Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-09-25
VIRGINIA: d
ut a Superior Corr Of Chancerr.

10 u otef'eI fof NOtTI " CfGnCS5-J',
holden at fhe cafitot, in the City Of Rich.
mond, The 2ist day Of June, 1911.
Mathew Clay. : Plaintiff.
Sarah Williams, executrix OF Joseph Williams
and admin'trix of Robert Williams. JohnCalI
and Lucinda his wife, VIM. Williams and John
b. Scott executors, Elizabeth Williams wi
dow, and John Robert Williams an inf at son
of John Williams deceased, by the said Eli
beth Williams his guardian, James Chalmers,
Sarah Chalmers, late Sarah Watkins widow
and administrative, and Mourning Mic,jah
Watkins an infant daughter of Micaiah Wat.
kins decd, by Henry z, Coleman her guardian
and Nathaniel Washington Williams, Martha
Williams and Fanny Williams by Sarah Wl-
hams their guardian, /; Defends.
AND,
Sarah Williams, executrix of Joseph Williams.
Plaintiff.
Mathew Clay, /: Defendant.
N conformity with decree OF the Court OF
Appeals, certified by the Clerk thereof, in
the following words, to wit -" Virginia TO wi, !.
At Court of Appeals held at ,n@ Capitol in the
City Of Richmond, the 2lst day of March, 1911.
Mathew Clay, appeilant against Sarah VIII
liams, execu;riz OF Joseph Williams and adj
Bstratrix ef 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 VII.
liams, an infant son of the said John n illiams
dec. by the said Elizaheih Williams his guar
dian, James Chalmers, Sarah Charaers, iale ga
rah Watkins, widow and administrators, and
Mourning Mioajah Watkins, An infant daughter
OF Micajah Watkins dec. by fieury f. Coleman,
her guardian, and Nsdhsniei- w sshington syii-
liams, Martha Williams and Fanny Williams in :
fants, By Sarah Williams their guardian. Appel
lees and the same appellant against SarahWD-
lJaTrs, executrix &c OF Joseph Williams decd
appellee opoa api.s.is fft.f lec:ss syFs'I,svi-
ced by the Superior Court of Chancery held in
Richmond the 10Th day of May, 1904, in two
s'iits, in one IF which the appellant vas pia N.
tiff and the appeliees in the first suit were de-
fendanis, and in the other the appellee IN the
second suit was plaintiff and the appellant d.
PENDANT. 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 AID decree alt the sole oh
ject OF these suits, whick, ms betwee, the appel
lant Nsthew Clay and the appellee sarah Xd-
iaIns, only, may be considered as cross suits
between those parties, had been, on the on,l
hand, 10 compel discovery of the assets Of 10
seph Williams dec in the hands of the appellee
Sarah, his executriy, 20 satisfy the Judgment
confessed by her, on note given 70 The appel
liant, Tor the purpose stated IN the depositi N OF
IheodorIck 70. McRjbsr,s, in the first suit, AND
charged Dy the appellee Sarah, N her cross bill,
and, oR tlie other, 20 be wholly relieved from
that Judgment, as obtained by fraud and mpo-
siton and coIiusIop between tbose psrties to de.
feat just claim against the estate 81 the said
seph Williams. this Court would have appro
we'd ct the dismissal OF the appellants Original
rll. and would have considered the appellee
Sarah as little entitled to the favor Of a Coatt
% Equity, on the grounds mention 4 in her cross
bal, although ths flcis therein alleged had been
fully proved, and would have left bot parties
IN the situation An which they had been placed
themselves but as il appears to this Court thar
the appellant, IN right Of his wife, is we'll emo
tied 70 40 account and settlement OF tue estate