| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Carnagy v. Woodcock |
2 Munf. 234, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (June 24, 1811) |
1811 |
1. By a devise of a tract of land in feesimple, together with all the crops thereon, whether gathered or growing at the time of the testator's death, not only the crops made the year the testator died, but those of the preceding year remaining on the land, and those brought thither, from other plantations, to be stored, will pass. 2. By a bequest... |
|
Cases |
|
| Catlin v. Jackson ex dem. Gratz |
8 Johns. 520, Court for the Correction of Errors of New York (January 01, 1811) |
1811 |
A seizure of lands, by a sheriff, under a fieri facias, does not devest the estate of the debtor; nor does a sale at auction, by the sheriff, unless the purchase money is paid and a deed delivered. A sheriff's sale of lands is within the statute of frauds. Where a sheriff executed a deed for land sold by him at auction, under a fi. fa.; and... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cave v. Shelor |
2 Munf. 193, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 06, 1811) |
1811 |
The just principle laid down by this court in the case of Hoyle v. Young, 1 Wash. 152. that words should be understood by the courts in the sense in which they would be understood by the bystanders, notwithstanding there may be a possible sense in which they may be esteemed innocent, is sufficient to overrule all the exceptions taken to the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Chaney v. Saunders |
3 Munf. 51, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (November 09, 1811) |
1811 |
Wednesday, November 9th, 1811. The president pronounced the following opinion of the court. This court, not deciding whether the opinion of the County Court, mentioned in the first bill of exceptions, overruling an exception to the deposition of John Rose, on the ground therein stated, was correct or not, (the effect thereof being done away... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cheriot v. Foussat |
3 Binn. 220, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (January 01, 1811) |
1811 |
The jurisdiction of a foreign court may be examined, not only as to the authority under which it is erected, but as to the subject over which it is exercised; but if the court is duly constituted, and has jurisdiction over the subject, its decrees in rem cannot be revised by the court of another nation. The arrêtés of the French consuls... |
|
Cases |
|
| Clay v. Williams |
2 Munf. 105, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (March 21, 1811) |
1811 |
1. If an executrix, (without being subject to any compulsion, or undue influence,) for the fraudulent purpose of protecting the estate of her testator from the demands of creditors, give her own bond as executrix, for a fictitious debt, and confess a judgment; she is not entitled to relief in equity: neither will the court give its aid to the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Clayton v. Clayton |
3 Binn. 476, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (July 22, 1811) |
1811 |
Richard Clayton deceased, by his last will and testament dated 15th November 1770 devised as follows. I give and bequeath unto Sarah Evans wife of James Evans, and granddaughter of my sister Margaret Jones, and to her children, the plantation they now live upon, being the same tract of land I bought of Jacob Jones, containing one hundred and... |
|
Cases |
|
| Coates v. Hughes |
3 Binn. 498, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (July 22, 1811) |
1811 |
Abraham Coates, the father of the plaintiff, made a will during the life of his first wife, by which he disposed of all his real and personal estate, and having ordered his debts &c. to be paid, he gave power to his executors to sell any part of his estate when necessary and expedient for the execution of his will. The first wife died, having never... |
|
Cases |
|
| Com. v. Myers |
1 Va.Cas. 188, General Court of Virginia (November 19, 1811) |
1811 |
THE prisoner was indicted at the Circuit Court, held for Norfolk county, in October, 1811, for the wilful and malicious murder of Richard Bowden. Being arraigned, the prisoner filed three pleas, which are as follow. 1st Plea. And the said Samuel Myers in his proper person comes, and defends the force, felony, and murder, &c. and whatever... |
|
Cases |
|
| Coutts v. Greenhow |
2 Munf. 363, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (June 20, 1811) |
1811 |
1. A marriage settlement on a wife and her children by the husband, though born in fornication, is a conveyance to purchasers for valuable consideration, as to the children as well as the wife; and not void as to creditors; no fraudulent intention being proved. 2. If a mortgagee of lands (though not in his actual use or occupation) suffer them to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Crawford v. Crawford |
4 Des. 176, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (June 01, 1811) |
1811 |
This court will enjoin a party from availing himself of a judgment at law, which was grounded on a bill of sale, fraudulently or surreptitiously obtained, or put to an use not intended by the parties. The defendant denied the fraud charged, and insisted he had obtained the bill of sale fairly, and paid a valuable consideration; and several... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cross' Adm'r v. Terlington |
2 Mur. 6, Supreme Court of North Carolina (July 01, 1811) |
1811 |
