Difference between revisions of "Latham v. Latham"
m |
m |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Latham v. Latham''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Latham v. Latham''}} | ||
| − | [[File:CallLathamvLatham1854v3p181.jpg|link={{filepath:CallsReports1854V3LathamvLatham.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V3LathamvLatham.pdf|''Latham v. Latham'']], in [https:// | + | [[File:CallLathamvLatham1854v3p181.jpg|link={{filepath:CallsReports1854V3LathamvLatham.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V3LathamvLatham.pdf|''Latham v. Latham'']], in [https://wm.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01COWM_INST/g9pr7p/alma991006014269703196 ''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.]] |
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
In [[Media:CallsReports1854V3LathamvLatham.pdf|''Latham v. Latham'']], 7 Va. (3 Call) 181 (1802),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia'', (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 3:181. George Wythe owned the [[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia|first edition]] of this set.</ref> the Court determined whether an offspring could sue for trespass on land that had yet to be bestowed upon the wife. | In [[Media:CallsReports1854V3LathamvLatham.pdf|''Latham v. Latham'']], 7 Va. (3 Call) 181 (1802),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia'', (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 3:181. George Wythe owned the [[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia|first edition]] of this set.</ref> the Court determined whether an offspring could sue for trespass on land that had yet to be bestowed upon the wife. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
[[Category: Cases]] | [[Category: Cases]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Inheritance]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:14, 7 September 2023
In Latham v. Latham, 7 Va. (3 Call) 181 (1802),[1] the Court determined whether an offspring could sue for trespass on land that had yet to be bestowed upon the wife.
Background
Robert Latham, Jr. brought a trespass suit against his father for breaking his closing date, treading and consuming his grass, and cutting down his trees. During the trial there was a question of whether the heir of a property could be in possession before the widow received her dower. The trial court told the jury that an heir could not be in possession until the dower was assigned. Latham, Jr. argued that he could prove specifically where the trespass took place and that it was on his property, but the Court refused to hear the testimony. A verdict and judgment was found against Latham, Jr. and he appealed to the High Court of Chancery.
The Court's Decision
Chancellor Wythe affirmed the ruling of the County Court. The Court of Appeals agreed.
See also
References
- ↑ Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia, (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 3:181. George Wythe owned the first edition of this set.
