Volume 9 — Virginia Reports

This was a suit for the specific execution of a contract for the exchange of land, brought in December 1845, in the Circuit court of Harrison county, by Wilüam Pamll against William McKinley. The bill charged that in 1843 the plaintiff' owned a' tract of land then in the county of Marion, but afterwards in county of Taylor, containing about one hundred and seventy-five acres, on which he resided.

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

This was a hill filed in the Circuit court of Harrison county, by Sandford B. Hall and Josiah Chamberlin, to set aside a deed of trust executed by John Chamberlin conveying a tract of land to secure a debt alleged to be due to William Martin, on the ground that the debt was usurious. Hall and Josiah Chamberlin held a judgment against John Chamberlin upon which an execution had been issued and returned “no effects;” and they thereupon filed this bill.

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

This was an action in the Circuit court of Harrison county, upon a constable’s official bond, in the name of the Governor at the relation of J. and R. Davis against J. D. Roach and his sureties in the bond.

This was an action of assault and battery in the Circuit court of Harrison county, brought by John W. Young against Jacob Highland. The declaration contains but one count, and charges that theretofore, to wit, on the 3d of December 1847, at the county of Harrison, the defendant in and upon the plaintiff did make an assault, &c. The only plea was “ son assault demesne,” to which the plaintiff replied de injuria, and issue was joined thereon.

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

This was a bill filed in the Circuit court of Lewis county by Jacob Romine against Philip Cox jr. and John McWhorter, to subject land in the possession of the latter to the satisfaction of a bond executed to the plaintiff by Philip Cox jr. for the purchase money of the land in the possession of McWhorter; which land Cox had purchased of Hugh McQuain, and by an arrangement between them gave his Rond to Romine. The facts are stated by Judge Samuels in his opinion.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit comt of Kanawha county, brought by Wilkinson & Hunt against Joseph Friend, upon two protested bills- of exchange, each for 1,000 dollars. The facts are- stated by Judge Allen in his opinion. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs ; and thereupon Friend applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was awarded.

This was an action of debt upon an appeal bond, brought in the Circuit court of Kanawha county by Wiley P. Woods against Thomas R. Friend and Joseph Friend. The defendants' craved oyer of the record of the Court of appeals of which profert was made, and then demurred generally to the declaration.

This was an injunction to a judgment recovered by Henry H. Wood against John Slack in the Circuit court of Kanawha. Slack had been the high sheriff of Kanawha county, and Wood, James T. Swindler and others were his sureties. • Several judgments had been recovered against Slack and his sureties for the defaults of one of his deputies. Upon these judgments executions issued which were returned by the sheriff as .paid by James T. Swindler and Henry H. Wood.

<p>The case is fully stated by Judge Lee iu Ms opinion.</p>

This was an injunction to a judgment in the Circuit court of Wood county. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was a notice in the Circuit court of Fayette county, by William Wilson against the high sheriff of the county and his sureties, to recover money made upon an execution by William Tyree, one of his deputies. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. There was a judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of 232 dollars 2 cents, with damages at the rate of fifteen per cent, per annum from the 5th day of June 1848, till paid and costs.

<p>W. assignee in blank of M. the payee of a promissory note, endorsed it in blank to B. T. H. & Co., under a special agreement. H. one of the partners, filling up the blank endorsement to himself, brought suit against the maker, obtained judgment, and issued a ji. fa., which was returned “ JYo effects." Whereupon he sued W. as endorser. The record of the suit against the maker was not proof of a suit upon the note assigned by the defendant; because that record stated an assignment from M. to H.; who individually had no title to the note.</p> <p>If there be two endorsers of a promissory note; and the last endorsee strikes out the second endorsement, and fills up the first to himself, he cannot, upon nulla bona returned to an execution against the maker, charge the first endorser; because there is no privity between them.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s attorney may fill up a blank endorsement and make it payable to the plaintiff, during the trial of the cause.</p> <p>Qjacere, What steps are necessary to be taken, by the endorsee, before he can charge the endorser ?</p> <p>It seems that a prior suit is not, in all cases, requisite.</p>

This was a notice in the Circuit court of Fayette county, by Van B. Donnally against John Guinn, late sheriff of the county, and his sureties, to recover money made upon an execution by William Tyree, one of his deputies. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for 472 dollars 50 cents, with damages at the rate of fifteen per cent, per annum, from the 6th of November 1843, till payment, and his costs.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Kanawha county brought by Wilkinson & Hunt against Robert H. Early. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs; and Early applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was awarded.

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

This was an action of covenant instituted in the Circuit court of Wood county by Cincinnatus J. Neal against William S. Gardner. The action was founded on a covenant which bore date on the 29th of December 1841, and the object was to recover from the defendant the amount of the commissions on certain executions which the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to as deputy sheriff.

This was an action of debt upon an injunction bond in the Circuit court of Wood county, brought by William S. Gardner against John J. Malcolm and Jesse Roach. The defendants demurred generally to the declaration, and to each assignment of breaches therein; and the plaintiff joined in the demurrer. Subsequently, the defendant Malcolm pleaded his discharge as a bankrupt, upon which the plaintiff replied that there was no such record; and that issue was found for Malcolm.

