Case ID: va_14/html/0949-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Webb v. Barbour. Two Cases.
    September, 1809.
    Chancery — Mandamus to County Court. — Quaere, whether a mandamus lies from this Court to a County Court, compelling the justices to hear and determine a cause, where there appears to have been unreasonable delay?
    
      
       See monographic note on “Mandamus” appended to Dawson v. Thruston, 3 Hen. & M. 133.
    
   The plaintiff, by counsel, moved for a rule upon the Justices of the County Court of Orange, where the causes were depending, to shew cause, at the next term, why a mandamus should not go commanding them to hear and decide upon the rights of the parties therein; alleging that the said County Court had refused to do so, and that their refusal had been so often repeated, that it amounted to a denial of justice.

The Chancellor said, that the motion involved in its consequences many weighty considerations: that he was not ready to say, admitting the facts, that the Court would exercise such a power. But, from the circumstances stated and proved, he would make the rule, that, upon the return of it, the subject might come fairly before the Court. He hoped, however, that the County Court was not less disposed than himself, to discharge, as speedily as possible, in the order of their docket, the public trust confided to their hands; for, certainly, said he, nothing could contribute more to the honor and justice of the country, than a speedy determination of controversies, at law or in equity.

And so the rule was made returnable to the first day of the next term.