Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-06-27

IN cHANcERY-v,ae,ri.-Ata Circuit Superior CONF .,
Law aas ss 1 @ county, " the
Ann Argyle Frederick Argyle and Archibald H. argyle ''
William Mer Isaac cud of Frederick '" a1nsi.
A Asss S sns ~
beeca w., John F., Andrew H. Edward H. and Joseph w. Ar
Anderson, their guardian ad tem and Thomas Argyle
Decree of the Court of Appeals entered in this ese nj
day April, Is43, this day Cont wbi
Al Court of Appeals Capitol in the eiv ~ pI
mond, Saturday April sh, lsi3 William Miller Apue as
AI Fi sssss, Argyle Ash,bsd Isaac
William Argyle deceased and ReseeeS Sd
children Of the said William Argyle by Benjamin Anssoo nan!
guardian ad iem and Thomas R. Argyle, Appellee Upon m
OF Law and chance Gooehand county on ,b IGu
eenth day OF October 1892 In suit in which the said ohn
Trevian and others plaintiffs the appellant and w.
defendants This day came the parties by their C
.h court having ma1ey considered the transcript Of The
opinion that the said Circuit Superior Court erred in dc
that The appellant Miller was entitled for the VIM
Of Frederick Argyle deceased and was error IN I
stances oil tins case The debtor was not entitled app ts
ment evidenced by The receipts dated the 18th day OF oo
of the debt: Therefore, decreed ordered a, ih @
decree he reversed and annued, and appelees s
Curd Executor OF Frederick Argyle and Kitty v Argyle Ay
nsutx of William Argyle deceased OF the estate Of ,b
testator and Interstate, in their hands, respectively admins
In their own right;
Tue appellant MS COSTS by him expended in the his
appeal aforesaid here: and ordered the cause be e
manded 10 the said Circuit Superior with IN
recommit the report to Commissioner audit state and settle
the accounts upon the following principles The Commissioner
charge the said appellant with the Of bond de-
Quoting ereom the price OF the sixteen acres n
Land, o The date OF the bond and also allowing III. ot,
credits allowed In the commissioners second
der the order of the nineteenth day of October, 1887 recun
ting the former and also, further
fifth day Of September les the due that time ~
the judgments assigned the Of one honsa hun
ded and twenty-five dollars and ninety anoun,
claimed by the said appellant, wing been overpad m,
assignments of the Judgments being evidence such ecr
paid by the appellant Cnrd for the .,
assignments and that the appellant be also further
thousand eighty dollars en0pss h
OF his showing, proof ,b
this has been paid Curd the legaees Frederick AT
gye but not otherwise and In stating the payments
received under the receipts before also The
amount assumed TO have been paid BY said appellant as the
difference between the before seteuen,
In September 1926 should be applied principal the debt
according 10 the Of the receipts of the The
notes which payments received fell dne-tha
when the entire note paid crcdng principal
paid of the date fell due against much OF tie principal
the debit and where but part Of the note paid credng
payments and the payment supposed 10 be made
Of the reasgnment the settlement in 1926 the pDo
PAL of the dates of such payments actual assumed
that the Commissioner be directed report the same together
with special mailer deemed pertinent by himself whh
be required by the parties to be stated order
decree, which ordered be certified said Ccu Sup
Court Appellants in the Court Of Appeals, $50 a
Copy-Teste Allen, c. c." Whereupon, this CONT
ormIty with said decree adudge
the decree heretofore entered this aside
s last made in this be rccommsd
Commissioners of this Court with instructions and apd
settle account between the plaintiffs and the DEFENDANT VIII
liam Miller the principles stated in The foregoing Of
the Court of Appeals and make report thereof this CONT
gethe with special deemed pertinent by himself,
which may be required by the parties 10 be stated
Copy-Teste