Yates v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 06 March 1890
• Citation: 10 S.E. 976,80 Va. 625
• Parties: Yates v. Wilson.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

10 S.E. 976

(80 Va. 625)

Yates

v.Wilson.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 6, 1890.

Res Adjudicata

The beneficiaries of a will brought a bill to have the estate administered by the court, and sales of land by the executor checked and regulated. The transactions of the executors were settled as far as they had gone, and the balance appearing on their accounts was decreed to the parties entitled; but, as the land was not all sold, the cause was not removed from the docket, and no final decree was entered, the objects of the suit not having been fully accomplished. Held, that the decree was in no sense final, and was no bar to a suit by the same plaintiffs to correct accidental errors in the accounts settled in the former suit.

John W. Riely and Berkely & Harrison, for appellant.

Peatross & Harris and Guy & Gilliam, for appellee.

Lacy, J. This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of the city of Danville, rendered at the January term, 1889. The case is briefly as follows: In 1880, George Price died, leaving a large estate, real and personal. By his will, he appointed W. T. Law and L. A. Yates executors thereof. After providing for his wife, and making special devises and bequests, he directed the executors to sell the residue of his real estate in their discretion; directed that they should qualify without giving any security, and they qualified, giving a joint bond. They sold the goods and chattels, collected the choses in action, and proceeded to sell the real estate, when the parties entitled to the estate of the said George Price brought their bill in August, 1880, to have the estate administered by the court, the further sales of land checked and regulated, etc. In these proceedings the transactions of the executors as such were settled as far as they had gone, and the balance appearing upon their accounts decreed to the parties entitled thereto; and, the lands not having been all sold in April, 1885, the cause was not removed from the docket, and nofinal decree entered, the objects of the suit not having been fully accomplished. L. A. Yates, one of the executors, died shortly after, and the appellant qualified as his administrator, and in September, 1886, this suit was instituted, by the same complainants as those named above, to correct certain errors appearing upon the proceedings in the other suit, and appearing in the accounts settled therein, and seeking to surcharge the same as to the sum of $627.78 collected by the executors, and not accounted for. The surviving executor, Law, answers, and admits the collection, and states that the omission was accidental. Yates' administrator demurred, pleaded, and subsequently answered. His defense is res adjudicata.

The circuit court having decreed against the defendants for the alleged amount collected and unaccounted for, Yates' administrator appealed. The decree in the former suit is relied on to sustain the plea, and is set up as a bar to the second suit The case o...