View source for Dalby v. Price

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Dalby v. Price''}}
[[File:WashingtonDalbyvPrice1799v2p191.jpg|link={{filepath:WashingtonsReports1799V2DalbyvPrice.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2DalbyvPrice.pdf|''Dalby v. Price'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Bushrod Washington. Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799.]]
__NOTOC__
[[Media:WashingtonsReports1799V2DalbyvPrice.pdf|''Dalby v. Price'']], 2 Va. (2 Wash.) 191 (1796),<ref>Bushrod Washington,''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' (Richmond: T. Nicolson, 1799), 2:191.</ref> the court determined the extent of time needed to procure depositions for trial.

==Background==
After losing the initial case, Dalby, the appellant, filed a new matter in the court of chancery. Price answered and a general replication was entered. In less than a month after the proceedings, the case was set down and heard, depriving Dalby a chance to obtain adequate depositions.
===The Court's Decision===
The Court of Appeals reversed the action of the High Court of Chancery for hearing the case and ordered the case be remanded to the Chancery’s rule docket. The Court also stated that all cases where a general commission issues the taking of depositions should have six months from the time of replication before the bringing the case for a hearing.
==See also==
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]

==References==
<references/>



[[Category: Cases]]