VANMETER'S ex'ors v. VANMETERS.
44 Va. 148, 3 Gratt. 148 (1846)
Supreme
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
VANMETER'S
ex'ors
v.
VANMETERS.
July
Term, 1846.
*1 (Absent Brooke, J.)
1. In a mortgage deed, the only description of the
lands conveyed, is, all the lands of the grantor in the county of H.
HELD. The deed is valid to pass all the lands of the grantor in the county of H.
2. A mortgage deed purports to secure all debts due
from the grantor to the grantee, and to indemnify the grantee for all his
suretyships for the grantor, without specifying either the debts or the
suretyships. HELD. The deed is valid to secure all debts and suretyships
existing at the time of the execution of the deed.
3. V. executes a deed by which he conveys to A.
and I. his lands, on the consideration that they shall pay his debts,
and pay him $500 a year for his life. A. and I. do not execute
the deed, but they accept it, and take possession and hold the lands. HELD.
1. They are personally liable for the debts of V.
2. The land so conveyed to them, whilst held by A.
and I. will be subjected by a Court of Equity to pay the debts of V.
3. Quaere. If such of these lands as lie out of
the State of Virginia, may be decreed to be sold by the Courts of this
Commonwealth.
4. A decree which disposes of the whole subject, gives
all the relief that is contemplated, and leaves nothing to be done, is a final
decree.
5. A final decree having been made in a cause, the
plaintiffs afterwards bring another suit in another Court, against the same
defendants, to have satisfaction of the decree. It is not competent for the
defendants to file a cross bill in the second suit depending in one Court, to
review the decree of another Court.
6. If a decree directs the sale of real estate under
circumstances which injure the sale, the parties injured should except to the
report of the commissioner, and apply to the Court to set aside the sale. A
bill of review after a final decree is not the proper remedy.
By deed bearing date the 23d of April 1810, Joseph
Vanmeter conveyed to David Vanmeter five several tracts of land
lying in the county of Hardy, in trust to secure to Jacob Vanmeter several
large sums of money, and also to indemnify him as his surety; and on the 1st of
March 1824, Joseph Vanmeter executed another deed in the nature of a
mortgage, to Jacob Vanmeter, by which he subjected all his lands in the county of Hardy,
without any other description of them, to secure to Jacob Vanmeter the
debts which the said Joseph then owed him, without specifying them; and
to indemnify the said Jacob as his surety generally.
On the 25th of February 1825, Joseph Vanmeter
executed a deed to Abraham Inskeep, by which he conveyed a tract of land
called Claypoles in the county of Hampshire, in the first place,
to indemnify Jacob Vanmeter and Isaac Vanmeter the elder, as his endorsers at
the Bank of the Valley at Romney, and then to secure the debts due to Jacob Vanmeter.
On the 15th of March 1825, Joseph and Jacob Vanmeter had a
settlement; and on that day Joseph Vanmeter executed to Jacob Vanmeter his bond
for the sum of 14,992 dollars 81 cents, the balance then ascertained to be due
to Jacob for moneys lent to or paid as the surety of the said Joseph.
And thereafter, Joseph Vanmeter becoming farther indebted to Jacob Vanmeter, executed
to him one bond, dated the 26th of September 1826, for 812 dollars, another
bond dated the 14th of August 1827, for 588 dollars 81 cents, and still another
bond dated the 1st of December 1827, for 1387 dollars 31 cents. In this last
bond Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, the sons of Joseph,
joined as his sureties.
*2 On the 17th of October 1827, and previous to the
execution of the bond last above mentioned, Joseph Vanmeter executed a
deed to Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter his sons, by which, in
consideration of one dollar, and that they had bound themselves to pay all
debts due and owing by said Joseph, and had bound themselves to pay him
500 dollars per annum during his life, he conveyed to them in fee
simple, all the lands he was possessed of in the State of Virginia, or
any of the United States, except one tract in the county of Monongalia.
This deed was not executed by Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, but
they took possession of and held the lands thereby conveyed to them.
In 1829, Jacob
Vanmeter filed his bill in the late
Chancery Court at Winchester against Joseph, Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter, in which, after setting out the indebtedness of Joseph
Vanmeter to him, and the conveyances of the 23d of April 1810, the 1st of
March 1824, and the 17th of October 1827, he prayed that he might have a decree
for the payment of the said several sums of money, and in default of payment
thereof at a short day, that the lands mentioned in the two first deeds might
be sold for the payment thereof; and for general relief.
