Difference between revisions of "Johnson v. Pendleton"

From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Johnson v. Pendleton''}}
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Johnson v. Pendleton''}}
[[File:CallJohnsonvPendleton1833v5p128.jpg|link=Media:CallsReports1833V5JohnsonvPendleton.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5JohnsonvPendleton.pdf ‎|''Johnson v. Pendleton'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]
+
[[File:CallJohnsonvPendleton1833v5p128.jpg|link={{filepath:CallsReports1833V5JohnsonvPendleton.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5JohnsonvPendleton.pdf ‎|''Johnson v. Pendleton'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]
  
 
[[Media:CallsReports1833V5JohnsonvPendleton.pdf|''Johnson v. Pendleton'']], 9 Va. (5 Call) 128 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:128.</ref> determined who is liable when a military certificate is lost at the auditor’s office.
 
[[Media:CallsReports1833V5JohnsonvPendleton.pdf|''Johnson v. Pendleton'']], 9 Va. (5 Call) 128 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:128.</ref> determined who is liable when a military certificate is lost at the auditor’s office.
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
Johnson sued Pendleton, the auditor of public accounts, in Chancery Court. Johnson argued that he sent a military certificate to the auditor to obtain a warrant of interest, but at the time the auditor was busy. Johnson, left the military certificate with the auditor so that Pendleton could make out the warrant at his own leisure. On multiple occasions after coming to the auditor, Johnson son attempted to apply for the certificate and its interest, however, he could not obtain either. Johnson sued so either Pendleton or the State of Virginia can provide him with just compensation.
+
Johnson sued Pendleton, the auditor of public accounts, in Chancery Court. Johnson argued that he sent a military certificate to the auditor to obtain a warrant of interest, but at the time the auditor was busy. Johnson, left the military certificate with the auditor so that Pendleton could make out the warrant at his own leisure. On multiple occasions after coming to the auditor, Johnson attempted to apply for the certificate and its interest, but he could not obtain either. Johnson sued so that either Pendleton or the State of Virginia could provide him with just compensation.
 
===The Court's Decision===
 
===The Court's Decision===
 
Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, but without prejudice.
 
Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, but without prejudice.

Revision as of 14:29, 19 July 2018

First page of the opinion Johnson v. Pendleton, in Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.

Johnson v. Pendleton, 9 Va. (5 Call) 128 (1804),[1] determined who is liable when a military certificate is lost at the auditor’s office.

Background

Johnson sued Pendleton, the auditor of public accounts, in Chancery Court. Johnson argued that he sent a military certificate to the auditor to obtain a warrant of interest, but at the time the auditor was busy. Johnson, left the military certificate with the auditor so that Pendleton could make out the warrant at his own leisure. On multiple occasions after coming to the auditor, Johnson attempted to apply for the certificate and its interest, but he could not obtain either. Johnson sued so that either Pendleton or the State of Virginia could provide him with just compensation.

The Court's Decision

Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, but without prejudice.

See also

References

  1. Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:128.