Volume 7 — Virginia Reports

On the 26th of February 1844, Thomas R. Comer made his will, by which, after directing that his debts should be paid, he gave the whole residue of his estate, real and personal,- to Ellen Fletcher ; and he appointed Samuel H. Myers his executor.

<p>In covenant by F. against C. the declaration sets forth a covenant, whereby plaintiff, a carpenter, undertook the carpenter’s work of a wooden house for defendant, at certain specified prices per piece, the whole to be done in a workmanlike manner, and defendant contracted to furnish the materials as they should be wanted; and alleged, that plaintiff entered upon and executed a great part of the work; and then alleged breaches, 1. that defendant did not furnish materials, and 2. that, in consequence of defendant’s own negligence, after plaintiff had erected the house and executed a large portion of the work, the house was blown down by tempest, and defendant refused to pay the plaintiff for the work that had been done: Held, the declaration is good upon general demurrer.</p> <p>Upon one entire contract to perform carpenter’s work, the carpenter is entitled to recover the price of the work actually done,! though the whole is not completed, if the employer either prevents him. from completing the whole, or refuses to permit him to complete it except on such conditions as he has no right to impose:</p> <p>nd if the work partly done, is destroyed by accident or act of God, much more in consequence of the employer’s own negligpnce, the employer has no right to insist that the carpenter shall bear the loss.</p> <p>carpenter undertaking to build a house on the land of another, cannot be bound to insure the house against accident or tempest until fully completed, without agreement to that purpose, express or plainly implied, and valuable consideration for the risque; and, in case of loss by such causes, before the work completed, the carpenter is entitled to compensation for the work actually done at the contract prices; but, if the defendant prevents him from rebuilding and completing the work according to contract, he is not entitled to the contract prices for the work remaining to be done, but only to damages for being deprived of the benefit of the contract.</p>

<p>Testator gives his lands and slaves and other personalty to his wife for life or widowhood, in order to support and bring up her children; desiring her to share out to each on coming of a go, such part as should be convenient, in order to keep them along; remainder, after the wife’s death or marriage, as to the land, to the testator’s five sons or such of them as shall be then living, and as to the slaves and other personalty, to his nine children, sons and daughters, or such of them as shall be then living; the widow lends to one son coming of age, slaves about equal to an aliquot share; but that son dies before the widow, and then she dies: Held, the son acquired no absolute title to the slaves so lent to him, but on the widow’s death, they with all the rest of the personalty devolved to the children of the testator who survived her.</p>

<p>Emancipation of Slaves* — Illegal Detention — Right to Profits during. — An owner of slaves emancipates them by deed: but shortly after, the care of the person and estate of the owner is committed to a committee, which takes possession of the slaves, insisting that the owner at the time of the act of emancipation was non compos; the court holds upon the evidence, that she was of sane mind at the time of the emancipation, and decrees that the slaves shall be set at liberty: Yet Huim, they are not entitled to an account of profits during their detention in slavery.</p>

Ejectment, in the circuit court of Surry, for a messuage and thirty-four acres of land in that county, brought by Bell against John Wilson in his lifetime, who appeared and pleaded, and then died pending the action; whereupon, it was revived by scire facias (under the statute, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 128. § 37. pp. 496,7.) against J^elia and Mary Ann Wilson, his devisees, who also appeared and pleaded the general issue, and put themselves upon the title, in the usual foi*m. At the…

By deed bearing date the 7th day of November 1842, John C. Dickinson and Martha A. H. his wife, reciting that Dickinson was indebted to George N. Clough in the sum of 10,175 dollars 25 cents, by single bill of that date, payable on demand, which he was desirous to secure, conveyed to William T. Dickinson, Burwell B. Dickinson, and Leonard J. Clough, a tract of land in the county of Hanover, a tract lying partly in Caroline and partly in Spotsylvania, a moiety of a tract in…

This is the sequel of the case which 'was before this court in 1827, reported 5 Band. 132. After the cause was sent back by this court to the circuit court of Frederick for a new trial, the venue was changed by an order of the general court, and the cause removed to the circuit court of Orange.

Henry Fairfax, of Prince William county, made his will, by which, after giving small legacies to several of his children, he gave the… Held: that by the true construction of the will and codicil of the testator, taken in connexion with the facts proved by the witnesses, the testator intended that the appellant, Hunter, should act as his executor in like manner, and on like terms as his wife and son, who were appointed executor and executrix, and were to qualify as such…

By an act of the Congress of the United States, the heirs of General Joseph Martin, of Virginia, were authorized to locate five thousand acres of land in the states of Alabama or Mississippi, of land which had been offered for sale but had not been sold, and in tracts not less than one hundred and thirty acres.

In the county court of Dinwiddie, at July term 1828, being a monthly term of the court, the following entry was made on the minutes : “ Wynn v. Richard Bolling, John Davis and John Scott. Judgment confessed by defendants in person, for 2000 dollars; to be discharged by the payment of 1000 dollars, with interest from the 1st June 1828 until paid, and costs of suit.

<p>Husband and Wife-Husband’s Administrator Not En» titled to Recover Money of Husband Used by Wife.* — . A wife leaves her husband’s house, without his consent, during his absence from home, and goes to reside with her brother, carrying away withher a sum of money belonging to her husband, which she applies to her own use; the husband dies, and his administrator exhibits a bill in chancery against her, praying a discovery of the amount so taken away by her, and a decree for the same: Held, the husband during his life would not be and his administrator is not, entitled to such relief.</p>

At the June term 1845, of the Circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in. and for the county of Alexandria, a decree was rendered in a cause therein depending, in which the Bank of Potomac and others were plaintiffs, and Bridget M’Laughlin and others were defendants, by which certain real estate in the possession of Bridget M’Laughlin was subjected to satisfy the claims of the plaintiffs against Edward M’Laughlin; and commissioners were…

Debt upon- an injunction bond, by Clay's executors against White and Lovell his surety, in the circuit court of Pittsylvania. The declaration claimed. £ 650. the penalty of the bond, and, after alleging the execution and making proferí thereof, set out the condition in hcec verba; which, reciting that the said.

This was a motion upon notice by Hunter, administrator of Reid, to set aside a decree of this Court made at the April term 1845. The case is reported in 2 Grattan 34. The ground of the motion was, that before the case was argued or decided, the appellee Strider had died.

<p>Upon a scire facias to revive a judgment against two persons jointly, and in all joint actions against two persons on a joint contract, it is error to enter final judgment against one, until the plaintiff has matured the case against the other also, so that a joint judgment may he entered against both, or has proceeded against, the other as far as the law authorizes or enables him to proceed.</p>

In 1783 a partnership was entered into hy David Ross and Duncan M’Lauchlan, for carrying on a country store at the Point of Forks, now Columbia, in the county of Fluvanna. In this partnership David Ross was to be interested two thirds, and M’Lauchlan one third; and M’Lauchlan was the acting partner in conducting the business. This partnership was renewed and continued until 1794, when it was finally dissolved.

Eli Jarrett executed a sealed instrument to James Jarrett junior, in the following words—“Received of James Jarrett junior the following obligations for collection, to wit, one note of John Huff for 438 dollars, and one note of Benjamin Reeder for 150 dollars; the above notes, when collected, are to be credited on a 1000 dollar bond due May 1. 1816 (which I hold) of James Jarrett senior. Witness my hand and seal &c.”—Signed and sealed by E. Jarrett.

Machir being justly indebted to Inskeep 3200 dollars, .and to Pierce 650 dollars, and Throckmorton being the attorney of the creditors for the collection of the debts; and Machir being also indebted to Retmick's executor 814, dollars, and to Welton’s administrator 2255 dollars, and Naylor being the attorney of these creditors for the collection of these debts; Inskeep and Pierce with, Throckmorton their attorney, and RennicJds executor and Naylor his attorney, also acting as…

Dr. Gustavus B. Horner, late of the county of Fauquier, died in 1815. Held: that the charge of £ 500. upon Mrs. Whiting’s share of Dr. Horner’s estate should have been taken out of her share of the real and personal estate divided in 1826, the personal property being first set off against the said £ 500., and the balance of that sum being charged upon the land; that therefore Moore had a claim against George…

Debt on a bond with collateral condition, brought by Stephenson against Beeson’s administrator, in the circuit court of Wood.

This was a suit in equity, instituted in September 1845 in the Circuit court of Louisa county, by the administrator de bonis non with the will annexed, and children, of Garland Thompson deceased, against the administrators de bonis non with the will annexed, of Nathaniel A. Smith deceased, his widow and children) and others.

<p>Assumpsit by Jett against Wilkinson, in the circuit court of Brunswick. The declaration alleged, that the defendant Wilkinson, being the sole contractor with the post master general of the U. States, for carrying the mail for a short term, on two several and distinct mail routes, once a week, for 988 dollars, agreed with the plaintiff Jett, that if he would execute one half of the contract, by carrying the mail on each route, alternately, every other week, the defendant would pay over to him one half of the stipulated compensation of 988 dollars, as soon as the defendant should receive the same from the post office department; and that the defendant, having before that contract had expired, made another contract with the post master general, whereby the department agreed to allow him, for carrying the mail, once a week, on the same two routes, for a term of four years from the expix'ation of the first contract, the sum of 1450 dollars per annum, payable quartei'ly, agreed likewise with the plaintiff, that if he would execute one half of this contract, by carrying the mail on each route, altei'nately, every other week, the defendant would pay over to him one half the last mentioned stipulated compensation of 1450 dollars per annum, as he should receive the same; and the plaintiff averred, that he executed these agreements on his part; and that the defexxdant received from the department, 988 dollars under the first contract, and 1450 dollars per annum, quarterly, under the second contract; by reason whereof the defendant became indebted to the plaintiff, one moiety of the sums of money so by him received from the department ; and being so indebted, in consideration thex'eof, assumed to pay him the same &c. Plea, the general issue.</p> <p>At the trial, the defendant filed two bills of exceptions to opinions of the court. 1. The plaintiff having offered evidence to prove the agreements between him and the defendant, alleged in the declaration, the defexrdant moved the court to instruct the jury, that those agreements coxxstituted a partnership between the parties, and that no action at law could be maintained by the one partner against the other; but the court refused to give the instruction, and instructed the jury, on the contrary, that the agreements did not coxistitute a partnership between them; to which the defendant excepted. 2. The defendant on his part, in oz'der to prove negligence and misconduct of the plaintiff, in carrying the mail, under his agreements with the defendant, offered in evidence a letter from the post master genex'al, and other evidence to prove such negligence and misconduct; whereupon the plaintiff, in order to prove that the complaints of irregularities in carryixig the mail on the routes, which had reached the department, arose from the defendant’s own defaults in carrying the mail, at the times when he was bound to carry the same, offered in evidence a certificate of the post master general, under the seal of the department, setting forth those irregularities, and pointing out the times and places of their occurrence; to the admission of which certificate in evidence, the defendant objected; but the court permitted the certificate to be read to the jury, as evidence of the fact that complaints were made to the department, as stated in the certificate; and the defendant excepted.</p> <p>Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for 276 dollars with interest &c. from which the defendant appealed to this court.</p>

Detinue for a slave, brought by Handley against Brown, in the circuit court of Greenbrier. Plea, the general issue. A verdict being found for the plaintiff, the defendant moved the court to set it aside, as contrary to law and evidence, and to order a new trial. The court overruled the motion, and gave the plaintiff judgment. The defendant excepted to the opinion of the court refusing the new trial, and appealed from the judgment to this court.

By an agreement bearing date the 14th of September 1832, John S. Preston & Co. leased to Overly & Sanders their salt works and salt manufactory in the county of Smyth, reserving a rent of two thirds of all the salt to be manufactured at the works.

This suit was commenced in the county court of Nelson, where it was long pending, and was thence removed by certiorari to the superiour court of chancery of Irynchburg.

