Clarke v. Tinsley's Adm'r
| Decision Date | 24 May 1826 |
| Citation | 25 Va. 250 |
| Parties | Clarke v. Tinsley's Administrator |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Lynchburg. The whole subject is so fully unfolded in the following opinion, that nothing more need be said.
Decree reversed.
Wickham for the appellant.
No Counsel, for the appellee.
JUDGE CARR delivered his opinion. JUDGE COALTER and GREEN concurred, and the decree was reversed, & c. [*]
Tinsley's administrator filed his bill against Clarke, a former Sheriff of Pittsylvania, stating, that his intestate had sent by mail to the defendant, Clerks' tickets for collection, keeping a list, and sending on one for the Sheriff to enter a receipt on, and return: that no receipt has been returned, so that he is without remedy at law. The bill, therefore, prays a discovery, an account, and decree for what may be found due. The defendant filed a very vague and unsatisfactory sort of answer, stating the length of time that his deputies did the business: that he has no doubt, if they ever received any fee bills, they have accounted for and paid them: that some of them are removed, some dead, and he does not think he ought to be sued after such a length of time. At the May Rules, 1815, the answer was filed, the plaintiff replied to it, and a commission issued. Under this commission, the deposition of Richard Jeffries was taken. At the October Term, 1815, by consent, the replication was set aside, and leave given the plaintiff to amend his bill, and to the defendant to amend his answer. The amended bill calls for a more particular answer; that the defendant may say, whether he did not, while Sheriff, in 1808-9, or while deputy, receive tickets from Tinsley, as per list filed with the bill whether he or his deputies did not keep books, and if so, is there not some entry of these there; and calls for extracts & c. & c. The amended answer gives rather a lame account of the matter, speaks of the books, of tickets being entered in them, of payments made, & c. but produces no extracts. This answer was filed at the May Rules, 1817, and a replication and commission taken; and at the April Rules, 1818, the cause was set for hearing by the plaintiff. At the May Term, 1818, for reasons appearing to the Court, the replication is set aside, and the cause remanded to the Rules. At the October Rules, 1818, the plaintiff filed exceptions to the answers, and gave a Rule for a better answer; and the defendant insisting on the sufficiency of his answers, the plaintiff set down his exceptions for argument. Then comes this entry, at the May Term, 1819. " This cause came on this day to be heard on the bills, answers, exhibits and the examination of a witness, and upon the exceptions to the answers; on consideration whereof, the Court doth refer the accounts to a commissioner, who is to examine, & c." in the usual style. The commissioner reported a balance against the defendant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial