Eckhols v. Graham

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Eckhols v. Graham

5 Va. 428, 1 Call 492, 1799 Va. LEXIS 9

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia

DecidedApril 30, 1799

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 5 Va. 428 (Eckhols v. Graham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eckhols v. Graham, 5 Va. 428, 1 Call 492, 1799 Va. LEXIS 9 (Va. Ct. App. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

LYONS, Judge.

Delivered the resolution of the Court, that the names of the slaves ought to have been endorsed, in order to prevent purchasers from being deceived.

* That it would make no difference whether the bond taken was good or not. For, if good, then the property was clearly released;† and if not, then some proceedings, with respect to it, should have been had. But be that as it might, the Court were clearly of opinion, that by taking the second execution, he waived the first; and discharged the lien if any subsisted: Which answered the difficulty, whether there should not be a venire facias de novo, in order to ascertain the identity of the slaves? Because,.it could be to no purpose to ascertain that the slaves were taken on the execution; since, if it was so, the Couit were clear that the plaintiff, by taking the second execution, had waived all benefit under the first; and destroyed the lien if he had any.

Judgment affirmed.

[* Dix v. Evans, 3 Munf. 308.]

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

LYONS, Judge.

Delivered the resolution of the Court, that the names of the slaves ought to have been endorsed, in order to prevent purchasers from being deceived.

* That it would make no difference whether the bond taken was good or not. For, if good, then the property was clearly released;† and if not, then some proceedings, with respect to it, should have been had. But be that as it might, the Court were clearly of opinion, that by taking the second execution, he waived the first; and discharged the lien if any subsisted: Which answered the difficulty, whether there should not be a venire facias de novo, in order to ascertain the identity of the slaves? Because,.it could be to no purpose to ascertain that the slaves were taken on the execution; since, if it was so, the Couit were clear that the plaintiff, by taking the second execution, had waived all benefit under the first; and destroyed the lien if he had any.

Judgment affirmed.

[* Dix v. Evans, 3 Munf. 308.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Va. 428, 1 Call 492, 1799 Va. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckhols-v-graham-vactapp-1799.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack