History
  • No items yet
midpage
Eckhols v. Graham
1 Call 492
Va. Ct. App.
1799
Check Treatment
LYONS, Judge.

Delivered the resolution of the Court, that the names of the slaves ought to have been endorsed, in order to prevent purchasers from being deceived. * That it would make no difference whether the bond taken was good or not. For, if good, then the property was clearly released;† and if not, then some proceedings, with respect to it, should have been had. But be that as it might, the Court were clearly of opinion, that by taking the second execution, he waived the first; and discharged the lien if any subsisted: Which answered the difficulty, whether there should not be a venire facias de novo, in order to ascertain the identity of the slaves? Because,.it could be to no purpose to ascertain that the slaves were taken on the execution; since, if it was so, the Couit were clear that the plaintiff, by taking the second execution, had waived all benefit under the first; and destroyed the lien if he had any.

Judgment affirmed.

[* Dix v. Evans, 3 Munf. 308.]

[† See Lusk v. Ramsay, 3 Munf. 417.]

Case Details

Case Name: Eckhols v. Graham
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Date Published: Apr 30, 1799
Citation: 1 Call 492
Court Abbreviation: Va. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.