The defendants Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter
answered, admitting the execution of the deed of the 17th of October 1827, on
the consideration therein stated. And the Court having directed one of its
commissioners to settle the accounts between the parties, he, on the 16th of
April 1830, made a report which ascertained the amount due from Joseph
Vanmeter to Jacob Vanmeter to be 24,831 dollars 12 cents, with interest on 19,683
dollars 73 cents from that date until paid.
Jacob Vanmeter
having died, the suit was revived in the name of Abraham and Garret
Vanmeter his executors; and the cause came on to be heard on the 19th of
April 1830, when the Court confirmed the report, and decreed that the
defendants Joseph, Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter should pay to the
plaintiffs the sum of 24,831 dollars 12 cents, with interest on 19,683 dollars
73 cents, a part thereof, from the 15th day of April 1830, till paid, and their
costs. And if they should fail to pay the same on or before 1st day of the next
October, the marshal was directed to proceed to sell the lands conveyed by the
deeds of the 23d of April 1810, and the 1st of March 1824.
The money not having been paid by the time appointed,
the marshal proceeded to sell the land which consisted of twelve tracts in the
county of Hardy; and by his report it appeared that they sold for the
sum of 12,465 dollars.
The cause came on again to be heard on the 6th of June
1831, when the Court by its decree confirmed the marshal's report, and directed
the marshal to collect the amount of the bonds for the purchase money as it
fell due, and pay it over to the plaintiffs; or if the executors should require
it, to deliver the bonds to them for collection.
*3 In 1832 the executors of Jacob Vanmeter filed
their bill in the Superior Court of Hampshire county, against Joseph
Vanmeter, and his sons Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, and Abraham
Inskeep, in which they state the proceedings in the former suit, and that a
large balance is still due them on the decree in that case. They charge that
under the deed of the 17th of October 1827, Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter had taken possession of the lands in Hardy, and held the
same until they were sold by the marshal; that they had also taken possession
of the tract of land called Claypoles in the county of Hampshire,
and held the same until 1831, when it was sold by Inskeep under the
trust deed to him; and that they had rendered no account for the rents and
profits of the land, but had applied them to their own use. That by this deed Abraham
and Isaac Vanmeter acquired title to a large quantity of valuable land
in the States of Ohio and Kentucky, which were liable for the
debt due from Joseph Vanmeter to the plaintiffs. That said Abraham
and Isaac had also received from their father in 1827, a considerable
quantity of personal property for which they paid no valuable consideration,
and which they had appropriated to their own use. That Inskeep had sold
the land called Claypoles to Michael Miller for 7500 dollars,
payable in instalments of 2500 dollars, at one, two and three years, which was
much more than sufficient to discharge the debts which Jacob Vanmeter and Isaac
Vanmeter the elder had been compelled to pay as endorsers of Joseph
Vanmeter at the Valley Bank at Romney. They therefore prayed that Abraham
and Isaac Vanmeter be compelled to state what lands they received from
their father by the deed of 17th of October 1827, when they obtained possession
thereof, and how long they held them. That the said Joseph, Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter might be decreed to pay to the plaintiffs the balance due them by
virtue of the decree of the 19th of April 1830. That the lands in Ohio
and Kentucky, and all other lands conveyed by the said Joseph
Vanmeter to his sons Abraham and Isaac by the deed of the
17th of October 1827, and which were not sold under the last aforesaid decree
and the deed to Inskeep, might be decreed to be sold, and the proceeds
applied to the payment of the plaintiffs: and for general relief.
The defendants Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter
answered the bill, and gave a statement of the lands received by them from
their father, under the deed of 17th of October 1827. Some of these lands lay
in Ohio, one tract in Illinois, one in Kentucky, two in
the county of Preston, and one in the county of Hampshire. They
admitted they had received some personal property from their father; but the
defendant Abraham alleged, that at the time he received it his father
was largely indebted to him; that he had subsequently paid off an execution for
upwards of 700 dollars that had been levied on this property; and that it, or
so much of it as was necessary for the purpose, had been sold to reimburse him.