<p>1. In a petition for leave to erect a dam, the petition, which was ore terms, states that the applicant is owner of the hanks on both sides of the stream. This is in effect a statement that he is the owner of the land, and especially as it appears from other parts of the proceedings that he is the owner of the land on both sides of the stream.</p> <p>2. The petition states that the applicant desired a writ of ad quod damnum to issue for the purpose of erecting a water grist mill, &c. This is a sufficient compliance with the statute, which says: “ When any person desiring to build a water grist mill,” &c.</p> <p>3. Where, upon a fair and reasonable construction of the inquisition, it is substantially responsive to the requirements of the statute, that is sufficient.</p> <p>4. Where the petition, or the order of the court directing the writ of ad quod damnum to issue, does not specify the height of the dam proposed to be erected, it is proper and correct for the jury to specify it in their inquisition.</p> <p>5. There is an exception for the refusal of the County court to continue the cause on account of the absence of a material witness: But on appeal to the Circuit court by the exceptant the case is again heard upon the record of the County court and upon the testimony of witnesses then examined before the court, one of -whom is the witness referred to in the exception; and the judgment of the County court is affirmed. The want of the witness’s testimony before the County court cannot be the subject of complaint in the court of Appeals.</p> <p>6. An exception is taken to the judgment of the County court authorizing the erection of the dam, on the ground that it would be injurious to the health of the neighborhood; and the evidence is stated in the exception. The Circuit court passes upon that question upon full evidence, and to its opinion there is no exception. And as both the County and Circuit courts were satisfied upon that point, the Court of Appeals will presume that the proofs showed the health of the neighborhood would not be affected by the erection of the dam.</p> <p>7. The judgment of the court giving leave to erect the dam provides that the applicant shall keep a ferry boat at the crossing of a public road over the stream across which the dam is to be erected. Held :</p> <p>1st. This is authorized by the statute, 2 Eev. Code 227, § 5; and as the County and Circuit courts have held upon the proofs that a ferry boat at that place will sufficiently remedy any impediment to the crossing of the stream, the court of Appeals will presume that they acted rightly; nothing being shown to the contrary.</p> <p>2d. The duty of keeping up the ferry boat is not merely personal to the grantee of the privilege of erecting the dam; but it is a condition and incident of the grant, and attaches to it into whose hands soever it may pass.</p> <p>3d. The kind of boat to be kept must be such an one as the exigencies of the travel and trade on the road shall require.</p> <p>4th. It is the duty of the party required to keep up the ferry boat to ferry the public over the stream without charge.</p>

The declaration, in this case, was upon a joint bond ; but there were separate judgments, arising from the different times of serving the writ upon the respective defendants.

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

<p>1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain possession of a child, may be in the name of the infant by his next friend, or in the name of the person claiming the possession. And where it is the mother of the child who is claiming the possession, and she is a married woman, it may be in the names of her husband and herself.</p> <p>2. The proper office of the writ of habeas corpus is to release from illegal restraint; and where the party is of years of discretion and sui juris, nothing more is done than to discharge him. But if he be not of an age to determine for himself, the court or judge must decide for him, and make an order for his being placed in the proper custody ; and to enable it to do so, must determine to whom the right to the custody belongs.</p> <p>3. The father being dead, the mother is entitled to the custody as of right; and she does not lose this right by a second marriage. But where she is seeking by the writ of habeas corpus to have the child placed in her custody, the court may exercise its discretion, and determine whether, under all the circumstances, it is best for the infant that he should be assigned to the custody of the mother.</p> <p>4. A case in which a female child was taken from the custody of its grandfather and grandmother and delivered to the mother, though she was married to a second husband; all the parties being respectable.</p>

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

This was a bill filed in the Circuit court of Fayette county, by the G-iles, Fayette and Kanawha turnpike company, to attach the effects of Peter Bowyer, an absent defendant, in the hands of James T. Waite and Thomas Q-. Clay. The bill charged that Bowyer was a subscriber for eight shares of the capital stock of the company, for which he had not paid ; that he had removed to and lived in the state of Indiana; and that Waite and Clay were indebted to him.

This was an action of ejectment in the Circuit court of Jackson county, by Hassler’s lessee against King.

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

<p>If the person with whom bonds are left for collection puts them into the hands of a lawyer to collect, he is not further responsible, except for monies received from the lawyer.</p> <p>If a collector living in the neighbourhood of his principal does not pay over his collections in convenient time, he is chargeable with interest.</p> <p>A receipt from the principal to the collector for £ 100 paper money, for which the principal was to account with interest, was not a payment, by the collector, but a loan of so much paper money, and subject to the scale of depreciation.</p>

This was an action by the Northwestern Bank of Virginia against P. Hays and others in the Circuit court of Gilmer county. The facts of the case are stated by Judge Lee in his opinion.

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

<p>1. The mode in which an exception to an answer shall point out the omission excepted to, is a matter of practice discretionary with the court, and not a subject of appeal.</p> <p>2. But if otherwise, the exception being sustained and the defendant having filed another answer, there the subject of the exception properly ended.</p> <p>3. In a suit in which there is an absent defendant, the decree recites that the cause came on as to him upon the bill, &e. and order of publication duly executed. This is conclusive that the order was duly made, published in the newspaper and posted at the front door of the court-house.</p> <p>4. The decree referring to the record of another suit as an exhibit in the cause, malees it a part of the record, though it is not referred to in the bill or answer, nor made an exhibit by an entry on the order booh.</p> <p>5. A judgment is a lien upon land in the hands of a purchaser, though at the time of the conveyance execution upon the judgment was suspended by an injunction. And the lien exists though the judgment was not docheted, the purchaser having had notice thereof.</p>

<p>1.1 In a suit In equity, if there be no conflict between different portions of the evidence, no ambiguity or uncertainty in it, but a simple failure to prove material facts, it is improper to direct an issue.</p> <p>2. There may be an appeal from a decree directing an issue, where the decree impliedly involves a settlement of the principles of the cause.</p>

<p>1. The County court makes an order against the putative father of a bastard child, that he shall pay to the overseers of the poor twenty dollars a year for seven years. Though the overseers of the poor may never have paid anything for the support of the child, they are entitled to recover these annual sums from the putative father.</p> <p>2. In such a case, the County court having decided in favor of the putative father, and the overseers of the poor having spread the facts upon the record by an exception, and taken an appeal to the Circuit court, that court, upon reversing the judgment of the County court, should not send the cause hack for a new trial, hut should render a judgment in favor of the overseers of the poor for the amount appearing to he due, hut without interest.</p>

<p>The county levy is not contrary to the bill of rights and the constitution; and the county courts have power to lay it.</p> <p>The construction would be unfair, which should extend words of exclusion in the constitution, used for one purpose, to other objects not contemplated by the framers, at the time.</p>

<p>See the opinion of Samuels, J. for a statement of thecase.</p>

<p>The issue of a woman by a second marriage, which took place during the lifetime of her first husband, are legitimate after the death of their father.</p>