In November 1826, Voss obtained, from the county court of Culpeper, an award of execution against W. Thompson, E. Thompson and Ward, on a forthcoming bond for the delivery of property at the day and place of sale, taken in execution under a writ of fieri facias on a judgment of the same court recovered by Vass against W. Thompson; so that W. Thompson was the principal, and E. Thompson and Ward were the sureties, in the forthcoming bond.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Brunswick county, by Thomas It. Trotter and wife against Benjamin Wilkinson, administrator of Clement Mitchell deceased, the father of the female plaintiff, for a settlement of his administration account, and for a decree for the amount which might be ascertained to be due to the plaintiff. The accounts were referred to a commissioner, who reported thereon ; and there was a single question of controversy between the parties.

So much of this case as is necessary to present the question considered and decided by this Court is as follows: James D. Dishman of the county of King George, died in 1813, being indebted to S. & J. Lambert in the sum of 265 dollars 95 cents, with interest from the 14th of August 1812; and Austin Smith and George White, jr., qualified as his executors.

<p>It seems, that if there be several counts in a declaration, one good and all the rest bad, and a general demurrer is filed to the whole declaration, the demurrer ought to be overruled, because there is one good count.</p> <p>And, whatever be the better practice, the overruling of the demurrer in such case, is no cause for reversing a judgment after verdict on issue joined.</p> <p>To a declaration in assumpsit, defendant pleads the general issue; afterwards plaintiff, under leave to amend, files a new declaration as a substitute; defendant does not plead anew; the jury is sworn to try the issue; verdict for plaintiff: Held, that, as the plea to the first declaration was applicable to the new one, and was not withdrawn, defendant must be understood to have still rested his defence on the same plea, and the verdict is good.</p>

This was a proceeding hy foreign attachment, commenced in 1839, in the Circuit court of chancery for the county of Henrico, by Robert C. Williamson against Levin Gayle, an absent defendant, and John Minor Botts.

This was a bill exhibited by Rider against The Nelson and Albemarle Union Factory in the court of chancery of Lynchburg, which the chancellor dismissed, as not, presenting a proper case for relief in equity; and Rider appealed from the decree to this court. The Union Factory was a public company incorporated by act of assembly for a limited time.

Thomas Garden exhibited a bill against Richard Ha-den, Robert Scott and Beverley Scott, in the superiour court of chancery of Lynchburg, alleging, That Robert Scott having purchased a parcel of land of John Scott, which had been previously mortgaged by John for debts due by him, sold the same land to Robina Scott, for 1200 dollars, for which she executed two bonds to him for 600 dollars each, Robert Scott binding himself by written agreement, to clear the title of the…

Charles C. Page, of the county of King William, died in 1822, leaving a widow and four children. Held: that the executor was responsible for the'loss of the debt due from Dabney; and that he was not entitled to commissions ; and there being no exceptions to the commissioner’s report, in which alternate statements were made, the Court adopting the statement disallowing commissions, made a decree in favour of the executor against Mrs.…

Jones exhibited a bill against Smith, in the superiour court of chancery of Fredericksburg, stating that he being the owner of a parcel of land in Madison, called The Fox tract, and sundry personal chattels there, offered the same for sale, pursuant to public advertisement, on twelve months credit, bond with approved surety to be given for the purchase money; that the sale was conducted by Knox, the agent of the vendor, by public auction : that the land was cried out to…

The Columbian College in the District of Columbia was chartered by Congress in 1821. In 1832 the college had become deeply involved in debt; and on the 10th of December of that year, the board of trustees appointed a committee, of which the Rev. Abner W. Clopton was one, to report on the state of the college debt, and their means of paying it.

Debt, in the county court of Mecklenburg, by Welsh’s administrators against Shelton’s executors, upon a decree of the court of pleas and quarter sessions of… Held: that the county court erred, in setting aside at November term the office judgment for the plaintiffs which had been made final at the preceding August term; and, therefore, reversed that order of November term, and all the subsequent proceedings in the cause, leaving the office judgment to stand in full force.

This was a suit by the administrator de bonis non and the distributees of Meaux Thornton deceased, against the administrator de bonis non of Robert West deceased, and the administrator and legatees of the surety of Robert West as administrator of Meaux Thornton, and the administrator de bonis non, widow, devisees and legatees of George M. West deceased, originally brought in the Circuit court of King William, and removed from thence to the Circuit court of Hanover county.

<p>Assumpsit on a foreign bill of exchange, brought by Fotterall against Nelson surviving partner of Nelson 8f Minge, the drawers of the bill, in the circuit court of Petersburg. There 'were three counts in the declaration.</p> <p>The first alleged, that Nelson 8f Minge, at Petersburg, on the 13th February 1827, drew a bill of exchange on one Gordon of Liverpool, in favour of Dunlop Sr Orgain, _ v 1 . , - • r ! tor ¿£500. sterling, at sixty days alter sight, tor value received (without stating the amount in current money given for the bill), which bill was indorsed by Dunlop Sf Orgain to Clarice cashier &c. and by Clarice to the plaintiff; and then averred, that, afterwards on the-day of-, diligent search and inquiry was made for Gordon the drawee, at his counting house and at divers other places in Liverpool, in order to present the bill to him for acceptance and payment, and that he could not bo found, and so had never accepted the bill, or paid the contents thereof (without alleging any protest of the bill); of all which Nelson Sf Minge the drawers had notice ; by reason whereof, and of the statute in such case made and provided, Nelson Sf Minge became liable to pay the plaintiff the said £ 500. sterling, and fifteen per centum damages thereon, in all ¿£575. sterling, and being so liable, in consideration thereof, assumed to pay the same to the plaintiff. The second, count, after setting out the drawing of the bill by Nelson Sf Minge, and the indorsements thereof by Dunlop Sf Orgain and by Clarice, (as in the first count), averred that the bill wras, on the-day of-at Liverpool, presented to Gordon, and payment of its contents demanded of him, but he refused to pay the same (without alleging protest); and further, that at the time the bill was drawn, and thenceforth until and at the time it was presented to Gordon, the drawers had no effects in the hands of the drawee, nor had he received any consideration from the drawers for the acceptance or payment of the bill, nor had the drawers sustained any damage in consequence of not receiving notice of the dishonour of the bill; of all which Nelson Sf Minge had notice; by reason whereof, and of the statute in such case made and provided, Nelson Sf Minge became liable to pay the plaintiff the contents of the bill, and ¿£75. for damages thereon, in all ¿£575. and being so liable, assumed &c.</p> <p>The third count was like the first, except that this stated Nelson SfMinge’s liability and assumpsit for ¿£500. sterling the contents of the bill only, without claiming damages, and without founding the right of action on the statute.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded the general issue.</p> <p>At the trial, the defendant filed a bill of exceptions to opinions of the court; from which it appeared, that the plaintiff offered in evidence, 1. The bill of exchange in the following words—“Fetersburg, February 18th, 1827. Sixty days after sight of this our first of exchange (second, third and fourth of the same tenor and date not paid) pay to Messrs. Dunlop 8f Orgain or order in London ¿£500. sterling, for value in current money here received, and place the same to account &c. (signed) Nelson SfMinge;” addressed “to Mr. Samuel Goo-don, Liverpoolindorsed, “Dunlop 8f Orgain “ William Clarice cashier of the Farmers Bank of Virginia, Petersburg.” And it was admitted, that the bill in question was drawn by Nelson Sf Minge at Petersburg, and indorsed there by Dunlop fy Orgaioi for their accommodation, and that the Fao-mers Bank of Virgioiia at Fetersburg (of which Clarke was the cashier) undertook to dispose, and did dispose, of the bill at New York, for and on account of the drawers, who drew the bill with intent to have it negotiated in that manner. 2. A protest of the bill for non-acceptance, dated the 28th March ' 1827, signed by W. S. Miller, a notary public in Liverpool, stating that he had on that day, at the request of the holders, presented the bill for acceptance, to a clerk in the counting house of Goo-don the drawee, and received for answer, that the bill would not be accepted, he having received no orders to accept the same. 3. The deposition of a notary public of New York, proving that the bill was returned so protested to New York, on the 7th May 1827, and that he gave immediate notice thereof by letter addressed and sent by mail to the drawers. 4. The deposition of J. JacJcson a clerk of W. f J. Brown f Go. the holders at Liverpool, proving, that the bill was received by them there, on Saturday the 24th March 1827, and about the middle of that day; and that in the afternoon of that day, shortly after the bill was received, and again during business hours on Monday the 26th March, the deponent attended, with the bill, at Gordon the drawee’s counting house in Liverpool, in the whole six several times, but on all those occasions he found Gordon’s counting house closed, so that he could not present the bill, and all he could do was to put a note under the door of the counting house addressed to Gordon; which he did, and on the evening of the same Monday, reported the result of his endeavours to present the bill, to E. Frodsham, one of the partners of W. 8f J. Brown Sf Co. the holders. 5. The deposition of E. Frodsham, proving, that Jackson, the clerk, having reported to him his unsuccessful endeavours to present the bill, he Frodsham took up the business early on Tuesday morning the 27th March; and learning that Gordon, the drawee, had very little business, and that he transacted what business he had, on the exchange, or in brokers’ offices, or in the Union newsroom, giving very little and very irregular attendance at his own counting house, either in person or by any clerk, the deponent made diligent inquiry for him accordingly, without being able to find him; but that Gordon (either in consequence of the deponent’s inquiries, or, as the deponent believed, of Jackson’s note to him) came to the deponent’s house, and the presentation of the bill to him was then effected, so as to get the same protested on the Wednesday following (2Sth March) after his refusal to accept the bill. And 6. the deposition of W. Molt, a clerk oí Miller the notary public of Liverpool who made the protest of the bill, proving, that it was the practice of notaries in Liverpool and elsewhere in England, to present bills of exchange ^ ■*" to the drawees, for the purpose of protesting them for non-acceptance or non-payment, by their the notaries’ clerks; that, accordingly, he Holt, clerk of the notary Miller, went, on the 28th March 1827, to Gordon's counting house, with the bill in his hands to present, and presented it to a clerk whom he found there; who gave for answer, that the bill would not be accepted, he having received no orders; whereupon the bill was protested by Miller the notary. And this being all the evidence in the cause, the defendant’s counsel moved the court„to instruct the jury—</p> <p>1st, That it was the duty of the holders of the bill at Liverpool, on Tuesday the 27th March 1827, when the drawee refused acceptance of the same, to put it in the hands of a notary public for protest, without waiting till the next day; unless prevented by inevitable accident, which must be proved to the jury. 2dly, That the presentment of the bill by the notary to a clerk in the drawee’s counting house, and the clerk’s refusal to accept the same, was not sufficient to authorize the notary to protest the bill for non-acceptance, unless it should be proved, that the clerk to whom the bill was presented, was the clerk of the drawee, and authorized either to accept or to refuse to accept the same, for and on account of the drawee. 3dly, That the notarial presentment of a foreign bill of exchange for acceptance, and the notarial demand of acceptance of such a bill, must be made by the notary in person, and that the presentment thereof, or demand of acceptance made by a clerk, is not sufficient to authorize the notary to protest the bill for non-acceptance, he having personally neither seen nor sought for the drawee. 4thly, That if upon the facts admitted or proved in the cause, the plaintiff was entitled to recover, his recovery must be limited to the nominal amount of the bill in currency, with damages, interest, costs and charges, and the current premium on bills on 'England, and that the £ 500. expressed in such bill must lililí.,. i be held and taken by the jury as current money, and their verdict given accordingly.</p> <p>But the court refused to give such instructions, and proceeded to give the following opinion—</p> <p>1 si, That the evidence ought to be submitted to the jury, for them to determine, whether the business hours of the day, on which acceptance of the bill was refused, had not then elapsed, or so nearly elapsed, that the bill could not be put in the hands of the notary on that day, within the business hours thereof; and if the fact was so, that the protest of said bill on the day following was legal and regular. 2dly, That if the facts were as stated in the depositions, it was sufficient under the circumstances of this case, for the notary to make application at the counting house of the drawee, and upon receiving the answer which he did from the clerk, to protest the bill as he did. 3dly, That as to the third proposition of the defendant’s counsel, though the general abstract proposition might be true, jet the protest of a foreign bill of exchange, made in a foreign country, proved itself; and the protest now produced, appearing on its face to be in all respects regular, parol evidence was not admissible, to prove that the protest was not made in the manner staled therein; but it was competent for the defendant to prove, by legal evidence of any kind, either that the bill was not presented by the holders, that acceptance was not to them refused, or that these things were not done in proper time by them. And 4thly, that a bill made and indorsed in Virginia for the purpose of being sold in New York, and actually sold there, was not within the meaning of the statute of Virginia* as the defendant’s counsel, in their motion for the fourth instruction, supposed. And the court then added, that the defendant might introduce any evidence to prove, that he had been injured by the delay of which he complained in making the protest, or by the mode of doing it: but no such evidence was offered. Whereupon, the defendant’s counsel excepted to the refusal of the court to give the instructions they asked, and to the opinions which the court gave.</p> <p>There was a verdict for the plaintiff, for 2777 dollars 77 cents, with interest on 2222 dollars and 22 cents part thereof, from the 13th November 1827, till paid; and the court gave him judgment accordingly. The defendant applied by petition to this court, for a supessedeas to the judgment; which was allowed.</p>

This was a suit by William Miller in the Circuit court of Goochland, to enjoin the sale of a slave named Hezekiah, levied on by the sheriff under an execution which issued upon a judgment recovered by John Guerrant against William Lewis and Thomas Curd, upon a bond in which Lewis was principal and Curd was his surety.

