Difference between revisions of "Austin's Admin v. Winston's Executrix"
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Austin's Admin v. Winston's Executrix''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Austin's Admin v. Winston's Executrix''}} | ||
| − | [[File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Austin'sAdminvWinston'sExecutrix.pdf|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Austin'sAdminvWinston'sExecutrix.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Austin'sAdminvWinston'sExecutrix.pdf|''Austin's Admin v. Winston's Executrix'']], 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, | + | [[File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Austin'sAdminvWinston'sExecutrix.pdf|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Austin'sAdminvWinston'sExecutrix.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Austin'sAdminvWinston'sExecutrix.pdf|''Austin's Admin v. Winston's Executrix'']], 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. 2nd ed. Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809.]] |
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
[[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Austin'sAdminvWinston'sExecutrix.pdf|''Austin’s Admin v. Winston’s Executrix'']], Hening & Munford Vol. I 32 (1806),<ref>William Hening and William Munford, | [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Austin'sAdminvWinston'sExecutrix.pdf|''Austin’s Admin v. Winston’s Executrix'']], Hening & Munford Vol. I 32 (1806),<ref>William Hening and William Munford, | ||
| − | ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeal of Virginia: with Select Cases, | + | ''[[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]], '' 2nd ed. (Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809), 32</ref> was a case were the court determined whether the maxim “where both parties are equally guilty, the defendant shall prevail” should apply. |
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
Revision as of 16:29, 6 November 2017
File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1Austin'sAdminvWinston'sExecutrix.pdf
Austin’s Admin v. Winston’s Executrix, Hening & Munford Vol. I 32 (1806),[1] was a case were the court determined whether the maxim “where both parties are equally guilty, the defendant shall prevail” should apply.
Background
William Winston owed a debt to Chapman Austin. When the debt came due, Winston was unable to pay. As a compromise for nonpayment, Austin made a deal with Winston. The terms of the deal stated that Winston would sell his slaves at public auction to cover the debt and Austin would buy the slaves back for Winston while he found other ways to pay back the money. To cover the fraud, the two agreed to tell everyone that Winston borrowed the slaves from Austin to help finish his crop harvesting. Under the pretext of a bona fide sale, seventeen slaves were sold in lots to cover the debt. Per the terms of the agreement, the slaves were returned to Winston. However, before the crops were harvested, Winston died. After Winston’s death, Austin seized the slaves, selling some and keeping some for his own. Winston’s executors sued Austin in hopes to redeem the slaves or excess money of Winston’s original debt to Austin.
The Court's Decision
Chancellor Wythe ruled in favor of the Winston’s Executors and declared a balance against Austin’s account. In addition, the Chancellor dismissed all suits from those who purchased from Austin, after the fraudulent sale. The Court of Appeals reversed the case and issued a new trial to determine the whether slaves were sold for a fair price. The cost found by the jury would be deducted from Winston’s debt to Austin and his family members would need to pay the balance with interest.
See also
References
- ↑ William Hening and 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, 2nd ed. (Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809), 32
