Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-08-20
Virginia
at a SUPERIOR Court IF Chancery,

IL a SUPERIOR Court of Chancery, :
holden az re Cahifoi, in rae City Of Rich
niond. M 2ist day Of June, 1911. r
dathew Clay. Plaintiff
'Nan Williams, exscupix o. Joseph Williams
AID admn'trix Of Robert Williams. JoanCaii
and Lucinda his wife. WIN. " ilhaIas and John
D. Scott executors, Eiisabeth Williams WI
dow, and John Robert williams AN infant son
OF John Williams deceased, by the said Eii'-
ps'n Williams bis Guardian, James Chalmers,
Sarah Chalmers. late Sarah ~ atkins widow
and Administrative, aud Mourning Micajah l
watkins an infant daughter Of Micajah Wat
kins decd, hytenry z. Coleman her guard ian |
and Nathaniel Washington Williams, Martha
Willians and Fanny Williams by Sarah Wi
hams their guardian, (: !, Defends.
AND,
Sarah Williams, execatrix Of Joseph Williams,
$50: Plaintiff.
TN conformity with decree OF the Cour, OF
Appeals. certified by the Clerk thereof, in
the following words, to Wit: Virginia 10 wit.
Al Court ct Appeals held at the Capitol IN the
City Of Richmond, the 2ist day Of March, 1911,
.-Mathew Clay appellant, against Sarah Will
Hams, fxecucrix ofyoseph Williams and adrni.
uisva,rix Of Robert Williams, dec. John Call
and bucinda his wife, William Williams s John
b. Scott, executors, and Elisabeth Williams
widow OF john Williams dec. John Robert vii.
ialms, an infant son Of the said John Williams
dec by the said Elisabeth Williams his guar:
dian, James Chalmers, Sarah Chalmera. late Sa.
ran Watkins. widow and administr atrix, and
Mourning Micejah Watkins, an infant daughter
OF Micsjah Watkins dec. by Henry z. Coleman
her guardian, and Nathaniel Washington Will
iiaJns, Martha Williams and Fanny Williams in
fants, by SarahWilliams their guardian. Appel.
lees and the same appellant sgaiost sarahW,l-
Hams. e1ecetrix &c OF Joseph Williams Iced.
appeliee Upon appeals from decree pronoun.
eed by the Superior Court of Chancery held in
Richnond 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-
endsnts, and in the other the appellee in the
second suit was plaintiff and the appellant d /.
fendant. This day came the parties by til ir
counsel ; and the Court having maturely con-
sfdered the transcripts OF the DEGREES aforesaid
and The arguments Of counsel, pronounced tle
following opinion and decree If the sole OBJ
feet 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, bad been, on the one
hand, To compel discovery of the assets of 10
seph Williams dec. in the hands of the appeIIee
Sarah, his executrix, to satisfy the judgment
~ 3
liant, for the purpose stated in the deposition of
Theodorick b McRoberts, in the first suit, and
charged by the appellee Sarah, IN h, cross bill,
and, on the other, to be wholly relieved from
that Judgment, as obtained by fraud and impo-
alton and COLLISION. between those parties TO de
feat q just claim against tn estate Of the said
Spseph Williams. this Couri 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 a Court
ofEqnity, on the grounds men' toned in her cross
bill, although, the facts therein alleged had been
fully proved. and would have LETT both parties
IN the situation in wAich ;hey had been placed
themselves but as il appears to this Court that
the appellant, in right of his wife. is we'll emit
tied 10 An account and settlement OF the estate
81 the said Joseph Williams dec not onlv in th4.
hands oil the appellee Sarah, his execatrix, but
IN those o. the other srseuiors named in the will
Of the ssid Joseph, who for that purpose ough,
20 be made fdytiss to the original suit brought
BY the appellant; and also in the hands o Ro
bert Will ,ms, the second husband of the said
Sarah, who actrd in her behalf as executor OF
the said Joseph, from the time Of his nte mar
sisge with her, or his representatives Or distri-
outees, the origihst bill ought not TO have been
dismissedj as 10 ting object, but retained for
tbe purpose of such an account and settlement.
IN which account the appellant ought TO be,
charged with such parts and proportion Of the
estate ofthe 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
ben accounted for, and delivered to the appel
bnt IN right o. his said wife, by the said Rober,
in his lifetime. And ifupon just and ,quits. /
bic settlement and aiJpstn,ent Of such &C oun !, |
it shall appear that the estate of the said Robert
Williams in the hands OF his administrators or o.
his distributes, is indebted TO the estate Of the
said Joseph, the said administratrix out of the l
assets in her hands 10 be administered, or tht,
several distribu,ees respectively, according toll
the portions OF the said Roberts estate which
they may have received since his death, ought
20 satisfy and pay to the appellant the smcuntl
OF his Just proportion OF the said Joseph's estate,
after payment Of all his Just debts, not exceed /
Ing seven thousand 1--WE hundred pounds. Viz.
giniA currency. the amount OF bis judgment a |
gainst the administrative from which account
o. the sald Robert Williams, in the hands of his
distributes, is,to be excluded whatever NAV
have been recovered and reee ived by John Cali,
~ the marriage portion Of his wife Lucinda. in
the lie time of The said Robert, or by virtue OH
he decree Of the court OF Pntsyyanis county for
that account since bis death, liberty being re.
serycd to the plan,hin the Original bill, to con
lrovert the validity OF such marriage contract. II
~ TO ahcv ID he can, that such decree was OBJ /
aimed ~ fraud and coilusioR between the tar
hes to that suit il necessary, for the discharge
.f his claim against the aaid Roberts estate
This court IS further OF opiaion that the said
Mathew Clay. the defendant in the eross Bill H.
having, BY his saswer TO that bill SO far admit
ted tfat be possessed knowledee OF the dis. /,
posal Of the certificates BELONGING to The estate
n the said Robert Williams in The csoss biz
charged 70 have been delivered to him 70 make
ale Of, As to have the accounts and receipts re
,pect'ng the same, ia his hands, which he refers
10 IN his SAID answer as exhibit, bu, doe not
appear to h6ye produced them, be ought TO pro
foce sncb accounts asd receipts or 20 answer !