Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-09-09

Affirmed
OF Mr.. Taylor's decisions IL
Reversed a
Affirmed, in toto
Reversed in part, and af-
firmcd in part 9
Thus it will be seen that the whole num-
Der OF causes, certified from the Court of APP
peals to the Court of Chancery, at Richmond,
is II T; of which, "a were the decisions of Mr..
Wythe, and II those of Mr.. Taylor--Out of
Mr.. Wythe's "a cases, IL were reversed, or
dismissed, as improvidently sent to the Court
of Appeals, and z affirmed.--Of MIR. Tay-
lor's IL cases, there were reversed, 8 af-
tirmed in toto, 1 affirmed, except as to costs,
reversed in part and affirmed in part, and
dismissed, on compromise by the parties.
And, out of the five reversed, there were but
two, in which the Court of Appeals differed
7vholy with the Chancellor on The merits !;
in the other three cases, one was reversed,
on the ground of jurisdiction, and the other
two affirmed as far as the Chancellor went !;
but the Court of Appeals extended the relief
further
Considering the immense number of cases
decided by the Chancellor, at Richmond, it
ought to be subject of admiration that his
DEGREES are so generally correct. But it is
not every difference of opinion between the
Judges of an inferior court and those of a SUI
perior, which is evidence that the former
are wrong, any more than a difference of o.
pinion, among the judges of the superior
court is evidence that the minority of thai
court are wrong. There mnst be some ~
bunal to settle the law (; and the majof<}y
must give the rule. How often have we a.
covered difference OF opinion among Ne
Judges of the Court of Appeals; and how on
ten hasit happened that the opinions Of the
minority have ultimately prevailed-How
often have we seen the decisions of a county
court reversed bya district court, and after
wards the decision Of the district court re-
versed and that of the county court afr
med: and, if there we're tribunal higher
than the Court of Appeals, might it not hap
pen that some of their decisions would be re-
versed.--These observations 1ow from the
actual state OF things, and not from any sen,
timent of disrespect towards the judges of
the Court Of Appeals; forevery one of whom,
individually, the writer Of this article. feels
the utmost degree of friendship and respect.
In theirjudicial character too, they have GER
taIniy deserved well of their country they
have fully met the public expectation, in the
dispatch ofbusiness
If TO all the causes decided by the Cha
cellor at Richmond, in which his decreesHre
acquiesced in by the bar, Zone of the lost
enlightened in the WORLDLY there be He'd
those cases in which his DEGREES have Aen
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, thosAin
which POINTS settled by him, have been con
Cured in by the Supreme Court, and the nu-
mcrous class Of cases in which applications
have been made for appeals from his decisi-
ons, which we're overruled, it will be found
that the proportion that those would bear,
which are reversed, to those in which the
decree is satisfactory, would be about as one
to fifty.
Let US now take cursory view of the thin
ted cases in which the decisions Of the Cham
celicr have been tested BY the Court Of APP
Peals.-In Cooke, Crazgford u CO. VS.. Poks,
lokG CO. and johnson VS.. Hurts q HenA
& Munford, 1907 the opinion Of the Chauei-
Tor WIS concurred in by the Court of Up
peals.--in Patty y others VS. Colin u ofl{1s,
the decree of the Chancellor was reversed
eonoitfonoEty, but may yet be affirmed.-In
Price vs. Strange q Hening and Munford-
6l5) the decision Of the Chancellor in Dazy-
ney VS.. Wright g Hening and Munford ~
IS entirely conCursed in.--In the case Of HI
Tam q 1dary College vs.. Lees crccutors