of chancery, against Woodlief and others, stating himself to be a native of France, but then a resident of the county of Prince George, in the state of Virginia. That late in the year 1786, he came to reside in the town of Blandford, in the county aforesaid, as a merchant, and soon became acquainted with the defendant Thomas Wood-lief, of Sion Hill, in the said county; and placed great confidence in him.

This was an action of assumpsit in the Circuit court of Rockingham county, by Samuel Bowman against Isaac Moffett. The declaration contained only the general indebitatus count for money had and received.

In ejectment brought by Ware against Cary, in the District Court, the jury found the following special verdict: “We find, that on the 19th day of June, 1744, Judith Ware purchased of Thomas Walton 200 acres of land, lying on the south side of the Fluvanna river, opposite the Seven islands, for forty pounds, by a deed of bargain and sale, indented and recorded in Goochland County Court, on the 21st of JLugust, 1744, with a memorandum of livery and seizen thereon endorsed,…

ON the trial of a Writ of Right brought by the appelices against the appeliaxit in the County Court of Gooch~ land, the demaxidants by their Coixusci moved the Coui'~ I to instruct the Jury, after being sworn, and befin'e ei~i demce `was iitiroduced, to render a special verdict in the cause; which motion being overruled, they filed a bill of exceptions~ The defendant ofrereti in evidence the deposition of Joseph Payne, which had been taken by a Commissiom saving the right of…

Assumpsit by Callison against Mays, in the circuit court of Greenbrier.

James brought trespass in the County Court, against itf’ Cubbin, and declared, that the defendant on the 1 Ith of March, 1790, swore in as Sheriff of Hampshire County, being first legally appointed. That afterwards, to wit, on the 13th of November, 1790, the defendant appointed Jonathan Purcell of the said county, one of his deputies.

Johnson brought detinue for a slave by the name of James, against Walthol in the District Court. Plea, non detinet; and issue.

AFTER the decision in favour of ~arnm ai~d Wife and Warwick and Wife, in Ejectment against J~Por~e1l, reported in 2 J1ni~ 257-263, the latter brought a Writ of Right against the tormer for the same land.

<p>Mayo had petitioned the District Court of Richmond for a wi'it of supersedeas to an order of Powhatan County Court concerning a road; which the District Court refused; and entered their refusal on record.</p> <p>Randolph, moved a few days ago for a rule upon the Judges of the District Court to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to compel them to grant the writ of supersedeas ? And to-day,</p>

<p>• If to a suit upon a bill of exchange, dated in 1775, the defendant pleads that he tendered the interest in paper money, without confessing the action as to the principal, or saying any thing in bar of it, the plea is bad.</p> <p>The defendant may give such tender in evidence to extinguish the interest on the plea of payment. But, if he withdraws the plea of payment,” he relinquishes the evidence.</p> <p>And, therefore, if there he a demurrer to the plea of tender, final judgment will be rendered for the plaintiff.</p>

In assumpsit in the circuit court of Henrico, by Harvie and Robinson against Wickham, for money had and received by the defendant to the plaintiffs’ use, to which the defendant pleaded the general… Held: that the law on the case agreed was for the defendant, and gave judgment for him. And the plaintiffs appealed to this court.

<p>This was an inquisition of escheat, for the want of heirs, dated 26th July, 1796. It finds that Thomas Jackson, was, in his life-time seised of the premises, and that he died in 17 , without will, ec Or in any otherwise disposing of the said land, and that no person hath ever since claimed the said land either as a lineal or collateral heir to the said Thomas Jackson, deceased.”</p> <p>In JLpril, 1798, Dunlop as amicus curise, moved the District Court to quash the inquisition, which they refused: the Court not having jurisdiction thereof. Whereupon he filed a bill of exceptions, which stated the inquisition, and motion to quash it; because the Clerk of the Court had issued no certificate to the Escheator respecting the said inquest; but that the motion was opposed: 1. Because the inquisition had been duly returned into the Clerk’s office, and had remained there ever since, without any person having traversed it, or put in or shewn any monstrans de droit, or petition of right, within six months next after the time of finding the said inquest. 2. Because the Court had no jurisdiction of the cause, unless brought before them by a traverse of office, monstrans de droit, or petition of right: And that the Court being divided, the motion was over-ruled.</p> <p>Dunlop, appealed from the judgment of the District Court to this Court.</p>

The plaintiff did not state himself in his declaration, to be the subject or citizen of a foreign state; and the question was, if this should not be done, in order to shew that the court had jurisdiction. JAY, C. J. If the court has not jurisdiction, it is on account of the disability of the person, which might be pleaded in abatement; and if it could be pleaded in abatement, then *can the exception be taken advantage of, by motion in arrest of judgment, after verdict?

Assumpsit by Robert Wiley against Alexander Tompkins and three others, merchants and partners trading under the firm of Alexander Tompkins & Co., charging them as bailees of certain goods shipped by Richard Ashhurst, of Philadelphia, to the Plaintiff; and which, by the carelessness and negligence of the Defendants in keeping them, were totally lost to the Plaintiff.

Anderson brought actions of debt in the District Court, against Nelson, as security to Maury, upon two appeal bonds dated December 1st, 1786.

The Plaintiffs, Ashbury Crenshaw, and Thomas B. Crenshaw, exhibited their Bill to the Judge of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, praying for an Injunction against the “Trustees of the Slate River Company,” a Corporation of that name, created by an Act of the General Assembly, passed on the 29th January, *1819.

This was a suit in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Staunton District, brought, originally, in the names of Charles Carter and Edward Carter,trustees for certain PurP0SCS appointed by the Will of Edward Carter deceased, against William Galt and David S. Garland bis agent, to prevent by Injunction the sale of certain siaves, devised to .the said trustees, which had been taken in execution to satisfy a Judgment, obtained by Galt as a creditor of John C. Carter.

The defendant was indicted, under the act of congress,*' for resisting the deputy marshal when serving two writs of capias ad respondendum upon him, to wit: One for eleven dollars and eleven cents for the duty due upon a still; and the other for two hundred dollars for a penalty alleged to have been incurred, under one of the revenue laws of the United States. moved to quash the indictment, because the name of the prosecutor was not written at the foot of the indictment,…

In August 1840, Platoff Zane obtained from one of the Judges of the General court an injunction to a judgment recovered against him in the Circuit court of Ohio county, by John L. Vathir.

William Overton Winston, late Sheriff of the county of Hanover, John Winston, Bicherton Winston, and James Overton, securities for the said William O. Winston; and Cecilia Jlnderson, administratrix of William Jlnderson, deceased, who was likewise late Sheriff of the county aforesaid, and Robert Page and Mattheio Jlnderson, securities for the said Cecilia Jlnderson, gave a bond, dated the 26th day of October, 1792, to Parke Goodall, then present Sheriff of the said county, in…

A writ of fieri facias, sued out of the hustings court of Bijnchburg, by Stevens against Hazlewood, and delivered to Bransford seijeant… Held: that Bransford was not a competent witness, because he might be liable to M'Intosh, the relator, for any amount he might shew himself entitled to recover in this action, if the defendants, the obligors in the indemnifying bond, should prove to be insufficient, which liability would be wholly removed, if there should be a verdict and…

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, where Swan and M’Rae brought a bill against Wolcott, Smyth, and Price the Register of the Land Office, stating, that, on the 21st day of July, 1795, the plaintiffs entered into a contract, concerning the location of certain lands; that Smyth stated to the plaintiff, M’Rae, a particular tract of country, lying in Russell county, as answering the description of the lands agreed to be located by the plaintiff,…

By sealed articles of agreement between Lowther attorney for Cochran and Ruclcer, Lowther, “ according to a power of attorney given him by Cochran,” agreed to sell and convey to Rucker a parcel of land in the county of Bath (described by metes and bounds), containing “ as well as ascertained by the parties” 184 acres, the title to be made on or before the date of the last payment ; for which Rucker agreed to pay Lowther, attorney for Cochran, 552 dollars in two instalments;…

Is. Sale, by trustees, at public auction for ready money, of a tract of land which James T~ Jiubard had purchased of Samuel .ffllen, and on which he resided, being about to take place for a balance of the purchase money, IIub~ ard requested Samuel Jones to become the purchasej~ at the sale, by bi(lthflg the sum due for the land, (which was 20221. 9s. 4.) permitting him to re-iinburse the money ai~d interest in one year, and take back the land.

A bill was exhibited by fames J~Iachir executor of .~lexander .i~tachir deceased against Hem'?J .Tt'Iachir and others, children, devisees and leg'atee.s of Sai(l (ICCe~ dent, and also a certain (~onrad Wakernan; praying &~ settlement of the plaintiff's accounts as executor; that the devisces be compelled to convey to the defendant Wakemam a tract of land which the plaintilF had sold him with their assent; that Wakeman be decreed to pay the purchase money to the plaintiff;…

Higgenbotham brought detinue in the County Court, against Ruche?', for four slaves. Plea, non detinet, and issue. The jury found the following special verdict, “We of the jury find, that in January, 1793, the plaintifF was possessed of the slaves in the declaration mentioned, as his own proper slaves.

<p>Sabah Etswin widow, executrix and devisee of Ed■ward Erwin deceased, in her own right and as next friend to Hannah Erwin and John Erwin his infant i . dren and devisees, presented a 33x11 to the Superior Court of Chancery for the Staunton District, on the 9th day 0f _ „ July 181G, to set aside a decree of the said Court pronoiinced, on the 8th of December 1815, against the said ° Edward Erwin, in his life time, by default, in consequence of his having failed to answer a Bill exhibited by WilHam Vint against him, with William, John and James Bells defendants.</p> <p>The ^ccree *n question, as to the said Edwaril Erwin, required him to execute to the plaintiff Vint a conveyance of a tract of land, with special 'warranty; and permitted the said plaintiff to take peaceable, possession thereof: directing that he be forever quieted in the said possession.</p> <p>As to the Bells, it was decreed, that, on the said plaintiff’s paying or tendering to the defendant William Bell a certain sum of money, the said William Bell should execute to him a deed of bargain and sale for the same tract of land, with special warranty, and covenant to refund the money writh interest, in case the plaintiff should at any time be evicted by a title paramount.</p> <p>The grounds alledged for setting aside the decree, were, that the defendant Erwin had been prevented at one time by a mistake as to the day of session of the Court, (which had frequently been changed by the Legislature,) and disabled by an accidental hurt to his knee at another time, from attending and filing his answer; and that the Complainant his executrix and devisee was now prepared to shew that, in fact, his title was good to the land, and paramount to any claim on the part of the other defendants William, John and James Bells, or of the plaintiff Vint, neither of whom had any title, in law or equity, to recover the said land, against him.</p> <p>The Bill prayed that Vint should be held to answer; but, without waiting for his answer, notice w'as given that a motion would be made to set aside the decree; and the statement in the Bill for that purpose was supported ~by exhibits and affidavits: but Chancellor Bnowx overruled the motion with Costs; whereupon the Complainant Sarah Erwin appealed to this Court.</p>

<p>This was an action of detinue in the Circuit court of Wayne county, by David G. Given against William Williams, for the recovery of a female slave. On the trial of the cause it appeared, that a man calling himself John C. Harris, but whose real name was Thomas L. Stone, purchased of the plaintiff in the county of Monroe, the girl in question, for 382 dollars 50 cents, and paid the plaintiff by counterfeit bank notes of one of the hanks of South Carolina: That said Harris or Stone took the girl to the county of Cabell, and left her with Mrs. Letty Adkins, with directions to keep her until he came or sent for her. That about a week after the girl was so left, a man named Rufus Webb, came for her, and took her to Guyandotte, in the county of Wayne, and there sold her to the defendant for 350 dollars.</p> <p>When all the evidence had been introduced, the plaintiff moved the Court to give certain instructions to the jury, which the Court refused to give; but instructed them: That if they believed from the testimony that the object of the person who purchased from the plaintiff, the negro girl spoken of in this cause, was to pass to the said plaintiff counterfeit bank paper, knowing it to be counterfeit at the time he paid it, and he the plaintiff being at the time entirely ignorant of the design of the said purchaser, and believing at the time he received said bank notes from said purchaser in payment for said negro girl, that they were not counterfeit, but good and genuine notes, then that the title to said negro did not pass to the purchaser, notwithstanding she was delivered to said purchaser by the plaintiff. And further: That if they should believe from the evidence, that the person who purchased from the plaintiff the said negro girl, did so under the circumstances supposed in the first instruction, and sold her to the said Rufus Webb, and that the said Webb sold her to the defendant, having no knowledge whatever of the manner in which said negro girl was purchased from the plaintiff, yet if the said defendant had not the said negro girl in his possession five years next before the institution of this suit, and had no other title to said negro girl except that derived through said Webb and said purchaser from the plaintiff, then his purchase from said Webb did not confer upon him such title as would preclude the recovery by the plaintiff in this action; if the plaintiff had shewn himself to be the owner of said negro girl at the time he delivered her to the person calling himself John C. Harris, and had not since parted with his property in said negro girl.</p> <p>The defendant excepted to the opinion of the Court giving the instructions; and there being a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant applied to this Court for a supersedeas, which was awarded.</p>

<p>The doctrine of perpetuities and executory limitations considered.*</p> <p>[It is unusual to adjudge profits to a person held in slavery, on recovering L¡3 liberty.]</p>

Some years past, Greenleaf, a citizen of Maryland, became indebted, by bond, given in Virginia, to Banks, a citizen and inhabitant of the state of Virginia. After-wards, Greenleaf took the benefit of the bankrupt laws of Maryland; and being arrested, for the foregoing debt, in this court, he pleaded the discharge, under the bankrupt laws of Maryland, in bar of the claim.

This was a suit, in the superiour court of chancery of Richmond, by Garnett, one of the residuary legatees in the will of Wood, against Stevenson the executor, and the other residuary legatee, praying an account of the estate, and of the executor’s administration, and a decree for the plaintiff’s share of the balance which should be found due thereon.

IN Ejectrnent brought in October 1810, by John Car1-~ ton and Peggy his Thfe, and Tabitha .&llen, against John cropper, in the Superior Court of Acconiack County, the Jury found a Special Verdict, statiiig that John ~llem the elder was seised in fee of a tract of land situate iii Accornack County, containing by estimation three hundred acres, and, being so seised, upon the day of 1764, duly made and published his last Will and testameiit, in these words, &c.; containing,…

<p>This was a writ of right in the Circuit court of Botetourt, by John Givens and others, heirs at law of Joseph Givens, against Robert Wiley. The mise was joined on the mere right; and on the trial the tenant, to maintain his title, offered in evidence a patent dated the 9th day of November 1796, from the Commonwealth to Joseph Gallego and John Augustus Chevallie, for a tract of two thousand eight hundred and fifty acres of land in the county of Botetourt, which included within its limits the land in controversy. And he deduced his title from these parties through intermediate conveyances to himself. The deed to himself was from Peter Joseph, Chevallie, the surviving executor of Joseph Gallego, and bore date the 17th of April 1833.</p> <p>The demandants claimed under a patent which bore ¿ate the 6th of March 1801, to Robert Anderson, for eight hundred and thirty-one acres of land, which included two hundred and six acres of the land embraced in the patent to Gallego and J. A. Chevallie. By deed bearing date the 6th day of March 1806, Robert Anderson conveyed to Joseph Givens, the ancestor of the demandants, three hundred acres of the land embraced in his patent; and by deed bearing date the 6th of December 1822, Anderson conveyed to Joseph Givens, one hundred and eighty-seven acres of his land adjoining that first conveyed to him. The lands thus conveyed to Givens, include the two hundred and six acres of Anderson’s tract, which are within the bounds of the patent to Gallego and Chevallie. The deed of the 6th of December 1822, recites “ that the said Robert Anderson, in order to comply with a contract made between John Reynolds, deceased, and Isaac Taylor, for the tract of land hereafter described, the title of which being in said Anderson; and the said Taylor having-full compensation from the said Reynolds, deceased, for said tract of land; and the said Givens being one of the heirs of said Reynolds, deceased, and having bought the claims of all the other heirs of Reynolds, to the said tract of land;” and then proceeds to convey the land to Givens.</p> <p>The demandants then introduced evidence to prove that their ancestor Joseph Givens, had cleared and fenced in three and a quarter acres within the limits of the land conveyed to him by the deed of the 6th of December 1822, before the date of said deed, viz: in the year 1818 or 1819; and at the time he made said clearing, he claimed the said land as his own; and that the rest of his clearing, amounting to about twenty acres, was within the bounds of the deed of the 6th of March 1806 ; and was made by said Givens in 1819, 1820 and 1821 ; he continuing to clear said land until near his death, in 1831; and that said clearing was within the bounds of the land in dispute. And they proved that they had held possession of said cleared lands, cultivating and pasturing them, from the time they were cleared until the bringing of this suit. It was also proved that Joseph Givens and the demandants, had paid taxes on the laud in dispute since the year 1824: That John Reynolds died intestate in the year 1814; and that the wife of Joseph Givens was one of his heirs.</p> <p>The tenant then introduced evidence to prove that in the spring of 1844, he by his tenants cleared a small field adjoining the clearing of the demandants, and within the lines of the deed of the 6th of December 1822; and built a cabin about one hundred and fifty yards from said field, in the woodland covered by said deed: both the clearing and the cabin being on the land in dispute. There was some other evidence not material to be stated.</p> <p>After all the evidence had been introduced, the demandants, by their counsel, moved the Court to instruct the jury as follows : “ If the jury shall believe from the evidence, that John Reynolds purchased the tract of 187 acres of land before his death in 1814, and had paid for it, and had a right to call for the title; and that Joseph Givens had intermarried with one of the heirs of John Reynolds before he cleared and enclosed a part of said tract of 187 acres; that such entry, if made under said purchase by John Reynolds, would constitute an adverse possession under colour of title, which would extend to the boundary of said tract of 187 acres.” The tenant objected to the instruction, on the grounds that it was hypothetical, and there was no evidence in the cause tending to prove the state of facts set out and supposed to exist in said instruction; but the Court overruled the objection and gave the instruction.</p> <p>The counsel for the tenant then moved the Court to instruct the jury as follows, by way of supplement to the instruction asked for by the demandants and given by the Court: “But the deed exhibited and proved in this cause by the demandants, from Robert Anderson to Joseph Givens for 187 acres of land, is not evidence in this cause of any such payment of the purchase money as is referred to in this instruction, or as would have given Joseph Givens or his heirs a right to call for the title.” But the Court refused to add said last mentioned clause to the instruction given as aforesaid, or to give the instruction thus asked for by the tenant. And the tenant excepted to the instruction given, and also to the refusal to give that asked for by him. There was then a verdict and judgment for the demandants; and the tenant thereupon applied to this Court for a supersedeas, which was awarded.</p>

Morris and Bulloch, assignees of Nicholas, brought three actions of debt, in the circuit court of Buchingham, against the administrator of Clopton, on three bonds for 1333 dollars each, executed by… Held: that the law upon the demurrer to evidence was for the plaintiffs, and gave them judgments for the debts claimed in the declarations; from which Ciopton’s administrator appealed to this court.

