Difference between revisions of "Report of Kamper v. Hawkins"
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|trans= | |trans= | ||
|publoc=Philadelphia | |publoc=Philadelphia | ||
| − | |publisher=W.W. Woodward | + | |publisher=Printed for A. M'Kenzie, & Co. ... by W.W. Woodward .. |
|year=1794 | |year=1794 | ||
|edition= | |edition= | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|pages= | |pages= | ||
|desc= | |desc= | ||
| − | }} | + | }}William Tatham (1752-1819) was an engineer who served under Colonel Thomas Nelson and was at Yorktown during the American Revolution. <ref> Nancy Verell, “[http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/william-tatham William Tatham],” ‘’Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia’’ (2013), accessed February 19, 2015</ref> After the war, he became a lawyer in North Carolina, but went back to England in 1796 to only return for better prospects in 1805. <ref>Ibid.</ref> He had extensive contact with Thomas Jefferson during and after the war. <ref> See ‘’[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/ The Thomas Jefferson Papers]’’ (Library of Congress).</ref><br /> |
| − | + | <br /> | |
| − | + | Tatham recorded the case of ''Kamper v. Hawkins'', 3 Va. (1 Va. Cas.) 20 (1793), which Wythe held in his collection. Peter Kamper filed an injuction in the District Court of Dumfries under Section XI of "An act reducing into one, the several acts concerning the establishment, jurisdiction, and powers of District Courts." (Passed December 12, 1792.) It read: | |
| − | |||
| − | William Tatham (1752-1819) was an engineer who served under Colonel Thomas Nelson and was at Yorktown during the American Revolution. <ref> Nancy Verell, “[http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/william-tatham William Tatham],” ‘’Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia’’ (2013), accessed February 19, 2015</ref> After the war, he became a lawyer in North Carolina, but went back to England in 1796 to only return for better prospects in 1805. <ref>Ibid.</ref> He had extensive contact with Thomas Jefferson during and after the war. <ref> See ‘’[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/ The Thomas Jefferson Papers]’’ (Library of Congress).</ref> | ||
| − | <br /><br /> | ||
| − | Tatham recorded the case of | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
Each of the said district courts in term time, or any judge thereof in vacation, shall, and may have and exercise the same power of granting injunctions to stay proceedings on any judgment obtained in any of the said district courts, as is now had and exercised by the judge of the high court of chancery in similar cases, and the said district courts may proceed to the dissolution or final hearing of all suits commencing by injunction, under the same rules and regulations as are now prescribed by law for conducting similar suits in the high court of chancery." <ref>’’Kamper v. Hawkins,’’ 3 Va. (1 Va. Cas.) 20 (1793)</ref> | Each of the said district courts in term time, or any judge thereof in vacation, shall, and may have and exercise the same power of granting injunctions to stay proceedings on any judgment obtained in any of the said district courts, as is now had and exercised by the judge of the high court of chancery in similar cases, and the said district courts may proceed to the dissolution or final hearing of all suits commencing by injunction, under the same rules and regulations as are now prescribed by law for conducting similar suits in the high court of chancery." <ref>’’Kamper v. Hawkins,’’ 3 Va. (1 Va. Cas.) 20 (1793)</ref> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
The General Court of Virginia overruled Kamper's motion, because Section XI was deemed to be unconstitutional. The idea was reinforced that "if an act of the legislature is repugnant to the constitution, the courts have the power, and it is their duty to so declare it." <ref>Ibid.</ref> | The General Court of Virginia overruled Kamper's motion, because Section XI was deemed to be unconstitutional. The idea was reinforced that "if an act of the legislature is repugnant to the constitution, the courts have the power, and it is their duty to so declare it." <ref>Ibid.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library== | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]] | [[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]] | ||
[[Category:Virginia Reports]] | [[Category:Virginia Reports]] | ||
Revision as of 12:28, 10 March 2015
Report of a Case Decided on Saturday the 16th of November 1793, in the General Court of Virginia wherein Peter Kamper was Plaintiff, Against Mary Hawkins, Defendant, on a Question Adjourned from the District Court of Dumfries, for Novelty and Difficulty, Touching the Constitutionality of an Act of Assembly ...
by William Tatham
| Report of Kamper v. Hawkins | ||
 at the College of William & Mary. |
||
| Author | William Tatham | |
| Published | Philadelphia: Printed for A. M'Kenzie, & Co. ... by W.W. Woodward .. | |
| Date | 1794 | |
| Language | English | |
William Tatham (1752-1819) was an engineer who served under Colonel Thomas Nelson and was at Yorktown during the American Revolution. [1] After the war, he became a lawyer in North Carolina, but went back to England in 1796 to only return for better prospects in 1805. [2] He had extensive contact with Thomas Jefferson during and after the war. [3]
Tatham recorded the case of Kamper v. Hawkins, 3 Va. (1 Va. Cas.) 20 (1793), which Wythe held in his collection. Peter Kamper filed an injuction in the District Court of Dumfries under Section XI of "An act reducing into one, the several acts concerning the establishment, jurisdiction, and powers of District Courts." (Passed December 12, 1792.) It read:
Each of the said district courts in term time, or any judge thereof in vacation, shall, and may have and exercise the same power of granting injunctions to stay proceedings on any judgment obtained in any of the said district courts, as is now had and exercised by the judge of the high court of chancery in similar cases, and the said district courts may proceed to the dissolution or final hearing of all suits commencing by injunction, under the same rules and regulations as are now prescribed by law for conducting similar suits in the high court of chancery." [4]
The General Court of Virginia overruled Kamper's motion, because Section XI was deemed to be unconstitutional. The idea was reinforced that "if an act of the legislature is repugnant to the constitution, the courts have the power, and it is their duty to so declare it." [5]
Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library
References
- ↑ Nancy Verell, “William Tatham,” ‘’Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia’’ (2013), accessed February 19, 2015
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ See ‘’The Thomas Jefferson Papers’’ (Library of Congress).
- ↑ ’’Kamper v. Hawkins,’’ 3 Va. (1 Va. Cas.) 20 (1793)
- ↑ Ibid.
