Difference between revisions of "Price v. Crump"
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Price v. Crump''}} File:HeningMunfordAndersonVFox1809v2p245.jpg|link=Media:Hening&Munford1809V2PricevCrump.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opini...") |
Mvanwicklin (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Price v. Crump''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Price v. Crump''}} | ||
| − | [[File:HeningMunfordAndersonVFox1809v2p245.jpg|link= | + | [[File:HeningMunfordAndersonVFox1809v2p245.jpg|link={{filepath:Hening&Munford1809V2PricevCrump.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&Munford1809V2PricevCrump.pdf |''Price v. Crump'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery''], by William Hening and William Munford. Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1809.]] |
| − | [[Media:Hening&Munford1809V2PricevCrump.pdf |''Price v. Crump'']], 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 89 (1808), <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, 1808), 2:89</ref> was a case regarding payment of loan. | + | [[Media:Hening&Munford1809V2PricevCrump.pdf |''Price v. Crump'']], 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 89 (1808),<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, 1808), 2:89</ref> was a case regarding payment of loan. |
| − | |||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
On September 11, 1802, William Price sued Julius Crump, Benjamin Sheppard, and Daniel Burton for a judgment obtained against Julius. William alleged that Thomas Catlett obtained a judgment obtained in Henrico County Court against Julius Crump. On August 11, 1801, Thomas’ agent, Robert Brooke, gave Benjamin Sheppard, the deputy sheriff, the judgment against Julius. Benjamin had $400 from Julius Crump at the time the judgment was brought. However, instead of handing over the money to execute the judgment, Benjamin wrote a special return. Benjamin argued that prior to receiving the judgment for execution, he had borrowed the $400 from Julius and in their agreement, and he could employ the money for his own use and not to pay the debt. | On September 11, 1802, William Price sued Julius Crump, Benjamin Sheppard, and Daniel Burton for a judgment obtained against Julius. William alleged that Thomas Catlett obtained a judgment obtained in Henrico County Court against Julius Crump. On August 11, 1801, Thomas’ agent, Robert Brooke, gave Benjamin Sheppard, the deputy sheriff, the judgment against Julius. Benjamin had $400 from Julius Crump at the time the judgment was brought. However, instead of handing over the money to execute the judgment, Benjamin wrote a special return. Benjamin argued that prior to receiving the judgment for execution, he had borrowed the $400 from Julius and in their agreement, and he could employ the money for his own use and not to pay the debt. | ||
Revision as of 10:38, 20 July 2018
Price v. Crump, 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 89 (1808),[1] was a case regarding payment of loan.
Background
On September 11, 1802, William Price sued Julius Crump, Benjamin Sheppard, and Daniel Burton for a judgment obtained against Julius. William alleged that Thomas Catlett obtained a judgment obtained in Henrico County Court against Julius Crump. On August 11, 1801, Thomas’ agent, Robert Brooke, gave Benjamin Sheppard, the deputy sheriff, the judgment against Julius. Benjamin had $400 from Julius Crump at the time the judgment was brought. However, instead of handing over the money to execute the judgment, Benjamin wrote a special return. Benjamin argued that prior to receiving the judgment for execution, he had borrowed the $400 from Julius and in their agreement, and he could employ the money for his own use and not to pay the debt.
The Court's Decision
Chancellor Wythe reasoned that if the loan between Julius and Benjamin was a fair transaction proceeding the execution of judgment that the $400 was not subject to the judgment. Since the plaintiff never alleged that the contract between Julius and Benjamin was not an unfair transaction, Wythe dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
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, 1808), 2:89
