Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-04-29
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VIRcIMlAN .PILOT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest TO
Our People.

TRIPLETT ". wooDARD's ADMIR-.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,
March 10, 1900.
IN A SUIT BY AN ADMINISTRA-
TOR TO SETTLE THE ESTATE A
CREDITOR OF THE ESTATE IS
a PROPER PARTY. BUT A DEBT
OR OF THE ESTATE IS NOT.
AN AGENT OF A DECEDENT MUST
SETTLE HIS ACCoUNTS.D DELIVER
ALL PAPERS IN HIS HANDS AND
SHOW THAT HE HAS ACTED
PROPERLY, BEFORE HE CAN BE
ALLOWED COMPENSATION.
a PARTY WHO HAS AGREED IN
WRITING TO PAY MONEY UN-
CONDITIONALLY CANNOT PROVE
BY PAROL THAT 1T WAS NOT
TO BE so PAID.
AN AGREEMENT TO RELEASED A
DEBT NOT BASED UPON ANY
CONSIDERATION IS NOT BIND
ING.
The court says:
One of the objects OF the suit being to
ascertain the indebtedness of the eS-
tate. Mrs. Tate and Mrs. Seaton
claiming to be creditors, it was not
only proper but necessary to settle the
accounts between each of them and
the estate. in order to ascertain what
II anything. was due to either, and If
upon Sucn settlement it was found that
they or either of them were indebted
to the estate. 1t would be proper to rem
DER decree against such an one for
that sum.
In Triplett's account against the es-
tate which was an exhibit with the
Dill. the largest item was for service
rendered as agent. Clearly before any
thing should have been allowed him
Tor services rendered as agent, he ought
10 nave been rquired to settle his &C
counts and surrender the papers in his
possession as agent belonging to the
estate. and the bill very properly asked
that this might be done.
Inc case made by the bill and ex-
hlplts against Mr.. Seaton was that OF
debtor to the estate. merely. He had
no interest in the estate. His demur-
rer should have been sustained and
the bill dismissed as to him.
1t appears from the report of the
commissioner that Triplett was in
debted to the testatrix in the following
sums (here the amounts are enumera-
ted.
TripIett insists that he had been re-
leased from the payment of these sew
eral sums by the testator and relies
upon the following paper as evidence
OF that fact: "On account of faithful
services rendered me by my nephew,
S. w. Triplett. in attending to my bus
mess. do hereby agree to release him
ut my death from all claims and obli-
cations that may be due me in any
matter whatever Witness my hand
and seal this 25th day Of September,
1891.
ELIZA A. WOODWARD (scaD."
The paper is broad enough to cover
the indebtedness in question and suffi-
cient to release the debtor therefrom. if
executed under such circumstances as
rendered 1t binding upon the testatriX.
ITlplett was the agent of the tesla
triX when the paper was executed. and
therefore stood in q confidential rela-
ton to her 1t is we'll established that
an agent. trustee or other person stand
ing in confidential relation to another
cannot entitle himself to benefits which
mat other may have conferred upon
MN, unless 1t appears that there has
Deen entire good faith, q full disclosure
OF all the facts and circumstances af-
lectlnS the transaction and the absence
or an undue influence or imposition.
me circumstances under which 1t
was executed do not appear. Triplett.
Observation-Disclosures as to thenf,-btrt- he
was clearly an incompetent witness.
me release was wholly in the hand
writing OF the agent except the sigma
ture OF the principal. who was then
over eighty years of age.
Upon the whole record we are of the
opinion that the validity of the release
has not been established. and that the
Circuit Court did not err in SO deciding.
The action OF the court in holding
Mr. Triplett liable for the annuity of
$500 required to be paid the executrix
by her conveyance to him of December
so, 1874. is also assigned as error.
The conveyance expressly provides
for the payment of the annuity during
the life of the testatrix. The grounds
relied on to show that he should not
be held liable for it is that there was
an agreement that the annuity would
be eXacted Of him only in the event the
testatrx needed it for her support:
that for years she executed receipts
to him therefor without receiving any
money in return. and that the whole
had been released by the writing here
tofore discussed. AS we have seen,
that release is invalid. Under we'll set
tied rules of law a party who has COW