Hill v. Umberger
Citations
- 77 Va. 653
- 1883 Va. LEXIS 102
Syllabus
<p>1. Equitable Jurisdiction and Relief-Laches and lapse of time.-It is a familiar doctrine of courts of equity that nothing can call forth these courts into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence. Where these are wanting the court is passive. Staples, J., in Harrison v. Gibson, 23 Gratt. 223.</p> <p>2. Idem-Idem-Loss of evidence-Death of parties.-If the original transactions have become so obscured by time and loss of evidence, and the death of parties, that no correct account can be rendered, and that any conclusion at which the court may arrive must, at best, be conjectural, the court will not relieve the plaintiff.</p> <p>3. Idem-Idem-Idem-Idem-Case at bar.-In 1845, N. C. conveyed to McG., in trust for M., wife of P. H., slaves and other personalty&emdash;c. q. t. to possess and use same during her life, unless interference of trustee might be necessary to prevent disposal thereof by the husband&emdash;remainder to her children. M. died in 1855, her husband and children surviving. Later, in 1855, McG. qualified as guardian of the children, with S. as his surety. McG. sold two of the slaves for $2,200. Exactly when, or in what capacity he sold them, is unknown. Soon after M.’s death, her husband and children left this state, and in the state of A. he qualified as their guardian. In 1857 P. H., as such foreign guardian, obtained an ex parte order from the circuit court of W. county that McG., trustee, transfer to him all the said trust property, and take his receipt .therefor. It is alleged that McG., in 1857, gave to P. H. his note for $2,063.16, for what was due from him as guardian; that T., as trustee, had paid to P. H. on the note $1,364; that the balance remained unpaid; that P. H. died in 1870, and that the note was burned accidentally in 1873; but that the note was given by McG. as guardian, or that it was unpaid and destroyed was not clearly proved. S. died about 1879, and his real estate was partitioned among his heirs, and U. quali
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- accepting premiums with knowledge of facts which may render a policy void waives the right to avoid the policy
- accepting premiums with knowledge of facts which may render a policy void waives the right to avoid the policy
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Richardson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.