The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-11-07
NOT TO GET FEE CLAIMED
CASE or THOMAS AGAINST TuR-
NeRs ADMINS TRAITOR.

u.wxcr Fails In H,s Attempt to ITO
carc n Large Zee From Coiore" "'-
mau--Usher supreme Court D'cn'""'
Rendered..
In the supreme Court Of Appeals "e-
custom was filed yesterday by Presiding Jus
tlce Lewis in the case Of Thomas against
Turner's administrator ct ais. ms II u"
anneal from the Circuit Court OF Neiso"
county. rendered at It's September term W
,sss and is suit in equity, wherein
Thomas T.. Fitzpatrick, administrator de
,.,,,,. mo-, with the annexed will OF lemuel
T'rner. deceased, was plaintiff and tinil
ID Thomas and others were defendants
.s,,e controversy was caused by certain
,.r,,tcn assignment, executed by the sald
rm,iv n Thomas on the 18th oil December,
,s.c Tor the benefit Of Fitzpatrick Tor ser
Vices previously rendered by nm as net "'-
torBey. r.rv
The record shows that Lemuel Turner
died in December, 1878, possessed OF IA, ~ ~
estate. nv his will, after leaving Rart "a
bis real estate 20 his nephew. John = III
lard and 1900 20 Frank 4. Turner, ne De-
arsafbed the residue OF his estate 10 81 L.
Eirley. In trust for the sole use oil Emmy
" Turner for her life, with power OF np-
poiptment by will, and provided tnat IN az. de-
fault of such appointment tne estate sno' . y,
at her death, go TO her heirs anu "eN' VI
kin. ,,,,i child NJ the
,ostator. and is described In the VIII as "
highly valued colored servant woman
ADMITTED TO PROBATE.
.a.,sttod IN prObafG and
ro.,n IT Dulard qualified as executor IN
Fehuary. 1879, in the County Court oil Nei-
son county. Soon afterwards, however, ms
,owers as executor were revoked ana rllI-
patrick was appointed administrator.
short time before the testator's death q
suit was commenced against MN IN lne
Nelson County Court by Norcissa T.. Dli-
lard, his sister, in when sur iaIse san
were asserted, growing out OF DIS transao'
lions as executor Of his fathers estate
These claims aggregated more than SJO,OoV'
and IL established, would have about an
sorbed mis- whole estate. .. ,,,,ao,.
Tjtzpatrick. after his appointment, under
took 10 defend the suit, which nnaily re
suited in a decree against the estate io
about $4,000. Fitzpatrick then appealed .
the Supreme Court, where inc uecIe'
was reversed and the bill dismissed
soon after this decision, which wa
i'm December. 1886, the instrument II
"ues,jon was executed its purposes arr
IN assign 20 Fitzpatrick, in consideration
M his mast services as attorney, the lnteres
ON ali the moneys and chooses IN actioh 0e
longing 10 the estate from the deatn OF ln'
,es,ator. and i'm addition thereto Sj,OOJ 0
the principal. This was signed U! Llu n.;
Thomas by means Of her mark and certi
fed by a Justice Of the peace; he also Ger
t1fyine that she signed IL willingly ant
after NJ was read and explained TO nor.
HUSBAND GAVE CONSENT.
There is also an endorsement purportinI
IN have been made by her husband glYln
his consent, as did her three adult children
Emily Thomas and all her chirdren thel
declared that she had signed II In lgno
rance: that she thought by executing 1t SIN
was merely giving her consent 10 Il pa!
ment of 5000, and no more.
The Circuit Court, after hearing all th'
evidence in the case, was Of opinion ina
the contract was valid. From the decision
Emily Thomas was allowed TO appeal by
one of the Judges of the Supreme Court.
Justice Lewis in delivering the opinion
of the Supreme Court said:
COURTS OPINION.
ssTested by the equitable and misery ruiz
which applies TO such cases 1t is very ciea
that the decree uphOlding the TRANSACTION j
erroneous. According 10 that rule all deal
benefit Of the former, are not only regarded
with jealousy and closely scrutnized. bu
they are presumPtively invalid, and tina
presumptiOn can only be overcome by TN
clearest and most satisfactory evidence.
II Is the duty of an attorney 20 give 10 his
client the benefit Of his best judgment, ad
vice, and eXertions, and ii would be Jus
reproach TO the law if he were permitted L
bring his own personal interest INTO connie
with that duty"
The Justice, after thoroughly reviewing
the whole case, said: "The decree in so IA
as il is in conflict with this opinion vii
therefore be reversed, and the case removed
for such further proceedings, not inconsist
ent Herewith, as may be necessary in or
der to a final decree"
OTHER CASES.
The other decisions filed by the COur
yesterday were
Hickman againt Mechanism. From Cir
cult Court of Shenandoah county. CASE
No l. Reversed, Judge Lacy delivering
opinion.
Hickman against McClanahan, ct al
Case No. 2. From Circuit Court of Shenan
doah county. Affirmed, Judge Lacy deliy'
ering opinion.
Dickinson against Clement and wife
From the Circuit Court OF Franklin coun
~. Affirmed, Judge Fauntleroy delivering
opinion.
Patterson against Eakin. From the Cir
cult Court of Botetourt county. Reversed
Judge Lewis delivering opinion.
Conrad's administrator against Etlinger
From the Circuit Court OF Rockingham
county. Affirmed, Judge Lacy delivering
opinion.
MuscOe against the Commonwealth
Passed.
Meem against Dulaney. Set for 10Th No
vember.
Richmond and Danville Railroad Com
pany against Risdon, Roller against Etiin
gers executor, Kerr against Clarke, Bar
tons executor against Brent, Page agains
Barksdale, Allison against Allison. Con
tinued.
Norfolk and Western Railroad COMPANY
against Read. Argued by Major I. }
kirkpatrick for appellant and submitted
Tyler, receiver agains, Ricamore. Sc
for 10th december next.