The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-04-08
Several Interesting Opinions Handed
Down Yesterday.
PACEyS. PACE'SADMINISTRATOR
Decided in J. Is. PAGES Favor-Cascs
Involving Fraudulent, Deeds and
Counsel Fees Plead ny Waiver
Estoppcl aud Other Questions

and James b. Pace made note for Sl6,-
Ooo. payable to check or order. 40 days
after date. Talbot was principal In the
note and the PAGES co-securiies. Talbot
died insolvcnt in 1894. John r. Pace died
october, 1888. leaving an estate not SUI
fclent TO pay more than fifty cents on
the dollar This suit was brought May
1894. 10 administer the la,tars es.ase. anu
q decree Of reference was entered the
fo.iowing July. September 70, loS5. TENS
pressed by cheek executors, James Is.
Pace paid the note. principal and interest
Slt.Sl0., aad there 4pOn ,oaAered proc
OF tlese lacls 10 The Commissioner anu
claimed 70 rank IN the Distribution OF
Joan t. Pace estate for the Whole OF the
debt so PAID by hlm until he haI received
one-haf OF the amount paid by him
commissioner reported that he could only
rsns for one-nalf the debt. Exception
thereto over-ruled. and appeal allowed.
The contention Of appellee is that j. b.
Pace cOuld not rank as ainst the estate oil
his co~surety for the whole deOt whea
the oo-sUre,y owed him only one-half OF
It: thai he had no risht 10 prove for the
one-half which he himself was primarily
bound 10 pay.
Held II is well set el that the surety
has The right OF substitution (which Is the
creature Of equity. and The object OF IL.
reaI essen.ia justice (EnderS VS.. Bruno
4 LAND. 40 against tie estate OF bis prln-
cipal. where payment OF preferred de0'
has been made by such sur,ty after tn
death OF his principal; and the rue OF
substitution for The purpose Of enforcing
contrlbu.ion among Co-sureies Is not dlf-
ferent. One surety who pays the common
debt is entitled 10 be subrogated 10 all
the rish,s and remedies or the cTeIitor'
as AGAINST his co-sureties. in precisely the
same manner as against the principa.
debtor CRober,son VS.. Trigg. % Graft
70; Deriny rs. Earl. OF Wnchelse1. J
Leading Cases In kqui.y Notes. See alsu
Ex parte Stokes. De Gex. 6ls; Mort an VS.
Hill. Law Rep Cay. Div. 1894 i0)) II
the latter case the reference to the Mer-
camille Law AmendrL eat. Acts 90 and p
Victoria. c. 81 does not detract from 1t:
wei. ht as an autl GRITTY In this State. be-
cause passed 10 do away win the doc
trine IN Cop e. ". Middleton. which was
d.sap proved by this court I'm Powell VS.
While II Lelsh 10s; and II e act referred
10 simply declared the law In England e
be what it lac heretofore been under ouI
decisions.
In Hesss estate, CO Fem. ST. 272. the
Court OF Appeals OF Pennsylvania helC
that the surety pay ing the debt. after the
death of the co-sure;y, was entitled a.
prove against his estate for the entire
amount of the debt. See Mi,ler's Appeal
II Casey. 4sl: Patterns Appeals. Wrigh
I6l. Also. Chemical Nat Bank VS.. Arm.
strong. 50, Fed r. 1908. c. c. Ap 1853
where Judge Zaft reviews AZ the author
ties; and watts VS. Kinney Leigh. az
2 John X. PAGES esta.e and James 3
Pace were each bound in sOldo for the
entire amount OF the debt; the death OF
John X. operated as an assignment for
benent OF his creditors. whose rights
then became fixed the assets passine as a
trust fund TO his representatives charged
with payment OF his debts: subject TO
costs of atm n stration and preferred
debts. Cheek then became entitled 10 an
interest In said estate. not then ascertain
ed, but capable OF being made certain
bearing such proportion to the entire as
sets as HIS debt bore to the entire in
debtednoss. When J. B. Pace, the surety
paid his debt he became at once subro-
gatod 20 all The iizhts remedies and
means Of payment \ respect tn -Geto thai
were possesset by the creditor: as such
subrogee he ta1 the right TO prove a.
the creditor could have done. the entir
0ett against the es.a.e Of his co-surety
and IN receive dividends on the basis OF
The entire ceht IN ~ reimbursed tha: hall
or the common burden belonging to his
co-surety.
1h's works no Injustice to the other
creditors; their rlrhts. becoming fixed a.
deb,er's death. remain unimpairel: they
had no interest in TIE proportion Of the
assets belonging 10 Cheek: an interest as
distinct ana separate from thairs as II j.
al already feen segregated ard set ana,
for Cheeks bene't. They could not add
TO or take from Il. while It was the prop
cry OF CheeS, nor can they DO so now
that u stands in equity. as Indemnity for
The surety. who has rad It.
FRAUDULENT DEED. COUNSEL
FEES.
Sionoorrrer e Richards VS.. Motley &c.
Reversed Opinion by Keith. p.
Held J. \ deed directing the truste,
therein when 50 required BY the cred-
iors TO take charge OF said property and
sell the same at public auction" is no,
arenab.e 20 tho objection that il re-
serves 70 the grartor an interest In and
control over the property inconsistent
VIVA rs svowed objects and adequate TO
their deseaL
The eeed securcs J. r. Money Cwho f.
TIRE father 0: the srantor) about 80 i01
due him and -for-wtich he is liable as
surely for the grantor" and 81 go OF
the amount secured. as shown by ac-
count Med IS Tor board o. SELF. horse.
and furnishing horse twelve years a
800 per aasum." There IS no pre- ence
o. any ante' ede0t contract 81 which the
sen FoSnS himself TO pay his father any
thing. $50.
Isd. As te'wcen STARTERS hoard
locg'rs and the leen Of a horse would
constitute consideration Implying a
p'on''se IN paw hut IS between persons
s'an6ing In relation OF husband ard
wife. parent ard child grandparents
brothers s.ep-chldrcn and other near
re'at'ors. 70 action crn lie ma'n'alncd
for such services In the absence OF an
express coptract or engagement 10 pa.
such services are not re~forr-ed IN the
expectation g. upon the fnl'h o. rece'v-
ne pecun'&ry conversation. Updlke
va Titus Peaslev rs.
"A preceaent moral Obligation. no,
capable OF creating an original cause o.
ac;ion. wiil not support an EXPRESSED
promisa' Fearr ont VS. Reeve. {
Adolph e Eivs 9S6- See also Cook VS.
Brad ey. Z Conn 81: Mis- Va Wyman.
2 Fic1 a7: Wernsll VS.. Adrey. r & p.
~; Hack VS.. Stewart, al page 2l7. A.
10 the item OF 400 the contention OF
appellants shopld have been sustained
AppsNees claim that appellants were
not injured BY the dismissal OF Their lin
because they say the Undlspn'ei DEBTS
secured would have exhausted the prop