This was a bill filed in the Circuit court of Mason county, by Samuel Hannah against John Hannon and others, to have partition of a tract of land of three thousand and eighty acres. There was a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill. Whereupon the defendants applied to this court for an appeal, which was allowed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>The testator devised the interest of some public stock to his daughter for life; and, at her death, the interest of one fourth of it to each of his grand children; and, at their decease, the principal and interest to be disposed by them to their heirs in such proportion as they by their wills respectively may direct: And in case of the .death of grand daughter S. C. without issue, her part to his grand daughter E. C. This was a devise of one fourth of the principal of the stock, after the death of the testator’s daughter, to S. C. in absolute property.</p>

This is an action of covenant brought by Jésse C. Roach against J. G. and R. W. Dickinson in the Circuit-Superior court of Wood county, upon an agreement under seal, dated 3d of May 1845, which, so far as it is necessary to recite it, is in substance as follows: “ The said Roach, in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be observed and kept by the parties of the second part, has bargained and sold, to the said parties of the second part, a…

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

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

This was an action of debt on a prison bounds bond, brought by Thomas Pierce, assignee of Benjamin Webb, sheriff of Wood county, against Edward D. and John S. McGuire and their sureties in the bond.

<p>The case is stated in the opinions of Lee and Moncure, Js.</p>

<p>1. A general indebitatus assumpsit maybe joined with a count in assumpsit upon a special contract of bailment setting out the promise and undertaking of the defendants, the consideration on which it was founded, the breach of that promise by the defendants and their neglect and carelessness, and the loss to the plaintiff occasioned thereby.</p> <p>2. Vendor contracts to sell to vendees a raft of logs then lying in the Ohio river a half mile below their landing for a given sum, deducting therefrom the expense of floating the raft to their landing which they might incur over and above the services of one of the vendees and a negro in his employ; and they promise to pay him for the same the sum of three dollars down as earnest money, and the residue of the agreed price less the expense aforesaid, when they should be afterwards requested; and that they would cause the raft to be floated to their landing aforesaid, as soon as the state of the water would permit. Held : That by the terms of the contract the residue of the price of the logs was not to be paid until they were floated up to the landing: And to entitle the vendor to recover, he must aver that the logs had been floated up to' the landing; or that the state of the river had become such as to admit of it, but that the vendees had unduly neglected, failed and delayed to do it.</p>

This was a proceeding upon a caveat entered in the Circuit court of Carroll county, by George Walton against the issuing of a patent to Fielden L. Hale for a tract of land in that county. The facts are stated in the opinion of Judge Allen. There was a judgment in favor of Hale; whereupon Walton applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was allowed.

This was an action of ejectment in the Circuit court of Wood county, brought by the heirs of John B. Creel against Peyton Butcher. On the trial the jury found a special verdict, on which the court rendered a judgment for the plaintiffs; and thereupon, Butcher applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was awarded. The facts of the case are stated by Judge Samuels, in his opinion.

This was a suit in equity instituted in November 1842, in the Circuit court of Wythe county, by John Sexton against David Sexton. Held: further, that the plaintiff was entitled to relief to the extent of one moiety of the indebtedness of the partnership of D. & J. Sexton beyond the sum of 3000 dollars.

<p>T leases land to E by deed which is executed by E, and he'thereby acknowledges that he is in possession under the lease, and covenants'to restore the possession at the end of the term. E holds over after the term expires for seven years; and whilst in possession executes a deed by which he conveys a part of the leased premises to A in fee simple, with a covenant of warranty, and puts A in possession and disclaims to hold under T. T then institutes a proceeding of unlawful detainer against E and A. Held :</p> <p>1st. That E is responsible to T for the whole of the leased premises, though at the^time of the institution of the proceeding A was in possession of a part of the land.</p> <p>2d. That T’s recovery is not to be confined to the land in the actual occupancy of E and A, but he is entitled to recover all the land demised; and he may show by parol testimony what constituted the demised premises.</p> <p>3d. That E and A were properly joined in this proceeding, though they did not hold the .land jointly, but each held a part of the land in severalty; and if only one of them held any part of the land, T is entitled to a judgment against him,1 though- . • there should be-a judgment for the other.j</p> <p>4th. Though A was in actual possession of no jiart of the land claimed by the warrant at the time it issued, he would be entitled to a verdict in his favor, yet E, the lessee, would be responsible to T, and there should be a judgment against him, though at the time of the issue of the warrant he was not in the actual possession and occupancy of any part of the land.'</p> <p>5th. A having entered oh the land, claiming in fee under the conveyance from E, was entitled to six months’ notice to quit from T, though he had not expressly disclaimed to hold under the lease from T to E. And if he held expressly as undertenant of E, he would not be entitled to the notice. When T had determined the tenancy of E by six months’ notice to quit, or E had disclaimed to hold as tenant, and thereby deprived ’ ; * himself of the right to notice, it was competent for T to pro-i ■ ceed at once to oust both E and A.</p> <p>6th. The lease being for a certain quantity of land, situate as .therein described, and E having executed it under his hand and seal, and thereby recognized the description and boundaries therein specified, and that he then held the same in possession; and the warrant being for the precise tenement described in the lease, neither E¡nor A claiming under him,, can be entertained to deny that the tenement had its boundaries, or that they were within them.</p> <p>7th. E and A will not be permitted to introduce evidence of title to the land embraced in the lease, either in themselves or others; nor will they be permitted to introduce these title papers for the purpose of showing that they had not possession of 'the land claimed by T. ■</p> <p>8th. T, if entitled to recover, may recover according to the description of the land in the warrant or in the lease, and he must then point out at his peril, to the sheriff, the premises of which he is to give T possession; and if he takes more than he has recovered in the action, the court will interfere in a summary way and compel him to make restitution. •</p> <p>9th. E having entered under the lease, and held over after the term expired, if T did any act recognizing him still as his tenant, E became thereby tenant from year to year, upon the conditions of the original lease. If T did not recognize the continued tenancy, E was a tenant at sufferance, and not entitled to notice to quit.</p> <p>10th. E still being in as tenant after the term has expired, he continues to hold as such as long as he remains in possession, , unless he disclaims to hold as such, and asserts a right adverse to T; and such disclaimer and assertion of adverse right are brought home to the knowledge of T by a full notice by E, of his disclaimer and assertion of title. And qucere: If he must not surrender the possession to T.</p> <p>11th. A, by entering upon part of the land as purchaser from E, thereby became subject to the same relations held by E towards his lessor T, and neither could set up an adverse title, unless he showed he had restored the possession to T, or had disclaimed and held adversely, with full notice to T for the periods of limitation prescribed by the statutes.</p> <p>12th. E and A could no more deny that the possession under which E entered was the possession of T, than they could controvert T’s title.</p>

