Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-08-27
VIRGINIA.

h'!den at ne Catifol, tn the City Of Rich.
hotad. the 2iss. day Of Jnne. 1911
Mathew Clay, Plaintiff |
Sarah Williams, executrix OF Joseph williams
and admi1trix Of Robert Williams, JohnCall
and Lucinda his wife, VIM. Williams and John
b. Scott executors, Elizabeth Williams VIE
dow, and John Robert Williams an infant son
OF John Williams deceascd, by the said Eli
beth Williams his guardian, James Chalmers,
Sarah Chalmers, late Sarah W atkins widow
and admiuistra,fix, and Mourning Micsjzh
Watkins an infant daughter Of Mcajah Wat.
kins decd, byHenry x. Coleman her guardian
and Nathaniel Washington Williams, Martha
Williams ADD Fanny Williams by Sarah Will
M u- And. pe'saac
Sarah Williams, executrix Of Joseph Williams.
- Plaintiff
Mathew Clay, Defendant
N conformity with n decree of the Court of
Appeals, certified by the Clerk thereof, in
the following words, 10 wit sc Virginia TO wit.
At Court Of Appeals held al the Capitol in the
City OF Richmond. the 2lst day of March, 1911,
I--Mathew Clay. appellant, against Sarah viii
tiams, execu.rix of Joseph Williams and ADM
nistr4trix Of Robert williams, dec. John Call
and Lucinda his wife, William Williams & John
y. Scott, executors, and Elizabeth Williams
L l.
liams, an infant son of the said John Williams
dec. by the said Elizabeth williams his guar.
dian, James Chalmers. Sarah Chalmers late So.
| ran Watkins, widow and administrative. and
Mourning Micajah Watkins, an infant daughter
OF Micajali Watkins dee. by Henry f. Coleman
her guardian. and Nathaniel Washington viii.
Hams, Martha Williams and FANNY Williams in .
fants, by SsrahWiliams their guardian. Appel.
lees; and the same appellant against SsrahW,I-
liams, executrix &C. OF Josepa Williams a ed.
appellee Upon appeals from decree pronoan
ced ny the Superior Court of Chancery held in
| Richmond the l6,h.day Of Msy. l80i. in two
| suits, in one Of which the appellant yas plain.
| fsH and tue appeilees IN the FIRST suit were do
endants, and in the other the appellee in the
second suit was plaintiff and the appellant d !.
4 PENDANT. This day came the parties by tn in
| counsels and the Court having matureiv con.
sidered the transcripts of the DEGREES aforesaid
and che arguments of counsel, pronounced the
following opinion ami decree IS II the sole OH
ject Of these suits. wnich as betw, en- the anr.l.
liant Mathew Clay and the appellee sarah VIII.
liams, only, may be considered as cross suits
| between those parties, had been, on the one
| hand, to compel a discovery of tn, assets of To
seph Williams dec in the hands of the appeljee
Sarah, h,k executrix, to satisfy the iudement
confessed by her, on q note given TO The appel
liant, Tor the purpose stated in the depo si.,n of
Theodorick y MeRobsrts, in the first suit and
charged by tie sppeiiee Sra. m n r crnss hill.
nt, on the other, to BIZ Wholly relieved rom
that Judgment, as optaiped BY fraud and imno-
y IN md oluson between those: o. rites to de.
feat Just &. m against tn estate ct the said
Joseph Williams. this Cours would have anpro
we'd vt the dismissal of tire appellants original
bill, an would have considered the apt,elee
Sarah as liitle entitied to the favor of Court
o. Eq I,ty, the grounds menlione in her cross
bill, ath Dugh the facts therein alleged had beep
FULLY proved, and would have LEFT both parties
IN the situation III watch they had been placed
themselves but as it appears to this Court that
the appellant, in right OF his wife, is well emit
tel 30 IN csou add sc ,ticIfsent o. The esta;e
Of the sa,e Joseph Williams dec. not only in the
hands o. tn appelles Sarah. his execulrix, bu.
IN tnose OF the other e1rcutors named in the will
OF the I'D Joseph, VINO tor that purpose ought
8 De nude Parfiss to the original suit Brought
by tc Appellant and also in the hands OF Ka :
bert Williams, the second husband of the said
oaraD, who acted in her behalf as executor Of
the SAID Joseph, from The time of his in,ermar
age with her, or his representatives or dis,ri-
outees, the oris inai bill ought not to have been
dismissed, ss 10 that object, but retained for
the purpose OF such al account and settlement.
IN which account the appellant ought to be
harsef With 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 al,
der OF PittsyIysnla County Court, made at the
instance OF the said appellant, shews TO have
Deem accounted for, and delivered to the appei- )
INT IN right OF his said wife, by the said Robert
IN BIS LIFETIME. And II upon q Just and eoui,x>
bs - uiement and a jussnsent ui such &C oun..
= saai appear tnat The esrate the saidRoDeit
Wi'iams IN the ma DIS Oh his ADMINISTRATIVE Is o.
us .,iserioutees,is illdebted to the estate oil the
sa,S do eph, Tile Sad Misunderstanding out vt the
In ht-. adj IN TN