Case Name: Siron v. Ruleman's Ex'or & als.
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1879-09
Citations: 32 Gratt. 215
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Siron v. Ruleman’s Ex’or & als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 84–87

Head Matter:
*Siron v. Ruleman’s Ex’or & als.
September Term, 1879,
Staunton.
R died in 1854, leaving a widow and seven children— four sons and three daughters. By his will, after . providing for his widow, he gave to his daughter H and each of his four sons a specific parcel of „ land, to Henry one-half of a tract called Bull Pasture; and he provided that each of his sons should pay a sum named towards paying testator’s debts. The charge on Henry’s land was $1,000, payable in two and five years. He then said, after his debts were paid his daughters P and S, to have an equal portion with the balance. The whole of the Bull Pasture tract was under a deed of trust to secure a debt due by the testator to B, and the one-half not given to Henry was sold to pay that debt. Henry paid to the executor two small sums, amounting to $298.20, and sold the land to J, who sold it to Siron — they having notice of the charge; and Siron paid to the executor $722.59 in 1863, in Confederate treasury notes and hank notes, it being understood that if the parties entitled would not receive the notes they were to he returned; but they were not returned, though the executor stated the parties refused to receive them. Upon a bill by the executor to subject the land to pay the charge of $1,000, minus the two items amounting to $298,20 — Held:
1. Construction of Will. — It was the intention of the testator, in the disposition of his property to observe the principle of equality among his children.
2. Same. — It was his intention to provide for his daughters P and S portions which, in his opinion would be equal to those given to his other children.
3. Same-Charges against Land — Debts—Legacies,— If the testator intended that the sums charged upon the lands devised to the sons should be applied to the payment *of his debts, including that due to B, and that the half of the Bull Pasture farm and the personal property not specifically bequeathed, so far as it was not needed for debts, should go to his daughters P and S, or he applied for their benefit, this property, having been applied to the payment of the debts, which the charges against the devisees were intended to pay, P and S will he turned over to the charges against said land.
4. Same — Same—Same—Same,—If the intention was to raise by these charges, a fund for the payment of the legacies to P and S, as well as the debts, they are, of course, entitled to whatever remains of the fund after the payment of debts; and as the debts are all paid, they are entitled to the aggregate amount.
5. Same — Same—Same—Same,—The charges on the land were not made simply for the payment of debts, nor were they in any sense contingent, but are absolute In their nature, and constitute an unconditional testamentary provision made by the father for his daughters.
6. Wills — Charges against Land — Duty of Executor.— It was competent for the executor of E and his duty to file his bill against Henry and his alienees to enforce the charge upon the land, in default of the payment of said money in whole or in part, to collect the same and dispose of it according to the provisions of the testator’s will.
7. Same — Same—Same—Accepting Confederate Currency. — It was the duty of the executor as soon as he received the said Confederate and bank notes, to apply to the legatees and ascertain from them whether they would accept the said notes; and if they refused to receive them, he shonld have returned them to Siron; and not having returned them, he is liable to Stron for their value as of the date at which he received them, or a reasonable time thereafter. And Siron should he allowed a credit for such value.
8. Chancery Practice — Parties.—In 1867 P and S and their husbands filed their hill In the circuit court of Pendleton against E’s executor and his devisees and legatees to enforce the payment of their legacies. The executor answered, and in 1872, the suit was dismissed agreed. No decrees subjecting the land devised to Henry to the charge should be made until P and S were made parties in this cause, and enquiry made as to the adjustment made between them and the executor.
*This was a suit in equity in the circuit court of Highland county, brought in August, 1875, by* Jacob Ruleman, surviving executor of Christian Ruleman, deceased, to subject certain land devised by the said Christian Ruleman to his son Henry, to the payment of a charge of $1,000, put upon the land by the will of the testator. The will was admitted to probate in February, 1854. Henry Ruleman sold and conveyed the land to Harvey M. Jordan, and Jordan sold and conveyed it to Jonathan Siron. Jordan being dead, his administrator, and heirs, Henry Ruleman and Siron, were made defendants to the bill. Siron answered insisting that the charge was only for the payment of debts, and that it was not necessary for that purpose; and he avers that he paid to the plaintiff the sum of $722.50.
The cause came on to he heard on the 17th of April, 1878, when the court held that the $1,000 was a charge on the land sold to Henry Ruleman, and crediting it with two small sums, decreed that unless Henry Ruleman, or some one for him, should, within sixty days from the rising of the court, pay to the plaintiff $1,773.73, with interest on $840.38, part thereof, from the 1st of April, 1878, and the costs of this suit, commissioners named should sell the land in the manner and upon terms stated in the decree. And thereupon Siron applied to this court for an appeal; which was awarded. Christian Ruleman, the testator, lived in the county of Pendleton, and died early in the year 1854. The land devised to his sou Henry was in the county of Highland. The will of Christian Rule-man, and the facts, are stated in the opinion of Burks, J.