The bill states, that judgments have been obtained by Samuel Gist, in this court, against John Tabb, the complainants’ intestate, as surviving partner of Moss Armstead & Co., Richard Hill & Co., Richard Booker & Co., and William Watkins & Co. That, at the time of the commencement of the suits and rendition of the judgments, the intestate was in a state of mind which unfitted him for business. That a deed of trust has been executed, to secure payment thereof with interest.

Thomas Liggon died, under twenty one years of-age, without issue, having title to certain real estate derived by descent immediately from John Liggon his father.— The appellee Mary, wife of Giles Fuqua, was his paternal grandmother; the appellant Iviggon, his paternal uncle; and these were his only relations in the paternal line, living at the time of his death.

<p>i. Judgment* — Revival—Writ of Inquiry. — Upon a scire facias to revive a judgment, in debt, fora penal sum, to be discharged by principal and interest; if the defendant confess judgment according to the scire facias, the plaintiff is not entitled to.a writ of enquiry of damages, to recover more than the penal sum; (the principal and interest accruing by lapse of time, amounting to more;) but must take execution upon the original judgment, with the addition, only, of the costs upon the scire facias. (1)</p> <p>See Tidd’s Hr. 798; and 3 Burr. 1791.</p>

Curtis Kendall, being entitled to 4666 2-3-acres of military land, as an officer in the late Virginia line, executed a conveyance to Samuel Marsh, dated on the 18th of March, 1797, conveying to him all his right, title and interest in 4666 2-3 acres, located and surveyed to him the said Kendall, under his military land warrant, No. 2926, and situated over the River Ohio, on Paint Creek, in five different entries; four for 1000 acres each, and one for 666 2-3 acres;…

<p>OFUTIS K~Nnu~I~, being entitled to 4666 ~-S acres military land, as an officer in the late Virginia line, exe~ cuted a conveyance to Samuel Mars1i~ (lated on the 18th of March, 1797, conveying to him all his right, title and interest in 4666 2-3 acres, located and surveyed to him the said Kendall, under his military land warrant, No~ 9926, and situated over the River Ohio, omi Paint Creek, in five different entries~ four for 1000 acres each, and one ror 666 2-3 acres; covenanting that he had not sold or eonveyed to any other person, amid authorising him to de- I mand all plats and certificates of survey, &c. The consideration expressed in the deed was S1500.</p> <p>On the 18th of April following, Samuel Marsh, in consideration of glOOO. to be paid in thirty days, and of ^wo sums of $1750 each, payable, in January, 1798 and ’99, agreed to convey and assign to Lyne Shackelford all his (Marsh’s) right and title to the military lands granteí^ Kendall, under the deed of conveyance from Kendall to Marsh, of the 18th of March, and all the right of Ken-^all t° the land; Marsh agreeing to procure from Kendall a Power of Attorney authorising Col. Richard C. Anderson, of Kentucky, to assign and transfer to Shackelford the plats and certificates of survey of the land, and to execute a deed to convey the land to Shackelford; the deed to be delivered when the first payment was made and security given for the balance.</p> <p>On the 13th of May, Kendall executed the power of attorney to Anderson to transfer to Shackelford the plats and certificates of survey of the land, and on the 22d of May, 1797, Marsh executed a deed, bar-, gaining, selling, <fcc. “ all the right, title and interest, which he the said Samuel has unto the Military Bounty “ Land granted to Curtis Kendall, for his service as anof“ficerin the Virginia line of the State Continental Army, “ containing 4666 2-3 acres, located and surveyed to him “ the said Curtis, under his military land iwarrant, Mo. “ 2926, and situated over the river Ohio, on Paint Creek, “ in five different entries; four for one thousand acres each, “ and one f or 666 2-3 acres, which said lands weregranl- “ ed and conveyed unto the said Samuel Marsh, by deed from « said Kendall, bearing date the 18th day of March last, “ with all the right, title and interest, which he, the said “ Samuel Marsh, has under the deed aforesaid,” with all the title of Kendall, with authority to receive all papers, plats, and surveys, &c. from the surveyor, &c.</p> <p>The first payment being made, and a deed of trust given to secure the balance, Kendall’s power of attorney and Marsh’s deed were delivered to Shackelford.</p> <p>William Chamberlaine was jointly interested with Shackelford in the purchase, and Thomas Newton and William Wilson with Marsh, although their names did not appear in the original contract or deed.(1)</p> <p>©n enquiry it ivas found that no part of Kendall’s military lands were entered on Paint creek; one tract of J 200 acres was entered on the waters of Paint Creek, 1200 acres on Deer Creek, 1200 acres on Indian Creek, and 1066 2-3 on Brush Creek; and none of these tracts had leen surveyed.</p> <p>Chamberlaine and Shackelford then filed their Bill and an amended hill against Marsh and Ms associates, stating these matters, and alledging that they were led. to make the purchase by the representation that the lands lay on Paint Creek, where the soil was extremely fertile, and believing that there had been actual surveys; that the warrant was located on lands very inferior in soil and situation to the lands on Paiut Creek, and that even of these lands a great part would be lost by other titles;—praying that the contract might be set aside, and the money |laid by them refunded.</p> <p>Marsh answered, denying all fraud, and insisting that ho only sold Kendall’s right to military land wherever it might be, and that lie did not engage that it should be on Paiut Creek or in any other particular place. He alIcdgcd that he shewed Shackelford a memorandum from Anderson, the surveyor, stating that Kendall’s military claim was located on the waters of Paint Creek, to the best of his recollection, in five entries, four for 1000 acres each, and one for 666 2-3 acres; (which memorandum w as made an exhibit and annexed to this answer;) that he did not know Paint Creek from any other creek, and that Shackelford was well acquainted with the military lands on the north-west side of the Ohio.</p> <p>Newton and Wilson answered, insisting that the contract was fair, was binding, and ought to be carried into effect.</p> <p>In the amendment to the hill the plaintiffs charged, that Marsh, alter they had discovered that the lands were not located on Paint Creek, and wrere of inferior value, and that they had not been surveyed, went to the western country, and had the warrants withdrawn ami located on lands still of very inferior value:</p> <p>Copies of the first and second sets of entries were exhibited in the cause.</p> <p>Three witnesses were examined. Ramus Davis deposed that he himself bought Kendall’s military lands for the taxes from the year 1801 to 1807; that lands on Paint Creek were much more valuable than lands situated as Kendall’s were; thát they were worth from two to fifteen dollars the acre; that the seat of government of Ohio was on Paint Creek; that the witness was present at a conversation between Chamberlaine and Marsh, in which Marsh said that one of the original entries was on the -waters of Paint Creek; Chamberlaine replied, that he had offered to take that or any other land on Paint Creek, but that Marsh had refused to let him have that entry, unless he would take all Kendall’s entries; and that Marsh, in presence of the witness, admitted this to be true.</p> <p>Richard Anderson deposed that the original entries were made by one Obannon, whom he understood to be the agent of Kendall, and were withdrawn and located elsewhere by Obannon after the purchase of the plaintiffs.</p> <p>David■ Allen deposed as to the practice of withdrawing military warrants in Ohio, and locating them elsewhere in the military district, and stated the value of military land warrants to have been somewhere about one dollar an acre.</p> <p>The cause came on to be heard between the plaintiffs and the defendant Marsh; not being ready as to the other defendants, and no steps having been taken to bring them before the Court; whereupon, Chancellor Tatxok, being of opinion that the matters of equity relied upon were not supported by testimony, dismissed the Bills as to Marsh, with costs; from which decree the plaintiffs appealed.</p>

Mark Anthony, brought Trespass in the Superior Court of Bedford, against John Claytor, Sheriff of Bedford, for taking and carrying away, and selling, by colour of his office, a slave of the name of Patrick, the property of Lhe Plaintiff.

This was an action of debt upon a bond brought in August 1843, in the Circuit court of Augusta county, by Samuel Harnsbarger, as administrator of Robert Harnsbarger, deceased, against Moses M’Cue, John C. Sowers and Nicholas C. Kinney. The defendants appeared and put in the plea of payment, on which there was issue; but before the trial came on, M'Cue died, and the suit abated as to him.

Assumpsit, in the county court of Mecklenburg, by James Jones against Robert Jones executor of Eaton Pugh, upon promises of the testator.

<p>If the appellant dies, and no person will administer on his estate, so that the Court orders the Serjeant to take possession of it, no scire facias to revive the appeal, lies against the Serjeant.</p>

In an action of Detinue, in the Superior Court of Matthews County, brought by George M’Williams, and Nancy his wife against Thomas James for a slave, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, subject to the *opinion of the Court upon a case agreed between the parties, in the following words: — “The parties agree that the negro in the declaration mentioned is in the possession of the defendant, being part of the estate devised to Mary Dyell, and subject to this clause in…

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, where Curzen brought a bill against Holloway’s ex’rs. stating, That in 1780, he consigned the sloop Hero’s Revenge, with her cargo to Holloway, at Peters-burg in Virginia, to be disposed of by him; which he did, some time in the ensuing year, for 205,072?. of which 7726?. 2s. 4c?. by Holloway’s own statement, appears to he due; and that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the same in tobacco, at 701. per cwt.…

This was a suit instituted in the Circuit court of Alleghany county, on the chancery side thereof, by Thomas P. Lemon, as the guardian of Mary Jane and Susan E. Pitzer, against Sebastian Hansbarger, the former guardian of the infants. The bill charged that Hansbarger had been in 1836, appointed guardian of the said Mary Jane and Susan E. Pitzer, by the County court of Alleghany.

THIS was an action of Ejectment, brought in October 1814, for 400 acres of land in Mason County; the (1ec1ar~-tion containing thrce Coants; the first, settmg forth a demise from .~lexmider f'Vcich; the second, a demise Iron) John Welch, J%1~m&y Welch and Frances Welch; and tlic third, a demise from ,TVfichael See.

This was an action of debt upon a bond for 113 dollars, in the Circuit court of Rockingham county, brought by Charles Pence, for the benefit of Andrew B. Irick, against Archibald W. Huston, and on his death revived against his executors. The defendant appeared and filed two pleas, on which there were issues. The first was the plea of payment; and the second was a special plea of set-off, under the act of April 10th, 1831.

AN agreement under seal was entered into, on the ~.8tb of June 1804, between Seth Barton and Francis `P. Bretike, by which the former covenanted to make to the latter, a good, legal and quiet title, in and to six lots or parcels of land, numbered 5, 6, 23, 24, 25, and 26, in the plat made by Bartholomew Fuller, extending' the Streets of Fredericksburg, according to the said plat, includiug the use of the Streets and appurtenances tliereiu mentioned, to the snid Francis `P.…

William Garnett, as executor of Richard Brooke, exhibited his bill in the superior court of chancery, for the Richmond district of Virginia, against William H. .Macon, John Campbell, an absent defendant, and others, setting forth, That the said Richard Brooke, devisee of George Brooke, empowered his executors to sell his real estate ; and that the plaintiff, as executor had, on the 10th of June, 1818, sold a tract of land, -called Mantapike, to the defendant, Macon ; who…

George Eskridge brought Trespass vi et armis in the Superior Court of Hampshire County, against Moses Dimmett and others, for breaking and entering his close and cutting down his mill-dam ; charging also a special injury, that his credit was. thereby ruined, and a certain Cornelius Finney, who, on the credit of said dam, and a mill to be erected and supported thereby, had agreed to lend him a large sum of money, refused to lend him the same.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, where Stannard brought a bill against Graves and others, executors of Blaydes, to be relieved touching judgments upon two bonds given by him to Blaydes, for some carpenter’s work done by the latter.

IN an action of debt in the Superior Court of Prince George county, brought by Sam'ztel Douglas against Robert Spotswood, JV~orborne B. Spotswood was returned as appearance bail for the defendant; and a judgment at rules in the Clerk's office was entered against him, as such, in March 1816.

<p>1. Aperson returned as appearance bail, who denies that he ever executedth~ bail bond, is not preeluded from obtaining relief in equity, by his failingto appeax and plead non ~tfactnm at Jaw, after being' informed that his name was subscribed to such bond; forif in fact, he did not exe.~ cute the bond, he had regularly no day in Court and was therefore not bound to take any step for his relief in the action at common law.</p> <p>2. In a case where the remedy at law was considered doub~ful when the parts applied to a Court of Equity, it would be too strict to deny him admittance iutG that Court fol' relief.</p> <p>~3. The officer who returned the writ and bail bond, ought, as well as the plain. tiff at law, to be made a parts defendant to a Bill of injunction filed by the person returned as bail, who denies that lie ever executed the bond; for the officer is in. t8re$ted in the question in controversy, and should be a party, thatfinal and co?nple€e~ Justice may be done.</p> <p>4. rn such case, in the same suit in Chancery, a decree may be rendered in fisi'our of the plaintiff at law, (though defendant i~ equity,) ag'amst suoh oft~cer, it justice should require it</p>

The first judgment of the Court of Appeals in this eaisse; was as follows : u This day came the parties, by their counsel; and the transcript of the record of the judgments aforesaid, having been maturely considered, the Court is of opinion, that the judgment of the said District Court is erroneous» Therefore, it is considered, that the same be reversed and annulled, and that the appellant recover, against the appellee, his costs by him expended ir the prosecution of his…

The Appellees, Peggy acd other negroes, who had been slaves of George Redford deceased, appeared in forma pauperis, before the County Court of Powhatan, and applied to the Court to admit to probate a Testamentary Paper, purporting to be the last Will and Testament of the said Redford.

Debt, in the circuit court of Loudoun, in the namq of Giles governor of Virginia, successor of Tijler former governor, at the relation and for the benefit of Loyd, against the executor of Bennett, late sheriff of Loudoun, upon his official bond.

See tlie statement and decree in this case, 2 Wash. 94 to 106.

<p>UPON a Bill filed by Herbert Baird against Hector J~I'JViel, stating similar grounds of equity to those on which Franklin relied iii his Bill against iSnelson, & Co., (see ante.) Chancellor TAYLOR granted an Injunction to restrain an(l injoin the defenda~it, his agents, &c., from paying, endorsing away, or in any manner enforcing the collection of, three notes negotiable at the Bank of Virginia, executed by the plaintiff to the defendant, amounting in the whole to eleven hundred dollars, and payable as described in the order.</p> <p>It appearing from the aiiswer of .7~i~f~iel, that the notes had been assigned by him for value received before the Bill was filed; Saw~uel Tvrner the assignee was made also a defendant, by an amended Bill; and another Injunction was awarded, to restrain and injoin him, his agents, &c., from proceeding to enforce, by suit or otherwise, the payment of those notes-</p> <p>Turner by his answer said, that he received the notes in question, for a valuable consideration, long before the Court had awarded an Injunction to prohibit their collection, and without knowing that there was any equity against them; and «is advised that there can be no set- “ off or equity against a note negotiable at the Banks of « Virginia.”</p> <p>The equity in the Bill, against the defendant M‘Niel only, was fully supported by testimony.</p> <p>The Chancellor made the Injunctions perpetual; reserving, however, to the defendant Turner the liberty of proceeding at law, for the recovery of the amount of the notes, against the other defendant; and decreed farther that the defendant M‘Niel pay to the plaintiff his costs.</p> <p>From this decree, both the defendants appealed.</p>

THIS was an action of debt, in the Superior Court of Montgomery County, upon a three months' i'eplevy bond given upon a distress f~r rent.

Kerr brought trespass quare clausum fregit, against Dixon, in the District Court. Held: and would hold, if the corner was established at No. 7; to which evidence the plaintiff objected, as being interested; which objection was over-ruled, and the said evidence was suffered to go to the jury, to judge of its credibility, as this verdict could not be evidence in a suit by or against the witness.” Verdict and judgment for…

A writ of fieri facias having been sued out of the county court of Loudoun, by Richard Adams against John Adams, and delivered to Charles Lewis sheriff of the county to be executed, was by him levied on a slave; and a doubt arising whether the slave was the property of John Adams, the sheriff required an indemnifying bond of the creditor, according to the statute 1 Rev. ° ...

William Soper of Matthews county, died in 1797, having first made his will, which was admitted to record in the County court of Matthews;… Held: that the proceedings of the County court of Matthews, was not evidence against any of the defendants, except John Hudgin as the executor of William Soper; and a commissioner of the Court was directed to take an account of the partnership transactions between Soper and Armstead; and to enable the commissioner to execute the order,…

• ANNE GAT~wooD brought assnrnpsit in the County Court of Caroline against John Taliaferro; setting forth in her declaration that the defendant, on the ~d day of October. 1804, assigned to her a writing obligatory, of a certain John Baylor to the said defendant:-(describ.. hig it;) that, by the said assignment, the defendant becaine bound to the plaintift that, in case the amount of the said obligation could not be recovered of the said John Baylor, she the said plaintiff…

-A- Bill in Chancery was exhibited in the County Court Loudoun, in August 1795, by James Coleman, jr. and Hannah his wife, against Johnston Cleveland, George Cleveland, John Hough and John Alexander, for partition of certain lands devised by James Cleveland, father of ^]ie fema]e plaintiff and of the defendants Johnston and George Clevelands; also, for the purpose of obtaining from yie defendant Alexander, a surrender of title deeds, and a conveyance of part of the lands m…

<p>This was a supersedeas to an order of the District Court denying a supersedeas to an order of the County Court concerning a road.</p>

<p>Construction of the 7th section of the act of descents» W. of fall age, died intestate, without issue and unmarried, seised and pos-</p> <p>sessed of an estate partly derived, by devise, from his father G. W. and partly by descent from his brother R. W. leaving an uncle and three cousins, children of a deceased uncle of the whole blood on the mother’s side, and an uncle of the half blood likewise on the mother’s side, and leaving, also, two relations on the father’s side s The estates were ordered to be divided into two moieties: of which, one was to be divided between the two relations on the father’s side, and the other moiety was to be allotted those on the mother’s side as follows, to wit: two-fifths to the uncle of the whole blood 5 two-fifths to the three cousins 5 and one-fifth to the uncle of the half blood.</p>

Mrs. Maria D. Hall was the guardian of her daughter Mary Ann, and as such she had received the sum of 100 dollars.

