Baird v. Bland
Supreme Court of Virginia
AFTER the affirmance, by this Court, (see 3 Munf. 578,) of Chancellor Wythes’s interlocutory Decree, in the suit of Bland and others v. Baird and others, by which Baird was directed to deliver to the plaintiffs the slave Will, first named in the Bill, and account for his profits; the cause being rem-mded to the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, an Account was taken, by a Commissioner, of the profits of the slave Will, and reported to the Court; to which,…
Read the full summary
AFTER the affirmance, by this Court, (see 3 Munf. 578,) of Chancellor Wythes’s interlocutory Decree, in the suit of Bland and others v. Baird and others, by which Baird was directed to deliver to the plaintiffs the slave Will, first named in the Bill, and account for his profits; the cause being rem-mded to the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, an Account was taken, by a Commissioner, of the profits of the slave Will, and reported to the Court; to which, the defendant Baird excepted, (among other reasons.) “ because he “ was charged hire for Will during the life of…
1Opinion of the Court
March ifyth, 1817,
Judge Roane
pronounced the Court’s opinio®*
*493The Court is of opinion, that there is no error in the Decree, so far as the principle thereof allows interest upon the hires, of the Slave in question, actually received by the Appellant, from others, from the dates of such receipts respectively : but that the same is erroneous in allowing interest upon hires, not so received by him, and also upon those, decreed to foe due by him for the slave aforesaid, the same being unliquidated. and merely conjectural sums, and which, therefore, the Appellant was in no default in not paying.
The…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Backhouse v. JettU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Virginia · 1821
- Evans v. SpurginSupreme Court of Virginia · 1854
- Tierney v. United Pocahontas Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1921
- Shields v. AndersonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1832