Marks v. Morris

Holding

THE decision of this case in the court of appeals, by which the decree of the superior court of chancery, for the Richmond district, (reported in 4 IT. & M. 463-— v *■ m ^ 4TO.) was reversed, has settled a principle so important, that it is here inserted, without regard to chronological order. It is also proper to mention that, in the following statement, an error, committed in the former report of the case, in statin? the bill to have been for a disco-65 •* very, is corrected.

. Solomon Marks filed his hill, in the superior court of chancery, for the Richmond district, against Simpson Morris and Charles Copland, to be relieved against a usurious contract, covered by two deeds of trust; praying an injunction to inhibit Copland, the trustee, from ° J * * 7 selling the property thereby conveyed; and a rescission of the contract by a decree or the court; or such other relief as might be deemed just and equitable, and the naThe bill (setting forth, particularly, the circumstances of the contract) stated, moreover, that Hyman Marks, a witness, x . 7 J 7 7 was privy to the whole transaction, and that, by his tes- • 7 777 ,, r , timony, the usury could be established* The defendants were called upon, in the usual form, “ to make full, true, and perfect answer to the premises, as fully as if the same were again particularly set forth and expressed.” ture and merits of the case might justify*

The answer of Simpson Morris, the cestuy que trust, • 7 7 • – 7 7 – 7 7 M neither admitted nor positively denied the usury, which, however, was clearly proved by the testimony in the cause.

The chancellor’s decree gave the plaintiff relief against all but so much of the principal money as appeared to be 1 c J rr due ; and allowed him all costs: directing, in case the ° said balance of the principal should not be paid on or before a certain day, the injunction, for so much, should stand dissolved as an act of the day when the decree was rendered; that the deeds remain as a security for the same; and that Charles Copland be appointed a commissioner to proceed, agreeably to the terms of the deeds, to raise the amount thereof, and to report his proceedings to the court in order to a final decree.

From this decree the plaintiif prayed an appeal, which the chancellor allowed.

Case Coverage

• Stuart A. Raphael, What is the Standard for Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction in Virginia?, 57 U. Rich. L. Rev. 197 (2022).

  One sentence describing a Justice's argument that Virginia adopted English common law principles, but the decisions of the Engish Court's were not precedential.