Difference between revisions of "Fitzhugh v. Foote"
From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Fitzhugh v. Foote''}} File:CallsReports1854V3FitzhughvFoote.pdf |link=Media:CallsReports1854V3FitzhughvFoote.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the...") |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Fitzhugh v. Foote''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Fitzhugh v. Foote''}} | ||
| − | [[File:CallsReports1854V3FitzhughvFoote. | + | [[File:CallsReports1854V3FitzhughvFoote.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1854V3FitzhughvFoote.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1854V3FitzhughvFoote.pdf |''Fitzhugh v. Foote'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.]] |
| − | |||
[[Media:CallsReports1854V3FitzhughvFoote.pdf |''Fitzhugh v. Foote'']], Call Vol. III 13 (1801), <ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 13.</ref> was a case involving the division of an estate between a widow and her children. | [[Media:CallsReports1854V3FitzhughvFoote.pdf |''Fitzhugh v. Foote'']], Call Vol. III 13 (1801), <ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 13.</ref> was a case involving the division of an estate between a widow and her children. | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| − | Richard and William Foote sued their step-father, Thornton Fitzhugh, and their mother, Margaret, in the high court of chancery. Margaret was left as the sole executor of the | + | Richard and William Foote sued their step-father, Thornton Fitzhugh, and their mother, Margaret, in the high court of chancery. Margaret was left as the sole executor of the plaintiff's father’s estate and upon his death, she held a proceeding giving herself a very valuable dower. Her children, who were minors at the time, were not represented at the court proceeding and are bringing this suit to ask for equality and fairness in the distribution of inheritance between them and their mother. |
| + | |||
===The Court's Decision=== | ===The Court's Decision=== | ||
| − | Chancellor Wythe decreed that the slaves should be split into three equal parts with | + | Chancellor Wythe decreed that the slaves should be split into three equal parts with one-third going to each of the parties. The Court of Appeals reversed in splitting the slaves (since "humanity forbids" separating mothers and children) and instead caused for monetary compensation to be given to the plaintiffs for the excess slaves the mother obtained. The case was then remanded to the High Court of Chancery. |
| + | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]] | *[[Wythe's Judicial Career]] | ||
| Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
[[Category: Cases]] | [[Category: Cases]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Slavery]] | ||
Revision as of 10:55, 25 February 2018
File:CallsReports1854V3FitzhughvFoote.jpg
First page of the opinion Fitzhugh v. Foote, in Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, by Daniel Call. 3rd ed. Richmond: A. Morris, 1854.
Fitzhugh v. Foote, Call Vol. III 13 (1801), [1] was a case involving the division of an estate between a widow and her children.
Background
Richard and William Foote sued their step-father, Thornton Fitzhugh, and their mother, Margaret, in the high court of chancery. Margaret was left as the sole executor of the plaintiff's father’s estate and upon his death, she held a proceeding giving herself a very valuable dower. Her children, who were minors at the time, were not represented at the court proceeding and are bringing this suit to ask for equality and fairness in the distribution of inheritance between them and their mother.
The Court's Decision
Chancellor Wythe decreed that the slaves should be split into three equal parts with one-third going to each of the parties. The Court of Appeals reversed in splitting the slaves (since "humanity forbids" separating mothers and children) and instead caused for monetary compensation to be given to the plaintiffs for the excess slaves the mother obtained. The case was then remanded to the High Court of Chancery.
See also
References
- ↑ Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, 3rd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 13.
