Strother's Administrator v. Xaupi

Citations

• 80 Va. 159
• 1885 Va. LEXIS 51

Syllabus

<p>J. Practice in Chancery — Rehearing—Case at Bar. — T. held J.’s bond dated 1860, whereon M. and S. were sureties. In 1866, after death of the sureties, judgment was had on the bond against J. Under M.’s will J. is a legatee, and assigns to T. his legacy to pay the bond. In 1879, X.. another legatee of M., sues for a settlement of the estate, and T. is made a party, and receives payment of the bond out of J.’s interest in the estate. In 1882, the master files a supplemental report, founded on a letter of J.’s dated 1880, and showing that J. had received from M., his mother, before she made her will, an advancement, which satisfied his legacy. In 1882, a decree was entered confirming this report. In .1883, M.’s executor sues administrator of S. claiming that the estate of the latter should refund half of the sum paid by M.’s estate to satisfy the bond, and based the claim on the said report so confirmed. In the suit of X. v. M.'s executor, in 1884, the administrator of S. ásked leave to file petition to rehear and annul decree confirming said report.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>1. Decree of 1882, confirming supplemental report, was not binding on S.’s estate, it being rendered in a suit wherein said estate was unrepresented.</p> <p>2. Letter containing admissions of assignor after the assignment, was not evidence, and no basis for the report.</p> <p>3. Leave should have been given to file the petition.</p>