at the time of his death. Smith and wife v. deciding upon the sufficiency of the security of
Townes's Administrator, p. 191.

fered ? Ibid. pl. 2.
6. A dismission of a suit, by the plaintiff's order, is 6. Such appeal is not premature, # taken after the

no bar to his bringing another suit, for the same court has decided upon the sufficiency of the se
cause of action. Coff man and Richardson v. Rus. curity, but before the bond is signed, Ibid. pl. 3.
sell, p. 207.

7. The court, to which an appeal is taken from an
7. See lorenanı; and Cloud v. Campbell, p. 214.

order granting letters of administration, ought
8. One inspector of tobacco, being injured by the not to take into co sideration, in deciding upon

misconduct of the other, may bring suit upon the such appeal, the comparative merits of the gran
official bond of such delinquent, against him and tee, and of the party who opposed him, as cand
his securities. Scott v. Hardaway, p. 263.

dates for the office, unless it appear, by zeme
9. One inspector embezzled a quantity of transfer dence from the record, that a motion for the ap

tobacco, without the knowledge of the other, who, pointment of sueh opposing party was substah-
supposing it to be in the warehouse, sold it, as di- tially made n the court below. Ibid. pl

. 4.
rected by the 24th section of the tobacco law, and 8. Although, in controversies concerning mills

, vilk,
paid the money, arising from the sale, to the pro- roads, the probate of wills, and granting ot ador
prietors of the receipts, but afterwards, discover- nistrations, the Superior Court of law, to which
ing the deficiency, refunded to the purchasers an appeal is taken from the County or Corpora
the money received of them. It was determin- tion Court, may hear new evidence upon ques
ed, that, for the sum so refunded, he had a suffi. tions submitted to its revisal by the recerd, it oughs
cient cause of action upon the bond of his delin-

not to receive any evidence but that of the record
quent co-inspector. Ibid.

itself, to prove what questions were in fact tried in
10. Quære, whether the right of action for the civilin- the couri below, Ibid. pl. 5.

jury be merged in the felony, or not in this coun. 9. A person appearing as attorney in fact for certain

try, as in kugland ? Cook v. Darby, pl. 2. p. 444. creditors of the intestate, and opposing the grant
11. In detinue for slaves, if the judgment of the Supe- of administration, may appeal, though not it

rior Court, reversing that of the County Court, terested, in any other respect, in the subject of
(which was in the plaintist's favour,) be reversed controversy, Ibid. pl. 6.
by the Court of Appeals, and that of the County
Court affirmed; no action lies to recover the pro-

AD QUOD DAMNUM.
fits of the slaves, accruing between the date of the
judgment of the County Court, and that of its final 1. A date to the inquisition, upon a writ of ad que
affirmance by the Court of Appeals. Alderson v. damnum, is not essential

, it'it be stated, under the
Bigger's Administrator, p. 528.

hands and seals of the jurors, that, “ in eserience to

the annexed writ, they viewed the lands ques
ACTS OF ASSEMBLY,

tion, &c." Dawson v. Morns. p. 535.
1. The 5th section of the act of limitations of 1792,

2. The Court ought to permit the sheriff to amend

his return, upon a wnit of ad quod damnum, at any
does not apply to judgment, which existed before time before the judgment upon it, Ibid.
that act took effect. Day, Executor of Pales, v.
Pickell, P: 104,

AFFIRMANCE.
2. The act of December 11th, 1793, (Rev. Code, 1st

vol, p. 314,) authorizes a motion in a summary 1. When a decree in Chancery is affirmed, the Court
way against the deputy sheriff, and his securi.
ties, jointly; but not against one

of Appeals being equally divided in opinion; i

or more of should be, "without prejudice to the legal remedies
those securities separately. Harrison v. Lane, p.

of the parties." Martin and Nicholas v. Welch
238.

others, p. 60.
3. And this. (it seems,) whether the bond be joint on.
ly, or join: and several. Ibid.

AGENT.
4. Under the act of January 31st, 1809, concern.

ing executions, and for other purposes," the 1. A. haring constituted B. his general agent in a
debtor was not entitled to a stay of execution, or
to a sale of the property on credit, on any forth.

county, and also given him a particular agency

to sell a tract of land, and receive payment of part
coming bond executed after the passage thereof.
Richardson v. Perkins, p. 512.

of the purchase money, is bound to allow eredits
5. The provisions of the 13th section of that act, re-

for any other payments made to him before no
quiring the debtor to pay all costs, &c. did not

tice that his powers were revoked. Spencer and

White v. Wilson, p. 130.
embrace the case of a sale under the 14th section.
Ibid. pl. 2.

AGREEMENT.
ADMINISTRATION.

