Hearne v. Roane

2 Va. Ch. Dec. 90
CourtVirginia Chancery Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1790
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Va. Ch. Dec. 90 (Hearne v. Roane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Virginia Chancery Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hearne v. Roane, 2 Va. Ch. Dec. 90 (Va. Super. Ct. 1790).

Opinion

OPINION,

That in the slaves, to the possession of which the plaintiff Anne, by the marriage contract between her former husband, William Roane, the testator, and herself, was intitled, in lieu of dower, those which were her property, at the time of her intermarriage, ought not to have been included, because the slaves, which by the contract, she should have and enjoy in the event of her surviving him, Whether having a child by him or not, are supposed to be his proper slaves, since a power to settle them on her, in lieu of dower, or otherwise, implieth a property in him at the time of the contract, or at the time of his death; whereas the slaves which the plaintiff Anne had, at the time of the contract and intermarriage, were not his property, but were her property, and remained her property, when he died without having a child by her, and were not subject to the laws and regulations of dower slaves; that the plaintiffs ought not to be precluded, by the order and decree of Essex county court and the division and assignment made in obedience thereunto, from recovering now so many of the slaves as the plaintiff Anne was entitled to more than what were then assigned to her, because she was not a party in the [143]*143suit, if it can be called a suit,* wherein that order and decree were made; nor doth her present demand appear to have been discussed at that time; that whether the gifts by the testator to his sons Spencer and Thomas be fraudulent as to the plaintiff Anne? is a question not proper to be decided in this case, as it is now brought, on, the donees not being parties; and that the plaintiff Anne was intitled to the two horses only, which she hath received, because only that pair, having ordinarily drawn the carriage, to

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Va. Ch. Dec. 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hearne-v-roane-vachanct-1790.