Sheffey & Bumbgardner and Charles P. Jones, for the appllant.
David Fultz and L. H. Stephenson, for the appellees.
Res Judicata. — This case is cited in Wohlford v. Compton, 79 Va. 338,

Opinion:
*BURKS, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case, among other matters, involves the construction of the will of Christian Rule-man, deceased. It would seem that the will was not written by the testator. This is to be inferred from the fact, that his signature thereto was written by some other person, and that he adopted it by making his mark. It was attested and proved by three subscribing witnesses. The scrivener, whoever he was, must have been quite illiterate. The instrument is very awkwardly and inartificially drawn. Whatever obscurity and ambiguity there may be about it, however, one thing seems clear: that it was the intention of the testator, in the disposition of his property, to observe the principle of equality. He had seven children — four sons and three daughters. After giving to his wife certain personal property absolutely, and two slaves, Simon and Patsey, during her life, and providing further that she should have her support out of the home place, he then devises lands to his daughter Helena, and his four sons, to each of them a separate parcel described by general metes and bounds, giving also to his son Christian a negro boy William, and at his wife's death the slave Simon to his son Conrad, and the slave Patsey to his daughter Plelena. To each of the devisees to his sons he annexes a charge thus: "Also out of his portion of the land Jacob pays three hundred dollars in five years after my death." "Also Christian out of his portion is to pay three hundred dollars towards towards paying my debts to be paid in five years after my death." "Henry Ruleman, my son, I will and bequeath to you one-half of my land lying on the Bull Paster river by pay — one thousand dollars towards my debts, the money, the half of the money must be paid in two years from this date, the balance 500 to be paid in *five years after my death." "Conrad Ruleman, my son, I will and bequeath that you must pay $100 after my death towards paying my debts."
Then follows this clause, "After my debts are all paid my daughters, Phebe and Sophia, and eaqual portion with the balance, them and their heirs. Aliso I will to my beloved wife one hundred dollars out of the Bull Pasture farm if not redeemed and soul." In the next (concluding) clause, he appoints Jacob and Conrad executors of the will.
It appears that the testator died possessed of other personal property besides that bequeathed to his wife; but of what description it was and what its precise value is not shown. It does not appear, nor has it been suggested in argument, that he owned any real estate except that mentioned in the will. This ho devised in parcels to his four sons and his daughter Helena, as before stated, except the one moiety of the Bull Pasture farm, as to which he died intestate, unless it was devised by implication to his daughters, Phebe and Sophia. The whole of the Bull Pasture farm was under a deed of trust to secure the payment of a debt of the testator to General Boggs. It is not shown what was the amount of this debt, or of the other debts of the testator, but it appears that one half of the Bull Pasture farm was sold by the executor or suffered by him to be sold to satisfy the Boggs debt. The executor states that it was sold at the price of $2,800, and that the proceeds of sale and the personal property of the testator were consumed in the payment of the debts of the testator, leaving a deficiency of $15.00, which was paid' by the executor out of his own means.
It seems to us, that construing the will in the light of the surrounding circumstances, so far as we have them, it was the intention of the testator to provide for his daughters, Phebe and Sophia, portions which, in his opinion, would be equal to those given to his other children. This *object he sought to effect by the charges aforesaid on the lands devised to his sons. These charges together amount to the sum of $1,700. We do not know what was the value of the property devised and bequeathed to the several children. There is nothing in the record that enables us to fix the value, nor do wc know what was the estimate of the testator, except that he must have considered and determined in his own mind that the sum raised in the manner prescribed would secure the desired equality.
In the view we take, it matters but little whether the testator intended, as he probably did, that the seventeen hundred dollars should be applied to the payment of his debts, including the debt due Boggs, and that the property —a moiety of the Bull Pasture farm and the personal property — not specifically devised and bequeathed, so far as it was not needed for debts, should go to his two daughters, Phebe and Sophia, or be applied for their benefit, or whether his intention was, as the learned counsel for the appellees contend, to raise by the charges a fund for the payment of the legacies to the daughters as well as the debts. The result in either case would be the same. If the former construction prevail, then the fund — the personal property and a. moiety of the Bull Pasture farm — having been taken to pay debts, which the charges against the devisees were' intended to pay, the two daughters being thus disappointed will be turned over for reimbursement t'o the charges against said devisees. If the latter construction be the correct one, the daughters, of course, are entitled to whatever remains of the fund after the payment of debts, and as the debts are. all paid, they are entitled to the aggregate amount chargeable by the testator against the lands devised.
One or the -other of these constructions must, we think, be correct. Practically, in this case, it makes no difference which shall be adopted.