In January 1834, the will of William Starke was admitted to probat in the County court of Hanover.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, where Rose, as executor of Banister, brought a bill • for relief against Murchie, surviving partner of Donald, Fraser 8, Co., James Fraser and David Maitland and Robert Maitland, his attornies in fact: Stating, that on the 7th of January, 1788; Banister, gave his bond to Donald, Fraser 8¡- Co. for 200?. being the conjectural balance of an account, but in fact only 172?. 195. 6§, according to account, was due.

Detinue for a slave, brought by Dussell against Catlett in his lifetime, in the circuit court of Frederick. The writ was served on the defendant, and the plaintiff filed his declaration, and a writ of inquiry of damages was awarded; but the defendant died without having pleaded or appeared to the action.

An imperfect bond, purporting to be an executor’s bond, was executed by the Appellant and other obligors, in Nansemond County Court on the 10th October, 1S03.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, where Scriba, Scroppal and Starman, brought .a bill against the Déanes for an account of the sales of goods consigned by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and for payment of the balance due, with interest. The answer admits the consignment, without instructions whether to sell for cash or on credit: States, that the defendants sold some for cash and others on credit, and have made several remittances.

Christopher Hud so v of the County of Amelia, by ¡“is Will, dat d the 4th of November 17 88, and admit-fed to record the 26th of February 1789, bequeathed to his wife Elizabeth Hudson certain slaves during her life, and directed that the same should be by her disposed of, among Ids children, after her death, as she should think ■proper.

Debt by George Cabell, assignee of Benjamin Perkins, in the Superior Court of haw for Bedford county, against Archibald Hatcher, Edward Hatcher, and Harda-way Hatcher, on a bond, in the penalty of $5,527 62, conditioned to pay, on or before the 7th of March, 1819, the sum of $2,763 81, dated in April, 1818, executed by the said Hatchers to Perkins, and by him assigned to the Plaintiff.

This was an action on the case in the Circuit court of Albemarle, instituted in April 1839, by James L. Wright, agaist David Michie.

<p>This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery. The bill states, that the plaintiff’s brother was sued in Philadelphia, for 240,000 lbs. tobacco. That the plaintiff and Shore and M’Connico, became his security to Wilson, the creditor, for payment thereof. That the plaintiff conveyed property to Shore and M’Connico, as counter-security. That payments were made, which reduced the debt to 70,000 lbs. tobacco, and 2007 sterling on a protested bill. For which balance, suit was brought, judgment obtained, and an appeal taken to the General Court, where the judgment was affirmed in October, 1787. That the .plaintiff sold ten negroes, at vendue, and applied the amount to the discharge of the judgment, at which time the defendants advanced the plaintiff 20,000 lbs. tobacco, worth 22s. per not., which was likewise applied in payment of the judgment. That, for this advance, the plaintiff delivered the defendants two slaves (shoe-makers by trade) as'a security; and the defendants were to have the profits of them, for the use of the tobacco lent. That their profits were 20s. per week. That the deed was drawn by the defendant Campbell; and is, in form, an absolute conveyance, the'plaintiff believes, although intended only as a security. That, afterwards, the defendants, with the plaintiff’s consent, sold a female slave and children, for 4,520 lbs. tobacco; and applied it towards re-payment of the loan; leaving a balance then due of 15,750 lbs. tobacco, besides interest. That, on the day of the sale of the slaves, 30,135* lbs. tobacco, and 2077 sterling, was the balance due Wilson: who agreed, in consideration of the hardships the plaintiff labored under, that if the plaintiff paid the defendants the said balance by the day of , he would remit of the damages, on the affirmance of the judgment. Whereupon, the-plaintiff sold his blacksmith, but fell short of payment, 2,560 lbs. tobacco, and 387 8s. With which payment, however, the defendants appeared satisfied, as by a statement of the judgments in Wheeler’s writing; which does not mention the damages. That the plaintiff hoped the profits of the shoe-makers would have been applied to the discharge of this balance; especially, as the debt was assigned by Wilson to the defendants. That the defendants have issued execution against the plaintiff for tobacco, and will not remit the damages as Wilson had promised. Therefore, the bill prays, that an account may be taken of what is due on the judgments, and of the hire and profits of the slaves; that the damages may be remitted; and the defendants injoined from further proceedings; and for general relief.</p> <p>The answer admits the judgment; but denying that the 20,000 lbs. tobacco was advanced on mortgage, insists that the defendants bought the shoe-makers absolutely, at 16,000 lbs. tobacco, and the woman and children at 4,000. Refers to the bill of sale: admits the promise to the plaintiff, that, if he re-paid the tobacco in the course of the season, they would return the slaves; but insists that this was ■no part of the original contract; and that they had positively refused to advance the tobacco on mortgage. That, if the slaves had died, they would have been the defendants’ loss. That the defendants purchased with reluctance, and only to. serve the plaintiff. Admits the agreement to release the damages, and to take, in lieu thereof, 5 Per cent, provided the tobacco debt was fully discharged on or before the first of May, 1788, and the sterling money debt, on or before the first of July, 1788; but states, that no part of the sterling debt was paid until January, 1789: Admits that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of the judgments; and alledges, that the complainant is indebted to them, on other accounts.</p> <p>A witness says, thát some time after he had heard, from the plaintiff, that he had let the defendants have the use of the shoe-makers for an advance of 20,000 lbs. tobacco, the deponent was in conversation with the defendant Campbell, who observed to him, that it was a kind of property he did not wish to lay his money out in; which conveyed to’ the deponent an idea, that Robertson had a right of redemption, but there were no words respecting the instrument of writing, which secured their services. That the deponent’s reason for thinking the bargain advantageous, was, that the plaintiff said, they produced 50/. per annum.</p> <p>Another witness says, that he was present at the bargain. That the plaintiff was to let the defendants have the use of the shoe-makers for an advance of 20,000 lbs. of tobacco. That he considered the plaintiff, notwithstanding the bill of sale, as having the right to redeem. That the value of the use of the slaves was estimated at 2Oí. per week, or 52/. per annum. That, he understood the woman and children were to be sold in order to pay part of the balance due upon Wilson’s judgment; but understood afterwards, that the plaintiff had consented, that the proceeds should be applied towards re-payment of the .20,000 lbs. tobacco. That the deponent being informed by the defendant Campbell, that the defendants were about to issue execution upon the judgments, he observed to them that as the balance was small, it was hard to exact damages; whereupon, Campbell observed, that Robertson and Scott were indebted to him, and he knew not how else to recover the money. That, in January, 1789, the plaintiff paid, through J. Barret, 2701. on account of the judgment on the sterling debt. To a question put by the defendants, whether it was an absolute sale, he answered that the defendants did object to any but a positive conveyance, and possession of the negroes; although the deponent supposed, that was owing to the embarrassed situation of the plaintiff’s affairs; that he does not recollect that any time of redemption was specified, but the defendants were to have the use of the negroes till that took place.</p> <p>Barret says, that being indebted to Archibald Robertson, he gave his bond to the defendants on the 10th of January, 1789, for 3001. with interest, which he understood, the defendants received, as a payment from Archibald RoSertson, on some account.</p> <p>A fourth witness says, that the defendants, when they paid for the slaves, made a memorandum in their day hook that the plaintiff was to return the price paid for them in six months; and they, in the mean time, were to have the hire or value of their labor. That, the absolute right, as per bill of sale, in and to the said property, if the plaintiff failed so to do, was uniformly declared to be vested in the defendants. At least, the defendants said so.</p> <p>A fifth witness says, that Shore and M’Connico discharged 30,000 lbs. tobacco on account of Wilson’s judgment, by the sale of the shoe-makers to the defendants. That, therefore, he does not think they or Robertson would have been affected by their deaths. That, the defendants refused to take a mortgage, through fear of a Chancery suit.</p> <p>Several witnesses prove the value of the slaves, and their yearly profits.</p> <p>The bill of sale was as follows;</p> <p>u Know all men by these presents, that I, William Robertson, in and for consideration of the quantity of twenty thousand weight of Petersburg crop tobacco, to mein hand paid and satisfied, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have this day-bargained, sold and delivered unto James Campbell and Luke Wheeler, four negroes, to wit; Frank White and David TVhite, shoe-makers by trade; Fanny, and her child at the breast. And I do hereby warrant and defend the property in the before-mentioned and their future increase, unto the said Campbell and Wheeler, their heirs and assigns forever, against all manner of persons whatsoever claiming, or who may hereafter claim, the same. As witness, &c.”</p> <p>The Court of Chancery decreed in favor of the defendants, and Robertson appealed to this. Court.</p>

Elizabeth M. Davis exhibited her Bill to •the Chancellor for the Richmond District, setting- forth that her uncle *Anthony Gardner, died in the year 18X9, intestate, and without issue, seized and possessed of real and personal estate: that his nephew James G. Rowe, administered on the estate. The intestate had had one brother, and one sister, but both of them died- before him. The Complainant was the only child and heir of the brother.

IN Ejectment in the Superior Court of Montgomery County, by John M. Taylor against Joseph King, the Jury found a special verdict; that Andrew Lewis was seised of the land in the declaration mentioned, with the appurtenances, in fee; that, before the 1st of February 1809, he had by proper deed conveyed the whole to his son Charles G. Lewis, who was thereof seised, and, while in actual seisin, being indebted to Reuben and Randolph Ross in the sum of Si,515 32 Cents, on the 3d.…

<p>1. Among attaching creditors proceeding by foreign attachment, the creditor whose subpoena is first sued out and served, is entitled to priority of satisfaction.</p> <p>2. But the attachment only operates as a lien upon the debts and effects of the absent debtor, in the hands of the home defendants against whom, and upon whom, it is served.</p>

Joseph Gallego, late of the City of Richmond, bequeathed to his nephew Henry Grivegnee of the island of Malaga, 10,000 dollars: and he appointed John Richard and Peter Joseph Chevallie his executors. Henry Grivegnee drew a bill of exchange bearing date at Malaga, the 20th of July 1819-, upon the executors, by which he directed that, when forthcoming and out of the funds destined for that object by his deceased uncle, Joseph Gallego, they should pay to the order of Messrs.

Flournoy brought debt in the District Court, against John Holcomb, Philemon Holcomb, jr. William Watts, and Joseph Scott, jr. upon a bond, given to Flournoy as High Sheriff, with the following condition annexed: “ The condition of the above obligation is such, whereas the said John Holcomb is appointed deputy Sheriff of the said county, under the said Thomas Flournoy, now if the said John Holcomb shall well and truly execute the office of deputy Sheriff, and honestly,…

AT the trial of this cause, (which was an Ejeetment by Thomas H. Harris against Thomas harris, in the Superior Court of Henrico County,) the plaintiff introduccd in evidence a deed of trust from Thomas Harris and wife to Andrew Stevenson, dated the 2d of February 1809, and recorded the 6th of the same month; also a deed of bargain and sale executed by the said trustee to Thomas II.

COrnUNGTON CARRINGTON of the County of Cmnberland by his Will, dated August 6th, 1811, appointed Doctor Samnel Wilson, and ~lexaiider Carrington,, (one of his Sons,) his Executors, and ~csted in them the whole of his estate, to be by them droided, among his heirs, from time to time, as they might thii~k most condnci~v e to the interest of his estate and family.

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, where Taliaferro and wife brought a bill, for relief against Wallace and wife, stating, that William Rowley made his will on the 11th of May, 1774, and devised to Lettice Wishart and Catharine Taylor, sundry slaves, together with the residue of his estate, subject to the payment of his debts and legacies.

<p>1. Not. yitll3t.andmgajudg- . meut against administrators, as such, m an action of debt, to. which they pleaded, “ payment by the intestate,” and a subsequent judgment, against them personally, in an action suggesting a devastavit, to which they pleaded « no waste,” relief in equity was granted them in this case; on the grounds, that the peculiar and perplexed state of the assets made it difficult if not impracticable, to plead in relation thereto, at law; and that, at the trial of the second action, their principal counsel was absent, and their assistant counsel withdrew from the cause; in consequence whereofj they were wholly undefended, and a verdict, perhaps contrary to justice, was obtained against them, without any negligence qv default on their part.</p>

Absolom, M. ’ Coy of Berkeley county died in 1803, and by his last will and testament, devised and bequeathed to Rebecca Crouch, all his estate real and personal, during her natural life, and that, at her death, all his slaves should be set free; and by a residuary clause, he further devised and bequeathed all his personal estate, from and after her- death, except his slaves who were to be set free, to Thomas Fakes and George Fakes.

<p>1. An award which, is uncertain on its face, and does not refer to something else hy which it may be made certain, is void.</p> <p>2. When an award is void for uncertainty, the parties may assert their demands in any mode or form o'f action which could have been maintained by them before they entered into the bond of submission.</p>

<p>UPON a Bill filed in the &lperior Court of Chancery Thr the Williamsburg District, in behalf of Hwrriet ~1 Booth, an infant, by George W. Booth her guardian, against William Banks, James B4nks, Nhthaniel Hawk~ ins and Elizabeth his ~ife~ children of .thulrew Banks d~ ceased, for the ~)il'pOSe of perpetuating the testimony o~ Witnesses in re1ath~ to, and e.sta~llshing as the last Will of tke oa~d di~ccde,~t, a paper found in his desk after his death, purporting to be such Will; by which he devised and bequeathed a tract of land, with the slaves, stock and other property thereon, to the said Harriet ~. Booth; and another 1;ra~ct of land with slaves, &c., to a eertai~ E1inabeth Bingliarn; which paper was conceahed and supp~s~d by the defendants, or some of thea~; it appeared from the Answers and Depositions, that ~uc~ a paper as that described in the Bill, was in cxis:ei~co shortly after the death o~ the said .~ndrew Banks, and in the possession of the defendants; that it avas in the hand writing, and signed with the name of the said ~ndrew Banks, but not attested b~j any witness. It gave (Ill his property to the said Harriet ~. Booth and Elizabeth Bimghanz, lea~iiig nothing jo his children. From his habits of intoxication, and other circumstances, it appeared very probabI~ that he was not in his senses whieii he wrote it. And if he was, it was doubtful, from the testimony, whether he seriously intended that writinir as a ~Vi11, or ouiy to alarm his son James Banhs, (with whom he had a qnarrel about that time,) by letthig hin~ see what it was in his power to do. He was afterwards reconciled to James, and declared it was his wish thaL his property should be equally distributed among his children after his death. In his last hihiess, he said nothing about that paper, or the making a new Will; but a witness was of QpiniolI that he was thcu incapable of making one. A prevIa~is Wilb also in the haiid-wrii~ng of the said ~ndr~w Banks, and regularly attested, hearing' date in the year 1802, was found in the same Desk, with the said paper dated November 25th 1807. A witness swore that, “just before Christmas in 1807, he was over «}n James City; and, as he was going down to the river “ to go over, the deponent was with him and his son “ James Banks, when Andrew Banks observed he had “made a just Will; that was, he had made his children all “ equal, as he had done previous to his coming to that “ place to reside; that is, that he had given most to such “ of his children as had done most for him; and had de- “ posited the Will in a friend’s hands.”</p> <p>The Chancellor decreed, that the Will stated in the Bill to have been made by Andrew Banks, be established as his true last Will and Testament; and that accounts be taken of the slaves and other property thereby bequeathed to the plaintiff, and of the hii’es and profits thereof, &c. From which decx-ee, the defendants appealed.</p>

Assumpsit, by M. Scholfield, tbe assignee, against Washington Drane, a remote assignor, of a promissory note, in tbe county court of Fairfax. Held: that the law on the demurrer was for the plaintiff, and gave him judgment. The defendant appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the judgment of the county court. And then he applied to this court, by petition, for a supersedeas ; which was allowed.

This was a bill filed in October 1837, by Hopkins & Brothers against Nicholas Koonce and Andrew Hunter, in the Circuit court of Jefferson county, to set up a deed which had been executed on the 16th of September 1837, by Nicholas Koonce to Andrew Hunter, in trust to secure a debt of 746 dollars due from David Koonce the son of Nicholas, to the plaintiffs.

TJ~LO~IAS MOUNTJOY and Daniel Thplett filed their Bill in the ugh Court of Chancery, in June 1801, against the executor and devisees of Gerard Banks deceased; and, afterwards, by an amended bill, made William Richards and .N~athaniel Fox, the sureties for the executor in his administration bond, siso defendants.

IN an action of debt upon a bill penal in the County Court of Prince Edward, brought by Owen Smith against William I!uqua, the defendant being arrested awl not appearing, Samuel Harper hin appearance bail, with-ouSt eraliing olfer, pleaded payment, to set aside the Office Judgment; but, at a subsequent term, by his attornetj, relinquished that plea, and said lie could not gainsay I/ic plaintiff's action against the said defendant.

AN action of assumpsit was brought by James Brown, jr. against David R. Ross in the Hustings Court of the City of Richmond; the plaintiff in ids declaration stating that the defendant, for value received, assigned him a note of a certain J. W. Ritan, negotiable at the Bank • of Virginia; and that he could not recover the amount thereof from the said Ryan, who, before the money became due and payable, was totally and notoriously insolvent, and unable to pay the same, or any…

This was an action of debt on a bond in the Hustings court of the City of Richmond, brought by Thomas Cowles against Charles Howell and John Gaynor. The defendants appeared at the first term of the Court after the suit was brought, set aside the office judgment, and pleaded payment. On the next day the cause was called for trial, and the defendants then offered a special plea under the act of 1831.

