Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-09-10


holden at The Conifoi, in the Gin Of Rich.
hohad. the 2isi d@y Of June, 1911.
Mathew Clay, Plaintiff
| against
Sarah Williams, executrix OF Joseph Williams
and admin'trix OF Robert Williams. JuhnCaI
and Lucinda his vie, VIM. Williams and John
b. Scott executors, Elizabeth Williams wi
dow, and John Robert Williams an infant son
q of JOHN Williams deceased, by the said Eli-
| beth Williams his Guardian, James Cb smers,
\ Sarah Chalmers, late Sarah Watkins widow
4 and adninistrstfix, and Mourning Micsjah
Watkins an ipfant daughter Of biicajah Wat.
kins deed, byTIenry T.. Coleman her guardian
and Nathaniel Washington Williams, Martha
wiIliams and Fanny Williams by Sarah vii
liars their Guardian. Defends
sTl AND,
Sarah Williams, executrix of Joseph Williams,
Plaintiff.
Mathew Clay, Defendant.
In conformity with decree Of the Court Of
i Appeals, certified by the Clerk thereof, IN
the following words, to wit 20 Virginia TO wit:
At a Court OF Appeals held at the Capitol in the
City Of Richmond, the Dist iay of March, 1911.
Mathew Clay, appellant, against Sarah Viii.
iiams, execu;rix of Jos RI, Williams and admi-
nistratrix Of Robert Williams, dec. John Call
and Lucinda his wife, William Williams & John
widow OF John Williams dec John Robert Will.
Hams, an infant son Of the said Jehn W illiams
dec. by the said Elizabeth Williams his guar
dian, James Chalmers, Sarah Chalmers, late Sa-
rah Watkins, widow ard admlpsratrix, and
Mourning Nieajth watkins, an infant daughter
OF Micajah Watkins dec. by Henry e. Coleman
l her guardian, ard Nathaniel Washington Will
liams, Martha w i)liams and Fanny williams in
fants, by Sarah Williams their guardian. Appel
ieesi and the same appellant against SarahWl-
Hams, execut-ix &c. OF Joseph Williams deed,
4 appellee: Upon appeals from decree pronoan-
cedhy the Superior Court of Chancery held in
Richmond the 10Th day of May, 1904, in two
snts, in one Of which the appellant was plain:
Tiff and the appelless inthe first Suit were de-
PENDANTS, and in the other the appellee in the
second suit was plaintiff and the appellant de =
fendant This day came the parties by their
counsel and the Court having maturely con-
sidered the transcripts Of the DEGREES aforesaid
and the arguments of counsel, pronounced the
following opinion and decree If the sole OH
Fleet OF these suits. which. as between the appel
liant Mathew Clay and the appellee Sarah VIII
iia:ns, only, may be considered MS cross suits
lbstween those parties, had been, on the one
Inland, to compel discovery of the assets of 10.
seph Williams dec in the hands of the appellee
Sarah, his executrix, 10 satisfy the Judgment
/. confessed by her, on q note given to the appel
liant, for the purpose stated in the deposition of
Tbcodorick b. 3icltcberts, in the FIRST suit, an1
lchsrged by the appellee Sarali,in her cross bill;
| and, on the otkei, TO be wholly relieved from
that Judgment, IS obtained by fraud and iHipo-
stiou aud co,iusion between those parties de
feat Just claim sainst the estate OF The said
Joseph Williams. this Court would have appro
we'd OF the dismissal OF the appellants original
bill. and would have considered the appellee
Sarah rs little entitled to tne favor OF Court
oi Equity, on the groundsmen,ionedi in her cross
bill, although the facts therein alleged had been
i fully proved, anil would have left both parties
{ in the situation in vhich they had been placed
themselves but as tapy.ears to this Court that
I the appellant, in right al his wife, is we'll enti-
:. tied to an accoun, and settlement oflthc estate
OF the said Joseph Williams dec. MOI only in the
: hands Of the appellee Sarah, his executrix, but
in those Of the osksk eJecnfsrS asnleo IA iiie Wi
" OF the ssid Joseph. who for that purpose ough'
10 he s,ase parties 20 the original suit brought
: blythe appellant; and also III the hands OF Ro-
u bert Wiilisms, the second husband of the said
y Sarah, Who acted in her. behalf as executor oil
the said Joseph, from the time OF his intermar-
= rage with her, or his representatives or disfri
= bntees, the original bill ought not to hsve been
;, dismissed, as 10 that object, but ret. ned toi
= the purpose of such an account and settlement
in which account the appellant ought TO be
' charged with such parts and proportion OF The
5 estate Of the said Joseph Williams, SIS th: guar
c dian account settled between the SAID Rober
s f~Niiliams and the appellant, by virtue OF an
: order OF Pittsylyania County Court, made ct the
instance of the said appellant, shews to have
been accounted for, and delivered TO the appel
Iant in right OF his said wife, by the said Rober
!. Fin his life time. And ifupon just and equita'
bic settlement and adjournment of such account
il shall appear that the estate the saidRober
= Williams IN the hands Of his administrators o.
his distributes, IS indebted to the estate OF tiit
y said Joseph, the ssid administrative out of the
a assets in her hands to be administered, or th'
q several distributes respectively, according u
:. the portions OF the said Roberts estate which
"a they may have received since his death, ough
% satisfy and pay to the appellant the amour
y of his Just proportion ofthe said osephs estate
a ter payment of all his Just debts, not exceed
" ing seven thousand five hundred pounds, Viz
~ ginia currency, the amount Of his Judgment q
y gainst the Administrative from which eccoun
n Of the said RohertWilliams, in tire hands of hi
. distributes, is to be excluded whatever ma
y have been recovered and received by John Call
4 as the marriage portion OF his wife Lucinda, il
a the life time OF the said Rosert, or by virtue 0
" the decree Oft the court Of PttsyeaRia couaty 70
ie that account sirce his death, liberty being re
served TO the plaintiff in the original bill, TO cor
: troyert the validity Of such marriage contrsc
OF to shew II he Gun, that such decree vas Oh
tanned by fraud and coilusioa between the pal
sies TO that quit IL necessary, for the discharg
OF his claim against the asid Roberts estate
This court is further OF opinion that the sal
Mathew CLAY, tie defendant in the cross bi
having, by lis answer TO tbat bill so far ADM,
= ted that be possessed q kno Wedge Of tie dii
possl Of the certificates BELONGING to the estst
49, Of the said robert Williams, in the cross bl
~ charged to have bees delivered 20 him 10 max
sale Of, as TO have the accounts and receipts =,
:. spect ny the same, in his hands, which he reiei
n' to in his said aDswer'as exhibits, but does M
appear TO have produced them, he ought 10 pr'
H. | dure such accounts ard receipts or to anSWS