Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-10-05
FiRGiNlA:


Lyncllburg, Oct. s---slep.
VIRGiNIA:
lit a Sitperier Court IF Chancery,:
holden az tde CahitoL. in TIE Guy Of Rich
mona. the 2lst day Of Jane, 1911. /
Mathew Clay, Il: Plain
: Sarah Williams, ezecGtrix oe Joseph Wiliiamsh
and siinn'trix of Robert Williams. Jollncsi.s
and LUCINDA his wife, WIN Williams and Johsk
q. Sect executors, Eiizshetl, Williams wiz
dow, aud John Robert Williams an infant sol, !
of John Wilkins deceased, by The sa,. Eii-l
beth Wiiiiamshis gusrdisn, james Chalmers, /
Sarah Chalmers, late Sarah " atkins widow
and administrative, aid Mourning Micajahs
Watkins Az i;,sant daughter Of Micsjah WI 4
kiHs decd, by!ienfy L. Coleman her guardians
anil Nathaniel Washington Williams, MarthaS
Williams aud Fanny Williams by Sarah VII
Gams their GUARDIAN, Defead'ts.a
Sarah Williams, execotrix Of Joseph Williams. /
-: Piai.it.H
Mathew Clay, Defendants
IN conformity with decree Of the Court Of :
4 Appesls, certified by the Clerk thereof, Ing
the following worts, 90 wit !" Virginia TO WITH
At Court Of Appeals held at the Capitol in hes
LIZ
= Mathew az. appellant, ng inst Sarah vii.
I Hams, execu;rix of Joseph Williams and adroi 4
7nistratrix Of Robert Williams, dec. John Ca!,s
and Lucind, his wife, William Williams & john
Us. Scott, executor, and Elizabeth Willisnss
! widow OF john Williams dee John Robcr, Fil.
3iams, .an infant son Of tbe SAID john Wiliainsf
sdec. by tie said Eiizabr sh Williams his gaai-s
3dian, James Chalmers Sarah Chalmers, late Sa 4
3rah Watkins, widow and misunderstanding, ands
Mourning Micai III Watkins, an inia,t dsaghtcrE
Iof Micajah Watkins dec. by Henry e. Colemanf
kher guardian, and Nathaniel Washington Wii-s
Hams, Martha Williams and Fanny Williams in x
dfants, by Sarah Williams their guardian. Appei-h
slees and the same appellant against Sarah VIII s
liams, executrix &c. OF Joseph Williams decd Z
appellee Upon appeals from decree pronoan &
iced by the Superior Court of Chancery held inE
SRichmond the 10Th day of May, 1904. in tw1s3
{suits, il one Of which the appellant was PLAIN
1tf and The sppeees in the FIRST suit were de- !;
2fend ants, and in the other the appellee in the
tsecond suit was plaintiff and the appellant d. 4
9tendant This day came the parties by the irg
scounsel and tie Court having matrreiy con-s
Ssidered the transcripts OF the DEGREES aforesaid
land the arguments Of counsel, pronounced thsy
5 following opinion and decree "fft.ie sole obs
eject OF these suits, wica, as e4tween the appelf
liant Mathew Clay and the sPseliee Sarah W..
: iams, only, may DC consdefed as cross SUITS
: between those parties, bad been, on the one :
shand, 20 compel discovery OF the assets of ,Joe
sseph W.iiisips dec. in The hands of the appcs e
Sarah, bis executriX, 60 satisfy the judsmenis
sconfssscd by her, OF note given to the appel B
fant, for Tie purpose stated in the Deposition ofg
lheodo:ick y. Mcilobsrts. in the hrst suit sndc
schsrged BY the appellee Sarah. in her cross biIis
land, on Che other, 90 be wholly relieved iromi
Ethat Judgment, as obtained by fraud and impo.s
.sition and coiusion between those parties 20 def
feat lust claim afesiugt the estate of the said
Joseph Williams. this Court would have appro Z
Sved OF the dismissal of the appellants origrn.ac
D,iil, and would have considered the appellee
sSaraii ss little entitled 20 the favor OF Court
sol Equity, on the grounds mentioned IN her cross
Sbul, although the facts therein alleged had been
fully proved, and would have left both parties
sin the situation in which they had been placed
themselves but as itappcars to this Court that
t'he appellant, 10 right OF s wife, is well emit
ftied to an account and settlement OF the estate
{oi the said Joseph Williams dec not ONLY in the
fhantls OF the appellee Sarah, his executrix, butt
~ those OF the other executors named in the wills
got the said Joseph, who Zoe that purpose ought
go ne made Pdrfies to the original suit broughtG
ply the appellant and also in the hands OF 10 z
,bcrt Williams, the second husband Of the said Z
Sarah, who acted Ju her behalf as executor OF
ftbe saIfl Joseph, from ia time Of his interrnar
:riage with her, or his representatives or disiri-
Iutees, th- originol bin ought not to have been
sdismissed, as to that object. but retained TO-
,the purpose Of such an account and settlement,
..in which account the appellant ought to he
.eharged win such parts and proportion of tie ]
estate Of the said Jc5eph Williams, as the guar
dian account settled between the said Robert :
Williams and the appellant, by virtue of an J.
order OF PIusylysnia County Court, made at the
instance oF The said apneisnt shev-s 10 bavas,
1lXFETxX5E7z z.8ZEzxuvuuzu