The learned counsel for the appellant insists that the *charges against the lands devised were made merely to pay the debts, and that the debts having been paid by the executor out of the property of the testator, the charges, therefore, cease. We cannot yield our assent to this proposition, for the reasons already stated. We do not think that these charges were in any sense contingent. They are, in our opinion, absolute in their nature, and constitute an 'unconditional testamentary provision, made by the father for his two daughters.
The court is therefore of opinion that the appellee, Henry Ruleman, took the land devised to him by the sixth clause of the testator's will, subject to a charge thereon of $1,000 for the benefit of the testator's two daughters, Phebe and Sophia, and that Harvey'M. Jordan, who purchased said land from the said Henry Ruleman, and the appellant Jonathan Siron, who purchased the same from the said Jordan, having had, severally, notice of said charge at the dates of their respective purchases, each of them acquired the said land subject to the charge thereon of- so much of the said sum- of $1,000 as remained' unpaid at the date of his purchase.
The court is further of opinion - that it was competent for the said executor, and it was his duty to collect the said sum of money from the said Henry Ruleman, and dispose, of the same according to the provisions of the testator's will, as hereinbefore construed; and to that end, it was competent for him to file his bill against said Henry Rule-man and his alienees, to enforce the charge a°:ainst said land in default of the payment of said money, in whole or in part.
The court is further of opinion that the said Henry Ruleman, in part satisfaction of the charge against said land, paid to the said executor, on the 2d day of April, 1860, $72.24, and on the 1st day of September, 1860, the further sum of $223.96, leaving a balance due the exe'cutor, on the 2d day of No7 vember, 1863, as agreed by the *parties, of $722.50; and this balance was paid to the . executor by the appellant on the day last named, partly in Confederate States treasury notes and partly in 'the notes of state banks, then greatly depreciated, and that the said notes were thus paid to and received by the executor upon the agreement and understanding between him and the appellant that if the legatees entitled should refuse to accept said notes when tendered in payment of their legacies, the same should be returned by the executor to the appellant.
The court is further of opinion that it was the duty of the said executor, as soon as he received the said notes under the agreement and understanding aforesaid, to apply to said legatees and ascertain from them whether they would accept the said notes, and if they refused to receive them, he should have returned them to the appellant; and inasmuch as the said notes were never so returned, although they may have been rejected by said legatees, if and when tendered, and whether they perished on the hands of the executor or were converted to his own use, in either case he became liable to the appellant for their value as of the date at which he received them or a reasonable time thereafter, and in any decree which should have been rendered against the appellant, the latter should have been credited with such value when ascertained.
But the court is further of opinion, that it was 'improper to render any decree fixing definitely the amount for which the appellant is liable to account until further proceedings were had in the cause. From the documentary evidence in the record, it appears that Phebe and Sophia, the two daughters of the testator, in conjunction with their husbands, instituted a suit in equity in the circuit court of Pendleton county, West Virginia, against the executor aforesaid, and the other devisees and legatees under the testator's will, the object of which suit was to enforce the collection of the legacies claimed by the complainants. *The record does not show when this suit was commenced. Jacob Ruleman, the executor, filed his answer to the bill. It seems to have been sworn to on the 8th day of April, 1867, and was probably filed about that time. The cause was pending until the 13th day of April, 1872, when a final order was entered therein in these words: "This suit is dismissed agreed." There is nothing to show the nature of the agreement beyond what the order imports. It at least implies an adjustment of some sort. Hoover v. Mitchell & others, 25 Gratt. 387. It may be, that some arrangement has been entered into by which all matters in controversy between the parties have been settled so as to relieve the charge-which rests on the appellant's land, or the executor may have satisfied the claims of the complainants, and the present suit, while prosecuted nominally in his. character of executor, may be really for his own benefit. If the latter suggestion should be well founded, the question would be presented whether the executor would be allowed to recover more than he has paid out. See Burton v. Slaughter, 26 Gratt. 914. It is worthy of notice, that the bill in this case was not filed until after the lapse of nearly twelve years from the date of the payment of the Confederate money and bank notes in 1863, and more than twelve months after the dismissal of the suit in West Virginia already referred to. In the answer of the executor in the last named suit, it is stated that the complainant Sophia resides in one of the western states, and that the complainant Phebe resides in West Virginia and is deranged. Under these circumstances, we think, that before any decree should have been rendered subjecting the lands of the appellant, the nature, extent and effect of any adjustment of rights and claims which may have been entered into between the executor and the devisees a,nd legatees should have been inquired into, and that Phebe and Sophia, the two daughters of the testator, should have been made parties to the cause.
*The court is therefore of opinion, that the decree appealed from should be reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court, with directions to require the complainant to amend his bill making additional parties, and for further proceedings in conformity with the views hereinbefore expressed, in order to a final decree.