Difference between revisions of "M'Call v. Peachy"
From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''M'Call v. Peachy''}} File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V1M'CallvPeachy.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsR...") |
m |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''M'Call v. Peachy''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''M'Call v. Peachy''}} | ||
| − | [[File: | + | [[File:CallM'CallvPeachy1854v1p55.jpg|link={{filepath:CallsReports1854V1M'CallvPeachy.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V1M'CallvPeachy.pdf|''M'Call v. Peachy'']], 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. Ed. by Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]] |
| − | + | In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1M'CallvPeachy.pdf|''M'Call v. Peachy'']], 5 Va. (1 Call) 48 (1798),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia,'' (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854) 5:48.</ref> the court determined whether the consent of both parties could grant a court jurisdiction over their case. | |
| − | In [[Media:CallsReports1854V1M'CallvPeachy.pdf|''M'Call v. Peachy'']], 5 Va. (1 Call) 48 (1798), <ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia,'' (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854) | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
The Court of Appeals sought to answer whether it had jurisdiction over a High Court of Chancery case for an interlocutory decree that was appealed by the consent of both parties rather than permitted to be appealed by Chancellor Wythe. | The Court of Appeals sought to answer whether it had jurisdiction over a High Court of Chancery case for an interlocutory decree that was appealed by the consent of both parties rather than permitted to be appealed by Chancellor Wythe. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
[[Category: Cases]] | [[Category: Cases]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Procedure]] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:16, 7 September 2023
First page of the opinion M'Call v. Peachy, in Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, by Daniel Call. Ed. by Lucian Minor, 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.
In M'Call v. Peachy, 5 Va. (1 Call) 48 (1798),[1] the court determined whether the consent of both parties could grant a court jurisdiction over their case.
Background
The Court of Appeals sought to answer whether it had jurisdiction over a High Court of Chancery case for an interlocutory decree that was appealed by the consent of both parties rather than permitted to be appealed by Chancellor Wythe.
The Court's Decision
The Court Appeals determined that the consent of both parties cannot give jurisdiction.
See also
References
- ↑ Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia, (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854) 5:48.
