Williamson v. Kincaid

Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 20 (1800), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing that where the recovery of specific real estate is sought, affidavits of value are permitted as a suitable mode of ascertaining the fact, and bringing it upon the record.[1] The principal question (whether an alien, British subject, was entitled under the treaty of peace to claim and hold lands in dower) was not discussed. Rather, the case concerned the mode of ascertaining the value of the matter in dispute. The case was decided on 13 February 1800 without oral argument.[2]

Williamson v. Kincaid
Decided February 13, 1800
Full case nameJohn G. Williamson v. Marian Kincaid
Citations4 U.S. 20 (more)
4 Dall. 20; 1 L. Ed. 723
Holding
Where the value of the matter in dispute did not appear upon the record, the Court allowed affidavits to prove the same to be taken on notice to the opposite party, the writ of error not to be a supersedeas.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Oliver Ellsworth
Associate Justices
William Cushing · William Paterson
Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington

Facts

According to the record, "Marian Kincaid of Great Britain, widow, demanded against John G. Williamson the one-third of 300 acres of land, &c., in Chatham County as dower. That the tenant pleaded 1st, the Act of Georgia passed 1 March, 1778, attainting G. Kincaid (the demandant's late husband) forfeiting his estate, and vesting it in Georgia, without office; 2d, the Act of 4 May, 1782, banishing G. Kincaid and confiscating his estate; 3d, the appropriation and sale of the lands in question by virtue of the said attainder and confiscation before 3 September, 1783 (the date of the definitive treaty of peace) and before G. Kincaid's death; 4th, the alienage of the demandant (who was resident abroad on 4 July, 1776, and ever since) and therefore incapable of holding lands in Georgia. That the demandant replied that she and her husband were inhabitants of Georgia on the 19th of April 1775, then under the dominion of Great Britain; that her husband continued a subject of Great Britain and never owed allegiance to Georgia, nor was ever convicted by any lawful authority of any crimes against the state."[3]

Dispute

The court noted, "For the plaintiff in error, it was admitted in answer to an objection that the value of the matter in dispute did not appear upon the record, but it was urged that from the nature of the subject, the demand of the plaintiff could not ascertain it, nor from the nature of the suit (like a case of ejectment, where damages are only given for the ouster) could it be fixed by the finding of a jury, on the judgment of the court. 3 Bl.Com. 35-36. As therefore there was no act of Congress nor any rule of the court prescribing a mode to ascertain in such cases the value in dispute, that the party may have the benefit of a writ of error, it was proposed to continue the cause to afford an opportunity to satisfy the court by affidavits of the actual value of the property."[3]

References
  1. Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U.S. 578 (1883).
  2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf
  3. Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 20 (1800).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.