Medley v. Jones

Supreme Court of Virginia

Medley v. Jones

5 Munf. 98, 5 Va. 98, 1816 Va. LEXIS 18

DecidedMarch 6, 1816

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Munf. 98 (Medley v. Jones) 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

Medley v. Jones, 5 Munf. 98, 5 Va. 98, 1816 Va. LEXIS 18 (Va. 1816).

Pincite

Opinion

March 6th, 1816,

Judge Roane

pronounced the court’s Opinion.

The court, considering that the money now in controversy was paid by the agent of the appellee to the appellant, an assignee without notice of any equity existing against the bond assigned which appellee, by his said agent, was competent to waive the assertion by the alleged equity, in relation to such assignee, and, further, considering that the said money properly accrued to Mrs. Rogers, (under whom the appellant claims,) according to the principles of the decree of March 16th, 1807, as the hire or profits of the slave Aaron, during her life; — is of opinion, that the instruction given by the court was erroneous, and that a contrary instruction ought to [101]*101bave been given upon the case stated in the bill of exceptions. The judgment therefore is reversed, and a venire de novo awarded, in which no such instruction is to be given.

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

March 6th, 1816,

Judge Roane

pronounced the court’s Opinion.

The court, considering that the money now in controversy was paid by the agent of the appellee to the appellant, an assignee without notice of any equity existing against the bond assigned which appellee, by his said agent, was competent to waive the assertion by the alleged equity, in relation to such assignee, and, further, considering that the said money properly accrued to Mrs. Rogers, (under whom the appellant claims,) according to the principles of the decree of March 16th, 1807, as the hire or profits of the slave Aaron, during her life; — is of opinion, that the instruction given by the court was erroneous, and that a contrary instruction ought to [101]*101bave been given upon the case stated in the bill of exceptions. The judgment therefore is reversed, and a venire de novo awarded, in which no such instruction is to be given.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Munf. 98, 5 Va. 98, 1816 Va. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medley-v-jones-va-1816.