Jones v. Bradshaw

• Decision Date: 18 February 1863
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: JONES v. BRADSHAW & others.

57 Va. 355

JONES v. BRADSHAW & others.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

February 18, 1863

1. The act Code ch. 171, § 19, p. 711, applies only where the objection to the jurisdiction of the court, is for mere matter of abatement; as where the case is a proper one for a court of equity, but not for the particular court in which the suit is brought: or where the suit ought to be abated by reason of some circumstances attending the situation of the plaintiff or defendant, or the like.^[a1]

2. Where a bill alleges proper matter for the jurisdiction of a court of equity (so that a demurrer will not lie) if it appears on the hearing that the allegations are false, and that such matter does not in fact exist, the result must be the same as if it had not been alleged; and the bill should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

3. The ground of equitable jurisdiction stated in the bill, being the want of a discovery from the defendant; and it appearing from the evidence that as to some material facts alleged the plaintiff had full proof, and as to the others they were merely pretences; the bill will be dismissed at the hearing for want of jurisdiction.

4. If pending an appeal in the court of appeals, the defendant has satisfied the decree, upon a reversal of it, the Circuit court should make an order of restitution in his favor.

This was a suit in chancery brought in the Circuit court of Lunenburg, and afterwards removed to the Circuit court of Nottoway, by Anderson B. Bradshaw and Susan his wife, and some twenty-five others, grandchildren of William Hines deceased, against Lewellen Jones. The bill stated a bequest by William Hines of one-seventh of his slaves to his son Thomas Hines for life, and should he leave no lawful heirs of his body, the said slaves to be equally divided among all the testator's grandchildren living at the death of Thomas Hines. It alleged that Thomas Hines died without having had a child; and that the plaintiffs were the grandchildren entitled to the slaves on the death of Thomas Hines; who died in the year 1849. That at the death of William Hines, Thomas received several negroes in his lot, some of whom were not recollected, but the plaintiffs remembered the names of three of them, viz: John, Reuben and Lucy, all whom were sold by Thomas Hines in his life time, together with four others whose names were unknown, and passed into the possession of Lewellen Jones, and were in his possession at the death of Thomas Hines. That they do not know where the slaves are that they cannot prove that Jones had possession of the slaves, or their value or increase, but by a discovery from him. That Jones purchased the slaves from H. E. Shore, who obtained them from the estate of Alexander Scott, who purchased them with a full knowledge of the defect of title in Thomas Hines; as did also Jones. They repeat that they do not know by whom they can prove these facts, but the defendant Jones. And they make Jones a defendant and call upon him to say, what price he obtained for the slaves, and what would be a fair hire for them since 1849, of whom he purchased them, how many they then numbered, when he sold them, & c.

Jones in his first answer, without noticing any of the allegations or interrogatories of the bill, insisted that Thomas Hines' title to the slaves was valid. He relied upon the statute of limitations; and that he was a purchaser for value without notice. The plaintiffs excepted to this answer; and the exception was sustained by the court. In his second answer, he says, that in the year 1849, he thinks in November, he purchased of Henry E. Shore three negro slaves--an old woman named Lucy and her two sons John and Reuben, one about fourteen or fifteen years of age and the other about nine, at the price of $1,000. That he shortly afterwards sold them, but does not recollect the price. He does not know at what time Thomas Hines died, and cannot say whether or not he was in possession of the slaves after the death of Hines, but does not admit he was. He avers that when he purchased the slaves he had no suspicion of any defect of title to the slaves, or that the plaintiffs had any claim to them. He does not admit that the slaves were derived by Thomas Hines from William Hines, or that the plaintiffs are the grandchildren of William Hines; and he calls for proof.

The plaintiffs objected to this answer; but the court overruled the objection: and the case was referred to a commissioner to report the value of the slaves Lucy and her two sons John and Reuben and the increase of Lucy, if any, at the death of Thomas Hines, and their value at the time of taking the account. Also to enquire and report in whose possession the said slaves were at the death of Thomas Hines, and what would be a reasonable hire for them since the death of Hines. And the commissioner was authorized to examine Jones on oath.

The first report of the commissioner was excepted to by the plaintiffs, and recommitted. The second report was that Lucy was of no value in March, 1857, when the report was made, and that the value of John and Rueben was at that time $2,100. The hires since 1849 were reported at $770. This report was based solely upon the examination of Jones before the commissioner.

It appears that there was another suit pending in the same court at the same time, between the plaintiffs and Henry E. Shore in relation to the same slaves; and in this suit depositions had been filed, which by the agreement of counsel were to be read in the present suit, if the plaintiffs were entitled to introduce evidence, which the defendant denied, on the ground that it was a bill of discovery. These depositions established the facts that the plaintiffs were the grandchildren of William Hines, and that the slaves were slaves derived by Thomas Hines from William Hines. One of these depositions, given in 1853, was that of the defendant Jones, in which he stated that he purchased the slaves Lucy and her children John and Reuben of Henry E. Shore on the 23d of November, 1849, and that he gave $1,000 for them. These depositions made out the case of the plaintiffs.

In April, 1857, the court made a decree directing the defendant Jones to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $2,100, the estimated value of the slaves at that time, and the further sum of $770 the estimated hires. And from this decree Jones...