Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-06-06

LOW
was indebted 10 his ward "a 223 90 principal, aud the
bill claimed to surcharge this account
amending tbs suit, Lghtfoo. attained 10 his full
are and he gave his bond TO The defendant John
Tyler the exor of his former guasdan, ior S3oou this
bond was dated Aprl II, 1918; and at the same time
he agreed 10 DISMISS lie suit brought TO settle The
guardianship accoun. Of Judge Tyler
"Lighlfoot shortly after died, and LETT will, whereof
he appointed Robert w. Christian his ex'or, against
whom TYLER brought, q suit upon the bond for $780,
and recovered judgment.
And then Bakey and others, legaiees OF Lghtfoot,
exhibited supplement tal bill against Tyler and Chris
| tian the exor of Lghtfoot, IN winch they Impeach
the bond for 50 500 executed by Lghifoot to Tyler on
the ground that it was given Tor no valuable cons'dera
ton and that The only consideration, If any, was hot
Tvler had engaged in law SUIT Tor Lghifco:; ad
alleged that Lghlfon,a agreement TO dismiss his bill
/ on account oil the guardianship was founded on the
same considerations and they pray nat the bond map
be cancelled-and that Tyler may be decreed 10 set
lie the guardianship accounts OF his father and TO pay
the balance.
aCbris,ian the executor of Lghlfoot in his answer,
seems to take neutral ground as TO Inc validity OF the
| bond for So, 500.
Tyer. in his answer, says, that Lighioot had con-
viewed his whole estate in trust, to John Minge and
George Blakey-that he was left without house and
home-tha he begged Tyler 10 assist him IN obtaining
restoration Of his propertyto become ms agent and
clio, him with his seryces-that he offered him SIS 600
if he would do so-that Tyler agreed TO do so for
500 10 be applied 10 the ex,ngushment of the debt,
which he as Executor OF Judge Tyler, owed Light.
foot on the guardianship account "hereupon, Light
foot gave HIM his bond for that sum-and this was
the consideration Of the bond. That Tyler considered
himself bound ,berby, act in Lighfoots stead in
reference 10 the important interests embraced by the
two deeds of trust to blakey and mihge.to attend
either in person, by another, 10 all suits that
might arise either of the said deeds, or IN any other
wuy grow up in the Courts between said Lghtfoot and
o,hers-and 10 magnify the value of this agency. he
alleges, inter ala, that Lighoot Of aceak
understanding an agent and constant adrSer IN
all transactions Of importance, aohich led him. (as oas
tie fact 10 consult Tyler almost erery ,reck and often
fcicc thrice during the lceekthat he assisted Light
foot resist the claims of Blakey and Minge, under
the deeds OF trust he had executed them and ex-
trcae him from the endorsements which these deeds
involved him in-t'iough he acknowledges thar those
deeds were pronounced by this Court void only TO
creditors; that is, fair between the parties but this
decree, he imputes, is compromise between Blakey
and Minge and Lightuota widow; and he refers to the
record of the of Minge Christian in this Court
which, therefore, is TO be considered as exhibit in
this For the plaintiffs, insist that the bond for
$500 shall he declared null and void and that Tyler be
decreed 10 render account of his tesators guardian
ship of Lghtfoot, and TO pay the balance that may be
| found due thereon.
a. The consideration on which Tyler alleges the bond
founded, if merely colorable palpaby and
grossly inadequate and the bond being obtained from
a man whom Tyler, according 20 his shewing
| knew 10 be man of weak intellect, requiring
stan. adviser in all of Importance the quacy
of consideration is, Of itself, proof, that the bond
obtained by imposition Lgh0ots uceakaess and fol-
| Ill Fonl. Eq. ll6-llS.
al Even Of this consideration though it be alleged
Tyers answer, he has offered proof The contract
rests for evidence on the affirmative allegations of the
answer.
GILL Tyler never rendered any service 10 Lghtfoot
of any kind. lie alleges service: he shows
proof of any.
"He speaks of his resisting the claims Of Mr.. Mnge
and Mr.. Bakey, the trustees, 10 whom Lighlfoo had
conveyed his property-and he refers TO the record OF
Minge and Christian. Here it appears, from that re-
cord, that Tylers whole agency .es directed 10 the
recovery Of the amount of Lighioots bond TO HIMSELF
and The deeds executed 10 t. trustees intended
solely 10 protect Lghloot and his property from plum
der.
"y. INSIST lastly, that Mr.. Tyler's method OF set.
ling his fathers guardian account, and paying his
debt to his ward, mhoify nadmissibie and fraudu-
tent, and can receive no coun,enance from Court of
| Equity"
! And here follows the decree OF the High Cour, of
Chancery; by which it will be seen, whether not he
perpetuully enjoined ard restrained from
azing the amount Of said bond, which, if fairly and
honoraby obtained for valuable consideration the
opinion of the Court could not have been thus disposed
Of:
"VIRcINIA At Superior Court Of Chance,y hold
en- b, the Capitol in the City oil Richmond, oil The Sd
day Of July, 1880
Gary Wilkinson, Administrator Of Geo Bakey, de.
ceased, and Ann w Mary r. and Thomas Ii Blakey,
infants by the said Cary Wilkinson, their guardian and
next friend, and William, John Virginia and Carter
! Lghtfoot infants BY John Nicholas, their guardian
and next friend, William Lghtfoot an nfan, By VIM.
Allen his friend, and Mary Ann Lewis, an in
FAINT BY Frances Lewis her next friend, llf"s
"Against
"John Tyler and Robert w. Christian, Executors Of
/ Philip ]. Lightfoo,, decd, Defts
"1his cause this day TO be heard on The bill,
answers, repcatons, and exhibits, and was argued by
counsel consideration whereof, the Court being OF
opinion tina; the bond obtained by the defendant Tyler,
from Philip John Lightioot, deceased, for the sum OF
three thousand five hundred dollars, bearing date the
7h day of April, $40, not obligatory the sa'd
Lghtioo in equity, and if il had not been prosecuted
10 Judgment, ought TO have beer decreed to be deliver
ed up and cancelled doth therefore adudge, order and
Decree that the defendant Tyler be perpetually enon
ed from proceeding to enforce his judgment a. law on
the said bond, recovered against the defendant, Chris
tan, executor Of the said Lish'foot, in The Superior
Court Of Law Of Charles City County, at May term,
1920, copy Of which judgment is filed among the eI
ibits in this and the Court doth further order,
that the defendant Tyler do render an account of his
tesators guardianship of the said Lightoot and
count of his Administration Of his said esator
tate, before of The Commissioners who is directed
to examine, state and settle The said accounts and
port The same TO the Court, with any matters specially
stated deemed pertinent by himself, which may be
required by the parties to be stated
"a Copy-Tese,
"WM. G. SANDS, c. C."
Thus, it will be seen, whether or no have departed
one hairs breadth from line record in the statement
have made, Except that Lgh,foo The ward of Mr..
Tylers father, and not hnself) which has subjected
me 10 The severe nnlmadverson of having false
y TO record, when in truth could have under
stood my oath as applicable TO any other part Of my
communication than the conversations held between
Mr.. Tyler and mysef-but let it all go in, Mr. Tyler
will find, if he has not already discovered it, that is
not my habit to make vague charges against any man
that caunot establish when called on.
But Mr. Tyler says, " | have never been able to
" conceive the ground on which Chancellor Taylor de-
g clared The bond void. That decree was pronounced
q by that Judge, many years ago. when he was in the
{" decline Of his life, and after he had been visited by
" severe paralysis and his decision nerer enforced
Wha, MI Tyler means By saying the decision was
never enlorced-will puzzle lawyer TO understand.
and perplex him TO explain. Does he mean that in
spite OF this decision of the Court declaring the bond
roid that he recovered the money from Lightlonls
estate? imagine not, because the statement could
limit fnrt no