Difference between revisions of "Allen v. Minor"
m |
m (→The Court's Decision) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===The Court's Decision=== | ===The Court's Decision=== | ||
| − | After verifying that Allen was a minor at the time of the incident, Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with court costs. The Court of Appeals reversed and | + | After verifying that Allen was a minor at the time of the incident, Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with court costs. The Court of Appeals reversed and found in favor of Allen reasoning that since he was a minor, he did not have his day in Court and was "clearly entitled to relief." |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 15:39, 27 November 2017
File:CallsReports1854V2AllenvMinor.pdf
Allen v. Minor, Call Vol. II 59 (1799),[1] was a brief decision discussing whether a minor could become security for a bond and whether such a bond could be recovered.
Background
On October 29, 1788, Allen became security for Joseph Watson and Daniel Hawes on a twelve month bond. Minor, who was later assigned the bond, obtained a judgment from the court to recover it. To obtain relief from the debt, Allen, brought a petition to the High Court of Chancery. Allen argued that at the time the bond was executed he was a minor and could not legally be liable for the judgment. In response, Minor argued that he was not aware of Allen’s stake in the bond nor of his age at the time the bond was created and that he should still recover.
The Court's Decision
After verifying that Allen was a minor at the time of the incident, Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with court costs. The Court of Appeals reversed and found in favor of Allen reasoning that since he was a minor, he did not have his day in Court and was "clearly entitled to relief."
See also
References
- ↑ Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia, 2nd ed., ed. Lucian Minor (Richmond: A. Morris, 1854), 59.
