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

Hunter Versus Fairfax's Devisee

1796 • 3 U.S. 305 • Ellsworth Court
Hunter v. Fairfax's Devisee is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States. The case was brought by James Hunter, who had been granted land by Lord Fairfax through a deed of gift in 1774. After Lord Fairfax died, his nephew and heir attempted to revoke the grant on grounds that it violated English law which prohibited such gifts without royal assent. Hunter argued before the Supreme Court that he should be allowed to keep his property...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 Ellsworth Court
Term: 1796
3 U.S. 305
1 L. Ed. 613
1796 U.S. LEXIS 404

Hunter Versus Fairfax's Devisee

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Hunter v. Fairfax's Devisee is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States. The case was brought by James Hunter, who had been granted land by Lord Fairfax through a deed of gift in 1774. After Lord Fairfax died, his nephew and heir attempted to revoke the grant on grounds that it violated English law which prohibited such gifts without royal assent. Hunter argued before the Supreme Court that he should be allowed to keep his property because Virginia state law recognized such grants as valid even if they did not comply with English common law. The court ultimately sided with Hunter, ruling that since Virginia state laws were passed prior to American independence from England, they must take precedence over any conflicting British laws or regulations. This decision set an important precedent for future cases involving conflicts between federal and state laws; namely, when there is a conflict between them then federal courts will defer to applicable state statutes unless those statutes are found unconstitutional under Article III of the Constitution or otherwise violate some other provision of federal law

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Hunter v. Fairfax's Devisee, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a devisee could not bring an action against a testator’s executor for failing to perform his duties under the will. The dissenting opinion argued that such an action should be allowed because it would provide relief from injustice and protect those who were wronged by executors' negligence or misconduct in carrying out their fiduciary duties. Furthermore, allowing such actions would encourage executors to act with greater care when handling estates and ensure they are more diligent in fulfilling their obligations as trustees of wills. The dissent also noted that if no remedy was available for breach of trust then creditors might suffer losses due to mismanagement or fraud on behalf of the estate’s administrators which could lead to further economic hardship within society at large.

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