ON the 10th day of July 1804, a Capias ad respondendum in Coiienant, was issued, from the Clerk's office of the former District Court liolden at the Sweet Springs, in behalf of George Spotts against John Pate. rrhis Writ being returned execiitcd~ (1.) a declaration for tioDenant broken, was filed in October 1805; but, after-wards, leave being given to amend the declaration, another was filed, in debt on a bond with collateral condition.

UPON an appeal from a Decree of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Fredericksburg District, dismissing a Bill exhibited by the appellant against the appellees.

<p>1. Where an appeal is taken in Court, the appeal bond can not legally be given in the Clerk's of fice.</p>

This was a bill filed in the Circuit court of Hanover, by William H. G. Lumpkin against George William Pollard, seeking to set aside an agreement to submit to arbitration certain matters of controversy between them, and also what is called in the bill an imperfect award, that the plaintiff might pursue his remedy at law without obstruction from said agreement and award.

THIS was a suit transferred (under the Act of Assembly of January 20th, 1814,) from the Superior Court of Chancery at Richmond to the Fredericksburg District, after the.

A Bond was executed on the day of May 1804, by~ £liha horton, Thomas .11.

Adam Craig of Richmond, who died in 1808, bequeathed a share of his property to his son Lewis Craig, then in early infancy, to be delivered to him when he should attain to full age, with directions… Held: and for the proceeds when sold; and that Fox had a perfect legal right to sell- and dispose of the stock, and the bank could not have refused to permit him to make transfers thereof on their books.

IN the County Court of Wythe, an action of debt, uimn a Constable's bond, was brought in the name o~ George W. Smith, Lieutenant Governor exercising t1i~ office of Governor, successor of James .)~fonroe, who Wa~ successor of John Tyler, who was successor of William If. Cabell, (for the benefit of William Hay,) against William Cooper a~id George Cregar, who executed the bond together with a certain Edward iWurplty.

This case was before this Court in 1831, and is reported in 3 Leigh 384, under the style of Burwell’s ex’ors v. Anderson, adm’r &c. It was a second time before this Court in 1843, upon an appeal by Anderson, administrator &c. The appellant claims under the will of Dr. William Pasteur, late of the City of Williamsburg.

This cause is an appeal from the Court of the county of Jlccomack. There, Charles Sneed, the appellee, exhibited a bill in Chancery against Robert Drummond, the appellant, and Jonathan Willet and Major Chambers, stating: That one William Burton, having a daughter named Jlgness married to one John West, devised several slaves to her for life, with a remainder to all her children in equal • divisions.

Blane, as assignee of Young, brought suit in the County Court against Sansum. The writ is in debt, for one hundred and seven pounds four pence sterling. Damage, ten pounds sterling. The declaration is also in debt; but is blank as to the sum declared for; as to the date of the bond; as to the assignment to the plaintiff; and as to the damage.

The writ of supersedeas in this case, was returned by the Sheriff, “ a copy left;” and the questions were, whether this return was sufficient to enable the plaintiff to proceed to a hearing? or, whether actual service on the defendant was necessary ?

<p>The question made at the bar was, whether, as the writ [in assumpsit for goods] was for 50/., the District Court .ought not to have given judgment for the appellant, although the sum found by the verdict was less than 30/.</p> <p>Against the non-suit it was said, that the act of Assembly was, that'where the plaintiff shall claim 30/. or upwards, the Court shall have jurisdiction; and, therefore, as more than that sum was laid in the writ and declaration, the plaintiff below was entitled to judgment. That otherwise, it would be in the power of the defendant, by holding up his discounts, always to non-suit the plaintiff, and charge him with the costs of suit; as the plaintiff could not possibly know the discount which would be claimed. That upon this principle the old General Court, and the Courts in England, have sustained verdicts for sums, .below the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court.</p>

Alexander brought an action on the case against Herbert, in the District Court, and declared, that whereas sometime in the year 178 , an action of ejectment was instituted in the General Court, by Charles Alexander against William Bryan, Benjamin Vanpett and Charles Curtis, lessees and tenants of the said Herbert-, and whereas the said Herbert employed Edmund Randolph, attorney at law, then practising in the General Court, to defend the said action of ejectment on behalf of…

<p>THIS was a BiiI of Injunction exhibited to the Judge of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Wi11iarns~ burg District, by Edward S. Waddij, to stay proceedings on a Judgment obtained against Bressie Lewis and the complainant, as merchants and partners trading under the firm of I3ressie Lewis & Compa1~iy, by Carter B. Foindexter, upon a note under seal for ~463 41 Cents, executed by the said Bressie Lewis, who subscribed thereto the name of the firm, "Bressie Lewis & Co;" for a private debt individually (inc from himself to Poindexter~ and without the consent of the complainant.</p> <p>The Bill stated, that the Writ was served upon the complainant, and no bail required; as appeared by a special endorsement upon it; that he was prevented from defending himself at law, by the express assurance of Poindexter that he should not look to him for the money, but meant to get it from Lcwis:-that, notwithstanding this assurance, execution was issued and levied on the property of the complainant; whereupon, he had given a forthcoming bond with Edward Frith as his surety; to whom he incomsiderately applied for that purpose; the said Frith being a material witness to prove an import~ ai~t fact in the case, which he knew before he became surety:-that the complainant, having failed in attempt~ ing to prevail on the Sheriff to take another surety in his stead, had no other means of releasing Frith, and then obtaining his evidence, but by depositing the principal, interest and costs for which he was bound:—lie therefore prayed that a receiver be appointed, with whom he should deposit the money. He also stated, that compensation could not be made for the sum in question, by any profits or share of the said Lewis in the concern, to which he was not a creditor; as might be ascertained by an adjustment of the partnership accounts.</p> <p>The Chancellor granted the Injunction, and directed a deposit of the money to be made in one of the Banks in the Borough of Norfolk.</p> <p>The statements in the answers of Poindexter and Lewis (who was also a defendant) differed, in some respects, from those in the Bill; but it appeared from the deposition of Edward Frith, taken by consent of parties, to be read as evidence in the cause, that, some months before he signed the forthcoming bond, he was present, when a conversation took place between the complainant and Poindexter, relative to the suit which then was pending; in the course of which conversation, Waddy enquired of Poindexter, if he intended to hold him responsible for the said debt; saying that he made the enquiry, because, if such was his intention, he, Waddy, must defend himself in the suit; whereupon, Poindexter replied that Lewis had property enough, ami he intended to levy the execution upon him.</p> <p>It appeared from the same deposition, that Poindexter told the witness, that he had been in partnership with Bressie Lewis, and had furnished a considerable sum, for which he had received very little; that the business was closed, and the stock sold to Daniel R. Waddy; that, from the sickness of Bressie Lewis, a settlement of their partnership was for some time delayed; but that they had at last settled, and Lewis had given him a certificate of the balance due, with a request to Edward S. Waddy to pay him the amount; that he presented the said certificate to the said Waddy, who refused to pay the money; that after-wards he returned the certificate to Lewis, and obtained from him the note on which the suit was brought.</p> <p>It was- alledged by Lewis and Poindexter, that, upon the dissolution, of their partnership, the debts and stock on hand were transferred to the firm- of Bressie Lewis $ Go., of which- Daniel R. Waddy was then the partner, with his consent; and that Edward- S. Waddy (the complainant) having afterwards purchased of Daniel- R. Waddy his share in the concern* received, together with Lewis, (by whom the business was still carried on under the style of Bressie Lewis & Co.) the benefit of the said transfer, and therefore was equitably bound, as a partner, for payment of the debt to Poindexter:— but Lewis did not alledge in his answer* that he gave- the' note with the consent of Waddy.</p> <p>It appeared, by the Report of a commissioner* to whom the Chancellor referred the accounts between the parties, that Edward S. Waddy. bought of Daniel R. Waddy his share in the firm of Bressie Lewis Sp Co.; that the debts due to Poindexter and fewis at the time of the dissolution of their partnership, amounted to the sum of $424 72 Cents; that the go yds transferred to-Bressie Lewis Sj’ Company, wove worth between, sixty and seventy dollars; but no formal or regular settlement of the co-partnership was made, and no account of the goods so-transferred was produced; neither was any report made concerning the state of accounts of the partnership of Bressie Lewis Sp Company.</p> <p>No replication was put in, to the answer of Bressie Lewis: nor was the cause set for hearing as to him.</p> <p>Chancellor Neison made the Injunction perpetual; from which Decree Poindexter appealed.</p>

<p>1. Before the 1st of Jan. 1787, (when the Act of deseents took effect,) if a person enti. tied to a reversion in fee, expectant upon an estate for life, died in the life time of the tenant for life, such person never had ~eidm of the inheritance, and therefore could not transmit it to 1~i~ heir; but the heir of the person last ac~u-ally 6e188d was entitled.(1)</p> <p>=@ See Co. Litt. 11 b. & 15 a; 3 Co. Rep. 42 a. Ratcliffe's case; Cruise on Real property, 3 Vol p. 461-467.</p>

<p>Where, m a petition for a mill, the witnesses are divided whether it will be Injurious or not, and the County Court and District Court both decide that it will not, this Court will affirm the judgment.</p>

This was a bill for discovery and relief filed in April 1835, in the Circuit court of Henrico county, by James Lyons against Dabney M. Miller, Edward Powell and Peterson Goodwyn.

<p>CiiRTsTovJnm BLANTCI~NJ3EKF~R, by bis 1a~t Will and Testament, dated April 26th 1781, devised to his three ~OflS, ~Ephra~in, Lewzs and Jonas, a tract of land, to be eqoally divided amoug them arid their heirs at the death of their mother ~Jhristiana~ to whom he devised the same for life. The tcstato~ died in J~fwzj I 781; Ephrnim the eldest son abont .M~iy 17 83, under age, intestate, anc~ never having been married; and Christiana the widow~ ia December 1 81 5. Lewis the second son contended that, upon the death of Epliraun, he was entitled to the whole of i~is real estate, whether in possession, reversion or 1'e~na~n~ier, as his sole and exclusive heir at law:-bui Jonas -the -third son, the six daughters of the testator and tlieirhucbamls, insisted, that an equal partition of Ephraim's -share of the land in question should be made, after the death of the widow, among all the chiiJdren.</p> <p>Such was the case presented, upou a bill exhibited in July 181 6, by Lewis Blankeubeker against Jonas Blankenb&ker and his sisters.</p> <p>Chancellor M~LsoN decreed au equal partrtioii, as contended for by the defendants; from which decree the plaintiff appealed.</p>

<p>i. Power of Attorney - - Authority to Draw Checks and indorse Notes — Effect.*—If A. gives a power of Attorney, In due form, to B., authorising' him “to draw checks, indorse notes, and generally to do all and every act and deed, towards the execution of his business at a certain Bank:” and deposit t.be said Power in the Bank, to he inspected, when called for, by any person interested in matters relating thereto: lie is bound to make good, to a liona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, any indorsement of a note negotiable at the said. Bant, which B. may make in his name as his Attorney; notwithstanding the real object of the said power, verbally declared at the time of it’s execution, was to authorise B. to renew certain accommodation paper then in Bank, and not to indorse any other paper.</p>

The plaintiffs became security for one Benjamin Branch, Sheriff of the county of Chesterfield, in a bond in the following words: “ Know all men by these presents, that we, Benjamin Branch, sen. Benjamin Branch, jr. and Edward Branch, are held and firmly bound unto Benjamin Harrison, esq. Governor of this Commonwealth, in the sum of ten thousand pounds, current money of Virginia, to be paid to the said Benjamin Harrison, esq. or to his successor or successors, for the use of…

THIS was a suit in Chancery, in the County Court Fauquier, brought by Robert Bunbar against Armi~ stead Shumate an absent defendant residing in South Carolina, and Joseph Shumate a resident of the said County. * The object of the Bill was to subject certain property belonging to Armistead Shumate, alledged by the plaintiff to he in Joseph Shumate’s possession, to satisfy a claim of the plaintiff against the said Jlrmistead.

<p>,. Chancery Practice — Bond -Sale of Land in Posseasion of Heirs of Obligror.-It seems, that, where the annual rent of land descended, is more than sufficient to pay the interest accruing' on a bond debt of the ancestor a Court of Equity will not decree a sale of such land, in possession of his heirs, to satisfy the debt; the land being not subject to any specific lien, or incumbrance, in favour of the creditor.</p> <p>See Mason’s devisees v. Peter’s adminslrators, 1 Munf. 137.</p>

TILE confrovcrsy ill this case turned on the a~thoritij ~f the decision in the case of Pollard v. Baylor's devisees, reported in 4 H. & M. 223-241; the question whether the sa~ic deer! of trust therein mentioned, was USUrIOUS, or not, being ~tgam brought before the Court upon another Eject~nent brought by Pollard, to which Jo/ni and George BayLors, and sundry persons tenants in possession of the land under them, were defendants.

<p>The Court cannot be called on to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the de» fendants; although some of the evidence is written testimony,</p> <p>[In assumpsit against ex’rs. for money had and received by them to the plain* tiff’s use; it seems that judgment should be de bonis propriis, and not de bonis iestatoris.]</p>

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery: where Richard-Brown Owen and Susanna, his wife, and John Edwards, brought a suit against Henry Morris, and his wife, Mason, who was a daughter of Henry Simmons, deceased; and against the grand-children of the said Henry Simmons, deceased.

JANE ALLnN exhibited her bill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Staunton District, against Jacob limmgardner and Cta'udius Busier, administrators of Isaac Thnjes, and his heirs an(i representatives, and James iIa~jes and Jacob Kixney executors of James Flack, and his heirs and representatives; setting forth, that the plaintiff soul James Flack three tracts of land, one of 80, one of 100~ and one of 400 acres; that a certa~n Thomas Walker and Compamy had a claim on…

Case, by Shields against Brown, in the circuit court of Bath. There were two counts in the declaration.

<p>An absent defendant, against whom a decree has been made, cannot appeal from the decree. His only remedy is that provided by the statute.</p>

This was an appeal from a Decree from the Chancery Court of Winchester. The Complainants were John Wade, and Hannah his wife, who was Hannah Mj'ers, Joseph Purcell, and Susan his wife, who was Susan Myers, and Thomas Myers, and John Myers.

<p>jRichardson’s administrators brought suit, in 1795, against W. Johnson, executor of Richard Johnson, deceased, and declared upon a joint bond, given by Charles Tinsley and the said R. Johnson, to Richardson, in his life-time; dated the-4th of May, 1771, and conditioned for payment by Tinsley only. The defendant plead payment; and the plaintiff took issue. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff: which were afterwards set aside during the same term; and the defendant withdrawing his former plea, and taking oyer of the bond and condition, for plea, said “ that the plaintiffs ought not to have their said action against him; because he saith, that the said Richard Johnson departed this life on the day ,17 , the said Charles Tinsley, his co-obligor, being then in full life; whereby, the action survived to the said Tinsley, and the said Johnson, and his executors, became wholly discharged therefrom: Wherefore, he prays judgment, &c.”</p> <p>The plaintiff demurred to the plea, and the defendant joined in the demurrer.</p> <p>The plaintiff also filed a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion, on their setting aside the verdict and judgment; which stated, “ that the defendant moved to set aside the verdict, and award a new trial, for the purpose of introducing, by way of amendment to his former plea of payment, the fact as stated in the affidavit of James Turner, hereunto annexed:” Which affidavit is in these words, to wit: ‘ These are to certify, that James Turner came before'me, the 9th day of September, 1797, and made oath, that he went to the town of New Castle to live, May, 1772, and that, at that time, Colonel Richard Johnson, late resident of the said town, was dead; and that Charles Tinsley, merchant of the said town, was then living, and, to the best of his knowledge, died about two years after-wards. Given under my hand, the day and year above written. JOHN BARRET.’</p> <p>« Of which fact, and that the obligors to said bond were jointly5 .and not severally bound, the defendant’s counsel, it is admitted by the plaintiffs, was ignorant, until the trial of the cause. To which motion, the plaintiffs objected, but was over-ruled by the Court.”</p> <p>The District Court gave judgment for the defendant, upon the demurrer, and the plaintiffs appealed to this</p>

Cunningham, Co. brought debt against Herndons and declared for that, “ Whereas the said defendant on the 18th day of August, 1775, at the county aforesaid, by his certain writing, acknowledged he had settled his account with William Reid, of Fredericksburg, and remained indebted to him in the balance of S8/. 7s. current money, to be paid when he, the said defendant, should be thereunto required; and whereas.the said William Reid, on the day and year aforesaid, by his certain…

I'REYIOUSLY to the marriage of John Jthn~roe Banister and .Mary Thtrton ~tt~asta his wife, a need of marriage settlement was made, by which it was provided th~ certain property real and personal, of the said .M~iry~. should be invested in Bank Stocks, or freehold lands or lots in this State, to be held by Ednrands B. llollowaV, in Trust to pay the annual profits to the husband arni wife, and the survivor, for life, remainder to their chil.dren; and, in default of such issue,…

Rica~n S. HACKLnY assignee, brought asswiupsi.t in the County Court of Spottsylvania against Richard Johnston, assignor of a Bond executed by a certain James Ha~don; stating, in his declaration, that he instituted a suit on the bond, and used due diligence in prosecuting the same; but was unable to recover the money, oi' any part thereof, of the said Haydon; as by the record and proceedings in the said suit, appeared, &c. At the trial, on the plea of non assumpsit, the…

<p>1. A provision in a Will, that the money arising from the sale of the testator'~ personal property, of tet' pa~Jmens of h,s ju$t debts shall he applied to certain purposes, does not create a trust for the paym~-nt of the debts, nor talc' any debt 0111 of the opera. tion of the Act of Limi. tationS.</p> <p>=@ See Chandler's executrix v. Neal's executors, 2 H. & M. 124; Lewis's executor v. Bacon's legatees and executors H. & M. 89.</p>

Washington Apperson filed his bill in the Circuit court of Amherst county against George Shackelford, to subject a tract of land which he had sold to Shackelford, for the payment of a balance of purchase money still due.