Starbuck and Forman were partners and millers in the county of Berkeley; and Edward Colston of the same county was in the habit of endorsing their notes for their accommodation, and also of becoming their security where the evidence of debt was not negotiable. In August 1S39 he was their endorser on a note discounted at bank, and a short time previous had given his blank endorsement to the partner Starbuck, for the purpose of renewing said note.

Bell being confined in the jail of the county of Buckingham under a charge of larceny, applied to the Judge of the Circuit court of that county for a habeas corpus, and asked for his discharge, on the ground that he had not been brought to trial for three terms of the Court after he had been sent on for trial by the examining Court.

At the May terra for 1837 of the Circuit court of Henrico county, James Crawford recovered a judgment, in an action of detinue against William Williamson, for two slaves, each valued at 700 dollars, and also for 100 dollars damages for detention of the slaves, and his costs. No proceedings seem to have been taken upon ■ sv* this judgment until March 1843, when the plaintiff sued out a scire facias to revive it, returnable to the April rules.

In 1762, a public ferry across the Roanoke river, was established from the lands of William Harwood in the then county of Lunenburg, to the lands of William Royster in the same county. This ferry was subsequently the property of David Ross; and at present belongs to James Somerville. It has been kept up for many years, except perhaps for a short period, between ]794 a.1(j 1834, whilst it was in the hands of Ross.

Koger gave notice in writing to Amis, of a motion to be made against him in the county court of Lee, at June term 1820, for a judgment for money paid by Koger as Amis's surety in a forthcoming bond. At that term the notice was proved; and, without calling the defendant, the motion was continued, not till July term, but till the next August term.

<p>A Bill was exhibited in the superiour court of chancery of Richmond, by John Coche and Ann his wife and Elizabeth Ronald, creditors of William Bentley the elder, against William Bentley the younger, and other children of. William Bentley the elder, and William Coleman and other purchasers claiming under their co-defendants the Bentleys, for the purpose of having certain conveyances of lands, of William Bentley the elder to his children, set aside, as voluntary, fraudulent and void, as against the plaintiffs his creditors. William Moseley was a purchaser of part of the lands conveyed by William Bentley the elder to his children, the conveyance of which it was the object of the bill to set aside; but he was not made a party defendant by the bill, nor was there any allegation in it, nor any relief prayed, against him. Yét. a subpoena was sued out and served upon Moseley, to answer the bill; and he not appearing, it was followed by a decree nisi, which was also served upon him: and upon 'the hearing of the cause, the bill was taken pro confesso as to him, and a decree made (interlocutory as Mosdey contended, final as the plaintiffs insisted) which affected Moseley's rights, as well as those of the children of William Bentley the elder, and Coleman and the other defendants, purchasers under the conveyances impugned by the bill. William Bentley the younger and Coleman appealed from the decree to this court; which reversed the decree so far as it affected the rights of Coleman, and in all things else affirmed it. The case is reported by the name of Coleman v. Coche, 6 Rand. 618.</p> <p>After the cause went back to the court of chancery, the plaintiffs commenced supplemental proceedings against sundry persons holding the lands conveyed by William Bentley the elder to his children under purchases from them, who were not defendants to the original bill, and not mentioned in the proceedings or in the decree upon it. Still, Moseley was not named in the pleadings; the plaintiffs claiming under the original decree by default against him. While these new proceedings were pending, Moseley presented an answer to the original bill, controverting the claim of the plaintiffs to relief against him, and asked leave to file it; and he filed affidavits to explain the reason why he had not appeared and put in an answer earlier. The chancellor refused to give him leave to file his answer, because the decree by default, against him had been affirmed by the court of appeals, and because his reasons for not having answered earlier were insufficient. Moseley appealed to this court.</p>

Davis holding a bond of one Johnson, in which Turner was partly interested with him, put the same into the hands of Turner to collect. Turner having negotiated an assignment of this bond to Nicholls for valuable consideration, applied to Davis to join him in the assignment; and the assignment of the bond to Nicholls was executed both by Davis and Turner; but Turner alone received from Nicholls the whole consideration.

The overseers of the poor for the comity of Ohio for the year 1827, made a motion in the county court against Chapline, who had been an overseer of the poor for the county for the years 1823, 1824 and 1825, for a balance of moneys by him officially received and unaccounted for.

This was an application for an appeal from a decree of the Circuit court of Albemarle county. The decree was rendered prior to the 1st of July 1850, when the new Code went into operation; and it was for a less sum than 200 dollars.

By deed bearing date the 14th of December 1823, Richard Hoomes and Hannah his wife conveyed to Norborne E. Sutton a tract of land in the county of Caroline, containing one hundred and thirty-two acres, more or less, in trust, to be sold, first, to pay off certain debts therein mentioned, and to indemnify Samuel Chiles as the surety of Hoomes in certain bonds; and then to pay over the balance of the purchase money, if any should remain, to Hannah Hoomes, in consideration of…

<p>A bill was exhibited by Carson against Morgan, in the superiour court of chancery of Lynchburg, alleging,—that Morgan employed Carson as his overseer, first at a particular plantation for a single year, at the stipulated wages of 173 dollars; and afterwards Morgan employed him to superintend all his plantations, some of which were distant from the others; but the rate of wages for this service was not fixed, it being agreed, that Morgan should pay Carson as much as his services were worth'. That Carson performed the service of general superintendant of all Morgan's plantations for three years, and charged for this service 300 dollars a year, which was a reasonable charge. That Carson during. the time sold Morgan tobacco, and Morgan paid some debts for him, which transactions were stated in an account rendered by Morgan, in which, however, no credit was allowed Carson for his three years services. That allowing Carson such credit for his services, Morgan would be indebted to him, on a fair settlement of accounts, above 200 dollars. That nevertheless, Morgan having acquired a bond, which Carson had executed to • other persons for 313 dollars, had brought suit upon the same against Carson, and recovered a judgment. That Carson would have defended himself in that suit at law; but, thinking that the suit had been brought in the circuit court of Campbell, he retained counsel to defend him there; who, not finding the suit on the docket of that court, applied for information to Morgan’s attorney, and learned from him that the suit was in the county court; whereupon it was agreed that the suit should be transferred to the circuit court, but before the next ensuing term of the circuit court, an office judgment was confirmed in the county court. Therefore, the bill called for a discovery of the contracts between the parties, and prayed an injunction to stay proceedings on Morgan’s judgment at law', and a decree for the balance due to Carson on the account.</p> <p>The injunction was awarded.</p> <p>Morgan made no objection to the jurisdiction of the court of chancery, but in his answer defended himself upon the merits; giving a different account, in many particulars, of the contracts between him and Carson for Carson’s services as his overseer and as general superintenda.nt of his plantations, and insisting that the compensation Carson claimed for the latter was unreasonable.</p> <p>Many depositions were taken and filed, all relating to the merits of the ^controversy. But there was no evidence proving the. facts alleged in the bill, to account for and excuse the failure of Carson to defend himself in the suit at law.</p> <p>The chancellor referred the accounts to a commissioner ; and upon his report, decreed, that the injunction should be perpetuated, and that Morgan should pay Carson 26 dollars with interest &c. and the costs of suit. From which decree Morgan appealed to this court.</p> <p>The cause was argued here by Johnson for the appellanl, and Robinson for the appellee, upon an objection taken by Johnson to the jurisdiction of the court of chancery; because, as he insisted, the plaintiff might either have defended himself at law, and had not proved the excuse he alleged for his failure to do so, or he had a complete remedy at law by action of assumpsit on a quantum meruit for his services. Robinson argued, on the contrary, that the bill stated a case proper for relief in equity; and that, as the defendant had nowise objected to the jurisdiction, so as to call for proof of any fact necessary to sustain it, but had defended himself on the merits, the chancellor at the hearing, and much more this court, could pay no regard to the objection. He referred to 1 Rev. Code, ch. 66. § S6. p. 214. and cited Briclchouse v. Hunter, 4 Hen. & Munf. 363. Hide-man v. Stout, 2 Leigh 6. Vanléw v. Bohannan, 4 Rand. 537. The facts alleged in the bill to excuse the failure of the plaintiff in equity to defend himself in the suit at law, not being denied, proof of them was not necessary ; Page’s ex’or v. Winston’s adm’r, 2 Munf. 298.</p>

This was a proceeding by foreign attachment instituted in March 1833, in the Circuit court of law and chancery for the county of Henrico and City of Richmond, by Samuel S. Myors & Co., against Thomas Dixon, an absent defendant, and John and Samuel Cosby.

<p>Upon a bill in chancery, exhibited by Mason against Chichester's administrator, in the county court of Fair-fax, the case appearing by the pleadings and proofs in the cause, was thus—</p> <p>One Blachloch having obtained judgment and award of execution on a forfeited forthcoming bond, against M'Carty the principal, and Mason the surety, in the bond, transferred the judgment to Chichester, who sued out a fieri facias thereupon, and put the same into the sheriff's hands. M'Carty, the principal debtor, was much indebted; yet he had, at the time, unincumbered property amply sufficient to satisfy this execution, and the debt might have been made out of his property, if the sheriff had been permitted to proceed on the execution. But, after die execution had been delivered to the sheriff', Chichester, without the consent or knowledge of Mason the surety, entered into an arrangement with M’Carty, whereby he agreed to give M’Carty indulgence, and to direct the sheriff not to levy the execution, in consideration of an agreement by M’Carty to pay him ten per centum per annum for such indulgence; but the agreement on Chichester’s part did not bind him to give M’Carty indulgence for any specified time. When this arrangement wras made by Chichester, it appeared, he had no confidence in M’Carty’s stability; for it was proved, that he knew M’Carty was much involved in debt, and that he would not have purchased the judgment from Blacklock, if Mason or some other person equally sufficient had not been M’Carty’s surety. In pursuance of the arrangement, Chichester directed the sheriff not to levy the execution then in his hands; and no step was taken to coerce payment, until after M’Carty’s death, which occurred some two or three months after the return day of the execution. There was no proof, nor was it alleged in the bill, that M’ Carty, in his lifetime, paid Chichester any part of the ten per cent. he had agreed to pay him for the indulgence. He died, for aught that appeared to the contrary, in possession of all the property he held at the time of the arrangement between him and Chichester. But his estate proving insolvent, having been exhausted by the payment of debts due by executions which were in the sheriff’s hands at the time of his death, and of a large debt of superiour dignity; and Chichester being now also dead, and his administrator being about to coerce payment of this debt from Mason, the surety, Mason exhibited this bill, praying an injunction to stay all proceedings against him, and general relief.</p> <p>Such being the state of the case, the county court decreed, that Chichester’s administrator should be perpetually injoined from proceeding at law against Mason, the surety. Chichester's administrator appealed to the superiour court of chancery of Fredericksburg, which affirmed the decree ; and then he appealed to this court.</p>

These were motions in the Circuit court of Franklin county, by the administrator of Samuel Helm, deceased, late high sheriff of that county, ~ against Ebenezer M. Holland as one of his deputies, for the purpose of recovering certain sums of money which Samuel Helm had been compelled to pay for the alleged default of his said deputy in failing to pay over money which he had collected on executions which came into his hands; and for his failure to return the executions.

