Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-10-01
ViKGiNiA:
1T a Superior Court Of Chancery,
holden at the Cahifol, in the City of Rich.
mond. The 2ist day Of June, 1911.
Mathew Clay, Plaintiff.


Mathew Clay, Plaintiff.
Sarah Williams, executrix of Joseph Williams
and admin'trix of Robert Williams. JohnCsll
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 administrative. and Mourning Micsiah
Watkins ali infant daughter of Micaiah Wat.
kins decd, byfIenry f. cvleruan her guardian
and Nathaniel Washington Williams, Martha
Williams and Fanny Williams by Sarah Will
lianis their guardian, Defends.
Sarah Williams, executrix Of Joseph Williams,
Mathew Clay, Defendant.
IN conformity with decree Of the Court Of
! Appeals, certified by the Clerk thereof, in
the following words, to wit &c Virginia to wit:
AT Court of Appeals held at the Capitol in the
City of Richmond, the 2ist day of March, 1911,
Mathew Clay, appellant, against Sarah Viii.
Eams, execu:rix of Joseph Williams and admi.
nistratrix of Robert Williams, dec. John Call
and Lucinda bis wife, William Williams & John
u. Scott, executors, and Elizabeth Williams
widow OF John Williams dec. John Robert vii.
hams, an infant of the said John Williams
dec. by the said Elizabeth Williams his guar.
dian, James Chalmers, Sarah Chalmers, late Sa.
rah Watkins, widow and administrative, and
Mourning Micaiah Watkins, an infant daughter
OF Micajah Watkins dec. by Henry e. Coleman
her guardian, and Nathaniel Washington Will
Iiams, Martha Williams and Fanny williams in
fants, by Sarah Williams their guardian, Appel.
lees ; and thesame appellant against SarahWil-
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
suitss in one of which the appellant was plain
tiff and the appellees in the first suit were de-
PENDANTS, and in the other the appellee in the
second suit was plaintiff and the appellant de-
PENDANT. This day came the parties by their
counsel and the Court having matureIy con-
sidered the transcripts ofthe DEGREES aforesaid
and the arguments of counsel, pronounced the
following opinion and decree eff the sole OBJ
lect OF these suits, which, as between the appel.
liant Mathew Clay and the appellee Sarah vii.
1iams, only, may be considered as cross suits
between those parties, had been, on the one
hand, to compel discovery ofthe assets of 10.
seph Williams dec. il the hands of the appellee
Sarah, his ezecutrix, to satisfy the judgInen,
confessed by her, on note given to the appel.
lant for the purpose stated IN the deposit of
Theodorick Mcltobsrts, 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, obtained by fraud and impe.
sition and collision between those parties to de.
feat just claim against 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 as little entitled TO the favor Of Court
Of Equity, on the grounds men toned in her cross
bill, although the facts therein ged had been
fully proved, and would have left both parties
in the situation in which they had been placed
themselves but as tappears to this Court that
the appellant, in right of his wife, is well 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 execulrx, but
in those Of the other executors named in the will
Of the said Joseph, who for that purpose ought
10 be made parties to the original suit brought
by the appellant and also in the hands OF Ro
bert Willisms, the second husband of the said
Sarah, who acted in her behalf as executor of
the said Joseph, from the time Of his intermar-
rage with her, or his representatives or disri-
butees, the original bill ought not to have been
dismissed, as to that object, but retained for
the purpose of such account and settlement,
in which account the appellant ought to be
charged witt: 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 ofhis said wife, by the said Robert
in his life time. And ifupon a just and equita-
BILE settlement and aljusfnient of such account,
1t shall appear that the estate the saaRobert
Williams in the hands OF his administrative or OF
his distributes, is indebted to the estate OF the
said Joseph, the said administrators 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 NAV have received since his death, ought
TO satisfy and pay to the appellant the amount
Of his lust proportion fthe said Josephs estate,
after PAYMENT of all his Just debts, not exceed
inc seven thousand FIVE hundred pounds, Vir-
pinia currency, the amount of his judgment a
oainst the administrators from which accosni
Of the said Robert Williams, in the hands OF his
,I;s,r;butees. is to be excluded whatever may
bove been recovered and received by John Call,
as the marriage portion Of his wife Lucinda, in
tbe life time OF the said Robert, or by virtue OF
the decree Of the court Of Pttsylvania county for
that account since his death, liberty being re-
served TO the plantn in the original bill, to con
srovert the validity Of such marriage contract
or TO slew If he can, that such decree was oo'
aimed by fraud and collusoH between the par
lies TO that suit il Unnecessary, Tor the hischsrge
re his claim against the aaid Roberts esls'e.I
,Ihis cottrt is further OF opinion that the saiu
Mathew Clay, the defendant IN the cross III
having, by his answer to that on, 50 i,r
s -, he r,,ssesssd knowledge OF the dis
. 81 ,be certificates belonging TO the estate
.ba ssid Robert Williams, in the cross PHI
,a.,,I to hove been delivered to HIM 70 make
OHAi5 = - che accounts and receipts re