<p>Blanton filed a bill in the high court of chancery stating, That he had given a bond to the defendant Brackett; upon which there was, in March 1797, a balance due of £ 59. 19. 2. That there was an action of slander depending, at that time, in the district court between Anglea and the defendant Brackett; who expected that some damages would be recovered against him in it. That Anglea, being indebted to the plaintiff, agreed that if the plaintiff would wait until that cause was decided, he should have the benefit of the judgment which should be obtained against Brackett; who agreed that it should be discounted against the plaintiff’s bond aforesaid. That the plaintiff accordingly waited with Anglea until the suit was ended. That Anglea recovered £ 100 damages against Brackett, and assigned the judgment to the plaintiff; but that Brackett had, in the mean time, become insolvent | and had made a secret transfer of the plaintiff’s bond to Redd, without any consideration, although the latter had notice of the before mentioned agreement between the plaintiff, Anglea, and Brackett, by an advertisement in the newspapers. That Redd, finding the transfer would be of no use, procured a secret assignment of the bond, likewise without any consideration, to Miller; who also had notice of the agreement aforesaid. That Miller, acting in concert with the other parties, has brought suit and obtained judgment in his own name upon the bond; but, in fact, for the benefit of Brackett, in order that the latter might avoid payment of Anglea*s judgment. The bill therefore prays for an injunction to MilleAs judgment.</p> <p>The answer of Brackett denies the agreement as to Anglea’s judgment; and states that, prior to the judgment, he had, for a valuable consideration, transferred the plaintiff’s bond to Redd; at whose request, he afterwards assigned it to Miller, who was a creditor of Redd; and that the defendant has no interest in the bond.</p> <p>The answer of Brackett admits the advertisement in the newspapers, but denies notice of the agreement relative to Anglea’s judgment | and that the defendant does not believe that it existed. That the defendant refused to take the bond from Brackett, who was indebted to the defendant, until he could enquire of the plaintiff how much was due upon it, and when payment would be made. That the plaintiff acknowledged that the balance aforesaid was due upon the bond, and affirmed that he would pay it shortly. In consequence of which he accepted the transfer, and had the bond assigned to Miller, to whom he was then indebted; but has since paid him, and therefore has become entitled to the benefit of the judgment on the bond.</p> <p>The answer of Miller disclaims any knowledge of the transactions between the other parties; declares that Redd was indebted to him at the time of the assignment; that the plaintiff often promised payment; but failed to make it, and therefore he brought suit upon the bond. That Redd has since paid him; and. therefore is now entitled to the judgment.</p> <p>Depositions of witnesses were taken on both sides; and the court of chancery dismissed the bill upon a hearing. The plaintiff appealed to the court of appeals.</p>

<p>John Lightfoot filed his bill in the high court of chancery-stating, That in the year 1785, he sold a tract of land in Culpeper to Callender and Henderson for £ 1050, and took their bond with security for payment of £ 600 thereof in the following manner, to wit% £ 400 in bonds, goods, &c. and the other £ 200 in about two years. The balance of the purchase money was to be paid in about 4500 acres of Kentucky lands, stated to be located for captain Reid. That the plaintiff has received the £ 400, and authorized Slaughter to receive the £ 200. That the plaintiff went to Kentucky to get the lands there conveyed to him. That the Slaughters assigned the bond aforesaid to Gray in order to enable him to receive the £ 200. That Gray is dead, and ihe bond lost. That Callender and Henderson have neglected to clear out the said 4500 acres of land. That Cal-lender is dead without heirs in Virginia, and Henderson hath taken administration on his estate. Therefore the bill prays that Henderson may be decreed to pay the said £ 450 with interest, instead of the Kentucky lands.</p> <p>The answer admits the purchase of the Culpeper lands, upon the terms in the bill mentioned, except that they were to give their right to the Kentucky lands. That Callender and Henderson having warrants for a large quantity of lands in the hands of- Perlcins of Kentucky, the same were, after the death of Perlcins, delivered by Innes, his administrator, to Reid to be located. That Reid, who was present at the contract between the plaintiff and defendant, did locate the warrants; and the defendant, not valuing Kentucky lands much, but willing to get clear of them on any terms, referred the plaintiff to Reid for information. That, after the plaintiff had had some conversation with ^ the bargain between the plaintiff and Callender and Henderson was concluded, but upon the express condition that Callender and Henderson were not to warrant them against prior claims,'unless made to appear within one year, as appears by the said bond. That no prior claims have been made. That Callender and Henderson gave the plaintiff an order on Reid for the lands as by his receipt will appear. That the defendant has paid the £ 600. That the Kentucky lands were scarcely worth the expense of surveying and obtaining titles; and therefore the sum, claimed for them by the plaintiff, is extravagant; especially as an exorbitant price was given for the Culpeper lands for the sake of getting clear of those in Kentucky. That Reid has been paid his fees for locating, as appears by his receipt and bond, stating that the locations have been made : Which bond the defendant directed to be delivered to the plaintiff. That it was agreed between the plaintiff and Callender and Henderson that the plaintiff should pay any other charges for clearing out the said lands, and that Callender and Henderson should repay them. That the defendant is neither the executor or administrator of Callender.</p> <p>The amended answer, states that the plaintiff before he sold the Culpeper lands to Callender and Henderson, offered them at £ 500, but could not sell them at that price; and that the only addition to the value was 100 acres at the price of £ 100. That the defendant, several years afterwards and after the rise of lands, sold them for £ 950 upon credit : About £ 300 of which he cannot recover, because the title is disputed, and an injunction has been granted by the county court. It denies any notice that the land could not be obtained, until the suit was brought; which put it out of the defendant’s power to obtain redress.</p> <p>The exhibits are, 1. The receipt of Reid for his fees for surveying the land; which is written at the foot of an account stating the surveys. 2. A land warrant for 12,892§ acres of land, with Perkins's receipt to Callender and Henderson for the same, expressing that it was to be located. 3. The entries of the lands by Thomas Perkins as assignee of Callender and Henderson; and a survey thereof for the heirs of Thomas Perkins, assignee of Callender and Henderson. 4. The bond of Callender and Henderson to Lightfoot, with the payments endorsed; among which is a receipt by the plaintiff for an order on Reid for 6000 acres of land. 5. The obligation of Reid and Strother acknowledging receipt of fees for locating the lands, and containing an express declaration that they have been located and surveyed. 6. A letter from Perkins to the defendant enclosing a copy of the entries he had made for them, dated September 25th, 1785. 7. Three letters from Innes, the administrator of Perkins: The first dated March 23d, 1787, informs him of Perkins’s death, and speaks of lands in which the defendant may be interested. The second, of lands located, by Perkins, for the defendant, himself and others : The third, of the defendant’s lands, and wishes him to pay the surveyor’s fees; after which he (Innes) will pass the plats through the office. 8. A letter from Callender and Henderson to Reid, desiring him to deliver the land papers to the plaintiff, who would pay the office fees : this letter appears to have been sent by the plaintiff.</p> <p>The deposition of Waddle, states that, on the 14th of May, 1789, he, on behalf of Callender and Henderson, paid Reid his fees for surveying the lands.</p> <p>The deposition of another witness, states that he was present when Waddle paid Reid for the surveys.</p> <p>The defendant’s counsel moved for a continuance of the cause in order that the defendant might take the depositions of Innes and Reid; but the motion was overruled by the court: which decreed payment of the money, without any condition.</p>

