The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-01-23
THE DEED Is FRAUDULENT,
ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME
COURT DECISION.

NOQNf
abe Opinion Handed Down Yesterday !"
s,,, of Jones Against Mcoroder'
a.. Ruling Of the Chancery Judge
Reversed.
An oplnion was rendered yesterday In the
-, ~ Zones against McGrudcr 10y Judge /
raupaercy ia the supreme Court OF Ap-
,e.ls This is complaint of decree from
,ho chancery Court OF the City of Rich
,oora entered on the 10th day Of November
,sso In a suit in which the petitioners, Jen-
Inns NJ. Jones, Mary Z. Brock, N. Johnson
Nrock. Mamie NJ. Marshall, Ellen W.
,ooes John X. Jones, and Morgan I. Jones
90 complsinants against William NJ. Nc
.s,,der. John I. Jones. Jerry W. Jones. NJ.
N GILLIAN. and John X Branch. trustees,
"a lain n. Branch are defendants.
T'he record eiscloses the 70 lowing case:
In AnriI. ISL. the petitioners filed bill IN
.he 1hancery Court against the defendants
xo set aside the deed hereinafter referred
"a. The defendants demurred 10 the blii
and the Court sustained the demurrer, ana
.iIsmisscd the bill on the ground that Saiah
4. Jones. their mother, was not proper
narty 10 the suit Leave was given to bring
another suit without joining their motheF'
DIED INTEsTATE.
In August following another bill was
allied which alleged that their iather dleu
intestate: that Thomas y. rage qualiueu
as executor Of the estate; that ther i1'uei
John T.. Jones and their mother hNed uil-
happily together, and that the latier III looi
4
which was dismissed IN 1891 that
,heir father was then possessed
~ acme real estate in Uenric0 county IN MS
own right. and Of a very large estate IN the
ri0ht Of his wife in which be had HE M
teTest only: that attempts had been mace
~ secure a division Of this property Tor the
separate enjoyment OF Jones ana MS
wife. which failed; that John r..
ZONES was immoderately Incorporate,
and of impaired mind and Will power
and greatly under the influence OF his
cousin. John T. Jones and William NJ.
McGruder; that these two men approached
Sarah T.. Jones as agent for her husband 10
procure a division OF the property, and after
long and frequent negotiations, the division
was made by "A deed dated November "a,
1886; that during the negotiations neither
Sarah T.. Jones or her counsel ever saw
John L. Jones.
was selected as trustee for Mrs. Jones and
John L. Jones a. the third party for JOIN
4. Jones. but Mrs Jones refused 10 put any
mart Of her property in his name, and vii
liam NJ. Mctiruder and J Try W. Jones, q
young brother of John 1. Jones, wer'
selected, and the conveyance made to them
NO CONSIDERATION.
The bill further alleges that when the
deed was prepared no consideration wa
expressed, but at the last instant the blanl
was filled at $4,000 which Mrs. Jones an'
her counsel believed 10 be merely nOml
nal consideration and evidence of secre
trust. as the property was supposed 10 b
worth from $4,000 10 $4,000.
The bill alleges further that Jerry w .Jone
and VIM. NJ. McGruder now claim that the
had previously purchased from Jno.E.J ones
under contract Of October IL. 1896 all of hi
interest, both that gotten from bis wife ant
that which he held in fee simple for $500
in notes. They also claim that Jno. +
Jones agreed that when the division wa
made between himself and his wife his shaT
was 10 be conveyed TO them.
The bill charges that this contract, whic
was in the handwriting Of John +. JOnei
was concealed from Mrs. Jones and Messri
Page Il Carter, her counsel during all III
negotiations and ut the time Of the eXecl
ton OF the deed Of November -, 1886; an
that If Mrs. Jones and her counsel ma
known OF It's existence. she never wOul
have agreed 10 put the property IN the
names.
CONTRACT CONCEALED.
The bill further alleges that j. !. Jonc
WIN. NJ. McGruder, and j. W. Jones co
cealed the existence of the contract of Oct
Der 10, 1886, and Of the four notes for $40
from Mr.. Page, who was then j. +. JON
administrator, until after litigation had cor
menced.
The bill charges that the contract was
fraud on J. 4. Jones, whose mind and WI
We're much impaired, as was also the o
tanning of the conveyance of the proper
TO them in the deed Of November "a, 1886.
The bill also charges that there was neN
any real purchase 10y these parties fro
John L. Jones, but that he conveyed II
them in trust for himself, and that as so'
as they had gotten the property IN the
name they claimed IL as their own aud =
a deed OF trust on il for $500.
The defendants answered. denying all 1
charges OF the bill, and the Chancery Cou
decided in their favor.
COURT's OPINION.
The opinion of the Court Of Appeals is
follows;
eve are Of opinion that the case made
the bill IL fully sustained by the evidenc
and that the Chancery Court erred in J
fusing to hold that the contract
October 10, 1886, and the deed
the oath of November, 1856, are fraud
lentand were procured by undue iniuenc
artfully aud Systematically cXerted oy,
and upon John Il. Jones, drunk'
and helpless wreck Of his f.
mer self, by John r. Jones, W
liam NJ. McGruder, and Jerry W.JOne
and in not holding the nominal grantees
the said deed OF November -, 1886, fro
John +. Jones and Sarah Il. Jones, h
wife, TO William Nj. McGruder and Jer
W. Jones to be trustees tor the chlldr'
and heirs at law of John h. Jones, decease
and ia dismssing the bill Of complaint
The counsel for the plaintiffs in this loi
and important litigation were Messrs. Ia
and Carter, and Messrs Pegram and Strln
fellow. The counsel for the deiendan
were Messrs. NJ. NJ. Gillian, Thomas
Martin and Samuel Davies. The fight HI
been bitter one from beginning To end, }
sulting In the uueaTthing of tremendo
fraud, as shown by the decision of the tOu
of Appeals.
The property involved in the suit has
creased in value during the litigation uu'
now il is worth upwards of $4,000, all
which will now come into the hands of Joi
Il. Jones heirs.
other Cases.
Postal Telegraph Gable Company again
Norfolk and Western Railroad Compan
from the Circuit Court Of city Of Pet 'rsR bur
Reversed. Judge Lewis delivering 9
opinion. Judge Richardson dissenting
Hall against Palmer. From the Circu
Court OF the county OF Halifax. Afirme
Judge Lacy delivering opinion.
Bruce against John l.. Roper Lumo
COMPANY From Circuit Court of county
Nansemond. Affirmed, Judge Hinton d
liyering opinion.
Kerr and ais against Clark and Other
Further argued by A. W. Mcdonald and
J. Williams, Esq, for appellees, and co
tinued until tomorrow.
IN The COURTS.