It is true, that a legatee or person entitled to a distributive share, cannot legally get possession thereof without the assent of the executor or administrator, either express or implied; but slight declarations of the executor or administrator, as well as many acts, will in Law, amount to such assent. In 1 Com. Dig. 342, (C. C.) it is said, if an... |
|
Cases |
|
| Crostwaight v. Hutchinson |
2 Bibb 407, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (January 01, 1811) |
1811 |
A contract between husband and wife before marriage, that the wife shall hold the property she possessed before marriage as her own, subject to her disposition by declaration or writing in nature of a will or testament notwithstanding coverture, is valid in equity without the intervention of trustees. This contract was not annulled by the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Davison v. Waite |
2 Munf. 527, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (December 19, 1811) |
1811 |
1. If a purchaser of land, subject to encumbrance by mortgage, apply to equity for relief against a judgment in ejectment, the decree oughtnot to be that the injunction be dissolved, unless the complainant pay the sum due to the mortgagee; but that the mortgaged premises be sold, unless, &c. and that, out of the proceeds... |
|
Cases |
|
| Denis v. Leclerc |
1 Mart.(o.s.) 297, Superior Court of the Territory of Orleans (April 01, 1811) |
1811 |
Attachment for contempt. The original petition stated that the defendant having by improper means obtained a letter, written by the plaintiff to a third person, was preparing to publish it, with indecent commentaries: and prayed for an injunction staying the publication, which was granted, as to the letter. On the following day, the defendant filed... |
|
Cases |
|
| Denny v. Booker |
2 Bibb 427, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 01, 1811) |
1811 |
When a continuance is asked, on account of the want of the evidence of a witness residing out of the Commonwealth, the applicant should disclose the facts expected to be proved. He who holds the affirmative of the issue, has the right to open and conclude the argument, but not where that is pleaded affirmatively, which amounts only to the general... |
|
Cases |
|
| Elders v. Vauters |
4 Des. 155, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (February 01, 1811) |
1811 |
A person entitled as distributee to the personal estate of her deceased brother, possessed herself of the same, without administering on the estate, and assigned part of it to another, with whom she lived in concubinage.After her death, administration was taken out on the brother's estate, and the administrator brought suit at law against... |
|
Cases |
|
| Ewing v. Smith |
3 Des. 417, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (February 01, 1811) |
1811 |
THIS case came to a hearing in February 1811, and having been very fully argued, the Court took time to consider. In October 1811, Chancellor DESAUSSURE delivered his decree. The complainant in this case filed a bill in this Court on the 30th July 1806, against Mr. Roger Moor Smith, his wife and Mr. Thomas R. Smith. That bill set forth, that Mr. R.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Fairly v. Kline |
3 N.J.L. 754, Supreme Court of Judicature of New Jersey (February 01, 1811) |
1811 |
This case has been argued by the defendant as if the legacy to Mary Catharine, were a legacy charged upon land, and therefore, upon the death of the legatee, before the day of payment, would become merged for the benefit of the heir. It does not appear to me to be so. It is a devise of land to be sold by the executor, after the death or re-marriage... |
|
Cases |
|
| Fraser v. McPherson |
3 Des. 393, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (August 01, 1811) |
1811 |
THE bill sets forth that the complainant, Ann L. Fraser, being entitled to considerable personal property under the will of her father, the same was settled by deed dated 6th November, 1782, on her intermarriage witb Thomas Fraser, upon certain trusts for the benefit of herself and children. That finding it would be more for their advantage that... |
|
Cases |
|
| Frazer v. Sanders |
3 Brev. 13, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (December 01, 1811) |
1811 |
In an action for money had and received, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to turn the generality of the count into a surprise upon the defendant, by resorting to another of which he cannot be apprised by the declaration, But the plaintiff may have leave to amend his declaration, by adding a special count, on payment of costs. |
|
Cases |
|
| Garnett v. Childers |
2 Munf. 277, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (May 10, 1811) |
1811 |
After the term at which a decree is rendered, an appeal ought not to be granted to a defendant who has been ordered to pay costs, but appears, from his answer, to have no right to the subject in controversy. A SUIT at law having been brought, and judgment obtained, in the names of James Webb and Thomas C. Martin, executors of Jesse Carter,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hall v. Vandegrift |
3 Binn. 374, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (March 30, 1811) |
1811 |
A devise to A, and his lawful begotten heir forever is an estate tail in A. It is sufficiently clear that in a will, if not in a deed, heir is nomen collectivum, and the same as heirs. It is not necessary that the body from which the issue is to come, should be mentioned in express terms, in order to make a good estate tail. It is... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hardaway v. Manson |
