Difference between revisions of "Rowton v. Rowton"
From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
m |
m |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Rowton v. Rowton''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Rowton v. Rowton''}} | ||
| − | [[File:HeningMunfordRowtonvRowton1809v1p91.jpg|link={{filepath:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1RowtonvRowton.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1RowtonvRowton.pdf|''Rowton v. Rowton'']], in [https:// | + | [[File:HeningMunfordRowtonvRowton1809v1p91.jpg|link={{filepath:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1RowtonvRowton.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1RowtonvRowton.pdf|''Rowton v. Rowton'']], in [https://wm.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01COWM_INST/g9pr7p/alma991002298109703196 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: With Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District''], by William Hening and William Munford. Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1809.]] |
[[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1RowtonvRowton.pdf|''Rowton v. Rowton'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 91 (1806),<ref>William Hening & William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: with Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District'' (Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1809), 11:91.</ref> determined whether a verbal agreement entitled a widow dower in an estate promised to her husband. | [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1RowtonvRowton.pdf|''Rowton v. Rowton'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 91 (1806),<ref>William Hening & William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: with Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District'' (Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1809), 11:91.</ref> determined whether a verbal agreement entitled a widow dower in an estate promised to her husband. | ||
| + | |||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
William Rowton, Sr. sued in Prince Edward District Court to evict his son Joseph Rowton from a tract of land that Joseph was in possession of at the time of his death. William obtained a judgment and Joseph’s widow filed a bill of injunction in the High Court of Chancery. In her bill, Joseph’s widow alleged that William and Joseph had an agreement that if Joseph were ever removed from the New River property William would give him a tract of land in Charlotte County. The widow alleged that since Joseph invested into the New River property he should be entitled to specific performance of the agreement and she should have dower in the Charlotte County land. In his answer, William stated that since his son had died with no children, the land would revert back to him and that the agreement was subject to the statute of frauds since it was not in writing. | William Rowton, Sr. sued in Prince Edward District Court to evict his son Joseph Rowton from a tract of land that Joseph was in possession of at the time of his death. William obtained a judgment and Joseph’s widow filed a bill of injunction in the High Court of Chancery. In her bill, Joseph’s widow alleged that William and Joseph had an agreement that if Joseph were ever removed from the New River property William would give him a tract of land in Charlotte County. The widow alleged that since Joseph invested into the New River property he should be entitled to specific performance of the agreement and she should have dower in the Charlotte County land. In his answer, William stated that since his son had died with no children, the land would revert back to him and that the agreement was subject to the statute of frauds since it was not in writing. | ||
| + | |||
===The Court's Decision=== | ===The Court's Decision=== | ||
After considering contradictory evidence from both sides, [[George Wythe|Chancellor Wythe]] decreed that the widow was entitled to dower and perpetuated the injunction. The Court of Appeals reversed, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the case. | After considering contradictory evidence from both sides, [[George Wythe|Chancellor Wythe]] decreed that the widow was entitled to dower and perpetuated the injunction. The Court of Appeals reversed, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the case. | ||
| + | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]] | *[[Wythe's Judicial Career]] | ||
| Line 14: | Line 17: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
[[Category: Cases]] | [[Category: Cases]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Inheritance]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Real Property]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:20, 29 March 2022
First page of the opinion Rowton v. Rowton, in Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: With Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, by William Hening and William Munford. Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1809.
Rowton v. Rowton, 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 91 (1806),[1] determined whether a verbal agreement entitled a widow dower in an estate promised to her husband.
Background
William Rowton, Sr. sued in Prince Edward District Court to evict his son Joseph Rowton from a tract of land that Joseph was in possession of at the time of his death. William obtained a judgment and Joseph’s widow filed a bill of injunction in the High Court of Chancery. In her bill, Joseph’s widow alleged that William and Joseph had an agreement that if Joseph were ever removed from the New River property William would give him a tract of land in Charlotte County. The widow alleged that since Joseph invested into the New River property he should be entitled to specific performance of the agreement and she should have dower in the Charlotte County land. In his answer, William stated that since his son had died with no children, the land would revert back to him and that the agreement was subject to the statute of frauds since it was not in writing.
The Court's Decision
After considering contradictory evidence from both sides, Chancellor Wythe decreed that the widow was entitled to dower and perpetuated the injunction. The Court of Appeals reversed, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the case.
See also
References
- ↑ William Hening & William Munford, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia: with Select Cases, Relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District (Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1809), 11:91.
