Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-03-25


NRGINiA.-Ata superior cour,of cbancery holden
y al the Capitol in the city of Richmond on the 27th
day of Jan. 1915.
John Pitnaan, adm. of Susanna Wilson. Plaintte.
James Bullock admir- of James T. Hubbard and Susanna
Hubbard widow. aud Edmund W. Hubbard an infant
chiid OF the said James l. Hubbard James Bullock
hs guardian, and Samuel Allen and Thomas West
trustees for the said James T. Hubbard and wife,
Defendants.
James Bullock, administration OfJurnes 7. Hubbard,
Pia,ntiF.
John Pitman, admir- of Susanna wilcox. Edward w
Hubbard and Robert r. Hubbard, infants by WIN. Da.
niei specially assigned their guardian, Samuel Zen
In conformity with decree of the Court Of Appeals
certiHsd by the clerk thereof, in these words:
VIRGINIA TO VIII:
alta Court Of Appeals held the Capitol in Richmond
me 23d day Of January, 1915.
John Pi'nian, administrator of Susanna Wilcox,
lppsllont
James Bullock, admir- OF James r. Hubbard and Susan
ma Hubbard, widow, and Edmund W Hubbard an in.
ian child Of the saii James l. Hubbard by James Bull
lock his guardian aud Samuel Alien and Thomas
west trustees for the said James T. Hubbard andwife
.,., . Appeftees.
Of James r. Hubbard, Appellee-upon revived appeals
lo oscree pronounced by the Superior Court of Chan
hslu III hionmond toe eleventh day Of September,
one thousand eight hundred and eleven in two suits In
one Of which Susanna wilcox plaintiff and James r.
Huooaid and others were def,ndants-and IN the other
was defendant
This DAY the parties by their council and the
court having nnatuTely considered f transcript of III,
records OF the decree aforesaid the arguments Of
counsel Is Of opinion that the settlement in The
proceedings mentioned unconucoted with other proofs in
the cause tending explain the intention OF the parties
as 10 t Objects 10 susceptible of the construction I'll
ven to ty the Court Of chancory that consrnc
ten reiects the claim If Susanna wilcox the elder 10
Cover IN the lands aud to her thirds of the personal es-
tate OF her late husband Edmund Wilcox rhe expires
son ~ the hf part Of tie deed the estate personal and
OF tne sad susanna wilcox, the younger, which
fanny does nOtincude the of Susanna wilcox the
% 10 connection win other expressions following in
otHei parts Ci me deed-such, for example, the
noH owned by her, and lin Susanna wilcox the
younger IN the opinion of the court amply the
intention OIL the parties TO limit its operation the con-
VeyanceO her interest exclusively OF her mothers nor
can the court perceive the force ofhat reasoning which
relying on general description of the property in other
parts of the deed would include the estate OF Susanna
WI cox the elder By confoundng the distinction between
tie property described and the interest ofbs no,ber
aud daughter therein direct contradiction OF the prev
ons expressions aud others which might be relied on in
the deed The court is therefore Of opinion that so much
OF the decree ia both suits rejects the clamof Susanna
WILCOX the elder to dover in the lands OF her deceased
husband Edmund wilcox aud 70 her thirds Of his per
sonal estate is that there no c.ref in
me residue thceoftlerefore 1t dccreed ordered
tat 50 much OF the said decree mentioned above 10
ossrroneou be reversed and annuedand that tie re-
sinue iereHi De arned and that tie appellee in the
hstsu who administrator, Of be estate of his in
esate in his hands be administered II so msch there
"fhe haihand the other anpeliees in their own rrh,
pay IN the appellant that sutand the appeee p he
second suit ont of the ofhis ntsstafc in Ls hands
To- be administered il much thsreof he hath, payto
-
nun as by the said susanna Wilcox prosecution Of
tier appeals Aforesaid hcre-4rd IL IL Ordered rbat
the Causes be remandedto the said Court of Cbancery
Appellants costs Ia the Cert Of Appeals on the first
suit any one dollars and sxy-ttree ceH;s-do in the
second SUIT, thfytsee dollars and nincy.fou cents
copy, IcSfe,
II. DANCE, &C.
WhereupOn, n Il Decree3 and Crfcre5 That the
SoninSsioncI Of this Court who sall cary into ef
iscthe decree Of the eleventh OF September one thos
SAID eisht hundred and eleven made IN those cases m
20 is Aforesaid decree sSd opinion 0f the Court
oil Appeals, audnake w his accounts upon the princi
pies therein mentioned and that the defendant in Inc
INST su who administrator. out ofts estate Of his in
tsate IN his hands % be administered 20 much there
OF he hath, and the ether defendants In their on rgs
pay ~ tie plaintiff in tat suit aud the PLAINTIFF in ths
second suit out ofte estate Of his iuestate In his hands
to e administered. fso much thereof he hath ay To- The
secaiani John Piin1n, admir- Of Susanna wilcox der
defendant m that suit the costs expended a. well 81
him ~ by The said susanna Wilcox in the Court Of Az
peals ~
copy, 7esfe,
HENRY sHURLDs, D. c. c.
C5grsifsi7-fr's Offce Richmond sf Szs os,5 tstz