1, A testator having devised certain slaves to his sis-
1. Upon the death of a husband, who survived his

ter;"* during her life, and, after her decease, to the

children which she shall leave at her death, to be
wife, and administered upon ber estate, his elect-
tor, (or, it seems, his aulministrator,) is entitled to

equally divided among them, to them and their
be administrator de bonis non of the wife, in pre-

heirs forever ;" a written

agreement, not under
ference to her next of kin. Hendyran v. Colging*

seal, entered into, in her lifetime, by all her chil.
p. 231.

dren then living, " to stand to a fair and equidi-
2. It seems, too, that his executor is entitled, in

vision of said esiate, among the children who slall

pre-
ference to his residuary legatee, Ibil.

be living at her death, and the issue of such as
3. See Renunciation ; and Nelson v. Carrington, Ex.

have or may die before her," is not a nudum pec:
ecutor of Burwell, pl. 9. p. 333.

tum, but founded on sufficient consideration, and
4. An appeal from an order of court, granting admi-

therefore binding on the contracting parties.
nistration of an estate, being taken before the

Price and others v. Winston and others, p. 63.

2.
court has proceeded to direct bond and security

Such agreement enures, also, to the benefit of the
to be given, or to prescribe the amount of the

issue of those children who died before the date

thereof, lbid.
bond, is premature, and ought to be dismissed as
improvidently allowed. Bohn y. Sheppard, pl. 1.

3. But if any of the children, living at the date thereof,
P. 403.

refuse to sign it ; and there be no stipulation pre
5. Quare, whether, in such case, the appeal would

viding for that event ; such agreement is thereby
be premature, if taken after the court had pre-

rendered null and void, Ibid.
scribed the amount of the bond, but before its

4. See Contract; and Johnsen v. Bentley, Admr. ef

Roland, p. 77.

* Herodreda r.

Colgin

sum of money due to the wife before the marriage
will not, when recovered, belong to the husband,
but to the trustees, for the uses specitied in the
deed. Wilcox v. Hubard and others; and Huberd

v. Wilcox and othets, p. 346.
2. In such case, therefore, a submission to arbitration

of a controversy concerning a debt to the wilc,
being made by the debtor with the husband, is
void, as relating to a subject not in their power to
control, ibid. pl. 3.

to support

95. 2 See Agreeme 1. Ser Agreeme

A plea of the facra: to res a replication

peats next

promoto

Day. Ermu !, Se Suduma

whers, pl, o

& See Damige

1. An executor cannot defend himself against the

suit of a creditor, by shewing that, before be had
notice of the plaintiff's demand, he paid over the
assets to the legatees of the testator. Kippert

Co. v. Carr's Executors, p. 112.
2. See Estoppel; and Eppes's Administrators v. Das

ley's Administrator, pl. 3, p. 466.
3. On the plea of " no assets," a verdict finding the

the administrator has in his hands asset belong
ing to the estate of the intestate, (without saying
to what amount) is defective, and a new trial
ought to be directed. Epper's Administraera K.
Bagley's Administrator, pl. 3, p. 466.

ASSIGNMENT.

self, to prove what questions were in fact tried in

the court below, ibič. pl. 5.
17. A person appearing as attorney in fact for certain

creditors of the intestate, and opposing the grant
of administration, may appeal, though not inte-
rested, in any other respect, in the subject of con-

troversy, ibid. pl. 6.
18. See Verdict ; and Brown, Executor of Innes, v. Hen-

dersons, pl. 2. p. 492.
19. If on one appeal, two copies of the record be sent

to the appellate court, aud docketed on the mo.
tion of the appellant ; he must pay the costs, oc-
casioned thereby, to the appellee. Harrison v.

Lane, p. 495.
20. In letinue for slaves, if the judgment of the Supe.

rior Court, reversing that of the County Court, (which was in the plaintiff's favour,) be reversed by the Court of Appeals, and that of the County Court affirmed; no action lies to recover the profits of the slaves, accruing between the date of the judgment of the County Court, and that of its final affirmance by the Court of Appeals. Alderson v. Bigger's Administrator, p. 528.

APPEALS (COURT OF.) 1. The Court of Appeals of Virginia will consider

whether a mandate, issued by the Supreme Court of the United States, directing this court to enter a judgment, reversing one which it heretofore pronounced, be authorized by the constitution, or not ; and, being of opinion that such mandate is not so authorized, will disobey it. Hunter V. Mar.

tin, devisee of Fairfax, p. 1. 2. It is the opinion of this court, that so much of the

25th section of the act of congress, passed September 24th, 1789, entitled, “an Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States," as extends the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, to judgments pronounced by a Supreme Court of a state, is not warranted by the

cunstitution, ibid. 3. See Affirmance ; and Martin and Nicholas v. Welch and others, p. 60.

