Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-04-08

.....I GOWN 'iiniohS IN HNt important
..e several Of which are Of special
...i interest Following are brief d.
....s OF the opinions filed.
SEGREGATION.
,.. VS. PAGES Administrator. Re
.-..I opinion by Harrison. J.
,..H d. 1898. Talbot Wnder the firm
. of Pace. Talbot q Coz. John II.
.. James b. Pace made "A note Tor
.... rayab.c 10 check or order, 100
.ftc~ date. Talbot was principal
. .r. note and the PAGES co-sccuritics.
...-.r died iuso,vent I'm 1894: John r.
.. died October lN5. leaving an cs-
... not sufficient 90 pay more than 80
.t- On the dollar. This suit was
,-...rt May. 1894. 20 administer the
...... estate. and "a decree of reference
. entered the following July. Sep
..rH.r 49, 1925, being pressed by Cheeks
.oIs. James B. Pace paid the note
..-.rII and interest-$l6.55l.51-
,..-urau rendered proof of these facts
..rr. Ddmmi ssioncr. and claimed TO rank
- .r. distribution of John r.. PAGES es-
.... .0r The whole of the debt 50 paid
.. Rim. until hc had received one half
t.. amount paid by him. Commits
Sinner reported that he could only rank
r-.-s half the dcbt. Exception thereto
,.rlci and appeal allowed.
Old. contention of appellee is that J. b.
... could not rank against the estate
.tH- c1-Surcty for the whole debt when
OLD. ..-surtty owed him only one half of
.. -.at Doe had no right 10 prove Tor the
... half. which he himself was primarily
hound TO pay.
.... 10 is well settled that the surety
DIS Che right of substitution (Which Is the
.- tlre of equity. and the object of 10
-.. essential justice: Enders vs.. Bruno.
Rand. 4iO against the estate of his
r-...yal where payment OF "a preferred
I.Ht has been made by such surety after
OH. death of his principal; and the rule
.. substitution for the purpose of en-
forcing contribution among cO-sureties
U.s. not different one surety who pays
.l. common debt is entitled TO be subrO-
gated OBJ an the rights and remedies
%. -hs creditor as against his cosmetics,
u rrcc Fly the same manner as against
Oh. principal debtor. Robertson vs..
r-.-. % Graft. 20; Dering vs.. Earl, of
V.rehelsea. I Leading Cases in Equity,
notes. See also EN parte Stokes. De GeX,
r>. Morgan VS.. Hin, Law Rep. Chy.
DDS. GNsD. 400. In the latter case the
reference TO the Mercantile Law Amend
uut Act Q9 and % Victoria, c.. 80,
docs not dctract from its weight as an
authority i'm this State because passed
90 10 away with the doctrine in Copis
s- Middleton. which was disapproved by
mis- court I'm Powell vs.. White. IL Leigh,
.4. and the act referred 10 simply de-
oar-d the law in England 10 be what
b. had heretofore been under our de-
,-.ous.
Ir Hess's Estate. 50 Penn. ST.. 272, the
Court of Appeals of Pennsylvania held
that the surety paying the debt after
Size death of the co-surety, was entitled
q. prove against his estate for the entire
amount of the debt. See Miller's Appeal,
NJ Casey. ISL: Patterns Appeals. 9 Wright,
-r Also. Chemical National Bank VS..
Armstrong. 50 Fed. r., 3G0-S. c. G. APP
-.. where Judge Taft reviews all the au-
hurities. and Watts VS.. Kinney. 9 Leigh,
e. John r. PAGES estate and James b.
Pace We're each bound i'm soldo for the
entire amount of the debt. the death OF
John r.. operated as an assignment for
benefit of his creditors, whose rights
then became fixed the assets passing
a. a trust fund TO his representatives
charged with payment of his debts. sub
jet 20 costs of administration and pre-
Ierred debts. Cheek then became entitled
POO an interest m said estate. not then
ascertaincd. but capable of being made
certain. bearing such proportion to the
entire assets as his debt bore To III BE-
entire Indebtedness. When j. h. Pace,
t.- surety. paid his debt. he became at
once subrogated to an the rights. rene
dies. and means of payment i'm respect
thereto -hrt were possessed by the credl-
Id. as such subrOgee he had the right
-. rrove as the creditor could have done.
OBJ. entire debt against the estate Of his
..--urety. and 10 receive dividends ON
t.. basis of the entire debt, until re-
.mhursed that half of the common bur
..u belonging To his co-surety.
This works no injustice 10 the other
.r-.ltors, their rights. becoming fixed az
l.ltors death. remain unimpaired; they
lad no interest i'm the proportion OF the
assets belonging TO Cheek-an interest as
U-t.nCt and separate from theirs as II IL
t.. already been segregated and set
apart for Cheeks benefit They couiu
Rot add 10 or take from 10 while II was
Che property Of Check, nor can they 90
.. now that II stands, i'm equity, as IN
l.mnity for the surety who has PAID IL.
FRAUDULENT DEED, COUNSEL FEES
S.leburner < Richards VS.. Motley &c
Reversed Opinion by Keith, T.:
Held: ]. A deed directing the trustee
therein when so required by the ciedl-
tors 90 take charge Of said property and
SD the same al public auction Is not
.u. nable 10 the objection that 1t reserves
r. the grantor am interest in and control
.,er the property inconsistent with us
at9Wed objects and adequate 10 lheI
.tlt.t.
I decd secures j. r. Motley (who is
fh. rather OF the grantor about N'fJ
... him and for which he is liable as
surety for the grantor,' and Sl,ZUO OF the
amount secured as shown 10y account
t.a is for board Of self. horse. and fur
I.-Iug horse twelve years at 500 per an
I.m." There is no pretence OF any an
.toedent contract by which the son bound
himself 90 pay his father anything
Held. AS between strangers, board,
loleine and the keep Of horse would
constitute consideration implying a
promise 10 pav: but as between persons
standing I'm the relation Of husband and
VIE. parent and child, grandparents
brothers. siepchildren, and other near
relations no action can be maintained for
...h services I'm the absence OF an eN-
I.-s contract or engagement 10 pay
.-u.h services are not performed IN thf
expectation or upon the faith Of receiving
r.oluIary compensation. Updike vs..
rus. 2 Beasley. 1913. "A precedent mora
obligation. not capable Of creating an
original cause Of action, will not support
an express promise" Beaumont vs.
Reeve. s Adolph & Ellis. 1876. See. also
Cook VS.. Bradley Z Conn, 81; Minis VS.
Nsman Pick IN: Wennall VS.. Adney
b. d p. 29: Hack vs. Stewart at
2'7 As 20 the item OF $500, the conteh-
tom OF appellants should have been sus-
tanned