Smith v. Browne's adm'r

Supreme Court of Virginia

Smith v. Browne's adm'r

36 Va. 293, 9 Leigh 111

DecidedMarch 15, 1838

StatusPublished

This text of 36 Va. 293 (Smith v. Browne's adm'r) 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

Smith v. Browne's adm'r, 36 Va. 293, 9 Leigh 111 (Va. 1838).

Pincite

Opinion

Tucker, P.

The plaintiffs in equity, by proceeding to take a decree against Fox for the value of the slave James, abandoned their proceeding in rem, and could not afterwards proceed for the specific property against the pUrc}jaser pendente lite, as the title of the slave was changed by a decree for his value. As to Henry, he was sold by Fox to Alsop; and as Smith was in the transaction neither buyer nor seller, he is not liable to refund the proceeds, though the same may have been paid over to him in satisfaction of his claim against Fox.

The order is to be reversed, and the rule discharged, -with costs.

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

Tucker, P.

The plaintiffs in equity, by proceeding to take a decree against Fox for the value of the slave James, abandoned their proceeding in rem, and could not afterwards proceed for the specific property against the pUrc}jaser pendente lite, as the title of the slave was changed by a decree for his value. As to Henry, he was sold by Fox to Alsop; and as Smith was in the transaction neither buyer nor seller, he is not liable to refund the proceeds, though the same may have been paid over to him in satisfaction of his claim against Fox.

The order is to be reversed, and the rule discharged, -with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Va. 293, 9 Leigh 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-brownes-admr-va-1838.