Hugh Wallace Wormley, Thomas Strode, Richard Veitch, David Castleman Charles Cormick v. Mary Wormley George Strother John Wormley, Mary Wormley, Jane Wormley Anne Wormley Strother

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJOHNSON.
Citation21 U.S. 421,8 Wheat. 421,5 L.Ed. 651
Decision Date12 March 1823
PartiesHUGH WALLACE WORMLEY, THOMAS STRODE, RICHARD VEITCH, DAVID CASTLEMAN, and CHARLES M'CORMICK, Appellants , v. MARY WORMLEY, Wife of Hugh Wallace Wormley, by GEORGE F. STROTHER, her next friend, and JOHN S. WORMLEY, MARY W. WORMLEY, JANE B. WORMLEY, and ANNE B. WORMLEY, infant children of the said Mary and Hugh Wallace, by the said STROTHER, their next friend, Respondents

21 U.S. 421
5 L.Ed. 651
8 Wheat. 421
HUGH WALLACE WORMLEY, THOMAS STRODE, RICHARD VEITCH,
DAVID CASTLEMAN, and CHARLES M'CORMICK, Appellants,
v.
MARY WORMLEY, Wife of Hugh Wallace Wormley, by GEORGE
F. STROTHER, her next friend, and JOHN S. WORMLEY, MARY
W. WORMLEY, JANE B. WORMLEY, and ANNE B. WORMLEY, infant
children of the said Mary and Hugh Wallace, by the said
STROTHER, their next friend, Respondents.
March 12, 1823

Page 422

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Virginia. The original bill was filed by the respondents, Mary Wormley, and her infant children, suing by their next friend, against the appellants, Hugh W. Wormley, her husband, Thomas Strode, as trustee, Richard Veitch, as original purchaser, and David Castleman and Charles M'Cormick, as mesne purchasers from Veitch of the trust property, for the purpose of enforcing the trusts of a marriage settlement, and obtaining an account, and other equitable relief. The bill charged the sale to have been a breach of the trusts, and that the purchasers had notice.

In contemplation of a marriage between Hugh W. Wormley and Mary Wormley, (then Strode,) an indenture of three parts was executed on the 5th of August, 1807, by way of marriage settlement, to which the husband and wife, and Thomas Strode, her brother, as trustee, were parties.

Page 423

The indenture, after reciting the intended marriage, in case it shall take effect, and in bar of dower and jointure, &c. &c. conveys all the real and personal estate held by Hugh W. Wormley, under a certain indenture specified in the deed, as his paternal inheritance, to Thomas Strode, in fee, upon the following trusts, viz. 'for the use, benefit, and emolument of the said Mary and her children, if any she have, until the decease of her intended husband, and then, if she should be the longest liver, until the children should respectively arrive at legal maturity, at which time each individual of them is to receive his equal dividend, &c. leaving at least one full third part of the estate, &c. in her possession, for and during her natural life; then, on her decease, the landed part of the said one third to be divided among the children, &c. and the personal property, &c. according to the will, &c. of the said Mary, at her decease. But if the said Mary should depart this life before the decease of the said Hugh W. Wormley, then he is to enjoy the whole benefits, emoluments, and profits, during his natural life, then to be divided amongst said W.'s children, as he by will shall see cause to direct, and then this trust, so far as relates to T. Strode, to end, &c.; and so, in like manner, should the said Mary depart this life without issue, then this trust to end, &c. But should Wormley depart this life before the said Mary, and leave no issue, then the said Mary to have and enjoy the whole of said estate for and during her natural

Page 424

life, and then to descend to the heirs of the said W., or as his will relative thereto may provide.'

Then follows this clause. 'And it is further covenanted, &c. that whenever, in the opinion of the said Thomas Strode, the said landed property can be sold and conveyed, and the money arising from the sale thereof be laid out in the purchase of other lands, advantageously for those concerned and interested therein, that then, and in that case, the said Thomas Strode is hereby authorized, &c. to sell, and by proper deeds of writing to convey the same; and the lands so purchased, shall be in every respect subject to all the provisions, uses, trusts, and contingencies, as those were by him sold and conveyed. And it is further understood by the parties, that the said H. W. W., under leave of the said Thomas Strode, his heirs and assigns, shall occupy and enjoy the hereby conveyed estate, real and personal, and the issues and profits thereof, for and during the term of his natural life, and after that, the said estate to be divided agreeably to the foregoing contingencies.'