*4 These defendants having filed their answer, they,
in October 1832, by leave of the Court, filed a cross bill and bill of review
against the plaintiffs and others. In their bill, after stating the proceedings
in the cause in the Chancery Court at Winchester, they state as errors
apparent on the face of that decree, 1st. That there was a personal decree
against themselves for the whole sum reported by the commissioner to be due
from Joseph Vanmeter to Jacob Vanmeter, although, as they insisted, there was nothing in any part
of the proceedings on which the decree in that cause was founded, to shew any
personal liability on their part except for the amount of the bond of 1387
dollars 31 cents. 2d. That the deed of the 23d of April 1810, conveyed by
general and vague description five tracts of land in the county of Hardy,
as security for the debts specified therein. And by the deed of the 1st of
March 1824, there is conveyed by a sweeping clause, to Jacob Vanmeter all Joseph
Vanmeter's real and landed estate in the county of Hardy, without
any other description whatever; and the purpose of this deed is recited to be
to render all his said real property in the county of Hardy liable for
all the debts which the said Joseph Vanmeter owed at that time to Jacob Vanmeter, and
also to indemnify the said Jacob for all his suretyships and liabilities
for the said Joseph, as security or endorser in any case. That the
marshal, by his advertisement, gave no other or further description of the
lands to be sold than was contained in the deeds and decree. They therefore
insisted there was manifest and gross error in the decree which ordered the
said lands to be sold without a previous reference, or some other equivalent
proceeding, to ascertain by proper and intelligible description, of what the
mortgaged subjects consisted.
They stated farther, that although it did not appear
on the face of the decrees which they sought to review, they had sustained
further and serious mischief from the manner in which the sale of the lands had
been conducted by the marshal. They therefore pray that the decrees of the 19th
of April 1830, and of the 6th day of June 1831, for the errors stated, may be
reviewed, and reversed, and for general relief.
The executors of Jacob
Vanmeter answered the cross bill, and
insisted that Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, having accepted the
deed of the 17th of October 1827, they were personally liable to pay the
balance due to them as executors of Jacob
Vanmeter, under the decree of the 19th of
April 1830. They denied that there was any unfairness in the mode of conducting
the sale by the marshal; and they insisted that as there were no steps taken to
obtain a resale of the property, and the report of the marshal was regularly
approved and confirmed by the Court, without complaint, that it was then too
late to make objections to that sale, for any of the grounds stated in the
cross bill and bill of review, but the objections should have been urged in the
Court of Chancery at Winchester, where the cause was pending, before the
decree confirming the marshal's report was made.
*5 On the 12th of October 1832, and before the cross
cause was ready to be heard, the Court made a decree in the first cause,
directing a commissioner to ascertain and state the balance due to the
executors of Jacob Vanmeter on the decree of the 19th of April 1830, after deducting
the amount raised by the sale of the lands by the marshal; and also to
ascertain and state the amount of the fund in the hands of Inskeep
applicable to the payment of the plaintiff's claim. Also, to state the amount
of the rents and profits received by Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter
out of the lands conveyed to them by Joseph Vanmeter, by the deed of the
17th of October 1827. And also, to report what tracts of land were conveyed to
them by said deed, beside such as had been sold under the decree of the 19th of
April 1830.
In July 1833, the commissioner returned his report, by
which it appeared there was due to Jacob
Vanmeter's executors on the decree of the
19th of April 1830, the sum of 16,992 dollars 55 cents, with interest thereon
from the 14th December 1833. That the fund in the hands of Inskeep,
applicable to the payment of this debt, was 5082 dollars 86 cents, consisting
of two bonds of Michael Miller, the purchaser of the Claypole
land, one of which for 2578 dollars 17 cents, would bear interest from the 14th
of March 1833, and the other for 2500 dollars, from the 14th March 1834. That Abraham
and Isaac Vanmeter had jointly received rents and profits of the land
conveyed to them by the deed of the 17th of October 1827, 1837 dollars 50
cents, including interest up to the 17th July 1833; and that Abraham
Vanmeter alone had received 1305 dollars 25 cents, including interest up to
the same time. The report farther states, that lands therein described lying in
the States of Kentucky, Ohio and Illinois, and in the counties of
Hampshire and Preston, were conveyed to said Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter by the deed aforesaid.
On the 5th of May 1834, the two causes came on to be
heard together, when the Court confirmed the commissioner's report, and decreed
that Inskeep should transfer to Jacob
Vanmeter's executors the bonds of Miller,
in part discharge of their debt. That the defendants Joseph, Abraham and
Isaac Vanmeter, should pay to Jacob
Vanmeter's executors the sum of 1387
dollars 31 cents, with interest thereon from the 1st of December 1827 till
paid; that being the amount of their bond executed to Jacob Vanmeter on that
day. And the commissioner was directed to make a farther statement shewing how
much would be due to Jacob Vanmeter's executors after deducting the sums then decreed to them.
