Difference between revisions of "Austin's Admin v. Winston's Executrix"
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[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.]] | [[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, 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== | ||
| − | 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. | + | 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=== | ===The Court's Decision=== | ||
| − | Chancellor Wythe ruled in favor of the | + | 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. However, the Court of Appeals did not agree. Instead, the Appellate Court reversed the case and issued a new trial to determine the whether slaves were sold for a fair price. In his opinion, Judge Roane stated Chancellor Wythe's ruling in this case "laid stress upon [the] original fraud and breach of trust." Judge Carrington agreed with Wythe in part stating "I think, under all the circumstanaces, that the representatives of Winston are entitled to relief; but not to the extent of the decree of the High Court of Chancery." |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category: Cases]] | [[Category: Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 12:45, 19 February 2018
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. However, the Court of Appeals did not agree. Instead, the Appellate Court reversed the case and issued a new trial to determine the whether slaves were sold for a fair price. In his opinion, Judge Roane stated Chancellor Wythe's ruling in this case "laid stress upon [the] original fraud and breach of trust." Judge Carrington agreed with Wythe in part stating "I think, under all the circumstanaces, that the representatives of Winston are entitled to relief; but not to the extent of the decree of the High Court of Chancery."
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
