Hatcher v. Hatcher

• Decision Date: 26 July 1883
• Citation: 77 Va. 600
• Parties: HATCHER'S PER. REP'S AND ALS v. HATCHER'S HEIRS.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

77 Va. 600

HATCHER'S PER. REP'S AND ALS v. HATCHER'S HEIRS.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

July 26, 1883

(Absent, Fauntleroy, J. )

Appeal of Margaret Hatcher and Daniel G. Hatcher, personal representatives of David B. Hatcher, deceased, and said Daniel G. Hatcher, in his own right, Charles Dehart, J. F Moore and W. A. Moore, from decree of circuit court of Floyd county, rendered 23d November, 1882, on the bill of review therein filed 10th March, 1881, by George M. Hatcher and others, against the appellants and others, for the purpose of reviewing and reversing decree entered 15th October, 1879, in the cause styled, " Hatcher's heirs v Hatcher's administrator. " The last mentioned decree confirmed the settlement of the accounts of said personal representatives, including the allowance to them credit for two payments on a debt of their intestate's estate to John C. Staples, amounting to nearly $4,000. To make these payments, the administratrix, in 1860, borrowed on her individual responsibility money of W. A. Caldwell, and to repay Caldwell in part, she similarly borrowed money of Israel Lash. Daniel G. Hatcher purchased the judgments Caldwell and Lash obtained against her for the money they loaned her. H. D. Reynolds owed the estate a debt, and in the suit of Reynolds v. Hatcher's administrators, & c., land was decreed to be sold to pay tat debt. At the sale Daniel G. Hatcher bought the land. In the suit of Hatcher's heirs v. Hatcher's administrators, the administration accounts were then in process of settlement, and it was ascertained that the estate owed Daniel G. Hatcher, the administrator, more than the price of the Reynolds land. Thereupon, in a decree entered in November, 1877, in the two causes last aforesaid, heard together, the fact of such indebtedness to Daniel G. Hatcher was recited, and the commissioner who made the sale was directed to surrender to him his bonds given for this land, and to execute a deed conveying the land to him; and the cause of Reynolds v. Hatcher's administrator, & c., was ordered to be stricken from the docket; all whereof was accordingly done.

The bill of review did not, in terms, pray for the review and reversal of the decree of November, 1877, but only for the review and reversal of the decree of October, 1879; but as the latter confirmed the settlement of the administration accounts, showing the indebtedness of the estate to Daniel G. Hatcher, on the ground of which indebtedness the former decree proceeded in directing the surrender of his bonds and the conveyance to him of the Reynolds land, the bill of review necessarily affected the decree of November, 1877. And accordingly, by the decree of November, 1882, on the bill of review, the circuit court disallowed credit for the two payments made as aforesaid to John C. Staples, but treating the Caldwell and Lash debts as debts due from the estate, allowed credit for the partial payments made thereon and decreed in favor of Daniel G. Hatcher only for the sum of $985, with interest on $699.66 thereof from 14th September, 1882; but proceeding to reverse the decree of November, 1877, decreed that he had only paid for said land to the extent of said sum decreed him, and that, unless he paid within sixty days the purchase money, $4,000, and its interest, subject to credit for the amount decreed him, the said land be sold.

Before the bill of review was filed, Charles Dehart and others obtained judgments against Daniel G. Hatcher, which were liens on said land, and J. F. Moore and others had a deed of trust thereon; but the equities of the heirs of D. B. Hatcher, deceased, were adjudged by the decree of November, 1882, to be paramount to the equities of the judgment and trust lienors. The remaining facts and proceedings are stated in the opinion of the court.

J. L. Tompkins, J. E. Penn, and J. R. Moore, for the appellants.

Whittle & Anderson, and A. P. Staples, for the appellees.

OPINION

RICHARDSON, J.

In many of its aspects this case is a very remarkable one. ??he appellants, the defendants below, demurred to the bill and also answered the same; and in the view taken by this court, while the case must be determined upon the demurrer, yet will, in order to a proper understanding of the conclusion at which the court has arrived, so far first consider the case on its merits, as to show that in no view could a different result be fairly arrived at. The facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable thereto demand in either view a reversal of the decree of the court below.

David B. Hatcher, of Patrick county, died in April, 1857, intestate, leaving a widow, Margaret, and eleven children, most of whom were then infants. At his death the decedent was seized and possessed of a very considerable estate, real and personal. The personal estate consisted almost entirely of slaves. Said widow, together with her son, Daniel G. Hatcher, duly administered upon the estate, which was largely indebted, but in an amount by no means equal to the value of the entire estate, real and personal. Several of the most valuable slaves were sold by the administrator, Daniel G. Hatcher (to whom his mother, the said administratrix, left the administration almost entirely) and the proceeds applied to the payment of debts against the estate. This left upon the plantation and homestead the young slaves and some inferior ones, barely able, as disclosed by the record, to earn a support for the large family. It seems that these negroes, not taken charge of by the administrator and sold for the payment of debts with the trifling amount of other personal property on the place, were left there by the common agreement and understanding of the heirs and distributees, including said administratrix and administrator, for the support of the family and the education of the children. In addition, as the older children grew up and married, or settled to themselves, they, by like understanding and common consent, cultivated in parcels certain parts of said homestead, and respectively enjoyed the fruits of their labor. That this arrangement was the very best, under all the surrounding circumstances, which could have been made in the interests of all concerned, cannot be doubted; and that, as between themselves, no one of the heirs and distributees could rightfully complain, is equally true; for in this way the children were reared, educated and cared for, and from time to time, as they grew up and married, received from the common stock thus kept such aid in the way of advancements as could be spared from the common fund or property.

Not very long after the death of D. B. Hatcher, one H. W Reynolds instituted a suit in equity against said administrator and administratrix and others for the specific execution of a contract for the sale by the decedent in his life, to him of a certain tract of land; in which suit the contract was executed, and a balance of over $4,000 of...