Difference between revisions of "Lindsay v. Howerton"

From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Lindsay v. Howerton''}} File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2LindsayvHowerton.pdf ‎|thumb|right|300px|First page of the op...")
 
m
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Lindsay v. Howerton''}}
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Lindsay v. Howerton''}}
[[File:WytheAmblerVWyld1852.jpg|link=Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2LindsayvHowerton.pdf |thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2LindsayvHowerton.pdf ‎|''Lindsay v. Howerton'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''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. Flatbush: I. Riley, 1809.]]
+
[[File:HeningMunfordLindsayvHowerton1809v2p9.jpg|link={{filepath:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2LindsayvHowerton.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2LindsayvHowerton.pdf ‎|''Lindsay v. Howerton'']], in [https://catalog.libraries.wm.edu:443/01COWM_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. Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1809.]]
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
In the brief case of [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2LindsayvHowerton.pdf|''Lindsay v. Howerton'']], 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 9 (1807),<ref>William Hening and 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'', (Flatbush: I. Riley, 1807), 2:9. </ref> the Court determined whether an estate was entitled to attorney’s fees when settling an administrative account.  
+
In the brief case of [[Media:Hening&MunfordsReports1809V2LindsayvHowerton.pdf|''Lindsay v. Howerton'']], 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 9 (1807),<ref>William Hening and 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'' (Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1807), 2:9. </ref> the Court determined whether an estate was entitled to attorney’s fees when settling an administrative account.  
  
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
 
This case came about when the commissioners appointed to settle Howerton’s administrative account refused to include attorney’s fees in their calculations. The commissioners stated that the fees should not be included because they exceeded the legal amount.
 
This case came about when the commissioners appointed to settle Howerton’s administrative account refused to include attorney’s fees in their calculations. The commissioners stated that the fees should not be included because they exceeded the legal amount.
 +
 
===The Court's Decision===
 
===The Court's Decision===
By the time this case was determined in the High Court of Chancery, George Wythe had already passed away. The Court of Appeals, upon hearing the case, determined Howerton’s estate was entitled to attorney’s fees. The Court reasoned that Howerton’s estate required an attorney, whose conduct Howerton could not regulate. In its decision the Court noted George Wythe’s assessment of the case, stating “this opinion is supported by the opinion of the former Chancellor, as appears by his notes in this very case.”
+
By the time this case was determined in the High Court of Chancery, [[George Wythe]] had already passed away. The Court of Appeals, upon hearing the case, determined Howerton’s estate was entitled to attorney’s fees. The Court reasoned that Howerton’s estate required an attorney, whose conduct Howerton could not regulate. In its decision, the Court noted George Wythe’s assessment of the case, stating “this opinion is supported by the opinion of the former Chancellor, as appears by his notes in this very case.”
 +
 
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
 
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]
 
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]
Line 16: Line 18:
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
 
[[Category: Cases]]
 
[[Category: Cases]]
 +
[[Category:Inheritance]]
 +
[[Category:Procedure]]

Latest revision as of 16:10, 4 September 2018

In the brief case of Lindsay v. Howerton, 12 Va. (2 Hen. & M.) 9 (1807),[1] the Court determined whether an estate was entitled to attorney’s fees when settling an administrative account.

Background

This case came about when the commissioners appointed to settle Howerton’s administrative account refused to include attorney’s fees in their calculations. The commissioners stated that the fees should not be included because they exceeded the legal amount.

The Court's Decision

By the time this case was determined in the High Court of Chancery, George Wythe had already passed away. The Court of Appeals, upon hearing the case, determined Howerton’s estate was entitled to attorney’s fees. The Court reasoned that Howerton’s estate required an attorney, whose conduct Howerton could not regulate. In its decision, the Court noted George Wythe’s assessment of the case, stating “this opinion is supported by the opinion of the former Chancellor, as appears by his notes in this very case.”

See also

References

  1. William Hening and 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 (Flatbush, N.Y.: I. Riley, 1807), 2:9.