This tvas an action of debt in the Circuit court of Fauquier county, brought in 1839, by John Alexander against Richard H. Gaines, as administrator of Seth Gaines deceased, upon the bond of Seth Gaines for 135 dollars, bearing date the 16th of May 1823, and payable the 25th September following. The defendant filed the plea of payment and several pleas of non est factum.

Gill Armstead and William Armstead were brothers and partners in business, residing in the county of New Kent.

Emory and seven other negroes brought a suit in forma pauperis against Erskine for the recovery of their freedom, in the circuit court of Berkeley. The claim of the plaintiffs to freedom rested on the last will and testament of Absolom M'Coy, who died in 1803.

The bill was exhibited by H. Brown and G. Mayse against W. Sitlington, A. Sitlington and A. Morris, alleging, that Morris executed a deed of trust conveying four parcels of land to trustees, for the purpose of securing a debt of 291 dollars due to Brown, and another of 886 dollars due to Mayse, but this deed was not recorded; that sometime after the execution of this deed, W. Sitlington procured from Morris a deed of trust conveying a part of the same trust subject to A.…

This was an attachment in chancery, brought by Wilkinson &f Co. against Holloway, in the county court of Brunswick, in November 1828.

This was an action of debt brought in 1845 in the Circuit court of Albemarle county, by the Orange Humane Society, a chartered institution, against Isaac Shiflett and George Martin, upon a bond executed by the latter to the former on the 29th of March 1839, in the penalty of 2077 dollars 18 cents, with condition to pay the sum of 1038 dollars 89 cents. The defendants appeared and pleaded payment, on which issue was joined.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Henrico county, by Hawes Coleman and Mary G. his wife against Jesse Snead.

<p>Debt, in the circuit court of Jefferson, by Tate's executor against Cromwell, for 101 dollars with interest from the 1st December 1808, alleged in the declaration to be due by bond sealed with Cromwell's seal, whereof proferí was made. Cromwell pleaded payment.</p> <p>At the trial of the issue on that plea, the plaintiff offered in evidence an instrument signed by Cromwell, with a scroll opposite to his signature, in which there was written the word seal, in the following words:</p> <p>“ On demand, I obligate myself my heirs &c. to pay unto W. Tate, guardian of J. Strother, one hundred and one dollars with interest from the 1st December 1808. Assumpsit for 'Pendleton.</p> <p>a i n 77 ********* ,, Stephen CromweU *Seal. * «*****•<;**</p> <p>The defendant objected to the reading of this paper in evidence to the jury, because the instrument in the declaration mentioned was declared on as a deed sealed by the defendant, and the paper offered in evidence did not appear from any thing in the body thereof to be a sealed instrument, or so intended to be. But the court said, that it did not find in the body of this instrument, the expression, “ Witness my hand,” which occurred in all the cases decided by the court of appeals on the point, and seemed, in those cases, to be relied on as a material circumstance to prove the intent of the parties, and that it was unwilling to extend the principle beyond the letter of the adjudged cases ; and therefore the court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence: to which the defendant excepted.</p> <p>Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; from, which the defendant appealed to this court.</p>

Upon the complaint and at the instance of Samuel Ford, one of the partners of the mercantile house of Jones Sf Ford, a justice of the peace of Buclcingham issued an attachment against the goods and chattels of Josiah Watson, as an absconding debtor, for a debt of 157 dollars, due by Watson to Jones Sf Ford. The process was in the usual and regular form,; and there was subjoined thereto, a direction to the sheriff) to summon J. Sears, J. Anderson, J).

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Goochland county, brought by William T. Toler, administrator of William Toler deceased, against Tarlton Fleming and John B. Pemberton.

A marriage being about to occur between John H. Lee and Elizabeth Prosser, and she being eatitled to a considerable estate, real and personal, by bequest from her father, the parties entered into articles under seal, bearing date the 5th day of December 1825, by which it was agreed between them, that all the estate, real and personal, to which the said Elizabeth was entitled should be secured to and settled upon her and her heirs.

Detinue for a female slave, brought by Johnston against Mahon, in the circuit court of Greenbrier. Plea, non detinet. The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant moved the court to set it aside and direct a new trial, on the ground that it was contrary to evidence.

<p>A party in possession of slaves, and claiming them by the former owner’s absolute gift in his lifetime, cannot come into equity to be quieted in his title against the donor’s executory legatee, to whom the slaves are bequeathed in the event of the claimant’s death without leaving issue.</p>

Ileih executor of Clarice brought assumpsit against Clopton in his lifetime, in the circuit court of Henrico. The declaration was filed at June rules 1818. At the following September term, Clopton appeared and pleaded non assumpsit; and the cause was continued from term to term till March 1821, when the plaintiff’s death was suggested on the record.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Circuit court of Mecklenburg county by J. J. Daly, assignee of J. Murray Yates, a bankrupt, against Henry Tucker. On the trial the jury found a special verdict, which set out the following facts, viz: That the defendant received from John G. Oliver the sum of 470 dollars 86 cents, that being the amount of a bond executed by Oliver to J. Murray Yates.

<p>Iq the county court of Pittsylvania, August term 1815, Elizabeth Biggers recovered judgment against Richard Gross, in an action of slander, for 200 dollars and costs ; which judgment was assigned by her to Moore, and by him to Claiborne. An elegit was sued out in March 1816, returnable to the 3rd Monday in May, which was returned—“Not executed on account of the surveyor not attending.” Then, a ca. sa. was sued out dated the 6th November 1816, returnable the 3rd Monday in January 1817 ; on which the sheriff returned—“Executed, and put in jail.” Gross escaped. And in February 1817, an elegit was sued out, returnable to the 3rd Monday in April; under which a moiety of a parcel of 312 acres-°f land held by Gross at the date of the judgment, was extended at the annual value of 20 dollars; but the jury did not set apart the moiety by metes and bounds; 110r did it appear that the creditor ever took possession ®®ay 1S22, on the motion of the creditor, the county court quashed the elegit and the return upon it, no doubt for the defect in the inquisition of the juiy, in not setting apart the moiety extended, by metes and bounds.</p> <p>In the same county court, June term 1822, one Hodges recovered a judgment against the same Gross, for a debt of 50 dollars,- with interest from the 10th April 1817, and costs; and he assigned this judgment to Wimbish. A ca. sa. was sued out upon it, dated the 25th June 1822, returnable to the 3rd Monday in August; and the sheriff returned, that he had executed the process, and that Gross took the oath of an insolvent debtor, surrendering no effects.</p> <p>By deed dated the 27th April 1822, and recorded on the same day, Gross, for the consideration of 1500 dollars expressed in the deed, conveyed a parcel of 240 acres of land in Pittsylvania to his daughters, Meky, Elizabeth and Emily Gross.</p> <p>The daughters, having given their own bonds to one Smith for a debt of 241 dollars due to him from their father, mortgaged the land to him to secure that debt, by deed dated, and recorded, the 20th May 1822. And, afterwards, during the same year, they sold 150 acres of the land to Hodges (the assignor of the judgment to Wimbish) for 1050 dollars; whereof he paid 270 dollars to Smith, in satisfaction of his mortgage, and for the balance he gave the vendors three bonds for 260 dollars each, payable at distant dates. Smith released his mortgage.</p> <p>Claiborne, the assignee of Bigger s’s judgment against Gross, exhibited a bill in the superiour court of chancery of Lynchburg, setting forth the facts above stated, touching the judgment, the assignment thereof to him, the proceedings on the several executions thereupon sued out, and the conveyance of April 1822 by Gross to his daughters; impeaching that conveyance as voluntary and therefore fraudulent in law as against Gross’s ereditors ; charging that the conveyance was made with express and avowed design to hinder and defeat the recovery of this particular debt, and was therefore fraudulent in fact; making Gross, his three daughters, and Smith to whom they had mortgaged the land, defendants; and praying, that the conveyance might be set aside, and that the land should be sold, and the proceeds applied first to the satisfaction of the debt due Smith upon his mortgage, and then the debt due the plaintiff.</p> <p>Gross and his daughters, in their answers, denied the actual fraud imputed by the bill; and they said, that Claiborne’s claim being satisfied by the extent on his elegit, Gross had conveyed the land to his daughters (subject of course to Claiborne’s title under the elegit) in consideration of their undertaking to pay their father’s debt of 241 dollars to Smith (which they had paid), and to support him and his wife, who were poor, old, and incapable of labour, during their lives; which consideration the daughters had fulfilled by their own industry. That Claiborne, having farmed the shrievalty for the year 1817, had the control over the execution of his own elegit; and had that process quashed, but not till after Gross’s conveyance to his daughters.</p> <p>Smith, in his answer, stated that the debt to him had been paid, and his mortgage released, since the bill was filed.</p> <p>Wimbish also exhibited a bill containing the like allegations with those in Claiborne’s bill, and the like prayer for relief. All the parties defendants to Claiborne’s bill, were made defendants to this bill, and Hodges also, who had purchased from Gross’s daughters 150 acres of the land conveyed to them by their father.</p> <p>The answers of Gross and his daughters to this bill, insisted that the conveyance from the former to the latter, was made bona fide for the valuable considerations mentioned in their answer to Claiborne’s bill. (Supposin8' this true, the conveyance having been executed anc^ recor(ied in April 1822, the rights of the purchasers were consummated before the lien of Wimbish attached by the service of his ca. sa. on Gross in August following).</p> <p>The answer of Hodges shewed the fact of his purchase of 150 acres of the land from Gross’s daughters for 1050 dollars; his payment of 271 dollars (principal and interest) to Smith, in satisfaction of the debt due him by the mortgage, and Smith’s release of the mortgage ; and his debt to his vendors for the balance of the purchase money.</p> <p>On the motion of Claiborne, the plaintiff in the first suit, the chancellor ordered, that the two suits should be united and proceeded in as one cause.</p> <p>Many depositions were taken and filed. And it was thereby proved, that Gross had often declared, that he had made the conveyance of the land to his daughters, for the purpose of defeating Claiborne’s claim on Biggers’s judgment: that no purchase money was paid by the daughters to the father, at any time, nor had they the means of making such payment: that though the debt due to Smith was paid, it was paid out of the proceeds of the sale of part of the land to Hodges: and though it appeared that Gross and his wife were old and unable to maintain themselves by their labour, and though the daughters lived with their parents, and worked for their maintenance and their own ; yet there was no proof, on the one hand, of any agreement made between the father and daughters, either that they should assume and pay the father’s debt to Smith, or that they should support their parents during their lives, as the consideration of the father’s conveyance of his land to the daughters: nor, on the other hand, was there any proof to the contrary.</p> <p>The two causes coming on for hearing together, the chancellor dismissed the bills of the plaintiffs, respoclively, with cosfs; and the plaintiffs, respectively, appealed to this court.</p>

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Halifax county, instituted in February 1844 by William Wilson against John Buchanan and the sheriff of Halifax. The bill alleged that some eighteen months or two years before the filing thereof, John Buchanan became the surety of William Webb in a forthcoming bond.