<p>THE Coimty Court of Cumberland, in October 1816, ordered William Mann jr., who appeared before them on a charge of begetting a bastard child on the body of .7~Iary J~1'. Hudgins, (the record not showing by whom, or in what manner, the charge was exhibited,) to enter into a recognizance to the Governor, himself in the sum of ~5oo, and his securities iii the sum of ~25O each, fifty dollars to be paid annually until the expiration of ten years; to be levied &c.; conditioned that he should indemnify the parish from all charges that might accrue from the maintainance of the said child.</p> <p>The defeiidant, "on the trial of the cause, after the " Court had ordered him to be bound in a recognizance, " moved the Court to make the order so, that, if the bastard child should be bound out to a discreet person "by amy future Court, the recognizance should then "cease to ha'~e any effect:"-and this the Court refused to do; to which opinion the defendant excepted.</p> <p>To this order, a Writ of Supersedeas was granted by the Superior Court, but afterwards dismissed, as having been improvidently awarded; that Court, in it's opinion, having no jurisdiction of the case; whereupon the plaintiff in error obtained, from a Judge of this Court, a Snpersed~as. to the said ordei~ of disnj~stor~,</p>

This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery, where Thomas Randolph, surviving executor of John Randolph deceased, brought a bill against David Meade Randolph and others, executors of Richard Randolph deceased, stating: That Richard Randolph the elder, died in 174 , leaving a widow, some daughters, four sons, to wit: Richard (his eldest son, and one of his executors,) Brett, By land and John; all of whom are since dead.

iN an action of Trespass on the ease in the County Court of Halifax, brought by William L. Williams and others, (several qf whom,, being infants, sued by 1?. C. Williams their next friend,) against Isha~n Britten, nit order of reference to arbitrators was made, by consent of parties, after the writ was returned execoted; no de.. claration being filed.

IN this case an action nf debt was instituted in the Su~ perior Court of Prince George County by John J~1'Rae against Charles Hunt and Daniel Dagger, formerly merchants and partners acting under the. firm and style of Hant and Dagger. The writ was not inserted in the transcript of the Record. The declaration was in debt for monet,, lent; sa~Jing nothing of any contract in writing.

Miller & Cooper, partners, sued out from the- clerk’s office of the late Richmond Chancery court a subpoena in the nature of a foreign attachment against Sarah Haffey and A. B. Spooner. The process was endorsed to attach the lands and the effects of the said Sarah Haffey, an absent defendant, in the hands of A. B. Spooner, and was served on him on the 27th of April 1829.

<p>i. Wills — Construction—“Dying without Lawful Heir” —Limitation over — Validity.† —A testator (whose Will was dated in 1805,) directed the residue of his estate to be kept together, until his son W. C. arrived to 21 years, and then that an equal division of all his personal property be made between his sons W. C. and D. C.; "and if either of his said sons died without lawful heir, his surviving brother should inherit all the estate of the deceased.” This was a good limitation over, in favour of the survivor, upon the death of the other son without issue.</p> <p>See Timberlake v. Graves, ante.</p>

:ErnvA•J~D Eii,xs a man of colour, exhibited a bill in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, against John Baird and John Baker, for an Injunction (which was granted) to prevent the defendant Baker from carrying the complainant out of the Commonwealth; and for a decree against both defendants for his freedom.

The statement of the case, as exhibited by the Record, is so fully set forth by the Judge who delivered the opinion of the Court, that it is unnecessary to present it here. The case was argued by Stanard for the Appellant. There was no Counsel for the p pcilcc*

<p>L A motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict is coiltrary to evidence, ought to rest on the evidence actually given in at the trial, exclusive of all other~ especially, af.. fida its taken axporte, ought not to be heard on such mOtiOfl~</p>

UPON an appeal from a~Decree of the Superior Court tf Chancery for the Staunton District, in a suit brought originally by ~thulrew Boqd and .1~far~ his wife agaius~ James Hamilton, James Thompson, and the legal repre~entatives of William Thompson deceased. nub Bill stated, that James Patton, gramifatlier ol the plaintiff Mary, departed this life about the year 1755 having first duly made his last Will, by which he devised certain lands to be sold for the benefit of his two…

Thomas Mitchell, late of Louisa county, died in 1816, and by his last will and testament,—after bequeathing £ 2000. to a trustee for the use of his daughter Barbara wife of Francis Johnson, £ 2000. to his daughter Ann Mitchell, £ 1000. to his daughter Sarah wife of Garland Thompson, and £ 4000. to his son George Mitchell,— devised and bequeathed in the fifth clause of the will, as follows: “I give to my wife Sarah Mitchell the tract of land whereon I now reside, with all the…

IN an action of Debt upon a ~ingle bill under seal, in the County Court of Harrison, the defendant Stephen Jackson~, on the 21st day of June 1816, pleaded payment; whereupon the office judgment was set aside; the declaration having been filed in March preceding.

THE object of the Bill in this casc, filed by the ap-. pellant, in theSuperior Court of Chancery for the Richniond District, was to subject the estate of Jeremiah Burnett, unadininistered by .Pritchett his executor, to the payment of a debt for goods sold by the Complainant to Leroy Upshaw, who afterwards became insolvent and absconded. The.

Benjamin James, surviving Executor of Robert Buchan, filed his Bill in the Chancery Court of Fredericksburg, against Cary Selden, setting forth, that the said Buchan, by his Will, dated 1803, directed that his land should be sold, and that his Executors might sell on credit, if they could sell it on better terms, and that the money arising from the sale should be remitted to his two brothers: that the Testator died seised and possessed of a tract of land in Stafford; that…

James Green brought a writ of right in the County Court of Hardy, against Leonard Hyers, John Hyerss Lewis Hyers, Martin Shobe, Rudolph Shobe, Martin Powers, Jacob Shobe, Christopher Ermontrout, Martin Shobe, jr. Abraham Stooky, Modlin Stooky and Conrad Carr, for “his fourth undivided part of one tenement, containing eleven hundred and twenty acres of land, with the appurtenances in the county aforesaid, late the county of Augusta, on the south branch of Potowmack River, and…

THIS was an action oí assumpsit, in the County Court of Nottoway, for sundries sold and delivered. At the trial of the cause, on the plea of non assumpsit, the plaintiff John A. Robertson introduced several witnesses to prove the various items in his account.

IN an action of detinue for several slaves, in the Superior Court of Richmond County, (wherein Self's administrator, was plaintiff and Lewis Time defendant,) a special verdict was found, upon which the Court was of opinion that the law was for the defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly.

The questionin this case was, whether certain Deeds of Trust conveying real estate, executed by Doctor James Greerihow, (late of the City of RicI~~ond,) for the bene- fit ot Shelton and Harris, aud of Gharles Smith, were usurious or not. 1.

This was an action on the Case, brought toy William G. Pendleton, in the Superior Court of Eaw for Henrico County, against Ralston & Pleasants. The Declaration contained various counts. The first count demanded 416 dollars SO cents, on account of one hundred and nineteen barrels of fine flour, sold Defendants at that price, and alleged an assumpsit to pay that sum for the flour.

John Clarke of the county of Orange, died in 1831, and John C. Wells qualified as his administrator. At the sale of the personal estate of John Clarke deceased, his daughter Lucy Clarke purchased to a considerable amount, for which she executed her bond to the administrator. Afterwards John C. Wells died, and Fontaine Wells qualified as his administrator, and Lucy Clarke qualified as administratrix de bonis non of John Clarke.

Edward Kerney and his brother James Kerney his surety, executed four bonds to Samuel Swearingen, dated the 27th March 1802, for 347 dollars each, payable on the 1st days of April 1804-5-6 and ’7. Edward Kerney, the principal, died about the time the first bond fell due, and that bond was afterwards discharged by James, the surety.

<p>1. T sells to P a slave in which he has but a life estate; and P, in ignorance of the fact, and believing he has the absolute interest in the slave, takes him out of the State and sells him. Held : P is liable to the forfeitures and penalties imposed by the act, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 3 31, § 48, p. 431.† Baldwin, J. dissenting.</p> <p>2. In such case, P is liable for the hires of the slave from the time of the forfeiture. Baldwin, J. dissenting.</p> <p>3. D, by deed, conveys to A and B, slaves at his death. Held : The estate in the slaves held by A and B, is not an estate in remainder, in contemplation of the act, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 111, § 48, p. 431.</p> <p>4. A party to a cause is not bound to answer interrogatories, which may subject him to a penalty or forfeiture.</p> <p>5. This rule is not confined to cases where the purpose of the action is to enforce the penalty or forfeiture; but extends to those where the discovery itself would expose the party to some action or suit, or any criminal or penal prosecution, tending to the like result.</p> <p>6. If the Court permits improper interrogatories to be filed, and directs them to be answered, the party to whom they are directed may answer them, and then on the trial of the cause may object to their admission as evidence.</p> <p>7. If improper evidence is permitted to go to the jury, and there is an exception therefor, an appellate Court must reverse th'e judgment, though there was other evidence as to the same fact, before the jury.</p>

<p>Robert Wood brought a writ of right in the County Court of Hardy, against Leonard Hyers, John Hyers, Lewis • Hyers, Martin Shobe, Rudolph Shobe, Martin Powers, Jacob Shobe, Christopher Ermontrout, Martin Shobe, jr., .Abraham Stooky, Modlin Stooky, and Conrad Carr, for “ His fourth undivided part of one tenement, containing eleven hundred and twenty acres of land, with the appurtenances, in the county aforesaid, late the county of ¡Augusta, on the South branch of Potowmack River, and bounded as followeth, to wit: Beginning at two red oaks, on the South side the North fork of the said branch, thence S. 28, W. 106 poles to a black walnut, white oak and elm, on a branch at the foot of a hill, thence N. 74, W. 400 poles to a red oak, at the foot of a hill, thence N» 57, W. 248 poles to a white oak, on a hill, thence S. 52, W. 160 poles to a white oak, thence N. 80, W. 48 poles to two white oaks, thence N. 49, W. 100 poles, thence N. 15, W. 40 poles to a sugar tree and hickory on the said branch, thence down the several courses of the same to the beginning.”</p> <p>The parties joined the mise upon the mere right, according to form in the act of Assembly.</p> <p>There is in the record a patent to Robert Green, dated 12th January, 1746, for 1120 acres of land in Jlugusta county, the boundaries of which are the same with those mentioned in the count: also, a deed from Mary Wood, devisee of James Wood, to James Wood and Robert Wood, for her undivided moiety of the said tract of land. A copy of the first named James Wood’s will, whereby he devises all his estate to his wife, the said Mary Wood, on condition that she pay to each of his children 20/. on their coming of age. Also, a copy of the will of Robert Green, in which is the following clause: “I bequeath unto my sons James and Moses Green, and their heirs and assigns, one tract, &c. as also all my part of the lands which now are patented in my name on the South branches of Potowmack River, reserving to Colonel James Wood, of Frederick county, one-half thereof, &e. And I do give and bequeath to the said James Wood and his heirs and assigns forever, one equal half part of the said lands patented, on the South branch of Potowmack. ”</p> <p>There are in the record seven leases for three lives from Lord Fairfax, for small tracts of land, to Jacob Stooky, Leonard Hyers, Martin Shobe, Martin Powers, Christopher Ermontrout, Barbara Shobe and Jacob Shobe, all dated the 3d of Jiugust, 1773.</p> <p>Upon the trial of the cause, the demandants filed a bill of exceptions to the Court’s opinion, which stated, that “ the demandants having offered on the trial a patent in the ■words and figures following: ‘George the second, &c.’ The tenants offered evidence to prove, that the land they are in possession of, and claim, is not the' land demanded of them by the demandants:” That the demandant excepted to the admission of the testimony, but was overruled by the Court.</p> <p>The demandants likewise filed another bill of exceptions in the following words:</p> <p>ie The demandants in these causes offered a demurrer to the evidence exhibited by the tenants, setting forth that evidence, and also the evidence exhibited in behalf of the demandants, in the words and figures following, to wit: On the trial of these causes, the said tenants gave in evidence the following leases from the late Lord Fairfax to Jacob Stooley, in the words and figures following, to wit: This indenture, &c. One from the same to Leonard Hyers, in the words and figures following, to wit: This indenture, &e. One from the same to Martin Shobe, in the words and figures following, to wit: This indenture, &e. One from the same to Martin Powers, in the words and figures following, to wit: This indenture, &e. One from the same to Christopher Ermontrout, in the words and figures following, to wit: This indenture, &e. One from the same to Barbara Shobe, in the words and figures following, to wit: This indenture, &c. One from the same to Jacob Shobe, in the words and figures following, to wit: This indenture, &c. And that they and those to whom the said leases were granted, had been in possession twenty-two years under the said leases, and twenty years previous, that the upper part of the land demanded by the demandants in their declaration, lies one mile below the confluence of the North and the South branch, and on the side opposite from the North fork; and proved by Jonathan Heath, that he was summoned by the Sheriff of Hardy county, to attend the surveying a tract of land, being the land in dispute between the parties aforesaid, whereon Leonard Hyers and others now live; where was present Colonel Joseph Nevill and John Foley, surveyors. They begun said survey about two and one half chains on tile South branch of Potowmack, about four miles below the mouth of the North fork, near to where fort George formerly stood, the first corner extended eleven poles up a run, between two hills, the second course crossed the point of a bill which was not passable; they measured back on the first course, into the bottom, to enable them to run the second course. The second course, as the surveyor then urn, was •on the point of a hill, where there was no timber cut, at the third corner there was but little timber, the fourth corner no timber cut, the fifth corner cleared, the sixth corner no timber cut, at the seventh corner no timber cut, except a road along the river, the last course called for forty poles, but found only six, when we came to the river, which, if they had extended agreeably to the deed, would have carried them over the South branch to a pine hill. They then went down the different meanders of the river to the beginning. That they diligently examined the different corners, but found no corner tree nor side mark; that there was an allowance made of two and one half degrees variation. And further proved by Job Welton, that he was summoned by the Sheriff of the county to attend a survey on the lands in dispute, and that they began the first course of the survey about the middle of the South branch, where I fort George formerly stood; that they run the first course one hundred and six poles, about eleven rods of which was up a run between two hills, where the timber was chiefly cut; they then started on the second course, and run some distance, when they came to a steep bank, which they could not go down; they measured back on the first course into the bottom, to enable them to run the second course. The second course, as the surveyor then run, was on the point of a hill where there was no timber cut, at the third corner there was but little timber, the fourth corner no timber cut, the fifth corner cleared, the sixth corner no timber cut, at the seventh corner no timber cut, except a road along the river, the last course called for forty poles, but found only six, when we came to the river. They then took down the different meanders of the river, to the beginning. That they diligently examined thé different corners, but found no corner tree nor side mark; that there was an allowance made of two degrees and an half in the variation, and that he was present when they run out the land in 1773, when no marked trees nor corners could he discovered. They also gave, in evidence the act of Assembly passed in the year 1736, intituled, an act for confirming and better securing the titles to lands in the Northern Neck. And they further proved, by Moses Hutton, that he, the said Hutton, has. been in this country fifty odd years; that he has always heard the South branch, the South fork and the North fork called as they now are; that the land in possession,of the tenants lies on the South side of the South branch, .and he believes about one mile below the North fork: And by William Cunningham, sen., that he has been on the South branch fifty-eight years; that Solomon Hedges lived on the land in dispute fifty-five years ago; that the father of the Shobes, the present tenants, was in possession of the said land about fifty years ago, and that the tenants had lived there ever since, but the said witness knows of no title that they had. Thesaid land lies a mile or a mile and a half below the North fork, and on the South side of the South branch. That the South branch, the South fork and the North fork have been understood as such during the whole time he lived in this country. To which evidence, the demandant’s counsel demurred as insufficient in law, to support the right of the tenants to the lands in contest, and produced in support of their rights, a copy of a patent duly attested as the law directs, from George the second, late King of Great Britain, in the words and figures following: George the second, &c., and the act of Assembly passed in the year 1748, entitled, an act for confirming the grants made bv his Majesty within the bounds of the Northern Neck, as they are now established; and also, a copy of the last will and testament of Robert Green, deceased, authenticated under the seal of the county of Orange, where the same was admitted to record in the words and figures following, to wit: In the name, &e. And a copy of the will of James Wood, deceased, certified under the hand of the Clerk of the county of Frederick, where the same was admitted to record in the words and figures following, to wit: In the name, &e. And also, a copy of a deed from Mary Wood to the said demandants, certified under the hand of the Clerk of the county of Hardy, where the same is recorded in the words and figures following, to wit: This indenture, &e., the above being the only evidence given on the part of the demandants; and pray the judgment of the Court, whether they have more right to the tenements which they demand against the tenants, or they to hold as they demand. To the reception of which demurrer the tenants, by their counsel, objected, for the following reasons: because the demurrer contained as well the evidence demurred to by the demandants, as the evidence exhibited by the demandants; and that the facts which that evidence relates, contained matter proper for the consideration of the jury: which objection was sustained by the Court.”</p> <p>Verdict and judgment for the tenants; upon which the demandant appealed to the District Court.</p> <p>The District Court was of opinion, that the, judgment was erroneous, in this, u that the Court below ought not to have admitted the evidence stated on the pari of the tenants, as mentioned in the demandant’s bill of exceptions, to have gone as evidence; to the jury; and in not rsceiving the demurrer of the said demandant” That Court, therefore, reversed the judgment, and thereupon the tenants appealed to this Court.</p>

THIS was a suit in the Superior Court of Chancery f°r the Williamsburg District, to foreclose several mortgages on lands and slaves. The Bill, amended Bill, answers and Exhibits, presented much controversy between parties, concerning the amount of the debt.

<p>i. Detinue — Declaration—Failure to Demand Property-Effect.* — If the declaration in detinue do not contain a demand, "that the defendant render to the plaintiff,” the property sued for; yet, after verdict on the plea of non detinet, judgment ought not to he arrested.</p>

After the cause was remanded for further proceedings according to the principles declared in the decree of this court, new parties set… Held: that the case was properly relievable in equity; that the arbitrators did indeed decide the point of law submitted to them erroneously, yet the award was binding on the parties to the submission, so far as their interests were concerned; but that as to those of the distributees of Thomas the elder, who did not join in the submission…

LAV~RTY a~d G-~NTLEY merchaiits and partners, bronglit their action of debt in the Snper~or Court of lienrico County, on a protested ml snd bill of exchange, againsi Joh?i C~ Walker, qf the firm qf Walker Go. a citizen and inhabitant of the said County; chargrng in the declaration, that the bill was drawn by the said Walker & Co. on the 26th day of Mardi 1816, at .A'~ew-York, to wit, at Henrico aforesaid, and within the Jnristhction of the Court, accordrng to the use and…

<p>1.~tia not ne~cessary, in the dec1ar~ t~on fo~ coyeu~ut bra-ken, to recik the ~vhole of ~he agree~ment, but only to desscribe ~u1~- - ~~k~ntiallg the material parts as to which breaches are alleclged.</p> <p>=@ See Macon v. Crump, 1 Call 575, Buster's ex'or v. Wallace, 4 H. & M. 82.</p> <p>2. In Covenant upon an agreement of lease, which, besides the stipulation to pay the rent, contained other clauses, binding the lessee to board the lessor and wife ,part of the term, and to return the premises uninjured, the declaration described ~ao much of the agreement as related to leasing the property and paying the rent; charging the defendant with having broken the covenant generally, and particu. larly in failing to pay the rent; but said nothing about the ather st~pu1ations. It was ~lecided that this was not a substantial variance.</p>

URoR~E M. WEST executor of Robert West deceased, presented a Bill to the Chancellor of the itielimond 1)i~-trict, for an IsUtwction to stay proceedIngs on a rnent at law obtained by Thomas Logwood against him, on a bond pretell(lcd to have been executed by his testator Robert West, for ~2481 9T, which the Complainant believed to be counterfeit; that the defendant Logwood by his answer might set forth particularly, the consideration for which the. said bond was given; that a…

David Kyle, William Kyle and David Mays worm nets of the mercantile house of Kyles fy Mays at Lynch-burg, and Mays was the acting partner of the house there, And by articles under seal, between Enoch Roberts and Kyles fy Mays, dated the 5th May 1818, Roberts leased to Kyles Sp Mays, a house with a kitchen &c. in - Lynchburg, for the term of five years, from the 1st June 1818 to the 1st June 1823, for a rent of 1000 dollars a year,. payable quarter yearly.

By deed dated the 12th June 1767, and duly recorded in the county court of Lunenburg, Abram, Maury mortgaged a parcel of 130 acres of land in that county, and three slaves, two of whom were females, to Spiers Bowman Co. to secure a debt he owed them, of £ 331.12.2.

THIS was an action of assumpstt in the Superior Court of Chesterfield County, instituted in March 1814, by Williaim Floariwg against Samuel Woodd~j and Cornelius Buck late co-partners in working Bailey's coal pits.

Randolph Harrison and Samuel Jones exhibited their Bill to Chancellor C. Taylor, in which they alleged that Executions to the amount of more than $700, were levied upon three negro girls, viz: Julia, Eavinia and Eucy, *together with other property, belonging to a certain Charles Irvine, of the county of Buckingham : that at the sale which took place on the 22d June, 1827, under the Executions, the Plaintiffs became the purchasers of the three girls, and of three mules, at…

This was an appeal from a Decree of the Chancery Court held in Richmond, rendered in favour of the Appellee, against the Appellant. William Cutler had brought Assumpsit against John Hinton, for money had and received to the Plaintiff’s use, in the Superior Court of Prince George. He obtained a Verdict and Judgment against the Defendant, for $2,785 60 cents, with interest from the 21st April, 1818.

This was an injunction to two judgments recovered by Thomas Humphrey against Daniel Hitt, in the County court of Fauquier. The pleadings and proofs make out the following case : Thomas Humphrey instituted two actions of debt in the County court of Fauquier, against William G. Yerby and Daniel Hitt. The actions were upon bonds, one of them for 190 dollars, and the other for 200 dollars, in which Yerby was the principal and Hitt was his surety.

IN the Superior Court of Chancery for the Staunton District, a Bill was filed by Jacob Icininey, setting forth that he obtained a Judgment in the County Court of Kanawha against .~l1en Prior for 1061.., with interest from the 25th of April 1801, `till paid, and costs; that he issued execution thereon the 17th of June 1803, and another execution the 24th of September in the same year; that it appeared by the Sheriff's return on the first of these executions, that Elizabeth…

Mary Thompson widow of Waddy Thompson, filed a bill in Chancery in the County Court of Albemarle in September 1805, stating that, by a marriage contract, dated the 12th of December 1766, and recorded'in May 1767, all the estate which the said Waddy Thompson might claim in her right under the Will of Samuel Cobbs her first husband, was vested in William Lewis as trustee for the use of herself and her heirs forever; and all the estate which she claimed or then had under the…

Debt on a bond, brought by Campbell against Shields, in the circuit superiour court of Rockbridge. Plea., the statute of usury.

Edmund Webster exhibited his Bill to Chancellor C. Taylor, setting forth, that in the year 1816, he, the Plaintiff, and],a certain Daniel Couch, entered into an agreement, whereby the Plaintiff became bound to convey to Couch sundry houses and lots in the City of Richmond, for which he was to receive in exchange from Couch, a good title in fee-simple to a tract of land lying on the waters of Geld Mine Creek in Hanover, containing about eight hundred acres of land: that in…

<p>1.Iua suit `~n Chancery, to foreclose a mortgage, .ugainst purchasers claiming under adevisee of the mortgagor, not oniy the perSons from whom they immediately derive their title, but also the said devisee, or his heirs, and all other devisees of the equity of redemption, ought to be made parties; not-withstand~ng such equity was devised to some of them upon condition.~; for wbcther such conditions were complied with, can not be legally investigated, until they are made parties.</p> <p>2. It is uotsu1~cient'to make a person a party as Executor, and to call upon hint to answer a~ &uch, if he be interesfed in th~ controversy ar a devisee, or sl~ou1d be called upon to answer as to his individual interest or transactions.</p> <p>3. Where lands devised to be sold, have been sold by one of several executors, allthe executors ought to be parties to a suit to foreclose a mortgage previously existing upon those lands. So, also, all the purchasers; in order to be subjected to a rateable cQathbution to satisfy the mortgage.</p> <p>4. A decree against purchasers of a tract of land incumbered by a mortgage to secure the payment of an annui4j, ought to provide, that so much of their lands, respectively, be sold, as will be sufficient to pay their proportions of the sum remaining due, ~nd unsatisfied by a sale of so much of the tract as was relained by the vendor, and liable-to be sold; except so far as they shall pay their respective proportions of such debt, and agree to hold their lands subject to the future decree of the Qourt for their proportions of any sums growing due to the plaintiff thereafter.</p> <p>5. A e1ortgagee of lands and rla~cer, can not be co~npelled to resort to a sale of the never before he shall disturb the possession of bona jide purchasers of the 2andr from the mortgagor: but the decree against such pm chasers ought to permit ,them, after satisfying the claim of the mortgagee, to seek ndemnity out of the mort.. gagcd slaves, or the estate of the mortgagor, or any other person liable to such demand, so far as the mortgagee might be able to charge such party, or other wise.</p>

<p>Detinue for a slave named Peter, brought by James Laws against Michael and Simon Peterman, in the circuit court of Montgomery. Plea, the general issue. At the trial, the defendants filed several bills of exceptions to opinions of the court, only two of which are material, since the others were abandoned by their counsel in this court, and therefore the court gave no opinion on the points therein stated.</p> <p>1. The first bill of exceptions stated, that the plaintiff offered in evidence, an office copy of a deed, from the register’s office of Orange county North Carolina, executed by Jonathan Laws on the 7th March 1827, whereby he conveyed the slave Peter to Samuel Yarbrough, in trust to indemnify Leonard Laws, surety for Jonathan Laws as guardian of James and Frances Laws, from loss by reason of his suretyship, and authorized the trustee, when required by either Jonathan or Leonard Laws, to sell the slave at public sale, on twenty days notice, and out of the proceeds of sale to pay James and Frances Laws whatever debt or balance should be certified, by the clerk of the county court of Orange, to be due from Jonathan Laws to them. To this copy of the deed, there were subjoined 1. an office copy of a certificate of William Norwood, of the proof of the deed by the subscribing witness thereto before him, and of his order for the registry of the deed and of his certificate of the probat: 2. an original certificate signed by J. M. Kerall, that the copy of the deed, and of the certificate of probat and order for,the registry thereof, was a true copy from the record in his office : 3. an original certificate in these words—“ State of North Carolina, I John Taylor clerk of Orange county court of pleas and quarter sessions, do hereby certify, that J. M. Kerall, who signed the above certificate, is the duly qualified register of said county—In witness whereof,' I do hereto set my hand and seal of office, 8th April 1829”—(signed) “ J. Taylor, clerk,” with his seal of office annexed: and 4. another original certificate in these words—“ State of North Carolina, I Abner B. Bruce, chairman of the court of pleas and quarter sessions for Orange county, do hereby certify, that John Taylor, whose signature and seal of office are to the foregoing certificate, is now, and was at the time of signing the same, clerk of the said court, that his attestation is in due form of law, and that full faith and credit ought to be given to his official acts as such—Given under my hand and private sea.1 this 8th April, 1829”—(signed) “A. B. Bruce,” with a scroll by way of seal. And the plaintiff adducing no other evidence of the execution of the deed of the 7th March 1827 under which he claimed, but the certificates above mentioned, the counsel for the defendants objected, that the copy of the deed was not admissible evidence; but the court overruled the objection, and permitted the paper to be read in evidence to the jury-</p> <p>2. The second bill of exceptions stated, that the plaintiff ottered in evidence, the deposition (admitted to have been regularly taken) of Leonard Laws, the cestui que trust indemnified by the deed of the 7th March 1827; who deposed, that the slave Peter conveyed by that deed to the trustee Yarbrough, was at the date thereof, the property of Jonathan Laws, the grantor; that the trustee Yarbrough took possession of the slave Peter, in February 1828; that two persons named Peterman came to Orange, N. Carolina, about the same time, and demanded him of Yarbrough, as the property of their father; that Yarbrough refused to deliver him to them, and shewed them the deed of Jonathan Tmws conveying the slave to him, for the indemnification of the deponent; that the deponent was the surety of Jonathan Laws as guardian of James and Frances Laws; that the guardian was found indebted to his wards 800 dollars; that Yarbrough, the trustee, after due advertisement, sold the slave, at public sale, to James Laws (the plaintiff in this action) for 381 dollars; and that James Laws thereupon took possession of the slave, and held him fill he carried him to Montgomery county, Virginia, whither James Laws went sometime after. The defendants’ counsel objected to the reading of this deposition in evidence, because the matter it contained was not admissible evidence, and because the deponent was interested and incompetent; but the court overruled the objection, and admitted the deposition; to which the defendants excepted.</p> <p>There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; to which this court, upon the petition of the defendants, allowed a supersedeas.</p>

John Bowyer sued out from the Justices of Greenbrier County, a Writ of Unlawful Detainer against Joseph Martin and Charles Carra way, for the purpose of being restored to the possession of a certain tenement in the said County, containing, by estimation, twenty-four acres of land, including the Muddy Creek Sulphur Springs, commonly called Patterson’s Sulphur Spring Tract.

Assumpsit in the County Court of Rock-ingham by Margaret Graham, Administra-trix of John Graham, deceased, against John Pence for goods, wares and merchandize, sold and delivered, amounting to 941. 4 4%. At May Term, 1819, the Defendant pleaded the general issue, and had leave to file a special plea within sixty days.

IN these two cai~es, (which were argued together,) bills of review were filed by the appelbanis against 1hz appellees, in the Superior Court of Chancery for tin Staunton District, praying the reversal of decrees of thai Court, dated in April 1 807 and July 1809, for errors in law appearing (as the appellants ilisisted) on the record. The Bill of Review, in each case, was filed without oh taming the leave of the Court, and demurred to for that Cause.

Joseph Allen, clerk of the Court of appeals at Richmond, applied by petition to the Superior court of chancery for the Richmond circuit, for an appeal from the decision of the auditor of public accounts rejecting certain allowances made to him by three special Courts of appeal held in Richmond, for his services and attendance upon said Courts. The appeal was allowed and the auditor filed his answer, in which he objected to the allowances as illegal.

<p>Appeal from a decree of the circuit superiour court of Kanawha for Jones against Collins and others, upon a bill in chancery filed by Jones for relief against a judgment recovered against him at law.*</p>

THIS was an action of debt in the County Court of Fairfax, instituted by Cornelius Wells assignee of Joseph Reid, against the admimst~ator with the will annexed of Edward Washington deceased, on the 12th of March 1816, upon a promissory note of the said Washington dated August 14th, 1795.

Assumpsit by'Brooks against Hatch, in the circuit superiour court of Kanawha, for money had and received by the defendant to the plaintiff’s use, with notice of the particulars of the demand. Held: that he was not, and gave judgment on the verdict for the defendant: to which this court, upon the petition of the plaintiff Brooks, allowed a supersedeas.

<p>1. Thege o~era1 princi pie laid down in the case of Xol- and v. Crorn `well, 4 .Ykfumf 155, does ~not apply tc a case in which the rights of the parties can not be adjusted in the Court of Ca`ceat, but the ai4 of a Court of Equity is necessary to give to each ide proper ehare of the land, for which one has improperly obtained a Pateiit~</p> <p>2. Atesta. tor having two broth-ti's, devised to one of them a tract of land, describing it as his plantation on H. creek; and to the other. " the plantation Whereon he lived. an~1 his lands tiLereunto belonging." This devisc was construed as giving the last mentioned brother, not only the plantation or cleared land where the testator lived, with the adjoining woodland, used for timber and fuel, but the whole tract and several other tracts adjoining thereto.</p> <p>S. In decreeThg~ a `paifition in favour of a plaintiff claiming' by equitable title, the (~ourt ought Rot to direct that the holders of the legal title stand seiced of the plaintiff's part to ide use; but, that they convey the same, by deed, to him and his heirs.</p> <p>4. In a suit in Chancery to recover a tract of land claimed by equitable title, and ~or other objects; if it appear that some of the defendants are entitled to a moiety of The land, by an equitable title adverse to that of the other defendants, the Court ~hould permit them to unite as p~aintzfs in the suit, to claim suek moiety.</p>

<p>1. Qucere: If in actions of slander under the statute, the truth of the words spoken may be given in evidence in mitigation of damages. Cabell, P. and Baldwin, J. in the affirmative, and Allen, J. in the negative.</p> <p>2. In an action for a statutory slander, the plaintiff must declare under the statute.</p> <p>3. If plaintiff does not declare under the statute, his declaration must set out a common law slander, and if the words charged do not amount to slander they cannot be helped by the inuendo.</p>

Detinue in the Superior Court of Law for Campbell County, brought by Powhatan Jones, Plaintiff, against Benjamin Hunter, Defendant, to… Held: and regarded by him and his wife, who was the widow and Administratrix of said Thomas Jones, deceased, as part of the said Jones’s estate, though purchased by the Adminis-tratrix after the said Jones’s death ; or any declarations which admitted that said slave was purchased for the estate, and was paid for with the money of the…

On the 7th of January 1805, William 1. Stone, with Jesse Hughes his surety, was indebted to John Ware, by execution upon a forthcoming bond, in the sum of 23CL 13. 0J: Ware was indebted to Charles Smith, by bond for 351Z. payable February 10th, 1806.

Elizabeth Boyd, in 1824, sued out a writ of fieri facias upon a judgment of the county court of Augusta, against David Steele and Samuel Steele his appearance bail, for 397 dollars, principal, interest and costs; and the execution having been levied on the property of David Steele, he with the same Samuel Steele and Joseph Seig, his sureties, executed a bond for the forthcoming and delivery of the property to the sheriff, at the day and place appointed for the sale thereof.

<p>1. In gen~era1, a deed ~istobe `taken as `having been executed on the day of it's date, Un-~Iess it appear to have been `on some ~otJ~er day.</p> <p>2. The testimony of the person who executed the deed, was received as fixing ■the time when it was executed; notwithstanding’ the testimony of two witnesses to fiis acknowledgment to the contrary when not on oath; he being entirely disinterested ■"between the parties, and the falsehood of Ms evidence being not probable under the circumstances of the case.</p> <p>3. A creditor by mortgage or deed of trust,'has not aright, without a written agreement, to tack to such mortgage or deed of trust a note or bond of the debtor, in exclusion of another mortgage or deed of trust, bearing date either before or after such nete .or bond.</p>

Mary G. Gwatkin sued out a Writ of Capias ad Respondendum, in debt, against Amos Hoff and Charles Ming, from the Office of the Superior Court of Las for Prince William County. It was returned !lNo inhabitant,” as to Hoff, and the suit abated as to him. It was executed on Ming, who gave Jesse Green as his appearance bail. The Bail-Bond was copied into the Record, by which the Plaintiff was called Mary G. Gwatkin.

John M. Smith, exhibited his Bill to the Chancellor of the Richmond District, setting forth, that in the year 1814, he purchased of a certain William Lamb, a lot of land in the City of Richmond, forty-three feet one way, and one hundred and thirty feet the other, for which he agreed to give seven hundred dollars: that on the lot thus purchased, there stood a small house, of which, with the lot itself, the Plaintiff was immediately put iu possession, and that he *bas paid the…

This was a Supersedeas toa Judgment of the Superior Court of Norfolk County. James Old, an infant by Edward J. Wilson, his Guardian and next friend, brought an action of Trespass quare clausum fregit, in the said Court against Wm. Truss. The Plaintiff, in his Declaration, complains that the Defendant with force and arms, entered on the land of the Plaintiff, and cut down, took and carried away certain pine trees, and underwood growing thereon, of the value of $1,000.

