Baird v. Bland

Supreme Court of Virginia

Baird v. Bland

3 Va. 570

DecidedFebruary 11, 1813

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Va. 570 (Baird v. Bland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baird v. Bland, 3 Va. 570 (Va. 1813).

Pincite

Opinion

The cause was reargued, before a full Court, January 20th, 1812; (in the absence of the reporter;) and, afterwards, on Monday, the 11th of February, 1813, the president pronounced the following opinion of the Court:

“ This Court is of opinion, that the appellees, upon the deaths of their father and rpother, took a legal estate, under the deed of marriage settlement, in the slaves in the bill mentioned ;
* and that, being infants at the time that estate vested, they were within the provisions of the act of limitations, in relation to infants; and that, therefore, they are not barred by that act. And the Court is further of opinion, that, although the appellees have a legal title to the slaves in question,-yet, for somepf the reasons stated in the decree, and to prevent a multiplicity of suits^ the Court of chancery had jurisdiction of the cause; and, for the reasons aforesaid, affirms the decree of the Chancellor.”

Note. See Robinson's administrator v. Brock, 1 H. & M. 213-235.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The cause was reargued, before a full Court, January 20th, 1812; (in the absence of the reporter;) and, afterwards, on Monday, the 11th of February, 1813, the president pronounced the following opinion of the Court:

“ This Court is of opinion, that the appellees, upon the deaths of their father and rpother, took a legal estate, under the deed of marriage settlement, in the slaves in the bill mentioned ;
* and that, being infants at the time that estate vested, they were within the provisions of the act of limitations, in relation to infants; and that, therefore, they are not barred by that act. And the Court is further of opinion, that, although the appellees have a legal title to the slaves in question,-yet, for somepf the reasons stated in the decree, and to prevent a multiplicity of suits^ the Court of chancery had jurisdiction of the cause; and, for the reasons aforesaid, affirms the decree of the Chancellor.”

Note. See Robinson's administrator v. Brock, 1 H. & M. 213-235.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Va. 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baird-v-bland-va-1813.