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
Decision Date | 12 March 1823 |
Citation | 21 U.S. 421,8 Wheat. 421,5 L.Ed. 651 |
Parties | 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 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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. 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.
Then follows this clause.
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 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 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 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, &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, that they have removed to the State of Kentucky, and are about removing to the State of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Sperling
...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 War......
-
Boatmen's Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen
......99, 104, 1. Sup.Ct. 3, 27 L.Ed. 69; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. . 421, *451, 5 L.Ed. 651; ......
-
Giers v. Hudson
...al. v. Nuber, 26 Ark. 604; Imboden v. Hunter, 23 Ark. 622, 79 Am. Dec. 116; Davoue v. Fanning, 2 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 252; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, 5 L. Ed. 651; Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 503, 11 L. Ed. 1076; Lewis v. Hilleman, 18 Eng. Law & Eq. 34; Fox v. Mackreth, 1 Lead. Cas. in Eq.......
-
State v. McFetridge
...1 Younge & C. Ch. 326; Attorney General v. Earl of Clarendon, 17 Ves. 491; City of Toronto v. Bowes, 4 Grant, (U. C.) 489; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421;Wardell v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 658;Marsh v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. 178;People v. Township Board of Overyssel, 11 Mich. 222; Mayor of Ne......
-
An historical analysis of the binding effect of class suits.
...an objection to missing parties who were heirs to an estate but who might have destroyed diversity jurisdiction); Wormley v. Wormley, 21 U.S. 421, 8 Wheat. 186 (1823) (stating that rather than sacrifice jurisdiction, the court will proceed without the missing parties if possible); Kerr v. W......
-
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE COMMON-LAW SCOPE OF THE CIVIL ACTION.
...suggests that Carneal is related to earlier decisions on "formal" or "nominal" parties. Indeed, Carneal cited to Wormley v. Wormley, 21 U.S. 421 (1823), a key case on formal parties. See Carneal, 123 U.S. at 188 n.a. Hugh Wormley had been made a defendant in a suit brought on behalf of his ......