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit court of Russell county, made in a cause in which John Counts and others, heirs and legatees of Joseph McReynolds deceased, were plaintiffs, and Isaac and Rebecca McReynolds were defendants. The facts are stated in the opinion of Judge Samuels.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Botetourt county, brought by William Kyle against John M. Price.

In ejectment brought by Amos Thompson against Johnston, guardian of Hinton, for a tract of land, the declaration was “ for a tenement with the appurtenances, lying on both sides of Sweeterfs fork of Sandy creek without mentioning the county. There was an order of survey, and the jury found a special verdict; which stated, that on the 7th of August, 1761, a patent for 660 acres issued to Richard Dudgeon, which they find in hcec verba.

This was a suit hy the executors of Archibald Stuart deceased, against St. Clair Abbott and William Brown, to subject a tract of land in the possession of Brown for a balance of purchase money due from Abbott to Stuart’s executors. In June 1823, Archibald Stuart sold to Abbott a tract of land then in the county of Monroe, but now in the county of Mercer, for 300 dollars, retaining the title.

<p>Upon a scire facias against special bail, be obtained a bail piece, arrested his principal, surrendered him to the jailor and took the jailor’s receipt for his body, and gave notice thereof to the attorney of the plaintiffs, they not residing in the county. Notwithstanding all this, there was an office judgment upon the scire facias against the bail, and he not appearing to defend the case at the next term, the office judgment was confirmed. Equity will not relieve the bail.</p>

This was an application to the County court of Grayson, by Drury Senter and Wilboum Ross, to discontinue a public road. Robert Pugh entered himself a defendant, and opposed the motion. The jury appointed to view the road returned a verdict against the discontinuance of it. But the County court, upon hearing the evidence, ordered that the road should be discontinued.

Staples’s bill slates, that James Webster, about the year 1768, entered for about 5682 acres of land in Amherst county. That about the 2d day of June, 1790, he surveyed the same, and before the said survey was returned, to wit, on the 23d of October, 1793, the said land was forfeited. That the said Webster, to deceive the public, never paid the taxes on the land, but kept back the survey to avoid the payment.

<p>This case is stated in the opinion of the court delivered by Judge Lee.</p>

<p>The case is stated in the opinion of Samuels, J.</p>

In 1835 William A. Hanger died, leaving a widow Rebecca, and an infant son Robertson Hanger. At. tbe May term of tbe County court of Augusta tbe widow, Rebecca Hanger, and Henry Imboden qualified as administratrix and administrator of William A. Hanger, and executed a joint bond with John Sillings and two others as their sureties. In 1839 John Bumgardner married tbe widow Rebecca; and in tbe same year qualified as guardian of Robertson Hanger.

<p>1. In a written contract for the sale and purchase of land by the acre, the purchaser will not be relieved in equity on the ground of a mutual mistake as to the boundaries of the land, unless the mistake is fully and clearly proved.</p> <p>2. Plaintiff after setting out his case in his bill, states what he understands is the pretension of the defendant. This is not such an allegation as will constitute the answer responsive thereto evidence, and will throw the burden of disproving it upon the plaintiff.</p>

<p>If the defendant is taken sick on his way to the trial of the cause, and is thereby prevented from making an affidavit that the original deeds are lost; and for want of such affidavit the court refuses to receive copies of the deeds in evidence; the court of chancery may relieve against the verdict and judgment obtained by the plaintiff.</p>

This was a suit instituted in March 1847, in the Circuit court of Augusta county, by Henry Eidson against Walter H. Fontaine, administrator with the will annexed of Catharine M. Eidson, the wife of the plaintiff, and William Fontaine as his surety. The bill charged that in 1834, the plaintiff being about to be married to Catharine M. Fontaine, a marriage contract was entered into, by which she was authorized to dispose of her property by her last will.

The case is fully stated in the opinion of Judge Lee, and it would he both improper and useless to repeat the statement.

