The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1883-10-25

| fquWlgeQ TO Judge OF the value OF til;
tract, and John d. Sterrett the THU
''Commissioner beings man of recognize
''ante!agefce and integrity, and also well a
''qualnted with the value of such land.
"the Judgment OF the Court, great aeeigl
twas due to their opinions and report,
and this decree this Court affirmed again'
James A. Frazier in 1877, but the case VIZ
never reported to illustrate the principle
4 which II settled. But while this case jul
i referred to, binds james A. Frazier fl
all time to come, so far as the questiO
therein decided is concerned, it has no COZ
INJECTION. and no concern with the case no
in hand and cannot be appealed to b
i VIM. Frazier nor his assignees to prote(
4 them against a review of the transaction
of VIM. Frazier as adm 4 of John w. FRI
Zler dec q and against a review of his dea
4 ingS and transactions as surviving an
managing partner of the Rockbridge Alul
/ Springs.
f James a. Frazier is entitled to have th
fdeereesJ iii this cause reviewed on thei
'tmerits, and the motion to dismiss the az
peal upon ttss ground, as mprovidentl
awarded is also Overruled.
I We will consider the case now upon th
/ assignments of error herein.
We have already stated that upoY tn
coming in of the first commissioner re
port, exceptions were taken in 1866 JOIN
| w. Frazier having died April 9N, 1858
VIM. Frazier and one VIM. M. Tae quail
fled in Apgusto that year as adnr Of J
W. Frazier and guardian of jams A.. Fra
zier, an infant child. The suitmentionet
above as brought in 1854 was fl the sale Of
Hands of the said JnO W. FrMier. in that
suit by order therein of 1866. YIN. Frazier
administration accounts VIDE ordered tc
be settled, and upon the settlement five pei
cent. commissions werg accorded the
admir- upon his receipts OF $23, 059, 2l
making 81. 1852. 96-this y assigned as error
1.-The accounts of TIN said admir- not
having been settled within the time pre-
scribed by law, that his commissions were
forfeited, This report made the estate of
Jno. w. Frazier owf VIM. Frazier the bal
ance of $36. 203. S5.
The balance January 1St, 1854 had been
$42, 305.96; five pr cent. commission was
allowed on the receipts for that year, to
wit, $31 ,896.7l making 81 ,594.S3, which
went of course, to reduce the balance
stated above, aid then interest for the year
to come, ito wit, to January lst. 1855. was
added and made the balance for that year
$44, S44. S2-Nhich is also assigned as er-
rOr.
The exceptions to this report are. first,
because The settlement of the adm IN ac-
counts VAS i'll no way involved in the
pleadinS. and had been made by indirec-
tiOn tosave commissions already forfeited
under the law.
: Secondly. because the administrator
had settled avithout vouchers, had filed no in
ventSry or appraisement or account of sales,
no list of bonds or debts due the intestate is
found with the report; no adm + bonds filed
with the commissioners to enable him to re-
port on it's sufficiency in amount of its pen
atty or s0undness of its security.
z That bonds due and to fall due the intes-
tate, on VIM. Frazier. to the amount of
$48, 600 on John I. Randolph for $4S. 900,
and other bonds and notes to the amount
OF VII 900, due the estate at the death of
the intestate; slaves TO the amount of
$22, 000, came also into their hands astore,
stock and accounts to the amount of
IS, 900, besides the interest of the intes-
tate in the estate of his father, amounting
to "a 900, and his one-half of the personal
property at the Rockbridge Alum Springs
besides the large annual profits at the
Rockbridge Alum Springs, and yet though
three years have elapsed since the admins
tration, no account had been settled to give
the court even q hint Of these important
matters, nor do they appear anywhere by
d'sy expose made By the admir-: that the
adm'rs, with the knowledge of the large
amount of the assets belonging to the es-
tate and to come to their hands, executed
their administration bonds in the absurdly
inadequate penalty OF forty thousand dol
lars I; that the estate is charged with
81 ,561.50, as received by John w. Frazier,
without a voucher. and is not true in fact;
because the adm II is credited with large
sums of money paid off by him for the es-
tate, when, in fact, they were not paid, but
replaced by notes of the admir- as adm r,
and left the estate still bound !; because the
estate Of Jno w. Frazier was charged with
large amounts not due by him, but by the
partnership OF Frazier, Randolph & Fra
zier, for furnishing the Rockbridge Alum
Springs in the fall, winter and spring of
1928. and to a.charge.o of commission on
SIS, 900, due by the adm r to the estate, be-
ing his own debt a; that the amount of $780,
ZIG. 42t was charged to John wv. Frazier,
contracted for supplies. from Nov, 1852, to
April, 1858. and were incurred in furnish
ing the Rockbridge Alum Springs. and is
a charge on the partnership concern of
Frazier, lRandolpht& Frazier that during
that period JnO. w. Frazier twas engaged
in no other business, and that during all the
years that had elapsed, the said VIM. Fra
Zier had made no settlement Of the part
nership accounts. Upon these exceptions
the court irecommitted the account, as
was done again and again, to many differ
ent commissioners. the details OF which
litigation cannot be followed out in this
opinion, nor is it deemed necessary.
The facts appear in brief to be that Jno.
w. Frazier departed this life intestate on
on the 9th day of April, 1858, seized of a
large estate in the counties of Bath, Rock
bridge and Augusta. Many years before
his deeease he had purchased the Glover
dale estate, consisting of several large and
Cioverdale hotel, and had made thereto
large additions. so that he was possessed of
six Thousand acres there. In 1S4S he pur-
chased the Bath Alum Springs property,
leased his Cloverdale estate and moved to
said springs in 1850, and also owned and
kept a large store at Fair View. in Bath
county. In August, 1852, he purchased
the Rockbridge Alum Springs property for
$150, 900, on a credit running to the year
1859 for the last payments. Soon after his
purchase he sold One-fourth of the last men
TONED property to VIM. Frazier, his broth
er, for $55, 900, and one-fourth in like man.
ner to John L. Randolph for $50, 900, which
included like interest in the Bath Alum
Springs property, by which sale John w.
Frazier secured to himself $4,000 of the
purchase money of the Rockbridge Alum
Springs, leaving $40 900 to be paid by him
out of his own estate, and the payments of
VIM. Frazier and John I. Randolph were
made to correspond with the time of his
own PAYMENTS. The said ROckbridge
Alum Springs and Bath Alum Springs
were to be occupied after January lst,
1858, by the partnership concern of Fra
zier, Randolph s. Frazier, OF which John
w. Frazier was the managing partner, by
the consent and solicitations of his part
ners John w. Frazier paid sS12, 900 of his
debt on the Rockbridge Alum Springs prop
erty in January. 1858, before his decease.
Vim. Frazier and Randolph had paid 81, 900
each before the death of said John w. Fra
zier, SO that VIM. Frazier and Randolph
owed John W., Frazier at his death $4,000
and their half of the expenditures in the
Rockbridge Alum Springs property, max
ing about. $4,000. In addition the per-
sonal assets are stated at ssl7 900 in sol
vent bonds, and slaves to the amount OF
$28, 900; his store at Fairview. 81 900 : his
half of the equipment at the two watering
places at $25, 900; his interest in his IA
theirs estate. $4,000, besides accrued hire
of slaves and rents due on the ClOyerdale
lands, exceeding an estimate of SLIT 900,
for thepersonalty of the estate on whichthe
brother and other-as-lno of the dead man
qualified with a bond of $40, 600.
b At the August term, 1858, the same gen
tleman qualified as guardian OF the infant,
James A., without the consent and knowl-
edge of the mother, in the penalty OF