Fultz v. Brightwell

Citations

• 77 Va. 742
• 1883 Va. LEXIS 110

Syllabus

<p>1. Personal Representatives-Confederate currency-Case at bar.-In 1859, suit in A. county, in names of widow and heirs of P. B., all of whom, during the war, were outside Confederate lines, and non-residents, to sell house and lot descended upon them. Sale in i860 to R. B-confirmed. F., administrator of P. B., as commissioner, collected nearly the entire purchase money in gold, or its equivalent. Under decree of 10th June, 1863, in that suit, to which he was no party, and which involved no settlement of his accounts and indebtedness, without notice to widow and heirs, F. deposited the amount of the purchase money in Confederate currency with the general receiver of the court. In 1873, widow and heirs filed bill, treated as ancillary to original suit, and as petition to rehear decrees therein, to hold F. and the property liable for the purchase money, which bill the circuit court sustained. On appeal by F.</p> <p>Held : (Lacy, J, dissenting.)</p> <p>1. The deposit of the Confederate currency, with the general receiver, under the decree of June, 1863, did not discharge the administrator from liability for the payment of that purchase money.</p> <p>2. It was his duty either to have invested that money, so as to have it forthcoming when distribution could be made, or to have applied to a court of chancery, by appropriate proceedings, for its aid and direction.</p> <p>3. It was not competent for the court below, even if it so intended, to authorize the administrator to relieve himself of responsibility by a deposit of a depreciated and depreciating currency.</p> <p>4. That decree, entered without notice to those interested in the fund, and in a cause wherein the administrator was no party, was a void decree, and may be-so treated collaterally.</p> <p>5. But the decree being interlocutory, and the bill being considered a 'petition for its rehearing, under the circumstances it was proper to rehear it and set it aside.</p>