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

<p>Plea by the special bail, that the principal was on the 14th of November, 1797, confined by legal process in Philadelphia, was unavailing.</p>

<p>Gloister Hunnicutt, a quaker residing in the county of Sussex, by his will, made on the 13th of April, 1781, and recorded in October of the same year, devised as follows: “ My will and desire is, that the following negroes should be manumitted on or before the first month next 1782, viz. Tom, Joe, Charles, Ben, Jenny and her child Charlotte. I give the above named negroes to the monthly meeting, of which I am a membér, to be manumitted by such members of the said meeting, as the meeting shall appoint.” Of this will, he appointed his wife Jane Hunnicutt, his son Pleasant Hunnicutt, and his brother Wyke Hunnicutt, executors. The testator died on the 13th of April, 1781, aforesaid j and the said Jane Hunnicutt and the said Wyke Hunnicutt qualified as executors of the will in due form of law; but it does not appear that Pleasant Hunnicutt ever qualified. At a session of the said monthly meeting of quakers, (of which the testator was a member, as mentioned in his will) held at Black-water,,in the county of Surry, in December 1781, the said monthly meeting appointed two of their members, to wit, Edward Stabler and Wyke Hunnicutt, the executor, to draw and execute an instrument of manumission of the said slaves in the said will mentioned. In May 1782, the act of assembly, entitled, “ an act to authorize the manumission of slaves,” passed; and, in pursuance of the said appointment, the said Edward Stabler and Wyke Hunnicutt, on the 6th of July, 1782, executed a deed of emancipation of the said slaves; which was admitted to record in the court of the said county of Sussex in November, 1782. In consequence of the foregoing proceedings, the appellants claiming a right to freedom under the will, order of the monthly meeting, and deed of emancipation aforebrought suit at the common law to recover their liberties against the said Pleasant Hunnicutt, who held them in bondage, as part of the testator’s estate. At the trial of the cause, the defendant demurred to the evidence; the district court gave judgment in his favour; and the plaintiffs appealed to the court of appeals.</p>

This was a motion in the Circuit court of Grayson county by the administratrix of Jonathan Thomas deceased, late high sheriff of Grayson county, against Samuel Cox jr., late deputy sheriff for the said Thomas, and eleven others, as obligors in a bond executed by them to Jonathan Thomas. The notice was addressed to these parties, the first as late deputy sheriff, and the others as obligors in a bond executed to Thomas.

This was a proceeding in the same court, and be'tween the same parties, similar to the last preceding The notice was for the default of the deputy sperpp Samuel Cox jr. in failing to pay over the money received by him upon an .execution which J j ±. issued from the clerk’s office of the County court of Grayson, in the name of William Bourn’s executor against Charles Bolt and another.

This was a suit in equity, instituted in the Circuit court of Scott county hy Noah and Moses Greer, sons of Shadrach Greer, to set aside two deeds made by their father a short time before his death, by which he conveyed his éstate, which he had-not previously given to his children, to his son Isaac Greer. The grounds on which it was sought to set aside the deeds, were, incapacity on the part of the grantor, and fraudulent practices on the part of Isaac Greer.

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

On the 20th December 1825, George Hughart purchased of Daniel Boardman a certain tract of land lying in what was then a part of Greenbrier county, but is now a part of Fayette county, for the consideration of 200 dollars, of which one-fourth was paid, and three bonds, for §0 dollars each, were executed.

<p>A man indebted, before the act of 1792, could not emancipate his slaves, to the prejudice of his creditors.</p>

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

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

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

This was a suit in the Circuit court of Greenbrier, instituted by Josiah J. Walkup and Ann Eliza' his wife, Sarah Jane Elliott and Elizabeth M. Elliott, the last being an infant suing by her guardian and next friend J. J. Walkup, against the administrators with the will annexed and heirs of John Armstrong, who had been the guardian of the female plaintiffs, for the settlement of his guardian accounts.

This was a bill in the Circuit court of Kanawha, by Robert F. Hudson, to enjoin two judgments recovered against himself and two others as his sureties, by Daniel H. Kline. The hill charged that Kline had sued the plaintiff and his sureties, in two bonds executed by them to him, one for 800 dollars and the other for 1200 dollars.

This was a bill filed in the Circuit court of Hardy county by Valentine Simmons against Adam Bishop, William Seymour and others, to subject a piece of ground in the town of Morefield, sold by Simmons to Bishop, to satisfy a balance of the purchase money.

This was a bill filed in September 1835, in the Circuit court of Wood county, by Richard H. Henderson, executor of Alexander Henderson of Dumfries, against George W. Henderson and the administrator of Alexander Henderson, late of Wood county.

This was a suit instituted in May 1845, in the Circuit court of Wood county hy John Stephenson against Thomas and Franklin Taverner. The bill charges that Charles R. Baldwin, late of the county of Wood, died in 1839. That he was indebted by account to Stephenson, Neale & Co., of which firm the plaintiff was a partner, for several hundred dollars.

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

In October 1840 Martin Hagy obtained from the judge of tbe Circuit court of Washington county an injunction to two judgments recovered against Mm in that court, one by Lewis Smith as assignee of John… Held: and that he was ready and willing to perform anything that remained unperformed on his part, if the title to the one hundred and forty-three and a third acres should be secured to him.

This was a suit brought in the county court by Isbell against Wilson, to recover freedom ; and the parties agreed a case, which stated, That Matthew Whiting of Virginia, owned the plaintiff as a slave, on the 5th of October, 1778; and in the year 1781 or 1783, removed with part of his property (among which was the plaintiff) to Maryland; where he sold the plaintiff to the defendant; who brought her back to Virginia.

William Ealston the elder died about 1810 or 1811, leaving a widow and eight children. By his will he gave to his wife, for her life, his land on Mossy creek in the county of Augusta ; and he gave the same land at her death to William, David and Elizabeth Ealston, subject to certain legacies to his other children, with remainder over upon their dying without issue, to his other children. The widow died in 1823.

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

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

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

This was a suit instituted in the Circuit eourt of Eockingham county, by George Hickle and Harriet his wife, who was Harriet Peale, and four others, children of Bernard Peale deceased, against Catharine Peale the widow, and Jonathan Peale administrator, .and two other children of Bernard Peale.

