Kent v. Armistead
Supreme Court of Virginia
In this case the declaration was in the following words : “ The district composed of Richmond, Westmoreland, Lancaster and Northumberland counties, to wit: Lewis G. ArmiS(Cad complains of Thomas Kent, in custody, 8cc., of a plea, , 1 , , . ’ , ’ ’ ’ that he render to him one negro slave named Spencer, oí 0f 500-dollars, which from him he unjustly deJ J day of tains ; for that whereas the plaintiff, on the 1806, at the parish of , and county of Northumberland aforesaid, which…
Read the full summary
In this case the declaration was in the following words : “ The district composed of Richmond, Westmoreland, Lancaster and Northumberland counties, to wit: Lewis G. ArmiS(Cad complains of Thomas Kent, in custody, 8cc., of a plea, , 1 , , . ’ , ’ ’ ’ that he render to him one negro slave named Spencer, oí 0f 500-dollars, which from him he unjustly deJ J day of tains ; for that whereas the plaintiff, on the 1806, at the parish of , and county of Northumberland aforesaid, which is within the jurisdiction this court, delivered to the defendant the said negro, of the value aforesaid, to be by him…
1Opinion of the Court
The president pronounced the court’s opinion, “that, (without deciding either of the points stated in the bills of exceptions,) the declaration is insufficient to support the action ; it not being stated therein that the slave in question belonged to, or was the property of the plaintiff, now defendant.” (1.)
Judgment reversed, and entered in favour of the plaintiff in error.
Note. See 1 Chitty on pleading, 365 ; 3 Tuck. Bl. 152 Sound. 379. note 13.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dykes & Co. v. Woodhouse's AdministratorSupreme Court of Virginia · 1825
- Hunt's Adm'r v. Martin's Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1852