Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Hunter v. Fairfax's

3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 305

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1796-08-06
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • opining that a statement is "testimonial" if it was made for an "evidentiary purpose" 4 and "under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the 5 statement would be available for use at a later trial"

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hunter v. Fairfax's. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
HUNTER v. FAIRFAX'S,3 U.S. 305(1796)
HUNTERversusFAIRFAX'S Devisee.
AUGUST TERM, 1796.
BY order of the court, a letter from the Plaintiff in error, dated the 29th ofJuly, 1796, and directed to the Clerk, was read. The letter stated, "that the Plaintiff had employed Mr.Campbell, ofVirginia, to argue the cause; that on the 25th ofJuly, he was informed, that Mr.Campbellhad died inRichmond, on the 18th of the fame month; and that, being left without counsel, in consequence of this event, he prayed the cause might be continued till next term."
LeeandIngersoll, in objection to the request, stated, that, from the nature of the cause, delay would be worse to the Defendant in error, than a decision adverse to his claim; that the Plaintiff ought always to be ready for trial; that there had been sufficient notice of Mr.Campbell'sdeath, for engaging the assistance of other counsel; that the case depended entirely on the record, might yet be considered by counsel, so as to obtain a decision during this court, and that it had already been postponed one term, at the instance of the Plaintiff in error.
But, BY THE COURT: — In all questions of this nature, we must be governed by a found discretion; in order to prevent, on the one hand, an unnecessary procrastination, and, on the other hand, to avoid an injurious precipitation of trials. In the present instance, we think there is a sufficient foundation laid before us, to justify our granting a continuance 'till the next Term. If the cause were now to be taken up, it must be heard and decidedex parte. It is true, that counsel might even at this time be employed, so as to admit, perhaps, of an argument before the court rises; but it is reasonable, that in a cause of such magnitude,fn*the counsel should have an opportunityPage 306to investigate the principles, and to consider the authorities connected with it, out of term, and unencumbered by the pressure of the current business of the court.

Let the Cause be continued.
  1. Page 305 The Attorney General stated the point in controversy to arise on these facts: Lord Fairfax was a citizen of Virginia, and died in the year Page 306 1780; having made a will by which he devised certain lands in that state, to the Defendant in error, who then was, and ever has been, a British subject, resident in Great Britain. The question is, whether being thusan alien, the Defendant in error cantake and holdthe lands by devise? And, it will be contended, that his title is completely protected by the Treaty of Peace, concluded between the United States and Great Britain, in the year 1783.

    CHASE,Justice: I recollect, that in Harrison's case, a decision in favor of such a devisee's title was given, by a court in Maryland. It is a matter, however, of great moment; and ought to be deliberately and finally settled. ↩