<p>Devise to R. H. during his natural life, and no longer; and after, to his eldest son, and his heirs forever; but if no male issue, to his eldest daughter, and her heirs forever, gives an estate tail to R. H.</p> <p>A child born out of wedlock in the year 1774, was legitimated by the subsequent marriage and acknowledgment of the parents in 1776.</p>

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

<p>The bond was subscribed J. Clack, S. Stegar; and the declaration was in conformity to it. Upon the plea of payment, Stegar had a right to prove that the obligee had acknowledged payment of part of the,money by J. Clarke,</p>

David Niday, in November 1835, exhibited Ms bill in the Circuit Superior court of law and chancery for the county of Botetourt, against John M. Harvey & Co., George W. Wilson, trustee, and others, praying an injunction to the sale of real and personal property which had been conveyed by John Wood, one of the defendants, to Wilson in trust to secure a debt due from him to Harvey & Co., and which property was then advertised by the trustee for sale.

<p>Elizabeth Braxton filed a bill against several persons in the court of chancery, to recover dower in her husband’s lands | and obtained a decree against the appellants, without any plea or answer in their behalf, although their mother had been appointed guardian ad litem. A bill to review that decree was offered on the part of the appellants, by Billiard, as their next friend ; 1. Because the yearly profits of the lands were rated too high'. 2. Because -Ambrose Lee, their ancestor, had purchased the lands before the intermarriage of Braxton and his wife, a fact discovered since the decree. 3. That the appellants were infants, undefended, and not to be prejudiced by the decree. The bill was sworn to by Billiard. The chancellor received the bill as to the profits | but refused it as to the other allegations. And the infants, by Billiard, appealed to the court of appeals.</p>

<p>The defendant cannot plead the act of limitations upon setting aside the office judgment, after the next succeeding term, without good cause is shewn.</p>

<p>Devise in 1760, to testator's son of a tract of land, without words of perpetuity, held a fee simple.</p> <p>If the owner of a tract of land sees it sold to another person, without disclosing his title, it is a fraud which forfeits his right.</p>

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Brunswick, instituted by Jane Floyd against Robert Morris the principal, and Benjamin Strange his surety, on a ne exeat bond. The suit abated as to Morris by the return on the writ that he was no inhabitant.

This was a suit instituted in the Superior court of chancery for the Richmond circuit by William R. Wasley and others, children of Robert C. Wasley deceased, against Francis Y. Parker and Mary Ann his wife, who was Mary Ann Wasley, and others. The only question in the cause was, what was the interest in a legacy taken by Mrs. Parker under the will of her father Robert 0. Wasley deceased ?

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

This was an action of assumpsit in the Circuit court of Clarke county by Hopkins, Brother & Co. v. John Richardson. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of Judge Lee. On the trial there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant; whereupon the plaintiffs applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was awarded.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of the town of Petersburg, by William H. Goodwyn and others, creditors of John Hardaway deceased, against the executor of Holley T. Williamson deceased, and a former administratrix and present administrator de bonis non of Hardaway.

These were cross caveats in the Circuit court of Norfolk county. The first was filed by Baugh and Seguine to the issue of a patent to Harper and Weston for a tract of 7429 acres, 2 roods and 12 perches of land lying in the Dismal Swamp in the county of Norfolk. The second was filed by Harper and Weston to the issue of a patent to Baugh and Seguine for 6455 acres, 2 roods and 12 perches, part of the same land.

<p>jBaker, in November 1794, filed a bill in chancery in the county court, against Richardson, stating that Richardson sold the equjtable title to a tract of land to the plaintiff in July 1788, for £84, and was to procure a conveyance of the land to him from Cary. That a survey of the land was had, at the instance of both parties; and, thereupon, the plaintiff gave his bond for the purchase money, on the 31st of July, 1788; and offered to pay down the price, if the defendant would give a receipt for it; which he refused to do; sent back the defendant’s bond on the next day; and afterwards obtained a deed to the defendant himself from Cary, for the land ; which the bill prayed he might be compelled to convey to the plaintiff.</p> <p>The answer admits the bargain, but states that the plaintiff on the next day took back the bond under pretence of consulting counsel, and never returned it; and therefore the defendant has considered the contract as vacated, as no application has been made to him concerning it for so long a time.</p> <p>A witness states, that he heard the plaintiff say, about the year 1789, that the defendant had used him illy about the land, and he would have nothing more to do with it. And other witnesses mention, that the plaintiff frequently solicited a conveyance, offering, at the same time, to pay the money.</p> <p>In June 1797, the defendant, by consent of the plaintiff, pleaded the statute of frauds: and the plaintiff replied to it.</p> <p>The county court decreed a conveyance, and the defendant appealed to the high court of chancery, where the decree was affirmed; and thereupon, Richardson appealed to the court of appeals.</p>

<p>Mahon filed a bill iu the superior court of chancery stating, That he leased an unimproved lot of land in Norfolk, of Marsden, at £ 30 per annum, for ten years; and was to be at liberty to remove the houses he might erect on it. That this kind of lease is usual in Norfolk; and that the plaintiff had built a dwelling house and kitchen on the premises, which he insured in the defendants’ office; but the same were afterwards accidentally burnt; that the defendants refused to pay the sum insured; and therefore the bill prayed a decree for payment, and general relief.</p> <p>The answer admitted that the houses were insured; but deny notice of the lease; and insist that no other than fee simple tenements are insurable in their office.</p> <p>The lease was proved by two witnesses; and recorded in due time.</p> <p>The court of chancery decreed payment of the sum insured, with interest; and the defendants appealed to the court of appeals.</p>

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

<p>Upon trial of the issue of nvl tiel record, the court may allow an amendment of the declaration; and, if the defendant consent, may proceed with the trial.</p> <p>But if the suit be in the same court where the judgment was rendered, it is error to inspect a transcript only, instead of the original record.</p> <p>And in such case, if the suit was in the county court, and that judgment reversed in the district court, the court of appeals will direct the district court to remand the cause to the county court, there to be tried by the original record.</p>

Bernard Dawson and Elizabeth his wife filed their bill in the Circuit court of Prince William county against Wileman Thomas, administrator of John Lowe deceased, in which they stated that the plaintiff was the daughter of John Lowe ; that Thomas had qualified as Lowe’s administrator, but had returned no inventory or account of sales.

