The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-14
OPINIONS OF THE COURT.
THE SUPREME tribunal DECIDES
TWO IMPORTANT CASES.
Robert Neville to Receive Five Thousand
Dollars With Interest--A VIII That
IL Invalid and Void.

against Dulaney's executors, coming from
the circuit court OF Loudoun county. and
reversing the decision OF Judge James
Keith. Judge Lacy rendered an able
opinion In the case, fully and intelligently
dealing with the points involved
The suit is on a note for 5000, made
by Robert Neville. who married sister
Of IL. Grafton Dulaney. deceased. At the
time Of his death he was one OF the
wealthiest young men in Virginia, his
whole estate. probably, being worth 81
100000. BY his will he bequeathed nearly
$4,000 pecuniary legacies to friends and
relatives. besides many specific legacies.
The suit, however. turned upon the con-
struction OF two clauses OF Mr.. Dulaneys
will.
The first Of these is known as the four
teenth clause in the probated paper. ana
beQueaths as follows:
ITO my brother, Richard II. Dulaney,
i give the sum OF $4,000 absolutely, ana
all my shooting apparatus except two
rifles, which leave to my brother-in-iaw,
Robert Neville. and two shotguns which
] leave TO my brother-in-law, j. 5. Lem
mon. they TO make their own selections"
Tho second clause. known as the eigh-
teenth. provides as follows:
II direct that all the foregoing legacies
be paid and delivered over to the persons
named as speedily as practicable, and
without deduction OF any kind, II being
my wish that all charges. taxes and dues
of every kind thereon shall be paid by my
executors. and that no charge be made
against any OF my said legatees by reason
of any money passing from me TO them
at any time prior TO my DEATH
The note involving this clause was tound
among the testators assets. In the hands
OF his bankers. at the time OF his death,
uncancelled and without any memoran-
dunn attached 10 il indicating any inten-
tlon TO release it.
The question was whether the testator
meant TO include every legatee mentioned
in his will within the language or the
eighteenth clause. and If so. whether that
language constituted release OF any
debt due by any legatee to the testator:
whether contracted prior to the date or
his Will or subsequently thereto.
The court unanimously decided that the
testator intended 10 release all OF his
legatees from every debt due TO MIN at
his death.
This is a case of the gift Of legacy
by creditor 10 a debtor. and the point
decided was whether the creditor intended
10 release his debtor. There is no other
case reported in Virginia directly dealing
with this doctrine.
Nessrs. Lee and Janney, OF Leesourg'
and Peasants and Massie, or TINS CITY
were counsel for Neville, and Mr.. BROOKE,
~ Leesburg. and Acknowledgement Scott
represented the Dulaney executors
,rbe court reverses in an opinion pre-
nared by Judge Fauntleroy the decree rem
dered at the September. 1881, term Oh tne
Circuit Court of Wythe county, In the
walters and others. The suit was brought
nv lanes. Nancy and Stephen walters
against John Walters, his wife ana their
two infant children for the impeachment
and the setting aside Of an alleged VIII
~ Wayman Walters, father or the COM
nlainants and the defendants
The case involves the validity OF the
naper purporting 10 be the last VIII anu
testament Of Wayman Walters, Whlch was
dated September 49, 1883, one cay previous
~ the death of Walters. This Will was
probated and took the regular coulse ia
accordance with the law.
II gave TO James Madison Walters and
John Walters and their wives the right
10 hold the testators land curing
the,r Hfetimes, but at their deaths the
nroperty was to go in fee simple 10 John
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES and Mary Lee. STE
nhen and Nancy Walters were gwen
the land. The estate thus disposed OF
800 each annually from the prohts OF
amounted to about 5000.
In March, 1891. there was trlaI CT
the issue. and the verdict In favor or
the validity of the will propounded. This,
however. was set aside, and a new trlal
was had at the September term or the
court. when the court rendered verdict
in accordance with the previous one.
The appellants moved to set this verdict
aside as being contrary to the law ana
evidence. and this motion was overruled.
The petitioners took the proper bills
of exceptions, and upon these the case
came TO the supreme court.
In Judge Fauntleroys opinion he states
that the paper propounded as the will
OF wayman Walters is upon its face I'M
offlcious. cruel and inhuman, and that 1t
gives no reason for the unnatural dispo-
sition Of the estate OF the testator dis
inheriting his afflicted and unfortunate
son. Stephen, and his dependent ana
helpIess daughter, Nancy. and her eight
children.
The decision refers to John Walters.
who lived with his father. having had
the old man completely and rigidly under
nj. influence. and states that on the night
OF September 10, 1898, the father, over
seventy-dve years of age. and feeble by
sickness. lay in a dying stupor, unable
10 turn himself over or TO recognize the
members OF his own family. 1t reci'es
that John sent for the scrivenor, who
came and wrote the pretended VIII. ana
that the dying man had to be propped up.
stimulated with whisky. the pen placed
10 his hand, and guided through the
mockery Of making the mark OF the
testator The opinion makes reference
20 the testimony I'm the case as to these
facts.
The rourt holds that the paper pro-
bated as the last will OF Wayman walters
Is not valid; that It was perpetrated in
fraud. and that the verdict Of the jury
upon the issue devisavit rel non was
wrong and contrary to law and evidence.
and that the circuit court erred in refusing
10 set aside and I'm dismissing the bill
OF the complainants.
II is ordered that decree he entered
annuiling the probate OF the paper and
declaring II void and invalid.
The other opinions were Hartman
against Copenhayer. From Circuit Court
OF smyth county. Affirmed. Judge Lewis
delivering opinion. Judge Lacy dissent
Ing
Hfldreth against Turner. From the
Circuit Court OF Fauquier county. Affirm
ed, Judge Richardson delivering opinion.
Gish and wife against Moomaw From
the Hastings Court OF the city OF Roa-
noke. Reversed. Judge Richardson deliv-
ering opinion, Judges Lacy and Hinton
dissenting.
Ryan against Krise and Clarke
against Krise. Rehearings refused
King against Supt Lynn. Argued by
r. Carter Scott, Esq. for petitioner and
Major r. Taylor Scott for respondent.
ana eubrnlttad