This statement was made, shewing the balance due on the 15th September 1834,
after deducting the sums directed by the decree, to be 10,414 dollars 68 cents,
to bear interest from that day. And the causes coming on again to be heard, on
the 17th of September 1834, the Court decreed that Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter should pay to the plaintiffs in part discharge of the balance due
them the sum of 1837 dollars 50 cents, with interest on 1500 dollars, a part
thereof, from the 17th of July 1833, till paid, and that Abraham Vanmeter
should pay to the same plaintiffs the sum of 1305 dollars 25 cents, with
interest from the same date on 1100 dollars, part thereof, till paid, in
farther discharge of said balance: these sums being the amounts reported by the
commissioner to be due from the defendants for the rents of the lands received
by them under the deed of the 17th of October 1827. And it was farther decreed,
that unless the defendants should, within three months from the date of that
decree, pay to the plaintiffs the balance of 10,414 dollars 68 cents, after
deducting the sums therein decreed against said Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter, that William Seymour, who was appointed a commissioner for
the purpose, should sell at public auction, upon terms prescribed in the
decree, the lands reported by the commissioner to have been conveyed by Joseph
Vanmeter to his sons Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, by the deed
of the 17th of October 1827; and also the moiety of another tract in the county
of Hardy, which was admitted by the parties to be the property of Joseph
Vanmeter.
*6 On the same day on which the above decree was made,
Jacob Miller as the administrator de bonis non with the will
annexed, of Abraham Vanmeter sen'r, filed his petition in the cause,
stating that he had recovered a judgment against Joseph Vanmeter who was
insolvent, and claiming to participate with Jacob
Vanmeter's executors and the other
creditors of Joseph Vanmeter in the proceeds of the land conveyed by the
said Joseph to his sons Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, by the
deed of the 17th of October 1827; and asking that the plaintiffs should be
compelled to amend their bill and make him a party defendant. In May 1835, Thomas
Brammal filed a similar petition.
Seymour having made his report of the sale of
the land directed by the decree of the 17th of September 1834, the cause came
on again to be heard on the 15th of April 1836, and the Court decreed that the
proceeds of the tract of land in the county of Hardy should be paid over
to the executors of Jacob Vanmeter, that being land embraced in the mortgage of the 1st of
March 1824; and that the proceeds of the other lands sold, should be placed in
the hands of David Gibson, as a receiver of the Court. And leave was
given to Jacob Vanmeter's executors to file a supplemental bill.
The executors of Jacob
Vanmeter filed their supplemental bill, in
which after referring to the previous proceedings in the cause, they state that
Joseph, Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter have not paid the sums of 1387
dollars 31 cents, with interest thereon, decreed against them by the decree of
the 5th of May 1834; that the said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter,
are largely indebted to the plaintiffs, beside this sum decreed against them;
and that they have removed from the State of Virginia. That Michael
Miller of the county of Hampshire, is largely indebted to said Abraham
Vanmeter. That Jacob Miller as the administrator de bonis non
with the will annexed, of Abraham Vanmeter sen'r, and Thomas Brammal
claim to have some interest in the suit, which the plaintiffs were then
prosecuting. They therefore make Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, Michael
Miller, Jacob Miller, as the representative of Abraham Vanmeter sen'r,
and Thomas Brammal parties defendants, and pray that Michael Miller
may be restrained from paying away any money by him owing to Abraham Vanmeter
the absent defendant, until the farther order of the Court; and that the money
in his hands may be applied to the payment of the sums for which the said Abraham
is liable to the plaintiffs.
It does not appear that Jacob Miller, or Brammal,
were served with process, nor did they appear in the cause. Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter were proceeded against as absent defendants; and Michael Miller
filed his answer, in which he stated that he was indebted to Abraham
Vanmeter by two bonds of 1500 each, one payable about the 1st of March
1837, one about the same time in 1838, and another bond of 1000 dollars,
payable about the 1st of March 1839. But that by his contract with Abraham
Vanmeter he was to pay out of the said bonds to Elizabeth Vanmeter
the widow of Abraham Vanmeter sen'r, 800 dollars, to be paid in annual
payments of 100 dollars each, beginning on the 1st of March 1837; and that
himself and David Parsons were liable as endorsers, for said Abraham
Vanmeter at the Bank of the Valley, on a note for nearly or upwards of 1000
dollars.