The property conveyed by the indenture consisted of about 350 acres of land, situate in Frederick county, in Virginia. The marriage took effect, and there are now four children by the marriage. For a short time after the marriage, Wormley and his wife resided on the Frederick lands; and a negotiation was then entered into by Wormley and the trustee, for the exchange of the Frederick lands for lands of the trustee, in the county of Fauquier. Various reasons were suggested

Page 425

for this exchange, the wishes of friends, the proximity to the trustee and the other relations of the wife, and the superior accommodations for the family of Wormley. The negotiation took effect; but no deed of conveyance or covenant of agreement, recognising the exchange, was ever made by Wormley; and no conveyance of any sort, or declaration of trust, substituting the Fauquier lands for those in the marriage settlement, was ever executed by the trustee. Wormley and his family, however, removed to the Fauquier lands, and resided on them for some time. During this residence, viz. on the 16th of September, 1810, the trustee sold the Frederick lands by an indenture, to the defendant, Veitch, for the sum of five thousand five hundred dollars; and to this conveyance Wormley, for the purpose of signifying his approbation of the sale, became a party. The circumstances of this transaction were as follows: The trustee had become the owner of a tract of land in Culpepper county in Virginia, subject to a mortgage to Veitch, and one Thompson, upon which more than 3000 dollars were then due, and a foreclosure had taken place. To discharge this debt, and relieve the Culpepper estate, was a leading object of the sale, and so much of the trust money as was necessary for the extinguishment of this debt, was applied for this purpose. At the same time, Strode, as collateral security to Veitch for the performance of the covenant of general warranty contained in the indenture, executed a mortgage upon the Fauquier lands, then in the possession of Wormley. In

Page 426

1811, Veitch conveyed the Frederick lands to the defendants, Castleman and M'Cormick, for a large pecuniary consideration, in pursuance of a previous agreement, and by the same deed made an equitable assignment of the mortgage on the Fauquier lands. About this time, Wormley having become dissatisfied with the Fauquier lands, a negotiation took place for his removal to some lands of the trustee in Kentucky; and upon that occasion a conditional agreement was entered into between the trustee and Wormley, for the purchase of a part of the Kentucky lands, in lieu of the Fauquier lands, at a stipulated price, if Wormley should, after his removal there, be satisfied with them. Wormley accordingly removed to Kentucky with his family; but becoming dissatisfied with the Kentucky lands, the agreement was never carried into effect. Afterwards, in April, 1813, Castleman and M'Cormick, by deed, released the mortgage on the Fauquier lands, in consideration, that Veitch would enter into a general covenant of warranty to them of the Frederick lands; and on the same day, the trustee executed a deed of trust to one Daniel Lee, subjecting the Kentucky lands to a lien as security for the warranty in the conveyance of the Frederick lands, and subject to that lien, to the trusts of the marriage settlement, if Wormley should accept these lands, reserving, however, to himself, a right to substitute any other lands upon which to charge the trusts of the marriage settlement. At this period the dissatisfaction of Wormley was known to all the parties, and Wormley was neither a party, nor assented to the deed; and

Page 427

Castleman and M'Cormick had not paid the purchase money. In August, 1813, the trustee sold the Fauquier lands to certain persons by the name of Grimmar and Mundell, without making any other provision for the trusts of the marriage settlement.

At the hearing, the Court below pronounced a decree, declaring, 'that the exchange of land made between the defendants, Hugh W. Wormley and Thomas Strode, is not valid in equity, and that the defendant, Thomas Strode, has committed a breach of trust in selling the land conveyed to him by the deed of the 5th of August, 1807, for purposes not warranted by that deed, in misapplying the money produced by the said sale, and in failing to settle other lands to the same trusts as were created by the said deed; and that the defendants, Richard Veitch, David Castleman, and Charles M'Cormick, are purchasers, with notice of the facts which constitute the breach of trust committed by the said Thomas Strode, and are, therefore, in equity, considered as trustees; and that the defendants, David Castleman, and Charles M'Cormick, do hold the land conveyed, &c. charged with the trusts in the said deed mentioned, until a Court of equity shall decree a conveyance thereof. The Court is further of opinion, that the said defendants are severally accountable for the rents and profits arising out of the said trust property while in possession thereof, and that the said defendants, Castleman and M'Cormick, are entitled to the amount of the encumbrances from which the land has been relieved by any of

Page 428

the defendants, and of the value of the permanent improvements made thereon, and of the advances which have been made to the said Hugh Wallace Wormley, by any of the defendants, for the support of his family; the said advances to be credited against the rents and profits, and the value of the said permanent improvements, and of the encumbrances which have been discharged, and which may not be abated by the rents and profits, to be charged on the land itself; and it is referred to one of the commissioners of the Court to take accounts according to their directions, and report,' &c.