Moit~~ T0MIaES presented to the Judge of the Scporior Court of Chancery for the Williamsburg District, a stating that, some time in the year 1808, during which the plaintiff was High Sheriff of Gloucester County, Robert Downman obtained a judgment in the County 0oulq 0f Sussex against George Ball for $699.56 Cents, with interest and costs; that. the said Downman, to whom the execution on the said judgment was delivered, alledged that he sent and delivered it to the present…

<p>Covenant will not lie in the name of an apprentice on an indenture of apprenticeship entered into by the overseers of the poor without any previous order of court for binding out the apprentice; such indenture is not a statutory deed; and, therefore, covenant can only be maintained on it in the name of the overseers who are the parties to it.</p>

This was an action brought in forma pauperis in the Borough Court of Norfolk, by Moses, a negro man, to recover his freedom of the Appellee, Denigree, by whom he was held and treated as a slave. Judgment was rendered for the Plaintiff in the Court below, and a Supersedeas obtained, to bring the cause before the Superior Court of Norfolk County. The Superior Court reversed the decision of the Court below, and the Defendant, Moses, appealed to this Court.

By deed, dated the 20th November 1815, between James Moffett and James Frazier, Moffett leased to Frazier 1000 acres of land for a term of ten years, at a yearly rent of 150 dollars: and Frazier covenanted, that if Moffett should make a fair sale of the premises for 10,000 dollars, one half in cash, and the other half in four annual instalments, then and in that case, Frazier should give possession at the end of the year after such sale.

'Susanna Gillaspie, a woman of colour, instituted her action in forma pauperis, in the Superior Court of Augusta, to recover her freedom, against Jacob Spotts, who detained her in slavery. The Jury found a special verdict, in which they found two Acts enacted by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, the first passed to the 1st March, 1780, entitled, “An Act for the gradual abolition of slavery,” the other passed 29th March, 1788, in amendment of the former Act.

Debt, in the circuit superiour court of 'unzo, uy me Bank of Mount Pleasant against Wilson and others, on a judgment rendered against them in the state of Ohio by confession, under a power of attorney to confess judgment made before action brought.

TillS was an action of debt in the Superior Court of Fairfax County, brought in May 181 1, by William Lane, late Sherifl~ against James Wi~inioa late deputy SherilL and James hayes, Isliarn E. hedges, James Fnrcell and Wdiiam.

On the 28th July, 1823, Thomas Atkinson survivor of Peterson Goodwyn and four others, Justices of Dinwiddie County, for the benefit, and at the costs of Mary W. Lanier, sued out of the Superior Court… Held: the cause was continued as to him. At the November Rules, the common order was entered against the other Defendant, Hamlin, which was confirmed, and the Writ of En-quiry awarded at the December Rules.

James Garnett sold and conveyed to Thomas Powell, 1000 acres of land, part of a large tract then held 'by him, lying on the Ohio river in Mason county, Virginia, to be laid off by lines very exactly indicated in the conveyance. The conveyance was of 1000 acres, neither more nor less.

This was an appeal from a Decree of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, reversing- a Decree of the County Court of Buckingham, by which a Bill of Injunction, obtained by the Appellants, had been perpetuated. The Chancellor dissolved the Injunction, and dismissed the Bill. No other statement of the case is necessary than that which is contained in the following opinion.

AFTER the decision by the Court of Appeals, in the ease of Shelton v. Cocke, Crawford & Co., reported in 3 Munf. 191—197, the cause being remanded to the Superior Court of law, William Shelton, the defendant upon. whom the Writ had been served, tendered to that Court a demurrer to the declaration, 1 st, because the Christian and surnames of the plaintiffs and defendants were not mentioned therein; which demurrer the Court would not permit to be filed; to which opinion the…

Washingtons executor recovered judgment, in debt on a bond,- against Parks, for 9000 dollars, the penalty of the bond, to be discharged by the payment of 3205 dollars with interest from the 12th July 1808, and 13 dollars costs. Paries filed a bill in equity for relief against the judgment, and obtained an injunction to stay proceedings upon it at law. The injunction was dated the 4th September 1825. It was not dissolved until the 26lh November 1833.

<p>1. A deed of gift of shves to a married wo~ man, to her 0-ion epeeiaZ coo and nafterward~ " to her heir "07' loezro;" with a clause providing that, “if she shall die without heir or heirs, or without “ a Will disposing of the said slaves and their increase, they shall return to the “ donor or his heirs,” conveys the property to the separate use of the wife, so that, after the death of the husband, she is entitled to hold the slaves and their increase against his administrators.</p>

In July 1840, John G. Beale applied to the Judge of the Circuit court of Fauquier for an injunction. In his bill he alleged, that John H. Digges and Charles W. Digges, late merchants and partners, executed a deed, which was duly admitted to record, whereby they conveyed. to their brother Thomas E. Digges, the books of the said firm, and all accounts and debts due to them, in trust to pay certain debts to creditors mentioned therein.

Samuel Turner brought Assumpsit in the Superior Court of Prince George, against Robert Bolling, committee of Mary Anne Bolling, a lunatic, to recover $919 80. There were five counts in the Declaration. The first was indebitatus assumpsit for goods, wares and merchandize sold and delivered to the lunatic before her lunacy. The second was on a quantum valebant for the goods sold and delivered to her. The.third was on a quantum meruit, for work and labor done for her.

FRANCIS SM ETli Sued out an a~tachinent signed by a~ Alderman of the town of Petersburg, against Samzw~ Pearce as an absconding debtor, for the sum of $312.48 cents, due by negotiaI~Ie itote, with interest thereon from the 1st day qf February 1817. In the condition of the bond for prosccut~ng the attachment, it was said to be for the sum of $312.48 cents; without mention-i~ig interest.

<p>Sometime prior to the 21st January 1803, John Jane sold a parcel of 70 acres of land lying in the county of Jogan, then part of the county of Giles, to Absalom Stewart, for 300 dollars; and Stewart paid the purchase money, and received possession. On the 21st January ISOS, Stewart sold the land to Mark Duncan, for 800 dollars, of which Duncan, paid 200 dollars, and gave Stewart his bond for 100 dollars, payable the first January 1810; whereupon Stewart gave possession to Duncan, and executed a bond to him, with condition to convey him a good title in fee on or before the 25th December 1808. In December 1812, Stewart obtained from his vendor Lane, a written promise to convey the title whenever he should be required ; but no conveyance of the title was ever made by Lane, and none was ever made by Stewart to his vendee Duncan. In March 1810, Duncan sold the land to Thomas Christian, gave him possession of it, and assigned to him Stewart’s bond to convey .the title; and, in November 1823, Christian sold the land to Joseph Goare, and, in like manner, gave him possession, and assigned him Stewart’s title bond. Duncan’s bond to Stewart, for 100 dollars of the purchase money payable the 1st January'' 1810, remained still unpaid; and of this Goare, at the time of his purchase of the land from Christian, had notice. And, in July 1824, Stewart assigned Duncan’s bond for 100 dollars, and all his Stewart’s claim upon the land, to Fredericlc Beuhring.</p> <p>Beuhring filed a bill in chancery, in the county court of Logan, against Goare, Duncan, the infant heirs of Lane who was now dead, and Stewart who was a nonresident,—stating the facts, charging that Duncan was insolvent, and praying that the land in the hands of Goare, might be subjected to the payment of the 100 dollars with interest, due from Duncan to Stewart on account of the purchase money which Duncan contracted to pay for the land, and assigned by Stewart to the plaintiff. The proceedings in the county court were irregular; and that court made a decree for the plaintiff which was erroneous in its details. The defendant appealed to the superiour court of chancery of Greenbrier, which reversed the decree, and retained the cause; and it was afterwards transferred to the circuit superiour court of Logan, where it was regularly matured for hearing as to all the parties, and the facts of the case, as above stated, were clearly proved.</p> <p>At May term 1833, the circuit superiour court decreed, that, unless the defendant Duncan or Goare should pay to a commissioner specially appointed by the court to receive the payment, the debt of 100 dollars with interest from the 21st January 1810, the land should be sold by a commissioner appointed for the purpose, after due advertisement &c. on a credit of six and twelve months, taking bonds with surety for the purchase money ; and that the commissioner should report his proceedings under this decree, in order to a final decree. From this decree, this court, upon the petition of the defendant Goare, allowed an appeal.</p>

Olivia Downman and Sarah Downman, filed their Bill in the Superior Court of Chancery at Fredericksburg, against the Appellee, Benjamin D. Rust, both in his own right, and as Executor of Elizabeth H. Rust, and others, to recover certain legacies bequeathed to the Complainants by the said Elizabeth H. Rust.

<p>This was an information filed, in October 1828, by the attorney for the commonwealth, in the circuit court of Cabell, at the instance of the escheator of that county, against Hite, for an intrusion on land of the commonwealth'.</p> <p>The information alleged, that Hite had, unlawfully and forcibly, intruded on a parcel of 400 acres of land, lying in the county of Cabell, part of a grant to John Savage and others, and by partition thereof afterwards designated as lot number 45, which had escheated to the commonwealth by the death of Matthew Jones, who died seized thereof, intestate, and without heirs, as was found by an inquisition of escheat in 1820, returned to and filed in the clerk’s offices of the county and circuit courts of Cabell; and that Hite had unlawfully and forcibly held possession of the 400 acres of land, so intruded upon by him, from the 22d July 1813 till the filing of the information, and during all that time kept the commonwealth from the possession thereof, and still continued to keep and detain the same from the commonwealth. Hite pleaded not guilty; and it was agreed, that he might, under that plea, give in evidence and rely upon, any and all matters which he might have specially pleaded in bar. Upon the trial, the jury found a special verdict to the following effect—</p> <p>1. That a grant was regularly issued, in 1773, to John Savage, Matthew Jones, David German, and fifty-nine others, for 28,627 acres land, lying in the now county of Cabell, whereof the 400 acres in the information mentioned, was part.</p> <p>2. That in 1775, some of the grantees and part owners met on the land, and by verbal agreement proceeded to divide a portion thereof among themselves and other part owners; and several of them took possession, in pursuance of that division, of the lots then and so assigned to them, and thenceforth claimed the exclusive property in the lots so assigned to them respectively, and have ever since possessed and enjoyed the same.</p> <p>3. That in 1809, a suit was brought in the superiour court of chancery of Staunton, by W. Coleman and others, part owners of the grant, against D. Morgan and others, also part owners of the same, claiming shares of the lands granted, insisting that the partial division of 1775 was unjust, and praying that it should be set aside; which suit was not yet finally determined as to all the parties thereto; but that the chancellor, in 1817, by consent of all the parties then before the court, made a decree appointing commissioners to divide the lands in Savage's grant, having respect, as far as practicable, to the division of 1775; to estimate the difference between tjie vajues 0f tjie seVeral lots, in order that such difference might be equalized by payments in money by the owners of the more valuable to the owners of the less valuable lots; to estimate also, and report, the value of improvements made on the said lands; and to report who had made, or who had purchased, such improvements, and were then the owners thereof, and on what particular lot or lots such improvements were, in order that the court might decree compensation for the same, when it should be satisfied of the right of the owners of such improvements to have compensation therefor.</p> <p>4. That the commissioners appointed by this decree, proceeded, in 1S17, to execute the same, and made a report to the court, shewing a division of ,the whole lands granted, wherein the division of 1775 was followed as far as it was made; estimating the sums due to and from the several lots to equalize the division; and estimating too, the value of improvements made on the lands, shewing on what particular lots they were made, by whom made, and who were the purchasers and then the owners thereof.</p> <p>5. That the chancellor confirmed this report and division ; and had since proceeded, from time to time, to decree to those who then were, or had since made themselves, parties defendants in the cause, the lots claimed by them respectively, upon their producing evidence of their rights to particular lots; and to decree payment of the equalization money to such of the parties to whom the same appeared to be due.</p> <p>6. That Hite, the defendant here, entered himself party defendant in the suit in chancery, and put in an answer, in order to obtain compensation for improvements made on part of the land, of which he had been divested by the division and report made by the commissioners under the decree of the court; in which answer, he shewed, that David German was one of the ori- . - . .. . gmai grantees m the bavage grant, as was mentioned m the original bill; that part of the land to which those claiming under German were entitled, was ascertained in the report and survey returned by the commissioners, by the number 47; that German conveyed his rights to Isaac Larue, upon whose death his son became entitled to the same, and conveyed them to Edward Md Ginnis, and he sold it to Mansah Bostick, as appeared by papers filed in the cause to prove Bostick's claim, that Hite purchased of Bostick, in 1813,200 acres of the land held by him and derived from German; that on this parcel of 200 acres Bostick made valuable permanent improvements, in addition to some improvements, which were on the same at the time of his purchase, and for which he had paid a valuable consideration; that Hite had paid valuable consideration for the improvements on the land at the time of his purchase from Bostick, and had himself since added other permanent improvements ; that these 200 acres of land had been thrown, by the survey and report of the commissioner, part into lot number 45, and part into lot number 61, designated in that report; and that the improvements belonging to Hite on lot 45 were of the value of 112 dollars, and those on lot 61 were of the value of 445 dollars, as ascertained by the commissioners. Therefore, Hite prayed the court to decree to him those two sums, or such other sums as he should be deemed justly entitled to, and that his whole interests should be secured and protected in such manner as the court should think equitable.</p> <p>7. That the chancellor, in August 1821, decreed, that the owner of lot 45, as laid off by the commissioners, should pay Hite 112 dollars, and the owner of lot 61 should pay him 445 dollars (those sums being the value of the improvements, to which Hite was entitled. from the owners of those lots respectively, according to the report of the commissioners) in certain instalments specified in the decree; and in default of such payments, that the marshal of the court, after advertisement &c. should proceed, in pursuance of an agreement between the parties of the 8th October 1816, to sell so much of the said lots respectively, as would be sufficient to pay Hite the sums with which they were respectively charged.</p> <p>8. That those moneys not being paid to Hite, the marshal, in pursuance of the decree of August 1821, proceeded, in November 1823, to make sale of the lots 45 and 61, when Hite became the purchaser of both lots; and the marshal having reported the sales to the court, the chancellor, in January 1829, approved and confirmed the report, and decreed that the marshal should make a conveyance 'of the lots in fee simple to Hite, and cause the conveyance to be recorded in the county court of Cabell.</p> <p>9. That the marshal, accordingly, made a conveyance of the lots 45 and 61 to Hite,, by deed dated the 13th. May 1829, and duly recorded.</p> <p>10. That the lots 45 and 61 contain 400 acres each; and the 400 acres contained in the lot 45, is the same 400 acres of land mentioned in the inquisition of escheat returned in this cause.</p> <p>11. That the defendant Hite claimed the land, when he first entered, under a purchase from Mansah Bostick, who claimed under David German, one of the grantees in the Savage grant; but that the lot 45 was, in the division of 1775 before mentioned, assigned to Edmund Taylor assignee of Matthew Jones, who was another of the grantees in the Savage grant; that in the name of Matthew Jones, and as his property, the lot 45, containing 400 acres of land, was escheated by inquisition of escheat in 1820—which inquisition was found in hcec verba, and it stated, that Jones died on or about the-• day of-* intestate and without heirs, and that he was at the time of his death seized and possessed in fee simple of the land designated in the Savage grant as lot 45.</p> <p>12. That after the inquisition taken and returned, the escheator of Cabell county, in April 1829, proceeded to sell the land as the law directs, and one Davis became the purchaser thereof, for 305 dollars; but Davis had not yet paid the purchase money to the commonwealth, nor had he or any other person acquired title from the commonwealth since the escheat.</p> <p>13. That the before mentioned division of 1775, was made in pursuance of a verbal agreement of some, though not all, of the part owners of the Savage grant, and that division was not of record, until it was incorporated into, and made part of, the report of the commissioners of the court of chancery of 1817 : that there are no evidences of assignment or transfer from Matthew Jones to Edmund Taylor, except the parol division of 1775, and the proceedings in the suit in chancery above mentioned, of which the report of the commissioners of 1817 form a part, which report recognizes Edmund Taylor as assignee of Matthew Jones: that Taylor was present at the division of 1775, claiming to be assignee of Jones, but Jones was not present at it: that neither Taylor, nor any one claiming under him, nor Jones, took any possession of the land at that or any time since: but that afterwards, in 1801, one Waggoner came to Cabell, claiming to hold Taylor’s right, but he took no actual possession of the lot 45, the same being then in the possession of squatters, or persons temporarily settled upon it, without any claim or title thereto.</p> <p>And if upon the whole case, the law was for the commonwealth, then the jury found the defendant guilty; but if the law was for the defendant, they found him not guilty.</p> <p>The circuit superiour court held, that the law on the special verdict was for the defendant, and gave him judgment: to which this court, on the application of the attorney general, allowed a supersedeas.</p>

<p>In 1841. Lindsay Shumaker recovered a judgment against Abel B. Nichols in the Circuit court of Bedford county, for 828 dollars 84 cents, with interest thereon from the 7th day of October 1841 till paid, and his costs. A few days after the judgment was rendered, Nichols, by his agent, tendered to Shumaker the sum of 957 dollars 39 cents, which was the amount, principal, interest and costs, of the judgment, in discharge thereof. The tender was made in bank notes, and no objection was made to it on that account; but Shumaker declined to receive it, and told the agent that he wished the money to be applied to an injunction he had obtained against Nichols; and that, he had instructed his counsel as to the disposition he wished made of the money. The subject of the injunction referred to, seems to have been three judgments, two of them recovered by Nichols & Bell against Shumaker, and the third was recovered by Edwin J. Bell, and all of which Shumaker insisted belonged to Abel B. Nichols.</p> <p>The agent of Nichols did not apply to the counsel of Shumaker, but returned the money to Nichols.</p> <p>In August 1844, Shumaker sued out an execution on his judgment, and directly it went into the hands of the sheriff, Nichols paid him the sum he had previously tendered to Shumaker, and then applied to the Circuit court of Bedford for an injunction to enjoin proceedings upon the judgment and execution to recover any further sum. The bill charged the tender as before stated, but did not state that he kept the money ready to be paid. The injunction was granted.</p> <p>When the cause came on to be heard, the Court perpetuated the injunction to the judgment, except as to the sum of 957 dollars 39 cents, with costs; and thereupon Shumaker applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.</p>

This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Williamsburg-, dissolving an Injunction obtained by the Plaintiff, Samuel Brown, against Stark Armistead, Administrator with the Will annexed of David Wright, deceased, and others, and dismissing his Bill. The case is fully stated in the following opinion of the Court.