2 Munf. 230, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 23, 1811) |
1811 |
The weight of testimony, to establish any fact, (though it be a fact upon which a question of law arises,) is a question belonging exclusively to the jury, unless it be withdrawn from their determination by a demurrer to evidence. See, to the same effect, Fisher's Executor v. Duncan and Turnbull, 1 H. & M. 563. ON the trial of an action of detinue,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hart v. Cleis |
8 Johns. 41 (January 01, 1811) |
1811 |
Covenant will not lie in this state, on a contract to be performed in Pennsylvania, with a scrawl and the word seal in the locus sigilli, tho', by the law of that state, this constitutes a... |
|
Trial Court Orders |
|
| Holladay v. Littlepage |
2 Munf. 316, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 06, 1811) |
1811 |
The court is of opinion, that the testator of the appellant and the appellee having come to an understanding, and agreement, respecting the matters in controversy in this cause, in the year 1785, whereby it was plainly understood and agreed, between the said parties, that suit was not then to be brought thereupon, but that the said testator... |
|
Cases |
|
| Holliday v. Coleman |
2 Munf. 162, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (January 01, 1811) |
1811 |
1. A decree, by a court of competent jurisdiction, dismissing a bill, upon the ground that the deed under which the complainant claimed was fraudulent, is a complete bar to another original bill to try the validity of the same deed; the proper remedy, if such decree be erroneous, being by appeal, writ of error, supersedeas, or bill of review, and... |
|
Cases |
|
| Holman v. Holman |
3 Des. 210, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (February 01, 1811) |
1811 |
From this decree there was no appeal. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hughes v. Hughes' Ex'r |
2 Munf. 209, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (June 25, 1811) |
1811 |
1. The doctrine of implied revocations of wills discussed. 2. It seems that a deed of trust conveying all the property of the grantor to certain persons and their heirs for ever, with warranty; Nevertheless, upon special trust that they shall pay the profits to himself during his life; concluding with declaring its... |
|
Cases |
|
| In re Opinion of Justices |
7 Mass. 523, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (February 15, 1811) |
1811 |
ORDERED that the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court be requested, as soon as may be. to give their opinion on the following questions. Whether aliens are ratable polls within the intent and meaning of the constitution of this commonwealth; and whether the towns in this commonwealth, in ascertaining their number of ratable polls, in order to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Isom v. Johns |
2 Munf. 272, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (September 30, 1811) |
1811 |
Money levied by the sheriff upon a judgment which is afterwards reversed, cannot be recovered back by general indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received, without proof that the money was actually received by the plaintiff, or applied to his use. IN a general action of indebitatus assumpsit, in the Sweet Springs district court, on behalf of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Jones v. Price |
3 Des. 165, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (March 01, 1811) |
1811 |
There was no appeal. |
|
Cases |
|
| Ketletas v. Fleet |
7 Johns. 324 (January 01, 1811) |
1811 |
Covenant will not lie in this state, on a contract to be performed in Pennsylvania, with a scrawl and the word seal in the locus sigilli, tho', by the law of that state, this constitutes a... |
|
Trial Court Orders |
|
| Kirtley v. Deck |
2 Munf. 10, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (March 06, 1811) |
1811 |
In the action on the case for conspiracy, as well as in the action for malicious prosecution, an averment in the declaration that the prosecution was false and malicious, is not sufficient; but it must be averred to have been without probable cause. AN action was brought in the district court of law holden at Staunton, by St. Clair Kirtley against... |
|
Cases |
|
| Lawrence v. Speed |
2 Bibb 401, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (January 01, 1811) |
1811 |
If sheriff fails to advertise the sale of property under execution according to law, he may subject himself to damages, but it does not affect the right of the purchaser, unless through fraud the sheriff has omitted to advertise??, and the purchaser had knowledge of the fraud. In general the sheriff ought to sell property separately and not in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Mackey v. Bell |
2 Munf. 523, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (December 12, 1811) |
1811 |
1. A decree, though deciding the right to the property in controversy, and awarding the costs of suit, is still only interlocutory, if commissioners be appointed to carry it into effect, and the court have yet to act upon their report. Neither does it cease to be interlocutory, in consequence of an order that the defendant be attached for failing... |
|
Cases |
|
| Mann v. State, to Use of Thomas |
3 H. & J. 237, Court of Appeals of Maryland (December 01, 1811) |
1811 |
In an action on an administration bond execnted by an administrator D. B. N. brought to recover a legaey. the defendant rejoined, that the writ issued before the expiration of 12 mouths from the date of her letters of administration. A demurrer thereto was ruled good. A S, by her will in 1775, bequeathed a legaey to E W, to be paid to her on her... |
|
Cases |
|
| Mayo v. Murchie |
3 Munf. 358, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (February 26, 1811) |
1811 |
The land, concerning which this controversy exists, was formerly a part of the Fall's Plantation, belonging to the late Col. William Byrd, and lies on the south margin of James River, bounded by that river on the north; and on the east, south, and west, by the lot attached to the fishery, the lots of the town of Manchester, which are laid off north... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| McGinty's Adm'rs v. Haggin |
2 Bibb 265, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (January 01, 1811) |
1811 |
A judgment for assets then in hand, or when they shall come, is no confession of assets. Husband vests property in trustees for use of wife, who lives apart from him, this property is not liable to after contracted debts of the husband. Where sheriff empannels a jury to inquire whether property belongs to the debtor against whom he has an... |
|
Cases |
|
| McKenzie v. Smith |
2 Mur. 92, Supreme Court of North Carolina (July 01, 1811) |
1811 |
The general liability of a legatee to refund is measured by the value of his legacy; but whether he shall be chargeable with interest upon that value, or upon any part thereof, for not refunding when he has notice from the executor of existing debts, and he is called upon to refund his rateable part, and he refuses, must necessarily depend upon the... |
|
Cases |
|
| M'Gowen v. Chapen |
2 Mur. 61, Supreme Court of North Carolina (July 01, 1811) |
1811 |
Case is the proper action against the Defendant. Judgment for the Plaintiff. |
|
Cases |
|
| Mooberry v. Marye |
2 Munf. 453, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (May 17, 1811) |
1811 |
1. A devise of lands, (before the 1st of January, 1787,) without words of perpetuity, will not be enlarged to a fee simple, on the ground of a general charge, arising from a direction, that all the testator's debts be first paid; especially, if other funds be appropriated for payment of the debts. 2. Where a will is systematically composed, and the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Moore's Ex'x v. Ferguson |
2 Munf. 421, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (October 11, 1811) |
1811 |
1. A wife, who lived with her husband, and was maintained by him, cannot, after his death, demand an account of profits, which he received, of a separate estate settled upon her; no such demand having been made by her in his lifetime. 2. A decree, and execution thereupon, against an executor, or administrator, for a balance due on his... |
|
Cases |
|
| Morgan v. Meek |
2 Tenn. 169, Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of Tennessee (January 01, 1811) |
1811 |
To an action of detinue in the name of husband and wife, the defendant pleaded not guilty, upon which issue was joined, and verdict for the plaintiffs; held good, and that the court below erred in giving judgment for the defendant, upon the ground, that, from the face of the declaration, it appeared that the cause of action accrued to the husband... |
|
Cases |
|
| Orleans Nav. Co. v. City of New Orleans |
2 Mart.(o.s.) 10, Superior Court of the Territory of Orleans (October 01, 1811) |
1811 |
[For prior opinion, see 1 Mart. (O. S.) 269.] The court having been divided, on the first argument of this case, their attention was again drawn to it. By consent, three paragraphs of the Moniteur de la Louisiane, a paper printed under the eye of the Baron de Carondelet, were read in evidence. They were allowed to be official. I. The first is in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Patton v. Williams |
3 Munf. 59, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (November 02, 1811) |
1811 |
Saturday, Nov. 2d, 1811, the president pronounced the opinion of the Court that the decree be affirmed. Afterwards, viz. December 20th, the cause was reconsidered on Botts' motion, and argued by him and Williams; but on Wednesday, the 19th of February, 1812, the decree was again affirmed. |
|
Cases |
|
| Picket v. More |
2 Mart.(o.s.) 113, Superior Court of the Territory of Orleans (October 01, 1811) |
1811 |
The defendant had obtained a stay of proceedings: |
|
Cases |
|
| Powell v. Thompson |
4 Des. 162, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (February 01, 1811) |
1811 |
The court will order the husband of an executrix to give security for the property of the estate in his hands, on account of such misconduct as raises a strong ground of apprehension of the assets being wasted. |
|
Cases |
|
| Reid v. Powell |
2 Mur. 53, Supreme Court of North Carolina (July 01, 1811) |
1811 |
Let the rule be made absolute. |
|
Cases |
|
| Richardson's Ex'r v. Hunt |
2 Munf. 148, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 22, 1811) |
1811 |
In this case, two points are insisted on by the counsel for the appellant: 1st. That all the parties are not before the court; and, 2d. That the testimony of Elizabeth Ellis ought not to have been received by the commissioners. On the first point, I think there is no difficulty: the rule is, that all persons concerned in the demand, or who may be... |
|
Cases |
|