<p>W being largely indebted in proportion to his property, made a gift of slaves to his married daughter; and her husband remained in possession of them for eight years. Judgment having been recovered on some of these debts, and also on other debts contracted since the gift, B became the surety of W in the forthcoming bonds; and was compelled to pay the money. He then recovered judgment against W for the amount so paid by him, and all the property of W having been then sold, by the directions of B, his executions were levied on the slaves given by W to his daughter and their increase. Held : The slaves were liable to satisfy the debt of B.</p>

On the 5th of October 1844, James Gray presented to the Judge of the Circuit court of Bedford county, a bill, in which he alleged that, on the 6th of October 1838, he purchased of George Overstreet, of Bedford county, a tract of land in that county, containing about 320 acres, which was described in the written and sealed contract exhibited with his bill, as “the tract of land on which he Overstreet lives, it being the same he bought of John West, also the land that…

By indenture dated the 6th August 1788, T. Laidley conveyed to S. Manway and F. Broolce, trustees, twelve lots in Morgantown, and divers parcels of land, in trust • • to secure a debt of £ 1400. due from Laidley to Reid SfFord of Philadelphia; and a bill was exhibited in the names of Hanway and Broolce the trustees against Laidley, in the superiour court of chancery of Richmond, to enforce the deed of trust, which was long pending there.

<p>On the 5th of October 1844, James Gray presented to the Judge of the Circuit court of Bedford county, a bill, in which he alleged that, on the 6th of October 1838, he purchased of George Overstreet, of Bedford county, a tract of land in that county, containing about 320 acres, which was described in the written and sealed contract exhibited with his bill, as “the tract of land on which he Overstreet lives, it being the same he bought of John West, also the land that Overstreet bought off of Miller’s tract, and thirty odd acres that he bought of Jesse A. Bramblett, about 320 acres in alland that it was further set forth in said written ' contract, that the plaintiff was “ to give five dollars per acre for all excepting the part that Overstreet had run off for Joel Richards, say forty odd acres, for which he was to give four dollars per acre, to be paid for as follows : six hundred dollars in hand, and the balance to be divided into four annual paymentsthat the plaintiff went on to pay the 600 dollars from time to time, as Overstreet wanted it, until the 6th of March 1839, when he completed the cash payment, and executed four bonds for the deferred payments for 250 dollars each, payable on the 25th day of December in 1839, 1840, 1841 and 1842, which was the full contract price for the whole tract, made up as aforesaid of three smaller tracts. And he called the attention of the Court to the fact, that in the bond payable in 1842 the two hundred and fifty dollars therein promised to be paid on the 25th December in that year, is said to be “ the fifth payment of two tracts of land, one of which formerly belonged to Thomas West, and the other to William Miller.” “But he charged that, in fact and in truth, the said bond was executed as the last payment for the 320 acres of land mentioned in the contract aforesaid, including the thirty odd acres bought of Jesse A. Bramblett.”</p> <p>He charged that the said thirty odd acres bought of Bramblett, were part and parcel of a larger tract by him bought of William Dickenson, containing acres, at the price of dollars. For this tract the said William Dickenson never executed to him any deed, but retained in himself the title as a security for the purchase money.</p> <p>The bill proceeds to state that Bramblett, having absconded from the State, Dickenson proceeded to make what he could by a sale, &e. of the residue of the land, which fell short, by 300 dollars, of the purchase money ^ue t0 k™’ aQd had instituted a suit in chancery against the plaintiff, to charge the said sum of 300 dollars on the thirty odd acres of land aforesaid still remaining in his possession.</p> <p>The plaintiff further stated, that he had never got any title to the thirty odd acres, though he had paid off the bonds for 250 dollars each due in 1839, 1840 and 1841, and had moreover paid 85 dollars on account of the last bond. He averred also that the thirty odd acres was wood land and very valuable to him, and that he would gladly pay the balance due on the last bond to obtain a title for it. No title, good or bad, has ever been made to him by Overstreet, nor can he make such title.</p> <p>Finally, the plaintiff stated that Overstreet had unjustly assigned the last obligation to S. C. Hurt & Co. who had sued and were about to obtain judgment against him, to wit, at the October term 1844, of said Circuit superior court.</p> <p>On these grounds he asked an injunction, which was granted.</p> <p>On the 14th of April 1845, the assignees of the obligation, who had obtained judgment in the preceding October, filed their answer. They deny, on the strength of a letter said to have been received by them from Overstreet, (who, after assigning to them the last bond in September 1843, had removed to the west,) that the thirty odd acres of land got by Overstreet of Bramblett was any part of the consideration of the fourth or any bond given by Gray to Overstreet.</p> <p>They allege that the bond was assigned to them with the full knowledge, consent and approbation of the plaintiff, with a knowledge on his part at the time, that the said Overstreet would remove from this Commonwealth in a short time thereafter, who, so far from intimating any objection to the payment of said bond on account of a failure of the consideration, or otherwise, expressed himself well pleased and satisfied with the arrangement, because, as Overstreet was about to remove, he would want the money for the bond immediately, in the event he did not dispose of it, and that if the defendants obtained the bond, they being stationary here, engaged in the mercantile business, and the complainant being one of their customers, he could get some indulgence on the same and be relieved from the necessity of immediate payment to Overstreet. It was under these circumstances that these respondents were induced to take the said bond, for which they paid a full and valuable consideration.</p> <p>They insist that the plaintiff having signed a paper, (the bond,) stating that the consideration thereof was two tracts of land, viz: the Miller tract and the West tract, has no right to set up as against them that the Bramblett tract was a part of the consideration.</p> <p>In September 1845, the absent defendant Overstreet (having given security for costs,) filed his answer.</p> <p>He says “ that the bond for 250 dollars, assigned to S. C. Hurt & Oo. was given for the consideration stated on its face, to wit, ‘ as the fifth payment of two tracts of land, one of which formerly belonged to Thomas West, and the other to William Miller;’ and that no part of the consideration of said bond is ‘ for thirty odd acres bought of Jesse A. Bramblett,’ nor did the complainant ever execute to this respondent his bond for the purchase money, or any part thereof, of the land that was purchased of Bramblett; nor does this respondent believe that the complainant has ever, at any time, paid to this respondent, or to any person for him, any sum on account of land purchased of Bramblett; nor is he bound to this respondent, in any manner, for the purchase of the same. It is true, that at one time, there was a contract between this respondent and complainant for the purchase of a small tract of land obtained of Bramblett, in addition to the West and Miller tracts; but when the complainant came to execute his bonds, he executed them in consideration of, and for the price of the Miller and West tracts alone, one of which is the bond assigned by this respondent to S. O. Hurt & Co., to which tracts the complainant has a good and perfect title; and it was agreed that the complainant should pay Bramblett for the land which had been purchased of him, and look to him for the title ; the complainant preferring that arrangement because Bramblett was indebted to him, which debt, this respondent is informed, was actually taken in by Bramblett in payment of the said land; so -that, by the arrangement, this respondent had nothing to do with receiving the pay for, or making a title to the land that had been purchased of Bramblett.”</p> <p>He adds that “ he assigned the bond to S. C. Hurt & Co., with the knowledge and consent of the complainant ; and although it was known for a long space of time that this respondent was about to leave the State, the complainant never intimated to him that he had the slightest defence to make to said bond, or that he conceived this respondent in any manner liable to him for the title to the land bought of Bramblett.</p> <p>The documentary evidence filed in the cause, (it does not always appear in the record by whom,) consists of two deeds, a copy of the contract of October 6, 1838, and a copy of the obligation sued on, which bears date March 6th, 1839. One of the deeds, from Overstreet and wife to Gray, dated November 20, 1838, conveys “ one hundred and thirty-four and three-fourths acres and thirty-one poles,” for the consideration of 643 dollars 72 cents. The other, from the same grantors to the same grantee, conveys 161J acres, for the consideration of “ eight hundred and seven and half dollars.” Total quantity of land 296 acres, 1 rood and 31 poles. Total consideration 1451 dollars 22 cents.</p> <p>The deposition of Alexander A. Smith completes the record. He was examined by the plaintiff on the 30th of September 1845, two days before the successful motion to dissolve. He said that “ he was present when the contract between Gray and Overstreet was closed, which was in the early part of March 1839. The bonds were executed at that time by James Gray to George Overstreet, who was present, and he understood from all parties the bonds were for the purchase money of all three of said parcels of land, including the thirty odd acres which Overstreet bought of Bramblett. There were four bonds of 250 dollars each, due in one, two, three and four payments. A part of the money — the amount he did not remember — was paid down at the time the bonds were executed for the balance due, in the four payments above mentioned.”</p> <p>This deposition was objected to for want of notice to the defendants Hurt, Preston and Overstreet. It appeared that Leftwich, one of the partners of the firm of S. C. Hurt & Co. was present with his counsel at the taking of the deposition, and the commissioner who took it certified it as taken pursuant to notice; but the notice was not returned.</p> <p>The cause came on in October 1845, upon a motion to dissolve the injunction, when the same was dissolved. Whereupon Gray applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.</p>

This was an action of debt, brought in the Circuit court of law for the county of Henrico and the city of Richmond, by the United States Mining Company, against Crump and Liggon. It was one of twenty-eight actions brought by the same plaintiffs against certain subscribers to the stock of the company, for arrears due upon their stock. All the cases turned upon the same questions, and were submitted to the same jury.

Assumpsit, in the circuit court of Buckingham, brought by Guerrant against Hooker for the price or value of wheat, alleged in the declaration to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. Plea, the general issue. Trial, and verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff moved the court to set the verdict aside and direct a new trial. The court overruled the motion.

Scire facias, in the county court of Buckingham, by Webb against Branch, Lancaster and John Morris, special bail for John P. Morris. The facts of the case were stated and agreed by the parties. It appeared by the case agreed, that in an action of debt brought by Webb against John P. Morris in the county court of Buckingham, Branch, Lancaster and John Morris, at May term 1823, became special bail for the defendant.

This was a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, because it was not perfected in time. It appears that there was a final decree in the cause on the 10th of November 1845, from which an appeal was allowed on the 8th of November 1850, and,process issued from the clerk’s office on the next day; but the appeal bond was not executed until the ISth of December 1850.

Atme M. Gr. Magagnos was a French woman who came to this country some time before 1807. At that time she lived in Norfolk, where she kept a clothing store, by which she made a considerable property. She returned to France in 1818, and died in 1826, at Marseilles. Shortly before her death she made her will, which was written in French, and was duly proved in France ; and in August 1827 a copy properly authenticate By one clause of her will she says: £!

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Circuit court of Buckingham county by Peyton, Deane & Edwards against Peter B. Stratton and three others, surviving partners of the firm of Lancaster, Stratton &. Co. On the trial after a number of exceptions had been taken, in which all the evidence was stated, there was a verdict for the defendants.

This was an action on the case brought by IJill against Randolph, in the circuit court of Chesterfield.

In September 1837, the administratrix of David Elmore deceased, instituted an action of debt against the executor of Lyddal Bowles deceased, in the Circuit court for the county of Henrico and city of Richmond. The action was founded on a promissory note for 350 dollars, alleged to have been executed by Bowles to Elmore on the 13th of June 1817; and which note was then in the possession of the defendant.

Code, ch. 119. p. 466. By entry on the books of the surveyor of Washington county, on the 29th April 1783, John Donndl of New Jersey, located 600 acres of land in that county. Robert Preston was the surveyor. The survey upon the entry was made, by Preston in person, on the 5th October 1798. This survey having been returned to the register’s office, a grant was issued for the land to Donndl, on the 8th July 1800.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Dinwiddie by Thomas E. Clarke against Thomas Hard-grove and others. In his bill he charged that he in September 1839, bought of Thomas Hardgrove of the city of Richmond a tract of land containing eleven hundred and seventy-six acres, lying in the county of Dinwiddie, at- the price of 11,000 dollars; and that Hardgrove had conveyed the land to him by a deed with general warranty.

The bill was exhibited by Cunningham’s administrator against the administrator with the will annexed of Bassett; and it alleged, that upon the death of Cunningham in 1831, the plaintiff found among his papers five several bonds of Bassett, three executed to Cunningham and two to other and different obligees who had transferred (not assigned) them to him, and also many accounts and charges against Bassett for wheat and other things sold and moneys advanced to him by…

In February 1829, John Y. Archer filed his bill in the late Superior court of chancery for the Richmond district, in which he stated that he and his four brothers and sisters, three of whom were… Held: 1st. That the decree of June 1832, so far as it related to the slaves mentioned in the bill of sale from John It.

