Difference between revisions of "Anderson v. Gest"
(→The Court's Decision) |
m |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===The Court's Decision=== | ===The Court's Decision=== | ||
| − | This case reached the Appeals Court two years after Wythe's passing. The Court of Appeals determined it could not change its procedures based on a person’s residence. The Court stated that all those appointed to give an account must do so before judges of that jurisdiction, with the exception | + | This case reached the Appeals Court two years after Wythe's passing. The Court of Appeals determined it could not change its procedures based on a person’s residence. The Court stated that all those appointed to give an account must do so before judges of that jurisdiction, with the exception only if both parties consent to a different jurisdiction. |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 11:50, 22 February 2018
File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2AndersonvGest.pdf
In the brief decision of Anderson v. Gest, Hening & Munford Vol. II 26 (1808),[1] the Court of Appeals clarified a fiscal report order from the Court of Chancery.
Background
Gest, a resident of England, was ordered by Chancellor Wythe to give a financial report (“make up his account”) regarding the administration of William Anderson’s estate. The order did not specifically state that Gest had to give an account before an Appellate Court judge in Virginia. Thus, Gest argued that he could give an account before a judge in England and have the documents sent to the Virginia Court.
The Court's Decision
This case reached the Appeals Court two years after Wythe's passing. The Court of Appeals determined it could not change its procedures based on a person’s residence. The Court stated that all those appointed to give an account must do so before judges of that jurisdiction, with the exception only if both parties consent to a different jurisdiction.
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, (Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809), 26.