APPEARANCE. 1. Two suits were instituted on the same day, in be

half of the same plaintiffs. The writ in each case was against A. B. and C. D. ; but endorsed to be served on A. B. only : in one case, bail was requir: ed; in the other not. The declarations included boch A. B. and C. D. as defendants. The appear. ance bail, in the case in which bail was required, entered into a recognizance as special bail for them both; and (according to the transcript of the record.) they appeared by their attorney, and pleaded payment. In the other case, no plea was filed, or appearance entered, except that A. B. on whom the writs were served, came, in proper person, and acknowledged the plaintiff's action in both suits ; whereupon, judgments were entered against him, and c. D. also. It was held that c. D. was sufficiently a defendant to both suits; and that, if there was error in the judgments, it could not be corrected, on motion, after five years had elapsed from the date of the judgments. Wrenn

v. Thompson and Veitch, p. 377. 2. See Notice; and Beale v. Wilson and others, pl. 3,

P. 380. 3. If the defendant, in debt on a bond, appear and

plead, without giving special bail, and the court (without ruling him to give such bail) set aside the office judgment against him, his appearance bail is thereby discharged. Grays v. Hines, p. 437.

ARBITRATION. 1. A deed of marriage settlement, conveying “all the lands, slaves, goods, chattels, and

operty," of the wife, includes her choses in action; so that a

ing in their striction is on to suits cases in wh to in the la Seit foam ty, or for the Wike, vules Taum his do challenge the

. Carter, P1. A licensed

to draw a c the line of the acts di him. Ibid. ters geling

tween the c 1 k stem, ut

is safficient

hw. POTRE & Natiee of

p. 382.

1. See Usury; and Pox v. Taliaferro, p. 243,
2. See Distribution; and Guerrant . Jehnsen en

others, p. 360.
3. The possession of the mortgagor, continuing by

the mortgagee's permission, is to be considered the
possession of the mortgagee; so that, where the
latter ould recover in ejectment, his deed, assign
ing the mortgage, will enable the assignee to reco
ver in like manner, Chapman v. Armistead, pl. by

p. 382.
4. A final decree of foreclosure, in favour of the as-

signee of a mortgage, ought to put to rest any
controversy between the parties thereto

, on the
ground of any supposed defect in the deed of as-

signment, ibid. pl. 2.
5. See Mortgage ; and Chapman v. Armisteads, pl. 7.
6. If a bond be executed to the acting partner of i

late mercantile company, a deel, from such part
ner, conveying all his real and personal property;
in trust, for the payment of his debts and those of
the company, (without mentioning the debts due
to the company,) is not to be considered an assign-
ment of such bond to the trustees. Andersen .

Bullock and Marshall, p. 442.
7. In debt on a promissory note, by the asignee

against the drawer, the note appearing to be " for
value received," but no consideration for the as.
signment being alleged; parol evidence on the
part of the defendant was admitted to prove that,
before the plaintiff paid to the assignor any cotta
plaintiff'notice not to take it, or to pay any thing
deration for the note, be, the defendant, gave the
for it, for that he had made it without any conse
deration, and should not pay it

, and also gave no tiee at the bank, that it might not be discounted; that the plaintiff had acknowledged that he had never paid any thing for u, and was not interested in it; and that the same was made as an accom

modation note. Nervell v. Hudgins, pl. 1. p. 496.
8.

A declaration, by the assignee of a promissory note,
is too defective to maintain the action, if it do not
state that the defendant failed to pay the money
to the drawee, as well as to the plaintif, ibid. pl. 2.

given to the principalfic given to the

e non) seribed by I

teny, p. 371

$. A person a

enditors of of administ terested in

controversy & It seems,

p. 97.

bank stock. Hipkins v. Bernard, Executor of

BILL OF REVIEW.
Hypkins, p. 83.

1. See Usury; and Elizey v. Lane's Executris, pl
BAR.

2. p. 66.
1 If a bill in chancery be dismissed," on the ground

2. Where a bill of review has been dismissed, o lbe
that the plaintiff's clai'n 18 e.clusively cognizable

ground that it ought not to have been aikat

the decree not being tinal ; the complainant it
al law; he cannot plead the pend, ncy of such That bill is not authorized, in his subsequent de
suit in chancery, to prevent the act of limitations fence, to make use of the answer to the bid of to
from being a bar to his subsequent recovery ac view as evidence in his favour, Ibid. pl. 3.

law. Gray's Adinx. v. Berryman, R: 181.
2. A dismission of a suit, by the plaintiff's order, is no

BILL OF SALE.
bar to his bringing a other suit for the same cause
of action. Coffman and Richardson v. Russell, p.

1. In detinue for a slave, the defendant having pm
207,

ducedl a bill of sale to support his title, the pas
3. A verdict and judgment at law against the plain.

off may prove parel declarations of the delen.
tiff' is no bar to his recovering, in equity, for the dant, disclaim ng title to the slave und r th said
same cause of action ; it not appearing, that the bill of sale, afier he had notice of the pleurig
merits of the controversy were fully and fairly
tried and determined at law; and th case stated

purchase, and before he had perfecied his own take

by obtaining possession. Fiwier v. Lec, p.373.
in his bill, and supported by proof, being such as

2. A bill of sale of a slave should be permitted to mo
to entiile him to equitable relief. Hawkins v. De-

to the jury as evidence, though no recordedFem
priest, p. 469.

ler v. Lee, p. 373.
4. A surrender of a defendant by his bail, either be.
fore or after judgment and his discharge from cus-

BLANKS.
tody, without being charged in execution, is no
bar to a ca. sa. against him, whether such dis. 1. A forthcoming bond, appearing in other respects
charge from enstody was by the plaintiff's oriler,

to be in proper forin, ought not to be quashel on
or not. Higginbotham v. Browns, pl. 3. p. 510, the ground ihat, in the obligutory or penal part

ther of, a blank is left for he names of the obligos.
BARGAIN AND SALE.

Brale v. Wilson and whers, pl 1. p. 380. .
1. See Purchasers; and Chapman y. Armisteads, pl.

BOND.
3. p. 382,

1. See New Trial; and Prict's Executor v. Fugue's
BILL IN CHANCERY.

Adıninistrator, p. 68.
2.

If one of two executors take a bond 10 himself as
L See Equity; and Ross v. Hook's Administrators,

executor of the estate, (without mentioning the
other) his executor may sue upon it

, nulwille
2. See Limitations, (act of.); and Gray's Adm.x, v.

standing the other executor survived bun, and
Berryman, p. 181.
3. A fact, not charged in the bill in chancery, nor

acted as such, and gave no assent to the institu

tion of the suit. Puidiam's Executria, v. Jean
put in issue by the pleadings, cannot be relied up-

and others, p. 71.
on by the plaintiff. Parker v. Carter and others,

3. See Declarat on; and Watson's Eur. v. Lyrick's
4. Ridefect in the charging part of a bill cannot be
. 273.

Heirs, p. 94.

See Agreemerit; Beverley's v. Holmes, p. 95.
supplied by a subs: quent interrogritory, Ibid.
5. See Injunction; and Hough v. Shreeve, p. 490.

5. Ad appeal bond, executed by # security bly,

out a principal, is not sufficient in law. Day,
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

E.a vr. of Yates, v Picket, p. 104.
6. In deht on a bond with collateral condition, if the

condition be not set out in the declaration, fikir
1. A bill of exceptions, stating the plaintiff offered to
prove, that the contract under seal, on which the

made part thereof by oyer, it should be distinctly
defendant reli d, appearing ab,olute on its #ice,

stated in a replication. Graham ard Sett v.6764

ham and Lave, p. 205.
was in fact conditionin', and that the court would

.
not per:nit the plaintiff to offer parol evidence to

7. See Sharifti; and Harrison v. Lone, p. 238.

8.
shew it conditional, is too vague an. uncertain for

See Usury; and for v. Taliaj rre, p.

9.
the Appellate Court to give an opinion upon it.

See Credis; and Early v. More, p. 242.
Forur v. Lec, p. 373,

10. One inspector of tobacco, being injured by the

misconduct of the o her, may bring suit :pou the
2. A bill of exceptions, stating the plaintiff offered to
prove, ibat a deed from a third person to the de.

official bond of such delinquent, against him and
fendant was obtened by frauil, to defeat the rights

his securities. Scot v, Harduwuy, p. 203.
of creditors and purchasers, und that the court re-

11. See an example of such an action, Ibid.
jected such evilence, (without stating that the

12. See Declarul n; and Ander on, numr. of Corty,
plain it was a creditor or purchaser, whose rights

v. Prie, p. 307.
were atfected by the deed,) is also too vague and

13. An appeal bond, executed by a surely only, with
uncertain, Ibid.

out any principal obligor, is insufficient

. Roster

v. Hulday and He'h. p. 323.
BILL OF EXCHANGE.

14. See Distribution, and Guerrant v. Juhnset and

o'hers, p. 360.
1. c. being indebred to M. hy judgment, gave (with

15. See Paier money; and Myrick, kdnr. of Lundie,

V. Adams.
the privity of M. but without his express authori-

р

66.
!y.) to S., whw, by virtue of an orler from M.,

16, See For: hromir:g bond; and Beale v. Wilsen erid
had an nterest in ihe same judgment, a drati on

others. pl. 1. 2. & 3. p. 380.
L, which was parily paid. and never returned. M.

17. See idhinistration ; and Behn F. Sheppard, pl. 1,
received, of person who undertook the collec.

4.

with-

1

243.