Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-02-27
NO RECEIVER NEEDED
80 JUDGE FITzHUsH DECIDES UPON
BETTE TRomass PETITION.
The Validity Of the Alleged Gift Not, How.
ever, Affected by the
Opinion.

re,aer his opinion IN the now celebrated
T,om,s case, which had been so elaborateIy
.rzued on saturday last on the motion sub
mutod b, Bette Lewis for the appointment
ot arecei,or to take charge Of the assets OF
The estate.
After the usual preliminaries Incident 70
pe forma. opening of court bad been bad
The Judge announced that he was ready TO
deliver his opinion I'm the case OF Lewis
egainsi Thomas.
Judge George l.. Christian and Judge Ed
nuaq Wsddill, OF counsel for Bette Lewis,
were present. as was also Mr.. w. X.
Dusrles. one OF the curalors, with bis coun.
,eL Mr. II. &. Cannon. Sir. Beverley B.
Nuui0rd was The only one OF the counsel for
Major Legh X. Page, the administrator OF
Wilism A. Thomas, deceased, and bis heirs
At law, present.
TIE RESULT.
Judge Fuzhugh theo read the opinion
rubnsned below, IN which he denies the
application OF Bette Lewis for the appoint
meni 0i 4 receiver. snd directs that the assets
now in the bands Of toe curai0Ts be turned
over 10 the neWiy-app0Inted administrator.
During the reading OF the opinion there
~ss profound silence, such was the desire OF
nil present to catch every word as II fell from
The iDs oi the Judge.
While the decision does not In the least
determine the case on its merits. vet by II sll
the assets oi TIE docedent pass intosihe hands
OF the administrator, and hat gentleman will
now proceed 10 defend the estate.
Opinion.
Bette r. Le,cis ~. Thomas Curotors.
Ona motion for q receiver the plaintiff in
her bill in this case sets up 6 claim TO the
bulk Of the estate Of the intestate William A.
Thomss by virtue OF d0nsti0 morris caVsa.
The pHiicusr property cliimed by her Is
said IN The bill 10 be shown by lst fled
with The bill thereof marked as exhibit "E."
THE CUEAT0Gs.
In January. 1889. after the desth OF the in
testate. W. Il. QuaTes and NJ. 5. QuarleS
were appointed curators OF his estate by the
County Court Of HcnricO c0unty. The cu.
ratOrs qualified aud have taken possession oi
the property Of The intestaie's estate, inciu-
ding that claimed by the plaintiff rs shown
in exhibit .sE," and II Is CHARGED clam 10
hold it as the property Of the estate Of the
intestate.
TIE ADMINISTRATOR.
After the plaintiff bad brought her SUIT aud
fled her bin against the curaiors adminlsira.
ton was granted by the County Court OF
IIenrico 10 Legb X. Page. WHO gave bond
and duly qunlfe1 as administrator OF said
William A. Thomas. deceased.
TUG ADMINISTRATOR PARTY.
The administrator Page has appeared bv
counsel aud voluntarily submitted himself
% the Jurisdiction OF the COurtas party De.
feudant in the cause, and hos demanded TINT
the assets OF the estate of The intesiaie Thomas
in the hands oi the cursiors be turned over
10 him by them, according q the statute IN
such case made and provided. see Code
section 1854.
PETI1lON FOR RECEFER-
The plainiiT resisis thls demand. and in
accordance with the PRAYER II her bill asks
that the property which +, the subject OF the
ALLEGED gift poriis causd be placed IN the
hands Of "A receiver 10 await tne decision OF
the Court on her claim.
THE QUESTION.
The curatOrs being H. possession, the os.
fqfe bv law degoNCs on the administrator.
aud therefore Il seems ia mc that tee qucs-
lion on The plaintiff, motion Tor receivers
whether the property now ~ the hands OF
the curators and she subject ~ controversy
in this case can be tprned over 10 The admin
istrator and bc administered by him 10 the
ordinary, regular, and due course OF admin
istration without prejudice or Injury to the
riahts and remedies Of the plaintlll as donee
oi the alleged git
II her riqhts AZ donce he fully projected
and h.r remedies be complete md unimpair-
I'd by putting The property in question IN the
hands Of the administrator 1t VIII be neces'
saTy 10 appoint receiver.
srnJEcl or GIFT CaUsA IoRTis.
In deciding this question It is necessary 10
determine the exact status OF property which
l. the subject Of gilt Clas0 m9rtis and the
piacrcc Of courts OF equity IN dealing with
property OF this character.
Al the auihOriie, and the administrator
having taken tnis property and administered
ifasap part Oi the decedoHts estate, he anu
his sureies will be estopNed hN the record
from denying that 1t constituted a part OF
the estate.
No NECESSITY FOR RECEIVER.
For these reasons am OF opiuion that
there l. no necessity for a receiver, aud the
Plaintiffs mohOn TO appoint one Is oytF-
Tuled.
In view Of the fact thlt It was lnumated in
argument by one Of the plaintiffs counsel
concur In stating that property which Is The
subject Ol a Git CQUsd nOFfjs is liable for
the debts Of the donor. noi 8iths,andng the
eft. without citing other authorities, which
are too numerous 10 mention, content my
self with referring TO the latest case on The
subjec, decided by the Court Of Appeals OF
this state.
TIE LATEST CASE.
In Yancey ys. Field, Virginia Law Jour
nal for February, 1889, PAGE iGl, Lewis,
Judge. saws that to O dOp0t,s morris cdVsd
..certan implied conditions subsequent are
annexed upon The happening of any one OF
which the donation Is defeated" aud among
them be notes: "And by The occurrence OF
deficiency OF assets necessary TO pay the
debts Of the donor after bis DEATH"
CgEDnOR's RIGHTS.
s.-t.s Al
donee af such Il gift IS not Sn absolute but
qualified right, and is held IN subordnatiOu
10 the superior Tieht OF the creditor 10 resort
to the pfopeity when Is the subject OF the
Gin, II necessary, for the payment OF his
debt. Aud for the purpose OF paving the
debts OF tie deceased donor, snd TO the ex-
tent for which property. which IL the sub
iect Of Such Gift, Is by law liable for such
debts, It constitutes assets OF the decedents
estate aud may lawfully 90 into the hands OF
his personal representative TO be admins
tered. la such administration the rights Of
every person interested can be protected,
whether Il be 3 creditor legatee. distri-
butee, or the donee OF gift morris eaesa.
GENERAL ACQUIRING.
Courts OF equity have Jurisdiction 10 en-
force all such rights, aud Cts aid must some.
times be necessarily invoked. For since
tbe giii is not absolute, but Is always SUBJ
ieel to the rights OF the donors creditors,
under some circumstances, as where the
donor dies involved IN debt, and Il would
he clearly impossible 70 adjuiIcate finally
upon the claim Of the dOnee until there bad
been a general accounting aud settlement Of
The donors estate. See Pomtroy, Ed,
section 1l5l.
THE Practice.
And then AZ 10 the practice of courts OF
equity In dealing With property which Is tue
subject Of q gift morfis caUsa. the law seems
20 6e settled and the views above expressed
confirmed. Judge story, after citing several
examples TO illustrate the rule. says: In
thOrt, In all cases In which doastio 'nort's
CASA i carried into eject by court OF
equity the court has DO, considered the In.
tefeS as completely vested oy The gifts, but