Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-10-12
VIRGINIA:

NJ u otpc71OfL0ufr OF CnQ2ccfy,
holden at The Capitol, in the City Of Rich
mond, the 2lss day Of June, 1871.
Mathew Clay, q: Plaintiff !
Sarah Williams, executrix of Joseph Williams
and admin'trix of Robert Williams. JohnCall
and Lucinda his wife. VIM. Williams and John
B. Scott executors, Elizabeth Williams WI
dow, and John Robert Williams an infant son
of John Williams deceased, by the said Eli
beth Williams his guardian, James Chalmers,
Sarah Chalmers, late Sarah Watkins widow
and admipistrauix, and Mourning Micajah
Watkins an infant daughter of Micajah Wat.
kins d.c'd, byHenry 3. Coleman her guardian
and Nathaniel Washington Williams, Martha
Williams and Fanny Williams by Sarah Will
hams their guardian, Defends.
Sarah Williams, executrix Of Joseph Williams,
n conformity with decree Of the Court of
i Appeals, certified by the Clerk thereof, in
the following words, to wit: Virginia 20 wit:
AT Court of Appeals held at III, Capitol in the
City of Richmond, the 21st day of March, 1911,
Mathew Clay, appellant, against Sarah vii,
iiams, execusrix of Joseph Williams and admi-
nistratrix of Robert Williams, dec. John Call
and Lucinda his wife, William Williams & John
b. Scott, executors, and Elizabeth Williams
widow Of John Williams dec. John Robert Will,
liams, an infant son of the said John Williams
dec. by the said Elizabeth Williams his guar.
dian, James Chalmers, Sarah Chalmers, late Sa
rah Watkins, widow and atiministratrix, and
Mourning Micsjah Watkins, an infant daughter
Of Micajah Watkins dec. by Henry L. Coleman
her guardian, md Nathaniel Washington Will
liams, Martha williams and Fanny Williams in
fants, by SarahWilliams their guardian. Appel.
lees aud the same appellant against SsrahWil-
liams, executrix &c OF Joseph Williams decd,
appellee Upon appeals from decree prononu
ced by the Superior Court of Chancery held in
Richmond the 10th day of May, 1904, in two
suits, in one IF which the appellant was plain
tiff and the appeilees jin-the FIRST suit were de-
fend ants, and in the other the appellee in the
second suit was plaintiff and the appellant de-
fendant. This day came the parties by theic
counsel and the Court having matureiy con-
sidered the transcripts ofthe DEGREES aforesaid
and the arguments of counsel, pronounc cd the
following opinion and decree elf the sole oh
ject Of these suits, which, as between the appel.
liant Mathew Clay and the appellee Sarah wal
liams, only, may be considered as cross suits
between those parties, had been, on the one
hand, TO compel discovery OF the assets Of Jo
seph Williams dec. in the hands Of the appellee,
Sarah, his executrix, to satisfy the judgment
confessed by her, on q note given to the appel
liant, t2r the purpose stated in the deposition of
Theodorick B Mclioberts, in the first suit, and
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 to de.
feat q Just claim against the estate Of the said
Joseph Williams. this Court would have sppro
we'd of the dismissal Of the appeliant's origiuxl
bill. and would have considered the appellee
Sarah as little entitled to the favor Of a Court
ofEquity, 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 we'll emit
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
in those of the other executors named in the will
of the said Joseph, who for that purpose ought
70 be made parties to the original suit brought
by the appellant ; and also in the hands OF Ro-
bert Williams, the secoud husband Of the said
Sarah, who acted in her behalf as executor of
the said Joseph, from tn time of bis intermar-
rage with her, or his representatives. or distri-
butees, the original bill ought not to have been
dismissed, as to that object, but RET al ed for
the purpose Of such an account and settlement,
in which, account the appellant ought to be
charged With suchparts and proportion of the
estate Of the said Joseph Williams, as the guar.
dian account settled between the said Robert
Williams. .and the appellant, byvirtue 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 Lifetime. And ifupon a just and equita-
bic settlement and ad;nstnIenf Of such account,
it shall appear that the estate ofthe saie Robert
Williams in the hands OF his administrative or of
his distributes, is indebted to the estate of the
said Joseph, the said Administrative out 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
20 satisfy and pay to the appellant the amount
of his just proportion of the said Josepps estate,
afer payment Of all his just debts, Hot exceed
ing seven thousand five hundred pounds, Vir.
ginia currency, the amount Of his judgment a.
gainst the administering from which accosnt
Of the said Roberi Williams, in the hands of bis
is TO be exclthled whatever may
have been recovered and received by John Cali, |
rs the marriage portion Of his wife Lucinda, in
the life time of the said Robert, or by virtue of
the decree Of the court Of Pttsy vania county for
that account since his death, liberty being re. !
served to the plaintiff in the original bill, to con |
lroyert the validity of such marriage contract,
Or to shew If he can, that such decree was OBJ |
.sined by fraud and col usioH between the pr. !
lies to that suit IL necessary, for the discharge
Of his claim against the asid Roberts estate
This court is further Of opinion that the said
Hail h. lei al