Difference between revisions of "Barnett & Co. v. Smith & Co."

From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Barnett & Co. v. Smith & Co.''}} File:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|link=Media:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First...")
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
[[File:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|link=Media:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|''Barnett & Co. v. Smith & Co.'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]
 
[[File:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|link=Media:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|''Barnett & Co. v. Smith & Co.'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
[[Media:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|''Barnett & Co. v. Smith & Co.'']], Call Vol. V 98 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia]], '' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 98.</ref> was a case involving whether new matters discovered after a judgment are admissible on appeal.  
+
[[Media:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf|''Barnett & Co. v. Smith & Co.'']], Call Vol. V 98 (1804),<ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia]], '' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 98.</ref> was a case involving whether new matters, discovered after a judgment, are admissible on appeal.  
  
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
Barnett & Co. filed an appeal in the High Court of Chancery regarding a suit brought by Smith & Co. The petition alleged, among other things, that new matters were discovered concerning original case after the judgment was made. Smith & Co. denied the new allegations in their answer and argued that the merits of the case had already been decided.
+
Barnett & Co. filed an appeal in the High Court of Chancery regarding a suit brought by Smith & Co. The petition alleged, among other things, that new matters were discovered concerning the original case after a judgment was already decided by the Court. Smith & Co. denied the new allegations in their answer and argued that the merits of the case had already been decided.
  
 
===The Court's Decision===
 
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with costs. The Court of Appeals determined there were instances when new allegations could be heard on appeal. However, the court ultimately affirmed the Chancellor’s decision.
+
Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with costs. The Court of Appeals determined there were instances when new allegations could be heard on appeal. However, the Court ultimately affirmed the Chancellor’s decision.  
 +
 
 +
In his decision to affirm the Chancery Court's decision, Chief Justice Lyons briefly describes George Wythe's judicial inclinations stating "[t]he chancellor is probably not so strict, as they are in England, with respect to the ground upon which he grants leave to file bills of review: and therefore the same rigour ought not, perhaps, to prevail in the reconsideration of them by this court. However, in the present case, the decrees are right upon the merits."
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==

Revision as of 15:50, 30 November 2017

File:CallsReports1833V4Barnett&CovSmith&Co.pdf

Barnett & Co. v. Smith & Co., Call Vol. V 98 (1804),[1] was a case involving whether new matters, discovered after a judgment, are admissible on appeal.

Background

Barnett & Co. filed an appeal in the High Court of Chancery regarding a suit brought by Smith & Co. The petition alleged, among other things, that new matters were discovered concerning the original case after a judgment was already decided by the Court. Smith & Co. denied the new allegations in their answer and argued that the merits of the case had already been decided.

The Court's Decision

Chancellor Wythe dismissed the case with costs. The Court of Appeals determined there were instances when new allegations could be heard on appeal. However, the Court ultimately affirmed the Chancellor’s decision.

In his decision to affirm the Chancery Court's decision, Chief Justice Lyons briefly describes George Wythe's judicial inclinations stating "[t]he chancellor is probably not so strict, as they are in England, with respect to the ground upon which he grants leave to file bills of review: and therefore the same rigour ought not, perhaps, to prevail in the reconsideration of them by this court. However, in the present case, the decrees are right upon the merits."

See also

References

  1. Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals in Virginia, (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 98.