Difference between revisions of "Beverley v. Rennolds"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| − | + | Beverley had a gambling problem. When he was underage, he agreed to sell his land, worth £400, to Hipkins for £40-50 of tobacco and currency. When Beverley reached majority age, he refused to abide by the contract's terms, instead offering to repay Hipkins the money Hipkins had given him. Hipkins wanted the land, and convinced Beverley, against the advice of Beverley's friends, to refer the matter to arbitrators. The arbitrators awarded Hipkins £300, and Rennolds, acting as the executor of Hipkins's estate, got a judgment against Beverley based on the arbitrators' award. Beverley filed suit in the High Court of Chancery to stay the execution of Rennolds's judgment. | |
==The Court's Decision== | ==The Court's Decision== | ||
Revision as of 11:26, 2 April 2014
Beverley v. Rennolds, Wythe 121 (1791),[1] was a case discussing whether a court of equity could nullify an arbitrator's award based on a void contract.
Background
Beverley had a gambling problem. When he was underage, he agreed to sell his land, worth £400, to Hipkins for £40-50 of tobacco and currency. When Beverley reached majority age, he refused to abide by the contract's terms, instead offering to repay Hipkins the money Hipkins had given him. Hipkins wanted the land, and convinced Beverley, against the advice of Beverley's friends, to refer the matter to arbitrators. The arbitrators awarded Hipkins £300, and Rennolds, acting as the executor of Hipkins's estate, got a judgment against Beverley based on the arbitrators' award. Beverley filed suit in the High Court of Chancery to stay the execution of Rennolds's judgment.
The Court's Decision
References
- ↑ George Wythe, Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery, (Richmond: Printed by Thomas Nicolson, 1795), 121.