<p>Appeal from a decree of the superiour court of chancery of Williamsburg.</p> <p>John Foreman died intestate in 1816, leaving a widow, Delilah, and two infant children, Adeline and John. Administration of his estate was granted to Isaiah Wallace; who also, for some time, received the profits of the real estate of his intestate. In July 1817, Delilah, the widow, married Willoughby Foreman, who was appointed guardian of his wife’s infant children of her first marriage; of John in March 1S19, and of Adeline in February 1820. The account of Wallace’s administration was audited and settled before auditors appointed by the county court which granted the administration ; and the account so settled shewed a balance due to the estate of 3483 dollars; but in this account, no charge was made of interest on the annual balances in the administrator’s hands ; and the moneys which he</p> <p>had received on account of the rents of the real estate, were debited to him. The administrator, in 1821, after closing his administration, put the slaves of his intestate’s estate into the hands of Willoughby 'Foreman, the husband of the widow, and the guardian of the two infant distributees, and he thenceforth took the profits of the slaves as well as of the lauds belonging to the estate. His ward Adeline lived with him, from the time of his marriage with her mother till her own marriage, except the years 1818 and 1819, when she was boarded out to go to school: John lived with him the whole time. Mrs. Foreman died in November 1821. In May 1823, Adeline married Richard Murray; John was still an infant about nine years old.</p> <p>In May 1824, Murray and wife, and the infant John Foreman by Murray his next friend, exhibited this bill against Willoughby Foreman, praying a settlement of his accounts of guardianship. The bill charged him with divers acts of mismanagement and injustice; and it charged in particular, that though the administrator, in the settlement of his accounts, had not been charged with interest on the annual balances in his hands, which made up the general balance of 3483 dollars, yet the administrator had in fact paid interest on the annual balances to the guardian, because he had paid him the general balance of 34S3 dollars by transferring to him bonds taken by him in the course of his administration, which bonds bore interest from their date.</p> <p>Willoughby Foreman, in his answer, denied all the allegations of mismanagement and injustice; and he denied, that he had ever received from the administrator any thing more than the general balance of 3483 dollars, reported to be due from him to the intestate’s estate, and consequently, he insisted, that he ought not to be held accountable for interest with which the administrator had not been charged in the settlement of his accounts, and which he the guardian had never received.</p> <p>, The chancellor referred the guardian’s accounts to a commissioner, to be stated and settled. The commissioner made a report, upon which the controverted'questions in the cause arose. Of these there were very many, but all of them were mere questions of fact but the following'—</p> <p>1. The commissioner restated Wallace’s administration account, charging him wdth interest on the annual balances in his hands as they accrued, and thus augmenting the general balance due on that account, from 3483 dollars, reported by the county court auditors, to 3744 dollars, one third of which he carried to the debit of the guardian, in his accounts with each of his wards. This was done, without any proof that the guardian had received the interest from the administrator, in any way whatever. And though this was a point particularly litigated in the pleadings, yet no exception was taken by the defendant to the report for the charge of interest. The chancellor approved the report in this particular.</p> <p>2. There was a debt due from the intestate John Foreman’s estate to one Bassett Butts, which was paid by the guardian, in 1822, out of the estate of his wards in his hands, amounting to 589 dollars; and the commissioner, in stating the guardian’s accounts, allowed him a credit against his wards respectively for the proportions of this debt chargeable to each. There was no doubt that the debt was justly due from John Foreman’s estate to Butts, and that the debt was paid by the guardian. Yet the plaintiffs excepted to the credit allowed the guardian on account of this payment, because they said the payment by the guardian was gratuitous. And the chancellor sustained the exception.</p> <p>3. The disbursements of the guardian for his wards,' respectively, exceeded, in some years, the profits of then-lands and slaves in the guardian’s hands, and upon the whole account, exceeded somewhat the profits of that part of their estate; but they did not exceed the aggregate of those profits and the wards’ share of the interest on the balance of 3483 dollars in the hands of Wallace the administrator. Under these circumstances, the commissioner credited the guardian for the whole of his disbursements for each ward. The plaintiff's ex-copied, because, they insisted, the guardian was not authorized to expend on his wards any more than tile profits of their estate in his hands. And the chancellor (upon the authority, it seemed, of Myers v. Wade, 6 Rand. 444.) sustained the exception.</p> <p>The accounts being referred again to the commissioner to be reformed according to the opinions of the court on the points excepted to, he reported two statements of the guardian’s accounts.</p> <p>In the first, he credited the guardian for only so much of his disbursements for his wards, as the yearly profits of their estate in his hands amounted to; and disallowed the credit he claimed on account of the debt due to Butts which he had paid. Upon the accounts so staled, there was a balance found due to Murray and wife, of 1818 dollars, with interest on 1284 dollars from the 1st July 1830; and to John Foreman, 2498 dollars, with interest on 1966 dollars from the same date.</p> <p>In the second, he credited the guardian with the full amount of his disbursements for his wards; and u pon the account so staled, the balance found due to Murray and wife was 1151 dollars with interest on 776 dollars &c. and the balance due to John Foreman was 2181 dollars with interest on 1690 dollars &c.</p> <p>The chancellor, approving the first statement, decreed that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff's, respectively, the balances thereby appearing due to them. And the defendant appealed from the decree.</p>

. James P. Thompson of Washington county, by his last will dated the 9th of June 1813, devised as follows: “ 1st, I desire that my funeral expenses and all my just debts be paid. 2d item, I desire that after my decease the lands around the several tracts of land by me conveyed and sold to different persons, lying in Burk's garden, Tazewell county, be sold off by my executors, and sold to the best advantage, by private sale or otherwise, and the money arising therefrom to be…

Warner Lewis of Gloucester county, by his deed dated the 5th of January 1798, conveyed all his estate, real and personal, (except a parcel of land specified in the deed,) which had descended to him from his father, to John Lewis and Wilson Cary Nicholas, in trust for the payment of his debts, then for the support of his family, and then for his children.

Peter Antoine, Francis Colops, Romanda de Cost and Lychander Modina presented a petition, on the 26th of December 1835, to the judge of the circuit superiour court of Henrico, alleging that they were free born citizens of the island of Bravo; that against their will and consent they were brought into this commonwealth during the year aforesaid, and were charged with piracy in the federal court holden at Richmond; that they had each been discharged from custody upon that…

William Black the elder, of the county of Chesterfield, by his last will and testament duly made and published, devised and bequeathed (inter alia) as follows— “Imprimis, I give, devise and bequeath unto the honourable John Blair and to the honourable Peter Lyons, esquires, and to their heirs forever, all that tract of land whereon 1 now live, called and known by the name of the Falls plantation, with all its appurtenances; in trust nevertheless, that they the said John…

By deed bearing date the 15th of November 1797, Alexander Macaulay of the town of York, in order to secure the payment of the following debts, that is, in the first place, to secure the payment of £ 2000. to Dr. Corbin Griffin of the town of York; in the second place, to secure the payment of £ 5000. to John Jamieson of the county of Culpeper; and in the thii d place, to secure the payment of £ 3000. to Francis Jerdone of the county of Louisa, conveyed in trust to Thomas…

