Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee

1813 • 11 U.S. 603 • Marshall Court
In Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state legislature cannot pass laws which would impair or invalidate private contracts made before its passage. The case involved two parties who had conflicting claims to land in Virginia due to an earlier contract between Lord Fairfax and Thomas 6th Lord Culpeper regarding ownership of the land. In 1779, Virginia passed a law which allowed for escheated lands (lands whose owners were deceased) to be...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Marshall Court
Term: 1813
11 U.S. 603
3 L. Ed. 453
1813 U.S. LEXIS 460
Argued: Feb 27, 1812

Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state legislature cannot pass laws which would impair or invalidate private contracts made before its passage. The case involved two parties who had conflicting claims to land in Virginia due to an earlier contract between Lord Fairfax and Thomas 6th Lord Culpeper regarding ownership of the land. In 1779, Virginia passed a law which allowed for escheated lands (lands whose owners were deceased) to be sold at public auction with all proceeds going towards paying off Revolutionary War debts owed by Virginia. This law was challenged by both parties claiming rights over this particular parcel of land as it impaired their prior agreement from 1690 when Fairfax granted his estate to Culpeper’s heirs upon his death without issue. The court held that such legislation could not be applied retroactively and thus found in favor of Fairfax’s devisees since they had already established their right through an existing contract prior to enactment of the new statute.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Virginia statute that allowed for escheat of land to the state when an owner died without heirs violated Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because Congress had not yet legislated on this matter and thus could be left up to individual states. Justice Johnson dissented from this decision arguing that since Congress had exclusive power over federal lands, any law regarding them must come from them and not individual states. He argued further that while there may have been no legislation at present on such matters, it would still be unconstitutional for a state to pass laws concerning these lands as they were outside their jurisdiction and only within Congress’s purview. As such he believed Virginia’s statute should have been struck down by the court as unconstitutional in order to protect Congressional authority over federal lands granted by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms