Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-02-18

The Ye,os Of sale will be 4soo dollars in cash aud
The Laiance ia Two equal snnaa payments, 10 be secured
The dGe is believed be good but the subscribers ac.
ting as Trustee wa oay convey HE r. vested Ia diem
by the trust deed and agscen,ent aforesaid.
pOSlAH SSi1u,
January Is. e2-wlm
ETALUABLE LAND FOR SALE.-TLe Subscriber is
desuous OF removing 10 the Western Country and
affect That object proposes 10 sell the 7ruct n Laag
whereon she now lives, III tie county OF buckingham
containing ABOUT 500 scss ADJOINING the lands " Capt.
JodR 4. Jones, Capt Merry Others, Thelsndie about
five mics above Bucktneham t.house about Zen
from James River aud about eg,tyfvc aboge Richmond
IS well adapted 10 the culture ofcoin whe. tobacco
is IN az agreeable Reighboghood. very good milk
has sufficient quantity cleared land 10 work eight or
ten hands to advaniage-R clearinghouse and other ont
hosses Tor the reception OF family Possession may he
had next FAIL
The terms o. saewn be made known 10 ans person
inclined 10 purchase by application 70 he subscriber h.
wing on the premises ELizAhETH PERKINS.
EeesH,'1T y JOL-t PcT6itS. sec'd.
u"i"N'' y s'-"eO'
At The Capitol in the city of Richmond the 27th
lohn Piiman,adm of Susanna Wilson, PtointLg.
James Bnock admir- of James r Hubbard and Susanna
Hubbard, widow and Edmund W. Hubbard, infant
Child of the said James T. Hubbard by James Bullock
his guardian, aud Samuel Allen aud Thomas West
pus'ees ior tie said James I. Hubbard and wife.
DgeHaGTss
James bullock, administrator of Jumes r. Hubbard.
Plaintiff
John Ptmsn, admir- Of Susanna Wilcox. Edward W.
Hubbard aud Robert +. Hubbard Infants Iy VIM IA
mel Specially assigned their guardian, samuel Allen
In conformity with decree of the Court OF AnnS,
eeInhed by The clerk thereof, IN these words
VIRGINIA TO Wit:
AT Court Of Appeals held at the Capitol III Richmond
The 2si day Of January, 1915.
John Ptnsn administrator OF Susanna Wilcox,
-dRPellant.
James bullock admir- OF James T. Hubbard and Susan
na Hubbard, widow, aud Edmund ". Hubbard an in
FAINT child Of the sad James 4. Hubbard by James Bu
lock bis guardian, and Samuel Allen and Thomas
"eai trustees for the said James T. Hubbard and WIFE
And the Appellant against James Buock admir-
OF James Il. Hubbard, Appellee revived aunea's
nom decree pronouncedby The Superior Chan
Gerry heln ~ Richmond the eleventh day OF September
one Thousand eight hundred aud eleven n Two suits M
one OF which Susanna wilcox plaintiff james T.
f'"DoaId sno Others we're deiehdanis-And de other
defendant.
This day the parties by their counsel aud Tie
court having maturey consleed the transcript; of the
records OF the decree aforesaid and The arguments Of
counsel Is Of opinion that The deed Of settlement in he
proceedings mentioned, uncOnncclcd With ohcr py0efs in
the cause tending to explain The intention Of the PARTIES
as It's objects is not ceptibc of Inc, I'm 81;
ven 10 IL BIZ the Court OF Ciancery so fara thar conrc
tion rejects The claim of susanna wilcox the cider IN
dover ia lie lands and to her thirds OF lie nronai az
tate Of her lae husband, Edmund WILCOX The expres
SION 10 the st part of the deed the estate personal and
real" the said Susanna wilcox the younger which GER
edeT, IN connection with other expressions following in
other parts of tie deedsuch. fer example aDthe one
nov owned by her aud in relation Susanna Wilcox the
younger Ia Tue opinion " the court amply eVinces the
intention Of te parties to limit its operation the CON
Veyance 81 her interest exclusively OF her mothers nor
can he court perceive the force Ofat reasoning which
relying general description ofthe property in other
parts OF the deed would include the Of Susanna
Wa SON. the elder by c0nfoundng the distinction between
the property described and the interest mother
aud daughter therein direct contradiction of the previ
ons expressions ana others which might be relic on in
\
OF the decree in both suits the cailaof susanna
wilcox the elder to dover in toe lands OF her deceased
husband tdnnd Wilcox, aud her thirds OF his per-
sOnai estate efOReOusand tlAt there il no error in
the residue thcrenfheref,Te IL is decrd sud ordered
that so much Of the said decfec as is entioed above 10
beerTOneons be reversed aud annued-snd that the re-
sdne thereof be affirmed aud ;hHt appellee in The
fstsit who administrator of the estate his in
,in ms hanus 70 be administered u so much there
oihe hath-and the other appeees in their own right
pay To- the appellant In that suitund the appellee in The
second .ut out Of the estate Of his interstate bio bands
to be administered If much thereof he hath nav to
me appellant in that suit The cost expended well by
MN rs ny the said Susanna Wilcox in the prosecution
their appeals aforesaid bcre-SRG IL Is Ordere1 That
the causes be remandedto the said Court Chsncery
Appellants costs III the Court OF Appeals, the first
suit, hyone dollars aud SIXTY three cehtsdo in the
second suit, ty-three dollars ana niHctyfou cents
4HD DANCE. &C.
Whereupon II is Decreed mt Ordered mat the
eommis s0ner Of this Court who shall carrv INF, Of
iecttbe decree Of the eleventh of September ons tbou
sahd eight hundred aud eleven made those causes do
conform TO the aforesaid decree aud opinion Of the Court
OF Appeal and make up his accounts upon the pTEei
pies therein mentioned and that The defendant in the
hst SUIT who is administrator Of the Of hs in.
tesate III his hands 10 be administered II much there
OF ne Dsh and The other defendants in their right
pay 10 nc plaintiff in that suit and the plaintiff IN TIE
seIohd sst ont ofthe estate OF his interstate 10 his hands
~ DC aunlstsred ifso much thereof he hath. pay the
defendant John Pitman admir- Of Susanna wilcox dec
ueieh1ant IN thar suit the c0sls expended well by
psa5.
copy, Teete,
HENRY sHUELDs, .. C. c.