<p>In trespass for taking away a slave from the plaintiff’s close, the charge was laid by way of quod cum, or recital: The court was equally divided in opinion, whether it was error, or the defect was cured by the verdict: And therefore, as to that point, the judgment was considered as affirmed.</p> <p>But as the court below refused to receive evidence on the part of the defendant to prove that the title to the slave was in himself, because the plea was Not guilty, the judgment was reversed, a new trial awarded, and the evidence directed to be received in mitigation of damages only.</p>

This was a suit for freedom iu the Circuit court of the city of Norfolk. The case is fully stated in the opinion of Samuels, J.

<p>A purchaser who obtains a conveyance, without notice of a prior equitable lien, will he supported.</p> <p>The court of chancery, when the evidence is all in the record, may decide the cause, without directing an issue.</p> <p>And if an issue he directed, and the verdict should not be satisfactory, it may set aside the verdict, and decide the cause without another trial,. The answer must be contradicted by two witnesses, or one witness and strong circumstances.</p> <p>But the depositions of single witnesses, to different conversations at different places, will not support each other.</p> <p>Qumrc. Whether a purchaser will be affected by notice of rumours only?</p>

John Crawford of the county of Amherst, died in April 1818. Held: and recovered judgments thereon; when in 1826 he ap- ■ plied to the chancellor of the Lynchburg District court for an injuction to these judgments.

Branch and others entered into a bond, on the 5th of March, 1784, to Benjamin Harrison, as governour of the state, and his successors, in £ 10,000, with the following condition annexed, viz. “ The condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bound Benjamin Branch do, and shall truly and faithfully collect, pay and account for all taxes imposed in this said county, by virtue of an act of assembly intituled, ‘ an act to amend and reduce the several acts of…

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

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

This was a suit in chancery in the Circuit court of Buckingham county, by George Fones, against John C. Patterson and others, to set aside a conveyance of land made by Patterson to his two daughters. In November 1841, Fones and Nelson A. Patterson became the sureties of John C. Patterson in a forthcoming bond, which Was forfeited, and upon which an execution was sued out and levied on the property of Fones, when he paid it off.

This was a suit instituted , in the Superior court of chancery for the Richmond circuit by Richard Dabney and Susan his wife and others, children of William Cottrell deceased, against the administratrix of Cottrell and his children by his second marriage. The case is fully stated in the opinion of Judge Allen. The decree in the court below being against the plaintiffs, they applied to this court for an appeal, which was allowed.

In 1837 Benjamin Mosby, Martha Nicholas and Judith M. Smith exhibited their bill in the Circuit court of Powhatan, against Thomas Miller, late sheriff of that county, and as such administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Littleberry Mosby; charging that said Littleberry, father of the complainants, died in 1809, leaving a will which was recorded in Powhatan, of which a copy was exhibited with the bill, and whereby, among other things, he devised and bequeathed that…

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Buckingham county, by John H. Stratton against the surviving partners of the firm of Lancaster, Stratton & Co. The case is stated in the opinion of Judge Samuels. There being a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants applied to this court for a supersedeas,, which was awarded.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of the town of Petersburg, institued by Montague Ward against Tyler and Hill as makers and John Archer as endorser of a negotiable note. The suit abated as to Tyler by the return of the writ.

This was a bill filed in 1824 in the late Chancery court in Richmond, by Levi Swain against a number of parties as subscribers to a scheme for building a church.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Orange county, by George Morris, against Tandy G. Morris, to set aside an award. In the progress of the cause, it was submitted to arbitration again, and the award was to be entered as the decree of the court. The award was made and there was a decree upon it: From which decree George Morris applied to this court for an appeal, which was allowed. The case is fully stated in the opinion of Judge Allen.

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Lynchburg, instituted by the administrator of John Perkins against the administratrix of Robert Hawkins. The case is fully stated in the opinion of Moncure, J„ There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant: And Perkins’ administrator applied to this court for a supersedeas, which was allowed.

By deed bearing date tbe 20th of September 1821, Nicholas Harrison of the town of Lynchburg, conveyed to Robert L. Coleman and Thomas A. Holcombe a large property, consisting of lands, slaves and other personal property, and dioses in action, in trust, first to pay certain debts therein specified, due to Boyd Miller, Ellis & Allen, Garland, Walton & Penn, and others.

These were four actions of debt in the Circuit court of Hanover county, three of them by William Cunningham’s adm’r against George W. Bassett as adm’r of John Bassett deceased, and the fourth by the same plaintiff against George W. Bassett individually. And at the same time there were in the same court two actions of assumpsit by the same plaintiff against the same defendant. The facts of the cases are sufficiently stated by Judge Allen in his opinion.

This was an application by Daniel Ward, administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Dr. George Yates deceased, in the alternative, either for commutation of five years’ full pay, or of half pay for life, for the services of said Yates as surgeon’s mate in the Virginia continental establishment during the revolutionary war.

This was an action of assumpsit in the Circuit eourt of Hanover county by John Thompson assignee of the Bank of the United States against Archibald Govan. The declaration contains two special counts, and the general counts for money lent, laid out and expended, and an account stated.

This was a suit instituted in the Circuit court of Eappahannock county by Mrs. Almond before her marriage with her present husband, against Daniel Mason, as administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of William Porter deceased, and as administrator of Sarah Porter, the father and mother of the plaintiff, for an account and distribution of both estates.

Robert I. Smith in 1842 instituted a suit in the Superior court of chancery for the county of Henrico and city of Richmond, against the committee of John Boyce, a lunatic, which upon the death of Boyce was revived against his administrator and heirs.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Sussex county by Jincey and others against Patrick H. Jones administrator with the will annexed of Mary Winfield deceased, George Field and John D. Ragland, to assert their right to freedom. The plaintiffs had been the slaves of Mary Winfield in her lifetime, and were emancipated by her will.

<p>The case is fully stated by Moncure, J. in his opinion.</p>

John W. Rand was indicted for burglary and larceny in the Circuit court of Norfolk county.