<p>William Mitchell, Christopher Clark, James C. Steptoe and Robert Mitchell executed under their hands and seals an obligation to Matthew Harvey in these words : “ Twelve months after date, we Wm. Mitchell, Christopher Clark, James C. Steptoe and Robert Mitchell promise to pay to Matthew Harvey or order one hundred and seventy-two shares of stock of the Farmers bank of Virginia; to which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves jointly and severally, our heirs, ex’ors &c. Witness our hands and seals this March the 23d 1816.”</p> <p>John M. Harvey and Magdalen Harvey, executor and executrix of Matthew Harvey deceased, brought an action in the superiour court of Botetourt against Thomas Steptoe and William Langhorne administrators with the will annexed of James C. Steptoe deceased, for breach of the covenant contained in this obligation.</p> <p>The defendants tendered three pleas. The first, after taking oyer of the covenant, alleged that on the 23d of March 1816, it was unlawfully and corruptly agreed between the testator of the plaintiffs and William Mitchell, that the testator of the plaintiffs should lend and advance to the said William Mitchell the sum of 14,200 dollars, and should forbear and give day of payment on the said loan for twelve months from the 23d of March 1816, and that in consideration of the said loan and forbearance the said William Mitchell should return and pay to the said testator, twelve months after the said 23d March 1816, the aforesaid sum of 14,200 dollars, with more than six per centum per annum interest thereon, to wit, with the sum of 3000 dollars, as the pre-mium for the forbearance and giving day of payment of the said sum of 14,200 dollars for twelve months; and that, in order to secure the payment of the said two sums of 14,200 and 3000 dollars at the expiration of the said twelve months, and as a shift and device to evade the laws against usury, the said William Mitchell, together with Christopher Clark, James C. Steptoe, the testutor of the defendants, and Robert Mitchell, as his sureties, should execute a writing under their seals, and deliver it as their act and deed, binding them to pay to the said testator, twelve months after the date aforesaid, one hundred and seventy-two shares of the stock of the Farmers bank of Virginia, the said stock being then of the full and fair value of 17,200 dollars. It was then averred, that in pursuance of the said corrupt, usurious and unlawful contract, and in fulfilment thereof, and for no other consideration, the said William Mitchell, Christopher Clark, James C. Steptoe, the testator of the defendants, and Robert Mitchell did, on the said 23d of March 1S16, sign, seal and deliver as and for their act and deed the supposed deed in the declaration mentioned. And so the defendants said, that the said supposed deed was made and delivered upon a usurious consideration, and was void in law.</p> <p>The second plea alleged, that on the 23d of March 181G, it wa.s corruptly and against the act of assembly agreed between the said Matthew Harvey and the said William Mitchell, that the said Harvey would authorize the said Mitchell to sell and transfer one hundred and forty-two shares of the stock of the Farmers bank of Virginia which the said Harvey then held and owned, and 2’eceive the money proceeding from the sale thereof, the said shares being then of the value of 100 dollars for each share; that the said Harvey would lend, forbear and give day of payment of the money so to be received, for 32 months after the said 23d of March 1816, and that the said Mitchell, in consideration of the said loan, forbearance and giving day of payment, would return and pay to the said Matthew Harvey the money so to be lent and forborne, together with interest thereon above the value of six dollars for each and every 100 dollars of the money so to be lent, for one year, that is to say, should return and pay to the said Matthew, 12 months after the date aforesaid, the sum of 17,200 dollars, which was more than the money so to be lent and the value of six dollars for each 100 dollars thereof for 12 months; and that, to secure the payment of the said sum of 17,200 dollars, and as a shift and device to evade the said act of assembly against usury, the said William Mitchell, together with the aforesaid Christopher Clarh, James C. Steptoe and Robert Mitchell, should execute and deliver as their act and deed, a covenant in writing under their seals, binding them, twelve months after the date aforesaid, to pay to the said Matthew Harvey one hundred and seventy-two shares of the stock of the said Farmers bank of Virginia, which said stock was then of the full and fair value of 100 dollars for each share thereof. It was then averred, that in pursuance of the said corrupt and usurious contract, and in fulfilment thereof, and for no other consideration, the said William Mitchell, Christopher Clark, the defendants’ testator James C. Steptoe, and Robert Mitchell, on the said 23d of March 1816, signed, sealed and delivered to the said Matthew Harvey the supposed deed in the declaration mentioned, as and for their act and deed; that afterwards, to wit, on the 29th March 1816, the said Matthew Harvey, in further compliance with said corrupt and usurious agreement, gave to the said William Mitchell authority to sell and transfer the said one hundred and forty-two shares of stock, which he the said Mitchell did accordingly afterwards sell and transfer for their full value, to wit, for the price of 100 dollars for each share and no more, making in the whole 14,200 dollars, for which the said Harvey, pursuant to said usurious agreement, forbore and gave day of payment for 12 months after the said 23d of March 1816. And so the defendants said, that the supposed deed in- the declaration mentioned was ma.de and delivered on a usurious consideration, against the act of assembly, and is void in law.</p> <p>The said first and second pleas were received without objection, and the plaintiffs filed general replications to them, tendering issues, and the defendants joined in the issues.</p> <p>The third plea was in these words : “ And the said defendants for further plea say, that the plaintiffs their action aforesaid thereof ought not to have and maintain against them, because they say that on the 23d day of March 181.6, at in the county aforesaid, it was corruptly and against the form of the act of assembly in that case made and provided, agreed between the said Matthew Harvey and the said William Mitchell, that the said Matthew Harvey should lend to the said William Mitchell one hundred and forty-two shares of the stock of the Farmers lank of Virginia, which the said Harvey then and there held and owned, of the value of one hundred dollars for each share thereof, and no more, and should forbear and give day of payment thereof for twelve months after the said 23d of March 1816, and that, for the said loan, forbearance and giving day of payment of the said stock, the sa id William Mitchell should return and pay to the said Matthew, twelve months after the said 23d March 1816, the aforesaid one hundred and forty-two shares of stock, with more than the value of the dividends which would accrue thereon, and though payable twelve months after date as aforesaid, with more than the value of six dollars for one year for each and every one hundred dollars of the value of the stock so loaned, to wit, with thirty shares of the said stock, in addition to the said one hundred and forty-two shares to be lent as aforesaid, which said thirty additional shares were then and there, to wit, on the said 23d March 1816, at in the county aforesaid, of the full and fair value of one hundred dollars for each share, and that, in order to secure the pay-r J ment of the said one hundred and forty-two shares, and 0f the said thirty shares in addition thereto, the said # . ^ William Mitchell,. together with Christopher Clark, the testator of the defendants James C. Steptoe, and Robert Mitchell, should execute and deliver to the said Matthew Harvey as their act and deed, a covenant in writing under their seals, binding themselves to pay to the said Matthew, twelve months after the date aforesaid, one hundred and seventy-two shares of .the said stock, the same being then and there of the value of one hundred dollars for each share. And the defendants in fact say, that in pursuance of the said corrupt, usurious and unlawful agreement, and in fulfilment thereof, and for no other consideration, the said William Mitchell, Christopher Clark, James C. Steptoe and Robert Mitchell did, on the said 23d day of March 1816, at in the county aforesaid, sign, seal and deliver as and for their act and deed, the aforesaid supposed deed in the plaintiffs’ declaration mentioned; and so the said defendants say that the said supposed deed in the plaintiffs’ declaration mentioned, was made and delivered upon a usurious consideration, against the act of assembly in that case provided, and is void in law, and this they are ready to verify. Wherefore they pray judgment &c.”</p> <p>The plaintiffs objected to the third plea, and moved the court to reject it, on the ground that it presented no bar to the action; and the court being of this opinion rejected the same accordingly; to which the defendants excepted.</p> <p>The defendants then filed a fourth plea, alleging, that on the 23d of March 1816, it was corruptly and against the act of assembly agreed between the said Matthew Harvey and William Mitchell, that the said Matthew should lend to the said William one hundred and forty-two shares of the stock of the Farmers bank of Virginia, which the said Harvey then and there held and owned, in of the value of 100 dollars for each share thereof, and no more, and should forbear and give day of payment thereof for 12 months after the said 23d of March 1816, and that, for the said loan, forbearance and giving day of payment of the said stock, the said William, Mitchell should return and pay to the said Matthew, 12 months after the said 23d of March 1816, the aforesaid 142 shares of stock, with more than the value of the dividends which would accrue thereon from the said 23d of March 1816 for 12 months, and with more than the value of six dollars for one year for each and every 100 dollars of the value of the stock so lent, to wit, with thirty shares of the said stock in addition to the said 142 shares so to be lent, which said thirty additional shares, though to be paid and transferred twelve months after date, were then of the full and fair value of 90 dollars for each share in cash, which said value was then well known to the said Harvey and Mitchell, and which said thirty shares were so agreed to be paid, as a premium for the forbearance aforesaid, and with the intent of the parties to secure to the said Harvey, upon the loan aforesaid, more than the value of six dollars for one year for each and every 100 dollars of the value of the said 142 shares of stock so to be Jent, and that, in order to secure the payment of the said .142 shares and of the said 30 shares, it was then further agreed between the said Matthew and William, that the said William Mitchell, together with Christopher Clark, the defendants’ testator James C. Steploe, and Robert Mitchell, should execute and deliver to the said Matthew Harvey as their act and deed, a covenant in writing under their seals, binding themselves to pay to the said Matthew, twelve months after the date aforesaid, one hundred and seventy-two shares of the said stock, the same being then of the value of 100 dollars for each share. It was then averred, that in pursuance of the said corrupt, usurious and unlawful agreement, and for no other consideration, the said William, Mitchell, Christopher Ciarle, James C. Steptoe and Robert Mitchell did, on the 23d March 1816, sign, seal and deliver as and for their act and deed, the supposed deed in the declaration mentioned. And so the defendants said that the said supposed deed in the declaration mentioned was made and delivered upon a usurious consideration, against the act of assembly, and is void in law. To this plea the plaintiffs replied generally, tendering an issue, and the defendants joined in the issue.</p> <p>The defendants then offered two other pleas in the following words: “5th plea—And the said defendants for further plea say, that the plaintiffs their action aforesaid thereof ought not to have and maintain against them, because they say that their testator James C. Step-toe, in his lifetime, signed, sealed and delivered the supposed deed in the plaintiffs’ declaration mentioned, as one of the securities of William Mitchell the principal covenantor in said deed, who alone received the consideration for which the said supposed deed was executed, the said James C. Steptoe and the other obligors therein named having no other interest in the said supposed deed, and being no otherwise bound thereby, than as sureties for the said William Mitchell; and that, on the 23d of March 1817, at in the county aforesaid, when the stock in the said supposed deed mentioned was due and payable according to the tenor and effect of the covenant therein, and when the said William Mitchell was solvent and fully able to have paid and discharged the same, the said Matthew Ha,rvey the plaintiffs’ testator, without the knowledge or consent of the said James C. Steptoe in his lifetime, or of these defendants since his death, in consideration of the sum of six hundred and eighty-eight dollars then and there agreed to be paid by the said William, Mitchell to the said Matthew Harvey, entered into a new contract with the said William, Mitchell in relation thereto, by which • ™ -i'll -i new contract the plaintiffs’ testator agreed with the said Mitchell, that he would indulge him and give day of payment for the said stock until the 23d day of March 1819. And the defendants in fact say, that the said William, Mitchell, after the said 23d of March 1817 and before the said 23d of March 1819, became wholly insolvent and unable to pay the said stock or any part of it, and so remained until' his death, whereby the said James C. Steptoe in his lifetime, and these defendants since his death, became and are deprived of all remedy against the said William Mitchell in his lifetime, and against his representatives since his death. Wherefore these defendants say, that their testator in his lifetime was, and that they since his death are, wholly exonerated in law from the obligation of the said supposed deed and the covenants therein, and this they are ready to verify. Wherefore they pray judgment &c.</p> <p>6th plea—And the said defendants for further plea say, that the plaintiffs their action aforesaid thereof ought not to have and maintain against them, because they say that their testator James C. Steptoe in his lifetime signed, sealed and delivered the supposed deed in the plaintiffs’ declaration mentioned, as one of the sureties of William Mitchell the principal covenantor therein, who alone received the consideration for which the said deed was executed, the said James C. Steptoe and the other covenantors therein mentioned having no other interest in the said supposed deed, and being no otherwise bound thereby, than as sureties for the said William Mitchell; and that after the 23d day of March 1817, to wit, on the day of July 1817, at in the county aforesaid, when the stock in the said supposed deed mentioned had become due and payable according to the tenor and effect of the covenants therein contained, and alter the said covenant had been broken, and remained in law a contract the breach whereof was to be compensated in damages, and at a time when the said William Mitchell was solvent and fully able to pay the said damages, the said Matthew Harvey, in consideration of the sum of 68S dollars then and there paid to him by the said Mitchell, entered into a new contract with the said William Mitchell, in relation to the said stock in the said supposed deed mentioned, by which new contract the said Matthew Harvey, without the knowledge or consent of the said James C. Steptoe in his lifetime, or of these defendants since his death, agreed with the said William Mitchell, that the contract’aforesaid should be and remain a contract for the delivery of 172 shares of the stock in the said supposed deed mentioned, and should be fully satisfied and discharged by the delivery of such stock, and the payment of such dividends as should accrue thereon, on or before the 23d of March 1819. And these defendants in fact say, that the said William Mitchell, after the said day of July 1817, became wholly insolvent and unable to pay the stock aforesaid and the damages aforesaid, or any part thereof, and so remained till his death. Whereby the said James C. Steptoe in his lifetime, and these defendants since his death, are deprived of all remedy and redress against the said William Mitchell in his lifetime, and against his representatives since his death. Wherefore these defendants say, that the said James C. Steptoe in his lifetime was, and that these defendants since his death are, wholly exonerated in law from the obligation of the said supposed deed and the covenants therein contained, and this they are ready to verify. Wherefore they pray judgment &c.”</p> <p>These two pleas were also objected to by the plaintiffs, on the ground that neither of them presented any bar to the action; and the court being of this opinion rejected both; to which the defendants excepted.</p> <p>A jury was afterwards impanneled to try the issues. On the trial, the defendants moved the court to instruct the iury, that if they believed from the evidence, that J J. . , the consideration of the covenant was one hundred and forty-two shares of the stock of the Farmers ianlc of Vir- ^ ginia, lent by the plaintiffs’ testator to William Mitchell the first named covenantor, for twelve months from the date of the said covenant, of the value, at the time of the loan, of one hundred dollars each share, and that the thirty shares, additional to the said 142 shares, were reserved and agreed to be paid in consideration of the forbearance of the said 142 shares for 12 months from the date of the covenant, and that the value of the 30 shares, so reserved and payable 12 months after date, was greatly more than six per centum on the value of the said 142 shares so lent, that the 30 shares were worth in fair market, if sold on the said 23d of March 1816, deliverable twelve months after date, at least 50 dollars per share, and that both parties so understood it, and intended to secure to the said Harvey for the loan aforesaid a compensation of the value aforesaid,-—then, upon the third plea upon which issue was joined, the defendants were entitled to a verdict, and this without any reference to the question whether Harvey would gain or lose by the rise or fall of the market price of the 142 shares of stock so lent: which instruction the court refused to give, but instructed the jury, that if they should be satisfied from the evidence, that the whole of the consideration of the covenant, which passed from Harvey to Mitchell &c. was 142 shares of bank stock, worth at the time 100 dollars each, and that the same was lent and received by the parties as and for 14,200 dollars, to be returned, at the day given, in stock of 142 shares, with the addition of 30 shares, the contract to give and receive the 30 shares aforesaid did not necessarily make the whole or any part of the contract between the parties corrupt or usurious, because the whole 172 shares to be returned at the day given might not be worth as much as, or more than, the whole of the 142 shares at the time they were delivered; but to make the covenant or contract corrupt or usurious, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury, that the parties agreed upon , , _ . n J . , \ . ,. , \ the value or the shares lent, with their dividends or mterest, and for the premium to be paid by Mitchell &c. for forbearance and giving day, which premium was more than six per cent, upon the value of the subject lent, and that, to secure such excessive premium, it was also agreed by and between the parties to give and receive the aforesaid 30 shares as an equivalent for such excessive premium; and further instructed the jury, that if they should believe from the evidence, that 142 shares of bank stock were either lent or sold by Harvey to Mitchell &c. for 172 shares to be returned at a future day in kind, without stipulating as to the value of the shares, each speculating upon the greater or less value of stock at such future day, so that Haney might lose and Mitchell &c. gain if the value or price of stock were less at such future day, the contract was not usurious in consequence of the fact that, at the day of payment, the value of the stock was such, that Harvey should receive, in 172 shares, more than the value of 142 shares with interest at the time he lent or sold them. To which opinion of the court the defendants excepted.</p> <p>The defendants holding the affirmative of the issues, their counsel claimed the right of opening and concluding the argument of the cause before the jury, and moved the court to permit him to open and conclude, but the court overruled the motion and allowed the plaintiffs’ counsel to open and conclude. To which opinion the defendants also excepted.</p> <p>The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and assessed their damages to 18,200 dollars, with legal interest thereon from the first day of March 1819, to which time, it appeared, the testator of the plaintiffs had received the dividends of the stock. Judgment was rendered on the verdict. And the defendants appealed to this court.</p>

On the 17th of March 1829, George Aylor brought an action ón the case in the superiour court of Augusta against John Nichols.

