Chichester's Ex'x v. Vass's Adm'r
| Decision Date | 13 March 1810 |
| Citation | 15 Va. 98 |
| Parties | Chichester's Executrix v. Vass's Administrator |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
After the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Chichester v. Vass, (for which see 1 Call, 105,) a new suit was brought by Vass, in the late High Court of Chancery, against Sarah Chichester, widow, devisee and executrix, and others, children and grandchildren of the said Richard Chichester, deceased.
The case was this. Dr. Vass having paid his addresses to a daughter of Col. Chichester, on the 10th of April, 1789, wrote to him to ask his consent to their marriage. In his letter he says, " Should you disapprove of the matter, we shall endeavour to bear the disappointment with all possible fortitude; being determined to do nothing that may create the least uneasiness or anxiety to you."
Col. Chichester, in answer to that letter, on the 12th of April, 1789, says, " he has no reason to doubt his daughter's understanding and prudence; that, if it be her choice in full consideration, his approbation will not be withheld; that his circumstances are such that his daughters cannot expect large fortunes, but he shall endeavour to do them equal justice, as fast as it is in his power, with convenience; " and concludes with repeating " that he should not object to his daughter's determination, but give his approbation."
The marriage shortly after took effect. On the 5th of January, 1790, in answer to a letter from Dr. Vass, offering some objections to settling in Alexandria, Col. Chichester writes thus: He then adds, " if a plantation in the upper parts of the country would be more agreeable than a settlement in town, perhaps I can with propriety get off the contract made with Stewart for that tract of land in the county of Shenandoah; but, when I contracted with him," (for the sale, it would appear,)
On the 24th of February following, Col. Chichester wrote a letter to Col. James Gordon, in Lancaster, which begins thus: " Our friend and connection Dr. Vass and myself concur in opinion that in the neighbourhood of your Courthouse is a good and proper stand for a physician; " and then proceeds to inquire whether a small tract of land with a house on it can be bought in that neighbourhood on reasonable terms; speaks of several which he is informed are for sale; says that two or three hundred acres of tolerable land, with a sufficiency of wood, and a small comfortable house, will be quite enough; mentions a particular plantation on which there is no house " and how it would suit the Doctor to build, he cannot determine." He then adds, " that his late advancement for his daughter Lee put it out of his power to make immediate payment for the lands before mentioned to be bought, but that he expected about 501. could be paid in May following, and the balance at two annual payments after. If it could be of any material advantage in the purchase, perhaps the whole balance may be advanced in May or June, 1791; " which was the succeeding year. In a postscript he says, " I do not wish any contract confirmed until I receive your answer, but conditionally secure for my approbation."
The bill stated, that Mrs. Vass dying in child-bed before any advancement was actually made, her father shewed no farther inclination to give any thing to the complainant, and actually refused to do so, although he had before made some very considerable advances to the husbands of his other daughters; that the complainant thereafter brought an action at law against Chichester, and obtained a verdict for 5001. damages; but the judgment thereupon was reversed in the Court of Appeals; that, pending the appeal, Chichester died, leaving the defendant, his widow, his executrix; as also a very large estate devised and bequeathed to her and the other defendants; and called for a discovery of what advances their father in his life-time had made to his daughters severally, and of what value they were, and when made to them respectively; and that they should state the value of the several devises and bequests to their children respectively; and that, such discovery being made, as well as a discovery of the other estate of the said Chichester, there might be decreed to the complainant as much as came to the share of any of the said daughters, or the children of any of them, & c.; concluding with a prayer for general relief.
The executrix demurred to so much of the bill as seeks for redress, by decree of the Court of Chancery, on the promise charged in the bill to have been made by her testator to the complainant, and shewed for cause of demurrer, that it appeared, by his own shewing in his bill, that he had not any equity or title whereon such a decree can be grounded; and that the validity of such promise is a matter properly triable at law, and the remedy thereon is at law, and not in equity.
She then proceeds to answer the allegations of the bill generally; and, from her answer and those of several of the other defendants, (the daughters and their husbands,) it appeared, that Col. Chichester had made some considerable advances to the husbands of two of them; from one of whom he took a bond in the penalty of 3,0001. with condition that the husband should leave the wife lands of the value of 5001. for her life, in case she should survive him; that, on the marriage of a third with Mr. Hancock Lee, he laid out 5001. in land, and settled the same on Mrs. Lee and the children of the marriage; and that, some time after the marriage of his daughter Sarah M'Carty Chichester with Thomson Mason, he gave to the said Thomson Mason, as her portion, 5001. a negro girl, and a horse and saddle.
The will of Chichester, (which was among the exhibits,) dated the 10th day of October, 1793, (while the suit at common law brought by Vass against him was pending,) contains a variety of devises and bequests to his sons and daughters and his grandchildren, with as great a variety of limitations and contingencies; the property given to his daughters being in general expressly limited to them for life only, with remainders over. But, in one part of the will, this caution seems to have forsaken the testator: for after devising and bequeathing a very considerable portion of property, in lands, slaves and personals, to his wife Sarah, the executrix, " for and during the term of her natural life, with a power, either by deed or deeds in her lifetime, or by a last will and testament, to give, devise and bequeath the said lands and slaves, and all other mentioned property, or any part thereof, to any one child or children, or any one grandchild or grandchildren, of her's and his in fee-simple and absolute property, or for any lesser estate," & c.; he gives and bequeaths (" for want of such disposition of any part of the said land and slaves and other property mentioned) said personal estate to be divided among his three daughters," (naming them particularly,) " to them and their heirs and assigns respectively for ever." In another part of the will (having bequeathed to his wife a considerable number of slaves so long as she should remain a widow) he directs that, in case of her marriage, those slaves, with their increase, are to be equally divided into six parts; one equal sixth part whereof he gives to his daughter Sarah M'Carty, with all their increase, to her and her heirs for ever. There are some other limitations, in fee-simple, of slaves to his daughters, upon certain contingencies; and, finally, by a residuary clause, he gives all his estate, real and personal, not before disposed of, to all his children, by name, to them, their heirs and assigns for ever.
The Chancellor (overruling the demurrer) decreed that the executrix, out of the estate of her testator, should pay to the complainant 5651. " being the supposed value of the marriage portion of Sarah M'Carty, the wife of Thomson Mason, and the advancements to her, (and which value should have been ascertained by a Jury, if the parties would have consented to it,) with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the last day of October, in the year 1791:" from which decree an appeal was taken by the defendant Sarah Chichester, and, having abated by the death of Vass, was revived against Robert Dunbar, his administrator.
Wickham and Randolph, for the appellant.
Williams, Warden and Botts, for the appellee.
The cause was argued at great length on the merits; and especially on the question whether a Court of Equity had jurisdiction to give the relief sought by the bill.
1. On the question of jurisdiction; the counsel for the appellant contended that the face of the bill presented a mere legal case. [a] If the agreement was to convey personal estate, a bill for specific performance would not lie, in general, [b] though, perhaps, in this country, it might lie for slaves. Neither could the jurisdiction be sustained on the ground of discovery. It is not enough for a party to allege that he wants a discovery: it must be proved to be wanting. And here, in fact, it appears unnecessary; for all the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nowack v. Berger
-
Kiser v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers Of Am.
...the major contention of the defendant which involves the alleged indefiniteness of the contract, the case of Chichester's Ex'x v. Vass' Adm'r, 1 Munf. 98, 15 Va. 98, 4 Am.Dec. 531, is interesting as affording an example of a contract which was upheld by this court under a vigorous attack up......