Difference between revisions of "Southall v. M'Keand"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
After the lottery tickets were sold but before the drawing, Byrd started surveying and laying out the lots, intending to reduce the size of the improved lots to half an acre each. Byrd's tenants objected to that plan, so most of the improved lots were awarded according to whatever amount of property their tenant had occupied. M'Keand, though, did not object to the reduction, so his tenement as given away in the lottery was reduced to half an acre. Some previous tenants in M'Keand's tenement had occupied extra land adjacent to that half-acre lot; Byrd sold this adjacent land to M'Keand, who later sold it to Powell, who in turn sold the land to Mayo, who further sold the land to Carter. | After the lottery tickets were sold but before the drawing, Byrd started surveying and laying out the lots, intending to reduce the size of the improved lots to half an acre each. Byrd's tenants objected to that plan, so most of the improved lots were awarded according to whatever amount of property their tenant had occupied. M'Keand, though, did not object to the reduction, so his tenement as given away in the lottery was reduced to half an acre. Some previous tenants in M'Keand's tenement had occupied extra land adjacent to that half-acre lot; Byrd sold this adjacent land to M'Keand, who later sold it to Powell, who in turn sold the land to Mayo, who further sold the land to Carter. | ||
| − | Southall won M'Keand's tenement in the lottery. Southall believed that his prize included the adjacent occupied land to M'Keand's half-acre lot. Southall quickly notified M'Keand that Southall claimed the adjacent land to the half-acre lot, but Southall did not file | + | Southall won M'Keand's tenement in the lottery. Southall believed that his prize included the adjacent occupied land to M'Keand's half-acre lot. Southall quickly notified M'Keand that Southall claimed the adjacent land to the half-acre lot, but Southall did not file a bill in Henrico County Court to enforce his claim until about 14 1/2 years later, after M'Keand had made £1000 worth of improvements to the land. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | The Henrico County Court dismissed Southall's bill, and Southall appealed to the High Court of Chancery. | ||
==The Court's Decision== | ==The Court's Decision== | ||
| + | The High Court of Chancery ordered a survey to be made of the disputed land and given to a District Court jury, along with a plan for the City of Richmond, and ordered the District Court jury to determine the boundaries of M'Keand's tenement. After a hung jury, the second jury determined that Southall's property included the adjacent occupied land Byrd had sold to M'Keand, but the District Court found that the evidence favored M'Keand and entered a verdict for him. The Chancellor affirmed the District Court's verdict | ||
Revision as of 16:04, 14 February 2014
Southall v. M'Keand, Wythe 95 (1791),[1] was a case involving a dispute over a parcel of land in Richmond that was a prize in a lottery William Byrd III held to help pay his debts.
Background
In order to help pay off some debts he had accumulated, William Byrd III held a lottery in 1767.[2] Prizes in this lottery were parcels of land taken from Byrd's holdings in Richmond. Byrd divided his holdings into unimproved lots, which would be awarded in half-acre portions; and improved lots, which were occupied tenements. The occupied lots' tenants had improved their lots to various degrees, and some tenants occupied more than half an acre of land. M'Keand was one of the tenants.
After the lottery tickets were sold but before the drawing, Byrd started surveying and laying out the lots, intending to reduce the size of the improved lots to half an acre each. Byrd's tenants objected to that plan, so most of the improved lots were awarded according to whatever amount of property their tenant had occupied. M'Keand, though, did not object to the reduction, so his tenement as given away in the lottery was reduced to half an acre. Some previous tenants in M'Keand's tenement had occupied extra land adjacent to that half-acre lot; Byrd sold this adjacent land to M'Keand, who later sold it to Powell, who in turn sold the land to Mayo, who further sold the land to Carter.
Southall won M'Keand's tenement in the lottery. Southall believed that his prize included the adjacent occupied land to M'Keand's half-acre lot. Southall quickly notified M'Keand that Southall claimed the adjacent land to the half-acre lot, but Southall did not file a bill in Henrico County Court to enforce his claim until about 14 1/2 years later, after M'Keand had made £1000 worth of improvements to the land.
The Henrico County Court dismissed Southall's bill, and Southall appealed to the High Court of Chancery.
The Court's Decision
The High Court of Chancery ordered a survey to be made of the disputed land and given to a District Court jury, along with a plan for the City of Richmond, and ordered the District Court jury to determine the boundaries of M'Keand's tenement. After a hung jury, the second jury determined that Southall's property included the adjacent occupied land Byrd had sold to M'Keand, but the District Court found that the evidence favored M'Keand and entered a verdict for him. The Chancellor affirmed the District Court's verdict
Wythe's Discussion
References
- ↑ George Wythe, Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery, (Richmond: Printed by Thomas Nicolson, 1795), 95.
- ↑ "William Byrd III", The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site, http://www.history.org/almanack/people/bios/biowbyrd.cfm
