Appeals to the Privy Council
Report No. 13_1752_03

McCarty v McCarty (McCarty v Turf)

Virginia 

 

Case Name Short

McCarty v McCarty

McCarty v Turf

 
Case Name Long

Daniel McCarty by Joseph Morton v Thomas Turf on the demise of Daniel McCarty

 
 

Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial Series

view_APC

APC Citation 

v.4 [190] p.180–181 – 20 December 1752 – entry 1

 
PC Register Citation 

George II v.14 (1 April 1752 – 31 December 1753) p.272: PC 2/103/272

view  

APC Citation 

v.4 [190] p.181 – 10 May 1753 – entry 2

 
PC Register Citation 

George II v.14 (1 April 1752 – 31 December 1753) p.287–288, 289, 359, 360–364, 408–409: PC 2/103/287–288, 289, 359, 360–364, 408–409

view  

Colonial Courts

General Court – 10 October 1751

Participants

McCarty (M’Carty), Daniel of Fairfax county (deceased father of Dennis, Daniel, and Thaddeus McCarty)

McCarty (M’Carty), Daniel (son of Daniel McCarty and brother of Dennis and Thaddeus McCarty)

McCarty (M’Carty), Daniel, infant (son of Dennis McCarty and plaintiff in this action)

McCarty (M’Carty), Dennis (son of Daniel McCarty and brother of Daniel and Thaddeus McCarty)

McCarty (M’Carty), Thaddeus (son of Daniel McCarty and brother of Dennis and Daniel McCarty)

Minor, John

Morton, Joseph, gentleman (guardian of Daniel McCarty, infant)

Payne, William

Shirman, John

Turf, Thomas (lessee)

Description

Land (action of ejectment, according to the APC; action of trespass and ejectment, according to the earlier entries in the Privy Council register; “a Declaration in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment,” according to the Committee report) in Copeley parish, Westmoreland County

Disposition

Reversed – respondent allowed to proceed to a new trial with a special verdict

Notes

There can be little doubt that Thomas Turf and the lease to him are fictional. On this and on the action of trespass and ejectment involved here, see Additional Research.

From the record we have before us and the printed cases, it would seem that this is a suit between nephew and uncle, both named Daniel, and at issue is the interpretation of a clause in the grandfather’s will that deprived his son Daniel of the premises if he ceased to reside there and a deed by Dennis, the deceased father of the infant Daniel, in which Dennis waived his rights under that clause. The Committee, however, found the case confusing (hence, the result), and the record that we have may not tell the whole story.


DOCUMENTATION

Printed Cases

Appellant’s case

Case of the appellant (McCarty)

Counsel

[Signed] W. Murray; A. Hume-Campbell

 
Note

The appellant’s case is titled: Daniel M’Carty, an Infant, by Jospeh Morton, Gent. his Guardian – appellant; Daniel M’Carty, of Fairfax County, in Virginia, and Thomas Turf, his feigned Lessee . . . respondent.

 
Library

Law Library of Congress: Sir George Lee collection

view

Respondent’s case

Case of the respondent (Turf . . . “upon the fictitious demise of Daniel M’Carty”)

Counsel

[Signed] D. Ryder; K. Evans

 
Note

The respondent’s case gives the respondent as: Thomas Turf, the Plaintiff at Law, in an Ejectment upon a fictitious demise of Daniel M’Carty, of Fairfax County, in Virginia aforesaid, Gentleman.

 
Library

Law Library of Congress: Sir George Lee collection

view

Privy Council Documents in PC 1 at The National Archives at Kew

Not found