*7 The cause came on again to be heard on the 10th of
April 1837, when the Court made a decree directing Michael Miller to pay
to the executors of Jacob Vanmeter, the sum of 1400 dollars, with interest from the date of the
decree, on account of his bond due the 1st of March 1837, which sum was to be
applied in part discharge of the decree of the 5th of May 1834, against Joseph,
Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, for 1387 dollars 31 cents, with interest
from the 1st of December 1827, until paid. And the commissioner was directed to
state an account shewing the amount for which Michael Miller and Parsons
were liable for Abraham Vanmeter in the Bank of the Valley; and also an
account shewing how much would remain due to Jacob
Vanmeter's executors, after charging them
with the amount received from Seymour's sale of the tract of land in the
county of Hardy, and the 1400 dollars to be paid by Michael Miller.
And the commissioner was directed to make a separate statement of the balance
which would remain due on the decree for 1387 dollars 31 cents, and interest,
after applying thereto the 1400 dollars directed to be paid by Miller.
The commissioner made his report, by which it appeared
there was due to Vanmeter's executors the sum of 11,546 dollars 63 2/3
cents, with interest on 10,414 dollars 68 cents, a part thereof, from the 15th
of April 1838. And there was due from Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter,
812 dollars 89 cents, with interest on 766 dollars 28 cents, from the 15th of
April 1838, on account of the decree of the 5th of May 1834. And the cause
coming on again to be heard on the 16th of April 1838, the Court made a decree
directing Michael Miller to pay to Jacob
Vanmeter's executors the sum of 812 dollars
89 cents, with interest on 766 dollars 28 cents, a part thereof, from the 15th
of April 1838 till paid; that being the balance due upon the decree of the 5th
of May 1834, for 1387 dollars 31 cents, with interest from the 1st of December
1827 till paid, against Joseph, Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter.
On the 14th of April 1840, Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter filed their petition for a rehearing of the interlocutory decree
of the 17th of September 1834; and the cause coming on to be heard on the said
petition, the Court held that Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter were not
personally bound by the provisions of the deed of the 17th October 1827, from Joseph
Vanmeter to them, to pay the debts of the said Joseph. And Michael
Miller was therefore directed to pay the balance in his hands due to Abraham
Vanmeter to the receiver of the Court, after deducting therefrom the amount
which Parsons and himself had paid for the said Abraham to the
Bank of the Valley.
On the 13th of September 1842, the cause came on to be
finally heard, when the Court made a decree whereby it vacated and annulled so
much of the decree of the 17th of September 1834, as directed Abraham
and Isaac Vanmeter to pay to the executors of Jacob Vanmeter, the sum
of 1835 dollars 50 cents, and Abraham Vanmeter to pay to the said
executors the sum of 1305 dollars 25 cents, with the interest on each of said
sums; directed the receiver, David Gibson, to pay over the money in his
hands to Abraham Vanmeter; and dismissed the original, amended and
supplemental bills of the plaintiffs, as to the defendants Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter; but without costs. From this decree, the executors of Jacob Vanmeter applied
to this Court for an appeal, which was granted.
Stuart, for the appellants, and
Mason, for the appellees, submitted the case.
BALDWIN, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
*8 It appears to the Court that the appellee Joseph
Vanmeter, on the 23d of April 1810, in order to secure several large sums
of money which he owed to Jacob Vanmeter, the testator of the appellants, and to indemnify him for
liabilities as his surety, executed a deed of trust by which he conveyed
several tracts of land in the county of Hardy for those purposes; and
afterwards, to wit, on the 1st of March 1824, the said Joseph Vanmeter,
by way of further security to said Jacob
Vanmeter for all debts which he still owed
him, and for all liabilities as his surety, executed to said Jacob a
deed in the nature of a mortgage, by which he subjected all his lands in the
county of Hardy for such security and indemnity. The said Joseph
Vanmeter subsequently, to wit, on the 15th of March 1825, on a settlement
with said Jacob of the debts aforesaid, and advances on account of the
liabilities aforesaid, executed to him his obligation for the sum of 14,992
dollars 81 cents, the balance then ascertained in favour of said Jacob.