Robert Bailey, of New Kent county, died in December 1842. He seems to have possessed a considerable estate in lands, slaves, money and other personal property. He was twice married, and at his death, he left surviving him, four children by his first wife, and his second wife and one child by her.

Supersedeas to a judgment of the circuit superiour court of Ohio, in an- action of debt on a bond with collateral condition, brought by Clemens against Ray.*

This was an appeal from a Decree of the Court of Chancery for the Richmond District. The case is fully stated in the following opinion of the Court.

Cases adjourned from the circuit superiour court of ^ Nansemond.

<p>1. The powers of commissioners appointed to execute a decree of a Court of chancery, cease when the Court by which they are appointed, is abolished, or ceases to exist.</p> <p>2. Commissioners proceeding to execute a decree after an appeal to the Court of appeals has been taken, and the process has been served upon them, are guilty of a contempt of the appellate Court; and their acts are null and void, as to the rights of the parties to the appeal.</p>

At September term 1834, the grand jury made a presentment against Kincanon “ for unlawful gaming by playing at cards at the tavern of Samuel Ilooser, within six months last past, in the county of Smyth and within the jurisdiction of the court, upon the information of Alfred Atlcins.” The defendant pleaded not guilty.

These cases were all considered together; the first and third were on appeals from the Superior Court of Eauquier; the second on a Supersedeas to a Judgment of the same Court. In the first case, the Plaintiff, Jonas Montgomery, á negro man, brought his suit in forma pauperis, to recover his freedom from Robert Fletcher, the Defendant, who held him as a slave. At the trial in July, 1826, the Plaintiff excepted to an opinion of the Court.

Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Amherst. At September term 1834, the grand jury found an indictment against Dudley in the following words— “ Amherst county, superiour court of law and chancery, to wit: The grand jurors empannelled and sworn at September term 1834, upon their oath present, that J. W. Dudley, late of the county of Amherst, labourer, with force and arms, in the county aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said superiour court, on the…

In November 1820, Turner R. Henley instituted a suit in equity in the County court of Buckingham, against Nathaniel Perkins, Thomas Binford and others. In his bill, he charged that Perkins became indebted to him in 1817, in the sum of 3324 dollars, payable the 1st of October 1821; and to secure it, executed to him a mortgage bearing date the 4th of April 1817, on several slaves and other personal property.

Hall was indicted, tried and convicted, in the circuit superiour court of Kanawha, for knowingly passing a counterfeit note of ihe Bank of the Valley; and the jury ascertained the term of his imprisonment in the penitentiary to be ten years. He moved the court to set aside the verdict and direct a new trial, 1.

This was an appeal taken by Henry E. Coleman and William A. Bentley, from a Decree rendered against them *and others, by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District.

<p>By the provisions of the statute 1 Rev. Code, ch. 76. § 6. a court cannot, for malpractice of an attorney or counsellor, committed in its presence, suspend the licence of the party offending, in a summary way, but must direct an information to be bled against him, and inflict the punishment on the verdict of guilty found on such information.</p>

At the April term for 1848, of the Circuit court of Buckingham, a paper purporting to be the will of Mildred Johnson, was propounded for probat by John H. Johnson, the nominated executor therein, when William J. Dunn appeared and opposed its admission to probat. The will bore date the 31st of March 1845, and after several small bequests, she gave the residue of her property to her son John H. Johnson, and appointed him her executor.

<p>This was an action of assumpsit, brought in April 1843, by Thomas D. Watson against Branch T. Hurt, in the Circuit court of the town of Petersburg. The declaration contains a special count, and a count on an account stated. The special count set out the agreement as it was proved, except that it does not say whether it was by parol or in writing. The defendant appeared and pleaded non assumpsit, and the statute of limitations, on which pleas, the plaintiff joined issue.</p> <p>On the trial of the cause, the defendant demurred to the evidence, and the jury found a verdict in favour of the plaintiff for 591 dollars, with interest thereon from the 5th day of June 1837 until paid, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the demurrer.</p> <p>The evidence in the cause consisted of a note bearing date the 5th of June 1837, signed by James M. Hurt, by which he promised to pay to “ Thomas D. Watson or order, 591 dollars, on demand, with interest from the date, value received, the same being for money loaned ;” which was endorsed in blank by Branch T. Hurt; and parol proof by the plaintiff, that previous to the 5th of June 1837, the plaintiff, as administrator of Mrs. E. Dams, the mother of Mrs. James M. Hurt, had in his hands a sum of money, which, including interest to that day, amounted to 591 dollars. That some months previous, a chancery suit had been instituted in the Circuit court of Petersburg by Doremus and others against James M. Hurt and others, one object of which was to subject the money in the hands of the plaintiff to satisfy a debt due to them by James M. Hurt and J. H. Butler. That after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff agreed to lend the money to James M. Hurt, provided he would give his brother, the said Branch T. Hurt, as security; and accordingly, a negotiable note was prepared for 591 dollars, payable on or about the 5th of June, signed by James M. Hurt, and endorsed by Branch T. Hurt. About that time, it being probable that from the course pursued, the said suit would be depending for some time, it was proposed by Watson, and agreed to by James M. Hurt, that to save the trouble of renewing negotiable notes, a due bill should be given by James M. Hurt, and endorsed by Branch T. Hurt, carrying interest from the date, with the understanding that the money was not to be called for by Watson until the said chancery suit was decided. This arrangement was made known to Branch T. Hurt; and thereupon the negotiable note was given up by Watson, and the note aforesaid was executed by James M. Hurt, and endorsed by Branch T. Hurt, and was given to Watson to hold until the said chancery suit was decided : The agreement being that if, in said suit, it should be decided that Mrs. James M. Hurt was entitled to the money, Watson would not call for it, but if it was decided that the plaintiffs in that suit were entitled to it, then, it was to be paid upon Watson's requiring it. This understanding was stated to Branch T. Hurt, and known to him when he endorsed the note; and his intention in endorsing it, was to bind himself as security for James M. Hurt, for the payment of the money to Watson, if he should be decreed to pay it to any other person than Mrs. James M. Hurt.</p> <p>The chancery suit was not decided until June 1842, when by the decree in that suit, Watson was directed to pay the money to the plaintiffs therein, who were the creditors of James M. Hurt and Butler.</p> <p>It was also proved, that in June 1837, and for more than twelve months previous, James M. Hurt was notoriously insolvent, and so continued ever since; and that Watson refused to lend the said money to him, unless upon his giving security.</p> <p>Upon the decision of the chancery cause, Watson, in June 1842, demanded payment of the money, and told Branch T. Hurt that he was required to pay up the money; that James M. Hurt could not pay him, and he must. That Branch T. Hurt acknowledged he endorsed the note and was bound to pay the money, and was willing to pay him then, but that he did not like to sue his brother, out of whom he thought the money could be made; that he was anxious Watson should sue James M. Hurt as an act of justice to him; and that immediately it should be ascertained by such suit that the money could not be made, he would promptly pay the said sum of money due upon said note. That such suit was brought against James M. Hurt, judgment was obtained, and an execution was issued, which was returned “no effects.” There was no other evidence in writing of any promise of the defendant, than that evidenced by the endorsement on the note aforesaid.</p> <p>The Court below gave a judgment upon the demurrer to evidence in favour of the defendant; and the plaintjff thereupon applied to this Court for a supersedeas, which was awarded.</p>

Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Fayette. Hill, clerk of the county court of Fayette, was indicted in the circuit superiour court, for issuing a licence for the marriage of an infant, without the consent of the infant’s father or guardian, contrary to the provisions of the marriage act, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 106. § 16. pp. 398, 9. There were four counts in the indictment.

Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Montgomery. The grand jury indicted Foggy, 1. for unlawful gaming at a tavern, “ by playing at cards at a game called vantoon;* and 2. for unlawful gaming at a tavern “ by playing at cards,” without specifying the game. The defendant demurred to the indictment, and the court overruled-the demurrer. The defendant then tendered the plea of not guilty, stating at the time that he was ready for trial.

<p>Louis C. Bouldin presented a petition to the court, verified by his affidavit, shewing that, at November term 1831 of the circuit superiour court of law and chancery of Petersburg, he was duly appointed attorney for the commonwealth in that court, took the oaths of office, and entered upon the discharge of its duties; that he had ever since continued faithfully to discharge the duties of the office, until the 20th June 1836, when the court, without any notice to him, or any legal proceedings against him, or any judgment or order for his amotion from office, made an order appointing “ A. B. Spooner attorney for the commonwealth in that court, in the place of Louis C. Bouldin removedthat he, Bouldin, afterwards made a motion to the court to be admitted to the performance of the duties of the office, which motion the court overruled; he then asked, that his motion might be entered of record, which the court also refused: that he was advised, that this amotion of him from his office was illegal, and the refusal of the court to re-ad mit him was also contrary to law, and that he was still lawfully the attorney for the commonwealth in the said court, and ought to be restored to the performance of the duties of the office, and to the enjoymentof the emoluments thereof. Wherefore he prayed a mandamus to the iudge of the court, to restore him to his office.</p> <p>And Johnson for the petitioner, moved for a rale upon the judge to shew cause why the mandamus should not be awarded.</p>

John M’Rae of Petersburg, filed his Bill on the 4th February, 1822, in the Richmond Chancery, against William Cole and others, which states, that he obtained a Judgment in the Superior Court of Law of Peters-burg, in October, 1820, for $9,120, with interest from 30th June, 1820, till paid and costs, subject to a credit of $4,153, from the 23d October, 1820: that a Ca.

On the 18th of October 1837, Benjamin Welles commenced a proceeding, by foreign attachment, in'the Circuit court of the county of James City and the City of Williamsburg, against William F. Hamilton and Roscow Cole, partners under the name and style of Hamilton & Cole, as absent debtors, and John A. Mackinder and others, as home defendants.

This was an appeal from a Judgment of the Superior Court of Law for the County of Accomack. The Appellant Isaac, instituted an action in forma pauperis against John G. Joynes, Executor of Abel West, deceased to recover his freedom.

This was an appeal from a Decree rendered by the Superior Court of Chancery held at Greenbrier Court-house, in favor of the Appellee, against the Appellant, for the sum of $325, with interest from the day of rendering the Decree, until paid, subject to a credit for the sum of $118 23 cents. It is not deemed necessary to give any other statement of the case than that which is contained in the opinion of the Judge who delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case has been on two former occasions before the Court of Appeals, and in the brief statement which will be made of it, a reference will be made to those decisions. Thomazin Ellzey, by Deed of Bargain and Sale, bearing date 9th November, 1799, conveyed to William Lane, a tract of land in Fairfax County, containing four hundred and seventy-five and three-fourth acres, for the consideration of 4751. 15.

The grand jury for the county of Ritchie, empanneled at the spring term 1847, of the Circuit court for that county, found an indictment against Francis P. Drake and Joseph Cochren for a trespass.

<p>Indictment† — Verdict—Variance in Name-Effect. —If an-indictment charges an offence to have been committed by Richard, and the verdict abridges the name by finding the prisoner Rich’d, guilty, the verdict is not erroneous.</p> <p>*Grand Larceny‡— Indictment— Verdict. — If a person be indicted for grand larceny, and the Jury convict him of petit larceny -without ascertaining the value of the goods stolen, the verdict Is sufficient.</p> <p>Same — Verdict—Sufficiency.§—A verdict which does not ascertain what goods were stolen, nor their value, nor whether they are forthcoming, or not, nor what articles are not forthcoming, it any, nor the value of such as are not forthcoming, (but merely finds the prisoner guilty of petit larceny on an Indictment for grand larceny,) will not be set aside as erroneous.</p>

In consequence of a previous Presentment of the Grand Jury, an Information was filed by the Attorney for the Commonwealth in the Superior Court of Law for Norfolk County, against the Defendant; which charged that, on the *first of August, 1827, and on divers other days and times, between that day and the 12th September, in the same year, at the town of Portsmouth, and County aforesaid, and in, about, and near the shop, and storehouse, and upon the lot and tenement of him the…

<p>The act of the 14th of March 1848, ch. 4, § 15, has repealed the act of 1819, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 152, p. 575, in relation to horse stealing.</p>

<p>This was an indictment in the Circuit court of Fayette county against William Lafferty. The indictment charged that Lafferty, a single man, (and not being a servant or slave,) on &c. and at &c. did carnally know and have illicit intercourse and connexion with a certain Sabina M’Craw, a married woman, and did then and there commit fornication with her &c.</p> <p>The defendant demurred to the indictment, and the Court, with his consent, adjourned to this Court the questions:</p> <p>1. Whether the act of unlawful sexual intercourse charged in the indictment between the two persons therein named, one of whom is alleged to have been at the time a married person, constitutes the offence of adultery, or fornication only, on the part of the other ?</p> <p>2. Whether the defendant may be convicted on said indictment, of adultery or fornication ?</p> <p>3. What judgment the Court ought to render upon the demurrer ?</p>

Henry Morrissett was indicted in March 1849, in the Circuit court of Chesterfield, for feloniously stealing two slaves, the property of Thomas F. Robion; and also for carrying the said slaves out of the county of Chesterfield, with intent to defraud the said Robion, and to deprive him of his said property.

<p>Criminal Law — Continuances.*—under wbat circumstances a continuance of a Criminal Case oug-ht to not to be granted on the application of the prisoner.</p>

The first of these cases was adjourned to this Court by the Superior Court of Law for Surry County. The Plaintiffs appeared by Attorney, and dismissed their suit, which was an action on the case; whereupon the Defendant, by his Counsel, moved, the Court to enter a non-suit in the case,, and award him five dollars for the same, besides his costs.

At the June term 1849. of the Circuit Court of Harrison county, Leonard Clark was indicted, for that he, on the 1st day of November… Held: then and there did attempt feloniously to maim, disfigure, disable and kill Cyrus Ross of the same county,&c. At the November term of the Court the defendant appeared by his attorney, and moved the Court to quash the indictment. Whereupon the Court, with the consent of the defendant, adjourned to this Court the following questions: 1.

On the petition of David Jones, to the General Court, setting forth that the petitioner, a resident ox Fluvanna County, having arrived in the City of Richmond, on the 18th November, was arrested on the day following by the Serjeant of the said City, and that he is now illegally detained in the custody of the said Serjeant. A Writ of Habeas Corpus was awarded, directed to the said Serjeant, returnable on the next day.

This was an application for a Writ of Error to a Judgment of the Superior Court of Law for Harrison County. The petitioner was indicted for selling, by retail, without having a license therefor, whiskey and other ardent spirits, at his dwelling-house, to be drank at the place where sold.

This was an application for a Writ of Error to a Judgment of the ' Superior Court of Law for Hampshire County, *whereby the petitioner was sentenced to the Penitentiary for the term of two years, on a conviction of forgery.

This was an information founded on a presentment of the grand jury, in the Circuit court of Jackson county, at its March term 1849, against David Litton. The first count of the information set out with great particularity, that Matthew B. Armstrong, the administrator of William H. Armstrong, obtained from a justice of Jackson county, a warrant in debt against Litton. That this warrant went into the hands of a constable, and was duly served.

<p>Coffee, sugar and molasses purchased out of the Commonwealth, with proceeds of cord wood, cut by the purchaser, and brought into the State, cannot be sold without a license.</p>

This was a case adjourned from the Superior Court of Law for Chesterfield County to this Court. A complete statement of the case is to be found in the opinion of the Court. The Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth.

This was an information for perjury, filed against Aaron Lodge, in the Circuit court of Harrison county. The perjury was charged to have been committed in swearing to an answer in a cause depending in the Circuit court of Harrison, in which said Lodge was a defendant.

The prisoner was indicted in the Superior Court of Law for the County of Powhatan, for the murder of Elbert Mosby. The first count charged the murder to have been ^committed by means of a dirk, by which a mortal stab in the left side was given; the second count charged that it was done by a horsemans pistol, by which divers mortal wounds and blows were inflicted on the head of the deceased ; the third count charged that the offence was committed by means of a1 club.

William B. Archer, who was confined in jail on four indictments for felony, in one of which there had been a trial, but the jury had been unable to agree upon a verdict, and had been discharged, applied to this Court to be admitted to bail, on the ground that the confinement to which he was subjected, would endanger his life. The prisoner was brought before the Court, and witnesses were examined orally, as well for the prisoner as on behalf of the Commonwealth.

William Grayson, a free negro, was indicted in the Circuit court of Culpeper county, for the murder of David W. Miller. Upon the trial, the jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree ; and the Court sentenced him to be hung. The prisoner thereupon moved the Court for a new trial, but the Court overruled the motion; and the prisoner excepted.

This was an application for a Writ of Error to a Judgment rendered against Joseph Whiteford, the petitioner, by the ^Superior Court of Chesterfield, on the 15th November, 1828, sentencing him to be hanged by the neck until dead, for the murder of William Anderson. The case is fully stated in the following opinion of the Court. The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

This was an adjourned case from the Superior Court of Nottoway. The opinion of the Judge gives a full statement of the case.

<p>This is an adjourned case from the Superior Court of Montgomery. The case is fully stated in the following opinion.</p>

Thomas Shirley brought Detinue in the Superior Court of Law for Spottsylvania County, against Joshua Long, to recover a slave, named Sarah. The general issue was pleaded, and on the trial, the Plaintiff tendered a Bill of Exceptions, which was signed and sealed by the Court. It set forth, that the Plaintiff gave in evidence, a copy of the schedule of the Defendant, who had taken the oath of an insolvent debtor on the 23d June, 1821.

This was an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Chancery Court of Fred-ericksburg, dissolving an Injunction obtained by the Appellant against the Ap-pellees, and others. The Case is sufficiently stated in the opinion delivered by Judge Green. The case was argued by the same Counsel, and at the same time, as the last Case.