The Court, afterwards, partially confirmed the report which had been made, reserving some questions for its future decision: 'and it being represented on the part of the plaintiffs,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
124 practice notes
  • Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain R., NEWMAN-GREE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 11, 1988
    ...If the party is a nominal party, whose presence or absence does not affect jurisdiction, Wormley v. Wormley, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 421, 451, 5 L.Ed. 651 (1823); Wood v. Davis, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 467, 15 L.Ed. 460 (1856); Bacon v. Rives, 106 U.S. (16 Otto) 99, 27 L.Ed. 69 (1882); Navarro Savings......
  • Smith v. Sperling, Civ. No. 9005.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • December 16, 1953
    ...17 Wall. 570, 84 U.S. 570, 579, 21 L.Ed. 657; Wood v. Davis, 1855, 18 How. 467, 59 U.S. 467, 469, 15 L.Ed. 460; Wormley v. Wormley, 1823, 8 Wheat. 421, 21 U.S. 421, 451, 5 L.Ed. 651; Schuckman v. Rubenstein, 6 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 952. In order to ascertain whether the Delaware corporation ......
  • Wynn v. Philip Morris, Inc., No. CV-98-BU-1597-S
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • April 28, 1999
    ...were immaterial parties for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship). For example, in Wormley v. Wormley, 21 (8 Wheat.) U.S. 421, 5 L.Ed. 651 (1823), the plaintiffs, all apparently residents of Kentucky, sued the defendants, who were all residents of other states, except for a husb......
  • Boatmen's Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen, 2,081.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 4, 1905
    ...432, 23 Sup.Ct. 807, 47 L.Ed. 1122; Bacon v. Rives, 106 U.S. 99, 104, 1 Sup.Ct. 3, 27 L.Ed. 69; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, *451, 5 L.Ed. 651; Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467, 475, 15 L.Ed. 460; Sioux City Terminal R. & W. Co. v. Trust Co. of North America, 81 F. 124, 126, 27 C.C.A. 73, 75......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
124 cases
  • Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain R., NEWMAN-GREE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 11, 1988
    ...If the party is a nominal party, whose presence or absence does not affect jurisdiction, Wormley v. Wormley, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 421, 451, 5 L.Ed. 651 (1823); Wood v. Davis, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 467, 15 L.Ed. 460 (1856); Bacon v. Rives, 106 U.S. (16 Otto) 99, 27 L.Ed. 69 (1882); Navarro Savings......
  • Smith v. Sperling, Civ. No. 9005.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • December 16, 1953
    ...17 Wall. 570, 84 U.S. 570, 579, 21 L.Ed. 657; Wood v. Davis, 1855, 18 How. 467, 59 U.S. 467, 469, 15 L.Ed. 460; Wormley v. Wormley, 1823, 8 Wheat. 421, 21 U.S. 421, 451, 5 L.Ed. 651; Schuckman v. Rubenstein, 6 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 952. In order to ascertain whether the Delaware corporation ......
  • Wynn v. Philip Morris, Inc., No. CV-98-BU-1597-S
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • April 28, 1999
    ...were immaterial parties for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship). For example, in Wormley v. Wormley, 21 (8 Wheat.) U.S. 421, 5 L.Ed. 651 (1823), the plaintiffs, all apparently residents of Kentucky, sued the defendants, who were all residents of other states, except for a husb......
  • Boatmen's Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen, 2,081.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 4, 1905
    ...432, 23 Sup.Ct. 807, 47 L.Ed. 1122; Bacon v. Rives, 106 U.S. 99, 104, 1 Sup.Ct. 3, 27 L.Ed. 69; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, *451, 5 L.Ed. 651; Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467, 475, 15 L.Ed. 460; Sioux City Terminal R. & W. Co. v. Trust Co. of North America, 81 F. 124, 126, 27 C.C.A. 73, 75......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT