Delaware tribune, and the Delaware state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1877-18??, 1877-06-14
C0URT or ERR0Rs, Avn APRDALs.

i a tMtx,ski ~ N
81 =
coUsr OF Es1osg AsD Arrst4zs
c,... q ] r1ss-.ss.a z 1 i. "a
Dessss n Favor sfJsAn v~Rtse.
Qsns,p~AVsss ss.1vpis fJss,as ana o.. ..sial.t
| )Q6v.as Jqns 7.-fhe Court OF 4tof,
l3ss 1s1aas ~. o srI Eonasy u Is
Govt op r a.. = 2 II, b.. IT,: owing 70 the
Wootten, did ~, that any bsansss.
The case Of Bush w., Bush, On appeal
ffotr the Court Of Cha9oery for New
l,pakn sSdtn~as ard Pm Wehs eday.
John G. fkttersoH; Esd, appear-
j8g. for the appellant, and Samuel NJ.
Harrington, ED, for the respondent -
This Gaze presents the. interesting
question whether in the State IL Dela.
Naze i vidov'is entitled follower in real
estate, In which her husband at the time
Of hss dsAtA, had only 1 contingent IN
forest in fees but vkisA sssse fin death
has become vested.
To-day Ne csse u JOHN Y: Rice, ads
ministrator, u. William G., yPannypacker,
executor, 1t AZ was decided. The deci-
sion in this case 10 ths IanAl adjudication Of
right aa ,between the parties " o long,
tedious End expensive kkeati6n The
main question presented in. the case wa4
whether eeftiin real estate In the city OF
Wilmington, which was sold at Sheriff .
sale. in August, 1849, and conveyed VI
Achilles Holingsworth, in HIS individual
namo, was honfht by Mr.. Hollingsworth
- his own prnpsrty, or, on the other hand,
by him - rspressaHAg and d the agent
Of the firm Of Hollinmwosth, Harvey Il
Co., composed Of Achilles Hoflingsworth,
Amor a Harvey, and James Rice,
THE same question III arose and was |, passed ,
upon in the init Ia cnancefy q Amor y,
Harvey va William g. Isnnypacker.
executor 1t Al! The bill in that suit waa
filed shout the year 1859, and in 1878 the
Chancellor decided that the bill be dis.
missed with costs.
The bill In the present cause was Hleta
by John v. Rice, as administrator Of James
Rice, deceased, on the 18th day of Fet;
ruary 1873, praying that the above men,
toned real estate might be declared to
have been The property pf SHdlingswoslhj
Harvey 4 CO. add not Of Achillis Hollings-
worth, and for the protection and en-
forcement Of the comp1Ainants rights in the
premises a. the administrator Of his father
James Rice. In February 1870 Chancellor
Salisbury after full argument, dismissed
the complAinants' bill with costs.
An appeal from the decree of The Chan.
cellor was prayed for and allowed, and in
June 1876 the cause was argued in the
Court of Errors and Appsals; before Cldsf
Justice Oomegys and Judge Houston and
Wales, George H. Bates, ESQ, and Ewd.
G. Bradford, Jr., ESD, appearing for the
appellant and Samuel II. Harrington, Esq,
for the respondent.
The hearing of the eausera tr that time
occupied about . week. To-day the Court
Of Errors and Appeals, in an elaborate
opinion drawn By Judge Hodston, decided
that the ZEAL estate in question did not
belong to Achilles Holliagsworth, indiYid-
ually, but vas the property Of Hollings-
worth, Harvey Il Co., and that the com
plainant, John v. Rice, Ms administrator,
Is entitled to what would have been the
share therein of James Rice, had tho latter
been alive at this date; and the court
decreed that the decree of the
SA&sAc0AoS Do EeVoIScu, biot bue Ethi tsthto
be sold and that one third oil, the net pro-
ceeds Of sale be paid to the complainant;
that ths defendant Susan z. HollingswoNh
account to the complainant for one third
of all rents and profits received from the
real estate since February IL, 1870; that
she Also account TO the complainant for
third OF the proceeds of sale of any
portions of the real estate sold since the
death Of Achilles Hollingsworth, and for
the interest on tina same from the date Of
the receipt Of the purchase money; the
above several sums TO be reduced by the
amount Of sne.third Of taxes, expenses,
&C., Of the real estate. Judge Wales read
dissenting opinion in favor of affirming
the decree Of the Chancellor ~ sa'1.
After the opinion of the Court, and the
dissenting opinion had, been read, aud
before the decree was entered, Samuel
M. Harrington, ESQ.,, on behalf of the
respondents, made a motion to the Court
for the rehearing Of the cause. The
principal ground of the motion was the
fact that Judge Wootten did not sit
during the hearing of the cause, snd
consequently expressed no opinion. As to
the same, and the further fact that Judge
Wales had dissented from the opinion OF
the majority of the court. 7T.1'' ID. I'D
The Court refused the motion and
directed the entry Of the above decree in
favor of the complainant, remarking that
it was not a proper cause for a rehcaring,
as the majority Of the Court-had no doubt
whatever that upon the facts proven in
the cause the complainant was entitled to
recover. sr-. s-. ssF.a+5fssY= HsTrH=sF- ST. To