« 이전계속 »
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, TO WIT:
BE It Remembered, that on the twenty-first day of March, in the forty-fifth year of the Independence of the United States of America, Wiixiam Mcsford. of the said District, hath deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as Author, in the words following, to wit:
** Reports of Cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of "Appeals of Virginia. By William Munford. Vol. vi."
In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled "an Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned."
R'D. JEFFRIES, Clerk of the District of Virginia. TO THE READER.
TO prevent mistakes by the student or practitioner, it is proper to mention that, in consequence of an Act of the General Assembly, passed March 5th, 1821, entitled, "an Act concerning the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts of Chancery, and for other purposes," (see Acts of 1820, c. 31, p. 31.) the point determined in the case of Winn v. Bowles, (p. ?S—25, of this volume,) is no longer law; and that, by two other Acts of the same session. (See c. 29. sect. 6. p. 30, and c. 34. sect. 1, p. 34,) it is declared, that more fines than one may legally be imposed on a sheriff or other officer for failing to return one execution; so that the case of Tomkies' ex'or v. Downman, (p. 557—573,) is not authority as to cases •ccurring since the 28th day of February 1821.
g^pThe following opinion of the Court, delivered by Judge Roane, in the case of the Morney General v. Broaddns and wife, February 17th 1818, was accidentally omitted in it's properplace.
Attorney General against Broaddus and Wife.
THIS is an information filed by the Attorney General, on behalf of the Commonwealth, against Andrew Broaddus and Jane C. his wife, in the Court of Chancery, for the District of Richmond. It is founded upon the written information of Thomas Price, Jr. aind John M. Shepard therewith exhibited. The information charges that the defendants intermarried togetl»er on the 29th of December 1815; the female defendant being the sister of a second wife of the other defendant, then lately deceased, and the widow of one of his nephews; and that these facts were well known to the parties, at the time of their intermarriage. It prays that the