Difference between revisions of "Chisholm v. Starke"
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Chisholm v. Starke''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Chisholm v. Starke''}} | ||
| − | [[File: | + | [[File:CallChisholmvStarke1854v3p25.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V3ChisholmvStarke.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V3ChisholmvStarke.pdf |''Chisholm v. Starke'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]] |
[[Media:CallsReports1854V3ChisholmvStarke.pdf|''Chisholm v. Starke'']], 7 Va. (3 Call) 25 (1801),<ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Minor, 1854), 3:25.</ref> was a case where the court determined whether a step-father was entitled to his step-children’s remainder in slaves devised by their father. | [[Media:CallsReports1854V3ChisholmvStarke.pdf|''Chisholm v. Starke'']], 7 Va. (3 Call) 25 (1801),<ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Minor, 1854), 3:25.</ref> was a case where the court determined whether a step-father was entitled to his step-children’s remainder in slaves devised by their father. | ||
Revision as of 13:22, 9 April 2018
Chisholm v. Starke, 7 Va. (3 Call) 25 (1801),[1] was a case where the court determined whether a step-father was entitled to his step-children’s remainder in slaves devised by their father.
Background
James Underwood's children sued their step-father and several other defendants concerning slaves in which they had a remainder in. According to Underwood’s will, a third of his slaves were to be left to his wife, Ann Underwood, for the duration of her life and then divided among their children. However, after remarriage to Mr. William Richardson, Ann’s slaves were sold by Richardson to several other defendants, one of which received the slaves without notice of the children's property rights.
The Court's Decision
Chancellor Wythe decreed that Richardson should give a £500 penalty to the children for selling their remainder as well as a £500 penalty for the loss of the slave and her children. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
See also
References
- ↑ Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Minor, 1854), 3:25.