<p>Where land is purchased and paid for by one person, and the conveyance is taken to another, the law will imply a trust for the benefit of the former; and such purchase and payment may be proved by parol evidence.</p>

<p>In 1820, William Franklin brought an action of detinue in the superiour court of law for Campbell county, against William Patterson, to recover certain slaves. Issue was joined on the plea of non detinet. Upon the trial of the cause, a bill of exceptions was filed, which stated that the plaintiff claimed the slaves in the declaration mentioned, as a gift from Edmund Franklin, under a deed in the following words : “ Know all men by these presents that I Edmund Franklin of the county of Campbell, for and in consideration of the natural love and affection which I bear to my son William Franklin, and for and in consideration of one dollar to me in hand paid by the said William Franklin, at or before the ensealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, at mine and my wife’s death do give and grant, and by these presents do give and grant, unto the said William Franklin, his executors, administrators and assigns, one negro girl named Sarah ; to have and to hold the said negro girl Sarah to him the said William Franklin, his executors, administrators and assigns forever. And the said Edmund Franklin, for himself, his executors and administrators, the said negro girl Sarah unto the said William Franklin, his executors, administrators and assigns, against the claim of him the said Edmund Franklin, his executors and administrators, and against the claim or claims of all and every person or persons whatsoever, shall and wall warrant and forever defend by these presents. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this fourteenth July 1801.</p> <p>Signed, sealed and delivered 7 Edmund FranMin, | Seal. | m ‘presence of us, ) ********** John FranMin, Polly FranMin, William Sims.”</p> <p>Which deed was proved by two of the attesting witnesses, and admitted to record in the court of Campbell county on the 11th of January 1802. The defendant claimed as a purchaser at a sheriff’’s sale under an execution which issued in the year 1811 against the goods and chattels of Edmund Franklin the donor, in whose possession the slave Sarah had remained from the date of the deed of gift to the time of the sale aforesaid. After proving his purchase at the sheriff’s sale aforesaid, the defendant introduced a witness, who proved that several of the children of Sarah, in the declaration mentioned, were born in the lifetime of Edmund Franklin the donor; and thereupon the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, under the deed aforesaid, the children of Sarah born in the lifetime of Edmund Franklin, subsequent to the date of the deed and before suit was brought: which instruction the court refused to give, and instead thereof instructed the jury that the plaintiff had a right to recover all the children of Sarah, whether born before or after the death of Edmund Franklin. To which opinion of the court the defendant excepted. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was rendered; and to that judgment a supersedeas was awarded.</p>

Elizabeth Cregor was indicted for adultery with James Cole, in the Circuit court of Wythe county, at the April term of the Court for 1849. On the trial, the jury rendered the following verdict: “ We find upon the evidence of one credible witness that the defendant is a married woman: That within twelve months previous to the finding this indictment, she habitually bedded with James Cole in the indictment mentioned, as man and wife, the said Cole not being her husband.

The bill was filed in October 1828 by John Smith junior, setting forth, That on the first day of January 1817, Elizabeth Calland lent to the mercantile firm of Galt, Bulloch Co. the sum of £ 1547. 9. 4, for which she took a bond signed by John Bulloch with the signature of Galt, Bulloch &f Co. That the said Elizabeth Calland, at the time she accepted the said bond, believed that it bound all the members of the said firm; and such (the plaintiff believed) was the opinion of…

At the June term 1849, of the Hustings court of Danville, the grand jury presented James B. Harris and John Hickman for selling ardent spirits to be drank where sold, without a license, to Hugh Ramey. Upon this presentment an information was filed, to which the defendants pleaded jointly “ not guilty;” and were tried together, when the jury found them guilty in manner and form as was alleged in the information.

<p>At the June term 1849, of the Hustings court of Danville, the grand jury presented James B. Harris and John Hickman for selling ardent spirits to be drank where sold, without a license, to Hugh Ramey. Upon this presentment an information was filed, to which the defendants pleaded jointly “ not guilty;” and were tried together, when the jury found them guilty in manner and form as was alleged in the information.</p> <p>When the jury brought in their verdict, the defendants moved the Court to arrest the judgment on the grounds,</p> <p>1st. That the information charg ^ the offence jointly , „ , „ .... against the defendants for commu:-yg jointly one offence.</p> <p>2d. That the verdict of the jury is joint against the two defendants; and the judgment of the Court, if entered up, must impose a fine upon them jointly for one offence.</p> <p>But the Court overruled the motion, and gave a judgment against each of the defendants for thirty dollars, the fine imposed by the statute, for the use of the Literary fund, and the costs.</p> <p>The defendants applied to the Judge of the Circuit court of Pittsylvania for a writ of error to this judgment, which was awarded. And when the cause came on to be heard, the Court with the assent of the defendants, adjourned to this Court the questions:</p> <p>1st. Can two persons be jointly indicted, or proceeded against by information, for retailing ardent spirits ?</p> <p>2d. Is the judgment of the Hustings court of Dan-ville right in rendering, on the finding of the jury, a several fine against each of the plaintiffs in error, for thirty dollars each; or should the Court have rendered judgment against them jointly for the sum of thirty dollars and the costs ?</p> <p>3d. What judgment ought the Court to pronounce in this cause ?</p>

At the April term for 1849, of the Circuit court of Grayson county, Jarvis C. Bacon, a free person, was indicted for that on the 26th of March 1849, he did by speaking, maintain that owners have not right of property in their slaves. On the trial the jury found him guilty, and assessed his fine at 49 dollars 62J cents. Whereupon he moved the Court for a new trial.

On the 16th of September 1831, John A. Bailey and George V. Lewis executed an obligation in these words: “ We promise to pay Barnes Beckwith executor of Absalom Bailey deceased fifty-two dollars and sixty-five cents on or before the 16th day of September 1832 next ensuing, for the true payment whereof we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators firmly by these presents, in the penal sum of one hundred and five dollars and 30 cents.

William Kippers brought assumpsit in the county court of Alleghany against John Callaghan and John M. Ball for hogs alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. As to Ball the suit abated. Between the plaintiff and the defendant Callaghan there were three trials in the county court, as upon an issue joined, though none was in fact joined, there being no plea in the cause. On none of these trials were the jury able to agree in a verdict.

This is the sequel of the case reported in 6th Grattan, p. 712. The prisoner was again tried at the June term of the Circuit court of Culpeper county for 1850, when he was again found guilty of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hung. The prisoner moved the Court to set aside the verdict and judgment, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; but the Court overruled the motion.

On the 23d of October 1828, the Northwestern hank of Virginia brought suit in the superiour court of law for Harrison county, against the executors of James Tindall. The declaration was upon an assumpsit of the testator for money loaned, money had and received, and money paid, laid out and expended. Issue was joined on the plea of non assumpsit by testator.

At the June term 1850 of the Circuit court for the county of Augusta, the grand jury found an indictment for arson against Martin Curran and eight others.

The defendant was presented on the 8th November 1848, in the Circuit court for the county of James City and the city of Williamsburg, for unlawfully assaulting and beating Samuel S. Griffin, on the 9th of September 1848, in the city of Williamsburg, within the jurisdiction of the Court. And it was thereupon ordered that the defendant should be summoned to appear on the first day of the next term, to answer the presentment ¡ and process was awarded accordingly.

<p>Where land is leased for a fixed and determinate period, the off-going tenant is not entitled to the waygoing crop.</p> <p>Parol evidence of a usage for the offgoing tenant to have the way-going crop, is not admissible to explain a written contract of lease for a fixed and certain period.</p> <p>A practice or usage in opposition to the common law, however general it may be, has no force in this country on the ground of custom, because not immemorial.</p>

James C. M’Farland, a justice of the peace for the county of Kanawha, transmitted to the superiour court of law for that county a recognizance which set forth, that on the 10th day of November 1830, Michael Hager, James Bias and Andrew Hager, came before him and acknowledged themselves to be indebted to John Floyd governor of the commonwealth, the said Michael Hager the sum of 500 dollars, and the said James Bias and ''Andrew Hager the sum of 500 dollars, to be levied of…

Frederick B. Hunter was indicted for burglary in the. Circuit court of Lee county, jointly with Thomas Hardy. There was also a count in the indictment charging Hunter with counselling, hiring and procuring the said Hardy to commit the offence. The indictment charged the offence to have been committed on the night of the 23d of October 1848, by breaking and entering the house of Nancy Rogers, and taking therefrom some 1400 dollars in money, besides other things.

This is an application to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus by Alonzo G, Bell. It appears that he was arrested in the county of Campbell in March 1850, on a charge for horse stealing. At the May term of the County court he was examined, and sent on for further trial before the Circuit court.

Thomas Hill, by his will bearing date the 15th of January 1827, after certain specific devises and bequests, devised and bequeathed as follows : l: And whereas there are several outstanding debts due to me, I will and direct that my said executors, immediately after my death, shall proceed to collect the same as speedily as they may think proper, having regard to the principles of humanity towards the debtors, and I give the money arising from the sales of the lands and…

In April 1851, Henry T. Perkins was indicted for forgery, in the Circuit court of law for the county of Henrico. The first count of the indictment set out ^e paper which was charged to have been forged, which was as follows: “ $ 4000. Seven Islands, Fluvanah County, December 10th, 1850.

George Livingston was indicted in May 1851, in the Circuit court of Petersburg, for larceny in stealing three gold chains and a ring, of the goods of John B. Stevens and Thomas R. Hopkins, jewellers, in the city of Petersburg, trading under the firm of Stevens & Hopkins.

Action on the case in the county court of Augusta by George Olinger against William MTChesney. The declaration contained three counts.

John F. Dye was indicted in the Circuit court of Harrison county, at its June term for 1847, for that he “ did then and there knowingly and wilfully without lawful authority, take and carry away two hogs of the value of five dollars, then and there belonging to Benjamin Stout,” &c. The defendant appeared and moved the Court to quash the indictment, for errors apparent on its face ; the error being the omission of the words “but not feloniously;” but the Court overruled the…

Simeon Souther was indicted at the October term for 1850, of the Circuit court for the county of Hanover, for the murder of his own slave. The indictment contained fifteen counts, in which the various modes of punishment and torture by which the homicide was charged to have been committed, were stated singly and in various combinations.

At a district court held at the Sweet Springs the 19th of October 1797, the following instrument of writing was acknowledged by Thomas Reynolds the maker thereof, and ordered to be recorded : “ Be it known to all whom it may concern, that for certain good causes, but more especially that it is contrary to the command of Christ to keep my fellow creatures in bondage, I do hereby liberate all my slaves, and relinquish all my right, title and interest in them, to wit, Milly…

On the 25th of July 1801, George Alderson, in order to secure the payment of certain debts due from him to William Griffith, amounting to ¿£190. 10. conveyed to Edward Graham one moiety of the tract of land on Kanawha river, on which said Alderson lived, supposed to contain 128 acres, upon trust that if the said sum of .£190. 10. with interest, or any part thereof, should remain due and unpaid on the 25th of June 1805, then the said Edward, Graham, his executors or…

<p>A party in possession of land under a contract of purchase, having refused to accept a conveyance tendered to him, and instituted a chancery suit in which the question as to the sufficiency of the title is yet undetermined, is not a freeholder qualified to serve as a grand juror.</p>

Petition for writ of error to a judgment of the circuit superiour court of law and chancery for Kanawha county. The petitioner was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years imprisonment in the penitentiary, for the larceny of a horse, saddle and bridle, the property of Orestes Wilson.