Chappedelaine and Closrivierre of Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux Dumoussay

• Decision Date: 01 February 1808
• Citation: 4 Cranch 306,2 L.Ed. 629,8 U.S. 306
• Parties: CHAPPEDELAINE, Residuary Legatee, AND CLOSRIVIERRE, Adm'r de bonis non , OF CHAPPEDELAINE, Complainants, v. DECHENAUX, Executor of DUMOUSSAY, Defendant
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

8 U.S. 306

4 Cranch 306

2 L.Ed. 629

CHAPPEDELAINE, Residuary Legatee, AND CLOSRIVIERRE, Adm'r de bonis non, OF CHAPPEDELAINE, Complainants, v. DECHENAUX, Executor of DUMOUSSAY, Defendant.

February Term, 1808

ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, in a suit in equity.

The bill states that the complainants' testator and the defendant's testator, together with three others, viz. Boisfeillet, Du Bignon, and Grand Closmesle, became joint purchasers of the islands of Sapelo, Blackbeard, Jekyll, and half of St. Catharine, on the coast of Georgia; that Dumoussay was the acting partner, and kept all the accounts, &c. That an account was stated and signed by the two testators, Chappedelaine and Dumoussay, on the 30th of April, 1792, by which the former acknowledged a balance of 667l. 10s. 1 3-4d. due to the latter; but that the account was erroneous in sundry items particularly set forth in the bill; that there were sundry debits which had accrued since that settlement, and that Chappedelaine had been obliged by a suit in equity to refund to Boisfeillet a large sum which Dumoussay had overcharged him. That Dechenaux was the executor of the estate of Chappedelaine as well as of Dumoussay, and as executor of Chappedelaine had defended the suit of Boisfeillet. The bill contains a prayer that the defendant may account touching all monies due on rectifying the errors; and for all other sums due by Dumoussay in his life-time, not credited nor accounted for, or which have come to the hands of the defendant, and that he pay over such balance as shall appear on settlement of all accounts, and for general relief. The defendant pleaded the settled account in bar of so much of the bill as sought to open the account, and by answer denied all fraud and error.

Upon hearing, the court below ordered a reference to auditors, with directions 'to make a general statement of accounts between the parties, rejecting any erroneous charges which may appear in their settlement, and adding such as may have been omitted.'

The auditors, on the 23d of April, 1805, instead of stating an account, reported that they found 'a balance due from the defendant to the complainants, including interest upon the liquidated account up to this date, fifteen thousand five hundred and eighty-six dollars and twenty-two cents.' They stated that they had not taken into consideration a claim of the complainants of 1,000l. which the estate of Chappedelaine was condemned to pay to Boisfeillet by decree of the court, nor their claim for indemnity for damages said to have been sustained by sale of lands, conceiving those claims not submitted to them, but reserved for the decision of the court.

Exceptions being taken to this report, the court ordered the auditors to 'make a statement showing the items of the general account, which they rejected, in whole or in part, and the reasons of their rejections, and also such items as were added as omissions, and their reasons for so doing.'

In obedience to this order, the auditors made an explanatory report, whereupon the court decreed that 604l. 6s. and 579l. 8s. 1d. be deducted from the liquidated account of the 30th of April, 1792; that interest be allowed on the balance at eight per cent from that date, and that the defendant pay out of the assets that balance and interest, and the further sum of 3,823 dollars, being the amount stated by the auditors as having accrued since the 30th of April, 1792, and costs.

The errors assigned in the record were,

1. That the bill was insufficient in law.

2. That the court had not jurisdiction, because, although the bill states the complainants to be French citizens, and the defendant a citizen of Georgia, yet the two testators were citizens of Georgia.

3. That I. Trubert, who is stated in the answer to be residuary legatee of Dumoussay, was not made a party; and because the other legatees were not made parties.

4. That the stated account has been partially opened, and abatements made to the injury of the legatee.

5. That the exceptions to the report of the auditors ought to have been sustained.

P. B. Key, for the defendant, on opening the question of jurisdiction, was stopped by the court.

MARSHALL, Ch. J. The present impression of the court is, that the case is clearly within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. The plaintiffs are aliens, and although they sue as trustees, yet they are entitled to sue in the circuit court.

Winder, for the complainants.

As to the allegation of want of parties, it can only be noticed on being pleaded. The defendant cannot now take advantage of it.

We are not, in examining the account, confined to the errors stated in the bill. But if the general nature of the errors is stated in the bill, it is sufficient; and if such errors are proved, it is sufficient to set aside the account as a bar, and to have it referred to auditors; who are not confined to the precise errors alleged in the bill.

MARSHALL, Ch. J. said he understood the practice in chancery to be, that the court will notice only those errors in the report of the auditors which appear upon the face of the report, or those expressly set down in the exceptions; and then the evidence on which the items were allowed, must appear on the record.

Harper and P. B. Key, for the defendant, contended,

That an account stated and settled by the parties was conclusive, unless the party complaining can show fraud

or error; and upon him lies the burden of proof. That when a defendant relies upon an account stated, he shall never be compelled to go into a general account. The settled account can only be opened to the extent of the items charged as erroneous. 2 Atk. 1. Summer v. Thorpe. 2 Vez. 565. Pitt v. Cholmondely.

March 4.

MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:

The bill in this case is brought to set aside a stated account which was signed by Dumoussay and Chappedelaine, in July, 1792, on the suggestion of fraud on the part of Dumoussay; or, if it be not set aside, to correct its errors, and to obtain a settlement of transactions subsequent to that account.

The stated account is pleaded in bar of so much of the bill as requires that the subject should again be opened, and the particular errors assigned, with the exception of one in the addition, are denied in the answer.

That the plea in bar must be sustained, except so far as it may be in the power of the representatives of Chappedelaine to show clearly that errors have been committed, is a proposition about which no member of the court has doubted for an instant. No practice could be more dangerous than that of opening accounts which the parties themselves have adjusted, on suggestion supported by doubtful or by only probable testimony. But if palpable errors be shown, errors which cannot be misunderstood, the settlement must so far be considered as made upon absolute mistake or imposition, and ought not to be obligatory on the injured party or his representatives, because such items cannot be supposed to have received his assent. The whole labour of proof lies upon the party objecting to the account, and errors which he does not plainly establish cannot be supposed to exist. Upon this principle, the report of the auditors in this case, and the exceptions to that report so far as respects the stated account, are to be considered.

The first exception relates only to the manner in which the auditors understood the order referring the accounts to them, and need not be considered, since the sole inquiry will be, whether they have in fact made any deduction from the stated account which was not warranted by the interlocutory order, an order made on the principles which this court has already declared to be correct.

The second exception refers to the particular deductions made by the auditors. The first is, that the item in the stated account of 604l. 6s. 5d. is reduced to 333l. 0s. 8d.

...