Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-09-17
VIRGINIA..
At a Superior Court of Chaacery,

az u oiiPeTforL0uft0 J Chdnccfy,
holden az the Capitol, in the City of Rich.
hotnd, the 2lst day Of June, 1911.
Mathew Clay, {: Plaintiff. /
Sarah Williams, exccutrix Of Joseph Williams
and admin'trix OF Robert Williams. JohnC al,
and Lucinda his vile, VIM. w illiams and John
II. Scott executors, Elizabeth Williams wiz
dow, and John Robert Williams an infant son
OF John Williams deceased, by the said Eli
oeth Williams his guardian, James Chalmers,
Sarae Chalmers, late Sarah Watkins widow
and Administrative, and Mourning Micaish
Watkins an infant daughter of Mcaiah Wat.
kins deco, by Henry 4. Coleman her guardian
and Nathaniel Washington Williams, Martha
Williams and Fanny Williams by Sarah WI
tiains their guardian. Defead'ts.
AND,
Sarah Williams, exeeutrix Of Joseph Williams,
Plaintiff
conformity with decree Of the Court of
Appeals, certified by the Clerk thereof. il,
the following. words, to wit {: " virgipia to wit:
At Court Of Appeals held 1t the Cspi,ol in the
City OF Richmond, the 2lst day of March, 1911,
Mathew Clay, appellant, against Sarah vii.
5liams, execu;rix of Joseph Williams and ADM.
nistratrix OF Robert Williams, dec. John Call
o'it buShhut hSlWuC, Wllil0m Williams q John
u. Scott, executors, and Elizabeth Williams
widow of John Williams dec. John Robert vii.
lams, an infant son of the said John " iliiams
dec. by the said Elizabeth Williams his guar.
dian, James Chalmers, Sarah Chalmers, late Sa-
rah Watkins, widow and Administrative. and
Msurning Micajah Watkins, AN infant daughter
OF Micajah Watkins dec. by Henry Z. Coleman
her guardian. and Nathaniel Washington VIII
lan,s, Martha Williams and Fanny Williams in-
taQtg. nv SarahyVitltRnts fhasr
lees and the same appellant against Sarah Will
iiams, executrix &c. of Joseph Williams decd,
appellee Upon appeals from decree pronoun.
ced by the Superior Court Of Chancery held in
Richmond the 10th day of May, 1904. in two
suits, in one Of which the appellant was plain
tiff and the appellees in the FIRST suit were de-
tend ants, and IN the other the appellee in the
second suit was plaintiff and the appellant de-;
iendsnt. This day came the parties by their
counsel and the Court having maturely con-
sidered the transcripts ofthe DEGREES aforesaid
and the arguments Of counsel, pronounced the
following opinion aud decree eff the sole OBJ
Ject OF these suits, which, as between the appel.
liant Mathew Clay and the appellee Sarah Will
liams, only, may be considered as cross suits
between those parties, had been, on the one
hand, to compel discovery of the assets oil 10.
seph Williams dec inthe hands OF the appellee
Sarah, his executrix, to satisfy the judgmen,
confessed by her, on note given to the appel
knt, Tor the purpose stated in the deposition of
lheodorick Mciioberts, in the first suit, ami
charged by the appellee Sarah. in her cross bill;
and, on the other, to be wholly relieved from
that Judgment, as obtained by fraud and impo.
sition and collision between those parties 10 de
feat just claim against the estate of the said
Joseph Williams, tins Court would have aprro.
we'd OF the dismissal of the appellants original
nlil, and would have considered the appellee |
Sarah as little entitled TO the favor of Court |
or Equity, on the grounds mentioned in her cross
bill, although the facts therein alleged had been
fully proved, and would have left both parties |
IN the situation in which they had been placed |
themselves but as it appears to this Court that
the appellant, in right of his wife, is well enti-
tied TO an account and settlement Of the estate |
OF the said Joseph Williams dec not only in the /
hands OF the appellee Sarah, his executrix, but I
IN those OF the other erecutors named in the will
OF the said Joseph, who for that purpose ought |
10 0e made parties to the original suit brought I
by the appellant; and also in the hands OF Ro-
bert Williams, the second husband OF the said |
Sarah, who acted in her behalf as executor OF |
the said Joseph, from the tine Of his intermar
e.with her, or his representatives or disiri-
butees, the original bill ought not to have been
dismissed, as 10 that object, but retained for
the purpose of such an account and settlement.
in which account the appellant ought to be /
charged With such parts and proportion OF the |
estate of the said Joseph Williams, as the guar
dian account settled between the said Robert /
Williams and the appellant, by virtue OF an |
order of Pittsylvania County Court, made at the |
instance OF the said appellant, shews to have
been accounted for, and delivered to the appel |
liant IN right OF his said wife, by the said Robert
in his life-time. Aud it upon Just and eauita,
bic settlement and ad;nsfnsert OF such account,
1t shall appear that the estate of the sai.Robert
w iiiiams IN the hands oi his administrator o. OF
a ~. at,f.fo Il .t,...
SAID Joseph, the said administrators on, OF the
assets in her hands to be administered, or the
several distributes respectively, according to
The portions OF the said Roberts estate WHICH
they may have received since his death, ought
TO satisfy and pay to the appellant the amy1rt
OF has just proportion ofthe said Joseph's state
after payment Of all his just debts, not exceed |
ing seven thousand five hundred pounds, yir- /
ginia currency, The amount of his Judgment a.
gaiilst the administratrix from which accosnt
OF the said RoberiWilIiams, in the hands OF his
is TO be excluded Whatever may
have been recovered and received by John Cali,
as the marriage portion OF his wire Lucinda, in (
the life time of the said Robert, or by virtue OF
the decree OF the couri OF Pt,syivanis county for
That aSueinit since his death, liberty be ing re.
served to the psniiif IN the us,eiIial Bill 20 con-
trovert the validity of such marriage contract, I
OF to shew II he can, that such decree was oh.
tanned BY fraud and col'usioH between the par.
Ties TO that suit II necessary, for the discharge
o his claim against the asid Roberts estate
This court is further of opinion that the said |
Mathew Clay, the defendant in the cross bill
having, by ms answer TO that bill so far admit
ted that he POSSESSED. knowledge of the dis
possi Of the certificates Belonging TO the estate |
OF the said Robert Williams, IN the cross bill I
cha ged to have been delivered to him 70 make
sale OF, as 20 have the accounts and receipts re-
spect ny the same, IN his hands, which he refers