Difference between revisions of "Anderson v. Fox"
m |
m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvFox.pdf|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvFox.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvFox.pdf|''Anderson v. Fox'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeal of Virginia: with Select Cases, relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District''], by William Hening and William Munford. Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809.]] | [[File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvFox.pdf|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvFox.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvFox.pdf|''Anderson v. Fox'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeal of Virginia: with Select Cases, relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District''], by William Hening and William Munford. Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809.]] | ||
| − | [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvFox.pdf|''Anderson v. Fox'']], Hening & Munford Vol. II 245 (1808), <ref>William Hening & William Munford, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeal of Virginia: with Select Cases, relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District]],''(Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809) | + | [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvFox.pdf|''Anderson v. Fox'']], Hening & Munford Vol. II 245 (1808), <ref>William Hening & William Munford, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeal of Virginia: with Select Cases, relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District]],''(Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809), 245.</ref> was a dispute where the court determined whether a co-signer could sell and buy for himself the slaves of the borrower, prior to the debt becoming due. |
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
Revision as of 15:12, 6 November 2017
File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvFox.pdf
Anderson v. Fox, Hening & Munford Vol. II 245 (1808), [1] was a dispute where the court determined whether a co-signer could sell and buy for himself the slaves of the borrower, prior to the debt becoming due.
Background
Nelson Anderson was the co-signer for Richard Anderson’s debt to Alexander Baine. Philip Duval an assignee of the debt brought a judgment against Richard Anderson for payment. As Richard Anderson could not pay the debt, a black woman named Milley and her two children were to be sold to satisfy it. John Fox forbade the sale claiming that he had actual possession over Milley and complicating the title to her. Nelson Anderson, hoping to avoid being responsible for paying the debt as co-signer, agreed to indemnify (take legal responsibility) the sheriff, so that he could purchase Milley for 55 pounds and satisfy the debt. Fox brought an action in the District Court of Richmond, where Nelson Anderson along with the Sheriff filed a joint complaint requesting an injunction that he was a bonafide purchaser of Milley.
The Court's Decision
Chancellor Wythe initially granted the injunction but dissolved it and dismissed the case. The Appellate Court reversed in part and affirmed in part.
See also
References
- ↑ William Hening & William Munford, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeal of Virginia: with Select Cases, relating Chiefly to Points of Practice, Decided by the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District,(Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809), 245.
