Eckhols v. Graham

5 Va. 428, 1 Call 492, 1799 Va. LEXIS 9
Court of Appeals of Virginia·Decided April 30, 1799·Published·Cited by 10 cases

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.

Footnotes

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

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

5 Va. 428 (Eckhols v. Graham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Long v. Campbell
17 S.E. 197 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1893)
Paine v. Tutwiler
27 Va. 440 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1876)
Ward v. Churn
18 Va. 801 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1868)
Bank of the United States v. Patton
5 Miss. 200 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1840)
Amyett v. . Backhouse
7 N.C. 63 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1819)
Lusk v. Ramsay
3 Va. 417 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1814)