Difference between revisions of "Hook v. Ross"
From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hook v. Ross''}} File:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1HookvRoss.pdf|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1HookvRoss.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opi...") |
m |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hook v. Ross''}} | {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Hook v. Ross''}} | ||
| − | [[File: | + | [[File:HeningMunfordHookvRoss1809v1p310.jpg|link={{filepath:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1HookvRoss.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1HookvRoss.pdf|''Hook v. Ross'']], in [http://wm-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/01COWM_WM:EVERYTHING:01COWM_WM_ALMA21593279330003196 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals 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.]] |
| − | [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1HookvRoss.pdf|''Hook v. Ross'']], | + | [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V1HookvRoss.pdf|''Hook v. Ross'']], 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 310 (1807),<ref>William Hening & William Munford, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals 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), 1:310.</ref> was a case that determined whether a defendant’s refusal to obey a court order, which caused the Court of Equity to prejudice every presumption against him, would also warrant a monetary judgment when the suit was brought for the specific performance of a contract. |
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
In 1793, Ross sued Hook in the High Court of Chancery to obtain a settlement regarding a mercantile connection they formed in 1771 and to obtain an account of how much was owed to Ross from the connection. | In 1793, Ross sued Hook in the High Court of Chancery to obtain a settlement regarding a mercantile connection they formed in 1771 and to obtain an account of how much was owed to Ross from the connection. | ||
| + | |||
===The Court's Decision=== | ===The Court's Decision=== | ||
| − | Chancellor Wythe directed that a sum money should be paid instead of specific performance of the negotiation. The Court of Appeals reversed and annulled the decree. | + | [[George Wythe|Chancellor Wythe]] directed that a sum money should be paid instead of specific performance of the negotiation. The Court of Appeals reversed and annulled the decree. |
| + | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]] | *[[Wythe's Judicial Career]] | ||
| Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
[[Category: Cases]] | [[Category: Cases]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Contracts]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Procedure]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:01, 4 September 2018
First page of the opinion Hook v. Ross, in Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals 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.
Hook v. Ross, 11 Va. (1 Hen. & M.) 310 (1807),[1] was a case that determined whether a defendant’s refusal to obey a court order, which caused the Court of Equity to prejudice every presumption against him, would also warrant a monetary judgment when the suit was brought for the specific performance of a contract.
Background
In 1793, Ross sued Hook in the High Court of Chancery to obtain a settlement regarding a mercantile connection they formed in 1771 and to obtain an account of how much was owed to Ross from the connection.
The Court's Decision
Chancellor Wythe directed that a sum money should be paid instead of specific performance of the negotiation. The Court of Appeals reversed and annulled the decree.
See also
References
- ↑ William Hening & William Munford, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals 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), 1:310.
