The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1889-03-12
THE ARGUM ENT.
| CROWDED COURT ROOM TO HEAR
COLONEL Guy.
TIE 7HONiS Will CASE ~ iHH
YCERT COURY
ruE CaSE IsrRI,ENrDD by otNshh
TOR III uIIH.-Ar-LAW
An Ab,e legal Argument In a Case ""''"
- liccominG more and More ''''
hraicd Colonel Gordon o. tiose w"
Argument for the Claimant.

-uuel I'M the (hanCcry Court yesterday
morning at il o'clock. Judge BurE- made
an EXPLANATORY statement on some mis-
opnrchen.ion of hisargumcnt on last nj
nrlay NEED. Munford said that Judge
,tapic- $50. called from the city to attend
.n important case. and could not ne
present after which Colonel ..hn H.
Guv. counsel for the heirs-at-la~. maze
am able argument. The courtroom was
crowded and much interest secuted 10 DE
manifested in the case, particularly ny
thc LEGAL fraternity, which was very
largely represented.
COL. joins o.. GUYS ARGUMENT.
Colonel GUY expressed his regret that
Inc plaintiffs counsel had thought hl l"
rest their whole opening argument upon
ono single point among the many IN
tolvcl i'm Obi. case. That they had moi
undertaken 90 exhibit tO the court, the
round. up0n which their client rests
hcr claim to the estate of the decedehl
or t0 challenge examination OF the
.oliditv and legal suiiciency OF
those grounds: bat for hearing, IN
deed. all reference 10 the merits
IF the suit I'm which they now come Tor
ward 10 move for % receiver, had CON
tented Themselves with assuming that
.hcv were lust and lawful claimants OF
Inc estate. and arguing that pending the
LITIGATION I'm respect to their claims,
receiver should be appointed 70 withdraw
IA subject matter of the litigation
~vom the hands of the personal repre-
-enta!iOn of the dcCcdcut, and hold J. TO
.bile the final judgment of the court
Colonel GUY said he should not de-
cline tO discuss the narrow Issue thus
rendered Dos the plaintiffs counsel, but
he should az the same time present the
case I'm the other aspects of much greater
interest and importance The motion
f .ar "a receiver in IFS simple form presents
he question whether, pending liliga'
zion I'm regard 10 the tile OF property,
+ The court Will take the property out OF
/ Inc uossessiou of the party holding
possession and al the same time
.iaiminV tile The whole spirit
/ of our law gives to such
PROPOSITION as This ~ cmphatica mega
fiyp. That the plaintiff S counsel have Ia
bored t0 show tlai the peculiar charac
ter of ihi. claim and the peculiar char
acter Of tine defendants possession takes
f The case out of ihe ordinary rule. And
/ tnc, $50, that their claim of title is under
ID riff lfusf atDrls from the dcrelcni,
and that the defendant possession being
/ held 0ny under the title OF personal rep
fc,cnulon. is mmiieslly unjust mas.
much as when q dccclcnt has parted
wnh his property by giit famt mortA
/ his personal representative has no color
of claim 10 DO on interest in il.
ln reply to This Colonel Guy said the
defendants here deny that there has been
any valid liit, and furthermore they say
that Gift ttust mDrts i- not i'm all IT,
,p.cts gan absolute Gifi from the donor
of all DIS rights. bui that 10 j., Il qua.ned
-in carrying with the property which
II. ID, subject tine same liability
o. the donor debts that would
attach TO 10 If hc had
NOT riven 10. but bad died leaving 10 as
assets of hi- estate i'm the fullest sense of
ihst word The whole argument sub
miued 90 the contrary, By the plaintiff :
counsel. has been drawn from q iancled
analogy between gifts c4ult mDits on
the one hand and gifts mter f'ts and
fraudulent dispositions of prosperity on
tAr other
In the latter class of cases the plain
Tins counsel have successfully shown
That tne personal representative of "a de-
ceased donor or gIantOr, las DD 'shf ol
interest in the property so disposed OF
hrt with an the leaning that ha'
directed. and all the Industry
that hss attended their research
into authority in this matter. they
have been able To produce not one single
authority 90 how that the courts have
ever in The case of gifts c1asa H.Dris dis
c0uutenauccd the personal representa-
tyc's ri1ht and duty 10 see 10 it that The
subject matter of The gift shall be applieC
81. far as necessary 30 the payment OF th'
decedcnt debts
When there has been "a gift Wttr 1iros
or 20 fraudulent disposition of property
the dccelents personal representative D.
conceded to be pOwerless TO protect hi.
creditors hut our statutes give 10 credl
tors ample means through the courts OF
reirtssnE their own grievances.
But in giits c1asQ H.ortts, as has been
said. The donor does not past with an ab
sOlule and unqualified estate. W hen
our courts brought from the Roman law
into the English jurisprudence this 70
he latter hitherto unknown species OF
-ir they brought 10 in expressly sub
iect 10 the qualification that so Tar a.
necessary TO the payment OF debts II
was subject 10 be trea ed as AS
sets of the decedents estate.
Col. GUY then. after celebrating fur
Their this view. and citing authority in
support Of 10. and especially noticing the
doctrine that one OF the grounds upon
whicha donees right 10 come into equity
40 all for The enforcement of his rights
instead OF resoriing 10 detlnue Oh
troyer is that the property being liable
for debts, "A court of law Is not The
proper forum to provide for their pay
ment before decreeing the property to
. the donee-adyeued TO and commented
upon. and cOmtrOyerted several Other
views submitted in this connection by
plaintiffs counsel, and he then adyertel
10 "a contention on the part OF the latter
that the defendants curatOrs OF William
\ Thomas deceased, had not come
fairly into the possession Of the property
which they now hold.
THE Plaintiff COUNSEL
had maintained that Bette Lewis, The
plaintiff, after ine death of " illiam a
Thomas, had in possession the keys OF
the boxes i'm which his securities had
been deposited at the Planters Bank.
and that she had surrendered these KEYS
90 the curatOrs upon conditions
10 enable them 10 search for Il
will. aud that although there was
another set OF KEYS in the
hands of one Hughes held hv him for
the dcccdent, which latter sci of KEYS, it
is not pretended that the decedcnt ever
gave to Bette Lewis, or in any way
parted with his rights TO them, vet that
Hughes had surrendered TO the curatOrs
this latter set Of KEYS upon the same
conditions
Colonel Guy ridicules, as supremacy
ridiculous, any pretension on the part OF
Hughes 10 dispose of the decedent's keys
according to his own will, or to attach
any conditions 10 the delivery, which The
curators Of the decedenl had a right TO
demand Of him.
Tie cOntroyerted at length the idea that
al D.. H.. H..