Fairfax v. Fairfax

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Fairfax v. Fairfax

8 F. Cas. 954, 1 Cranch 292

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 15, 1806

DocketCase No. 4,612

StatusPublished

This text of 8 F. Cas. 954 (Fairfax v. Fairfax) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fairfax v. Fairfax, 8 F. Cas. 954, 1 Cranch 292 (circtddc 1806).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge, and FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge)

were of opinion that the finding was sufficient to support the judgment, and said: If a particular sum of assets less than the debt claimed by the plaintiff had been found it would not have altered the judgment. It would still have been to recover the whole debt, de bonis tes-tatoris. But the jury have in substance found that the defendant had assets sufficient to pay the debt, out of which the debt might have been made. They have found the issue for the plaintiff. The issue taken by the plaintiff, in her replication, is, that the defendant had at the time, &c., in his hands, goods and chattels of the testator to be administered more than sufficient to pay, &c., and out of which he might have paid, &c., and this she prays may be inquired of by the country; and the defendant likewise. There is no more necessity of the special finding on this issue than on the issue of non as-sumpsit. Shipley’s Case, 8 Coke, 134; Waterhouse v. Woodstreet Cro. Eliz. 592; Gaudy v. Ingham, Style, 88. ‘ See Oxendam v. Hobdy, Freem. 351; Br. Ex’r, pl. 34, pl. 82; Newman & Babbington’s Case, Godb. 178; Dorchester v. Webb, Cro. Car. 373; Lex. test. 414.

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

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge, and FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge)

were of opinion that the finding was sufficient to support the judgment, and said: If a particular sum of assets less than the debt claimed by the plaintiff had been found it would not have altered the judgment. It would still have been to recover the whole debt, de bonis tes-tatoris. But the jury have in substance found that the defendant had assets sufficient to pay the debt, out of which the debt might have been made. They have found the issue for the plaintiff. The issue taken by the plaintiff, in her replication, is, that the defendant had at the time, &c., in his hands, goods and chattels of the testator to be administered more than sufficient to pay, &c., and out of which he might have paid, &c., and this she prays may be inquired of by the country; and the defendant likewise. There is no more necessity of the special finding on this issue than on the issue of non as-sumpsit. Shipley’s Case, 8 Coke, 134; Waterhouse v. Woodstreet Cro. Eliz. 592; Gaudy v. Ingham, Style, 88. ‘ See Oxendam v. Hobdy, Freem. 351; Br. Ex’r, pl. 34, pl. 82; Newman & Babbington’s Case, Godb. 178; Dorchester v. Webb, Cro. Car. 373; Lex. test. 414.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F. Cas. 954, 1 Cranch 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairfax-v-fairfax-circtddc-1806.