Legal Opinion

Brizendine's adm'x v. Tisdale

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided February 15, 1834Published

Debt by Tisdale against E. Brizendine administratrix of J Brizendine, on a bond of her intestate for £ 519. brought in the circuit court of Amelia. Pleas, Payment by defendant’s intestate—Debts of superiour dignity—and Fully administered; on which issues were made up.

Read the full summary

Debt by Tisdale against E. Brizendine administratrix of J Brizendine, on a bond of her intestate for £ 519. brought in the circuit court of Amelia. Pleas, Payment by defendant’s intestate—Debts of superiour dignity—and Fully administered; on which issues were made up. Upon the trial, the jury found a verdict in these words : “We of the jury find, that the defendant’s intestate has not paid the debt in the declaration mentioned, and that there are no debts of superiour dignity due from the intestate, and that the defendant has not fully administered all the assets which came to her hands…

1Opinion of the Court

The court, referring to the cases of Sturdivant’s adm'r v. Raines’s ex’or, 1 Leigh 481. and Gardner’s adm'r v. Vidal, 6 Rand. 106. reversed the judgment, and ordered a venire de novo.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gardner's Administrator v. VidalSupreme Court of Virginia · 1828
  2. Sturdivant's adm'r. v. Raines's ex'or.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1829

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API