And thereafter the said Joseph Vanmeter becoming further indebted to the
said Jacob, executed to him his obligations therefor, to wit, one for
812 dollars on the 26th of September 1826, and another for 588 dollars 81 cents
on the 14th of August 1827, and a third, with his sons Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter as sureties therein, for 1387 dollars 31 cents on the 1st of
December 1827.
It further appears that the said Joseph Vanmeter
on the 17th of October 1827, by a deed purporting to be an indenture between
him and his said sons Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, but executed by
the grantor only, in consideration of their binding themselves to pay all debts
due and owing by the said Joseph, and to pay to him 500 dollars per
annum during his life, conveyed to them in fee all his lands in the State of Virginia
and the United States, with the exception of a tract in the county of Monongalia:
and that said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter accepted said deed, and
have held and enjoyed the property thereby conveyed.
And the Court is of opinion that the said Abraham
and Isaac Vanmeter, by their acceptance of said deed and enjoyment of
the subject, have acknowledged their personal liability for the debts of the
grantor existing at the time of the execution of said deed, and the creditors
have a right to enforce it. The condition was one which it was the right and
the duty of the grantor to exact for the benefit of his creditors, and is
equivalent to a covenant on the part of the grantees. If it was at all
revocable by the grantor, he has in no wise attempted to revoke or resist its
execution; and it cannot be resisted by the grantees, who, so far from shewing
any ground of objection thereto, have expressly admitted in their answer the
contract on their part.
And the Court is further of opinion that the said Abraham
and Isaac Vanmeter are not only personally liable for the payment of
such debts, but the creditors have a right to resort in a Court of Equity, to
the lands conveyed by said deed, while in the hands of said grantees, in order
to obtain satisfaction of their demands. It is true there is no trust expressly
created by said deed, and that bona fide purchasers of the property
thereby conveyed might not be bound to see to the application of the purchase
money to the payment of said debts; but it is also true that such payment was a
part of the consideration for the conveyance, and it is against equity and good
conscience that the grantees should be permitted to hold the property without
making such payment; nor can it be presumed that such was the intention of the
parties, as that, under the circumstances, would have been fraudulent as
against the creditors of the grantor; or that they did not regard the property
conveyed as a means of enabling the grantees to make such payment, and to be
resorted to if necessary for that purpose. A Court of Equity will therefore
treat the subject as in the nature of a trust, and establish a lien on the
property while in the hands of the grantees and their representatives as a
means of compelling its performance.
*9 It further appears that the said Jacob Vanmeter in his
lifetime instituted his suit in the late Chancery Court of Winchester,
against the said Abraham, Isaac and Joseph Vanmeter, in order to
recover the moneys due him as aforesaid; and to subject to the payment thereof
the lands embraced by the said deed of trust of the 23d of April 1810, and the
said deed in the nature of a mortgage of the 1st of March 1824, to wit, the
lands of said Joseph in the county of Hardy. By the interlocutory
decree rendered in that suit in April 1830, the said Abraham, Isaac and Joseph
Vanmeter were directed to pay to the executors of said Jacob Vanmeter, in
whose name the cause after his death had been revived, the sum of 24,831
dollars 12 cents, with interest on the greater part thereof till paid, and the
plaintiffs' costs; and in the event of their default, the marshal of the Court
was directed to make sale of the lands embraced by said deeds of the 23d of
April 1810, and 1st of March 1824, and convey the same to the purchasers. The
marshal, in conformity with said decree, sold the lands situate in the county
of Hardy, consisting of twelve distinct tracts, for the amount of 12,465
dollars. And by a further decree rendered in said suit in June 1831, the
marshal's report of his sales was confirmed, and the proceeds thereof applied
towards the satisfaction of the amount due to the plaintiffs.
And the Court is of opinion that the last mentioned
decree of the Winchester Chancery Court was a final decree. It had the
effect of confirming the previous personal decree, disposed of the whole
subject, gave all the relief that was contemplated, and nothing more remained
to be done in that cause.
It further appears to the Court that on the 25th of
February 1825, the said Joseph Vanmeter executed a deed of trust, by
which he conveyed to Abraham Inskeep, as trustee, a tract of land in the
county of Hampshire, called Claypoles, to indemnify the said Jacob Vanmeter and a
certain Isaac Vanmeter the elder, as endorsers for the said Joseph
Vanmeter in the Bank of the Valley at Romney, and as additional
security for the purposes of the aforesaid deed in the nature of a mortgage, of
the 1st of March 1824; by the provisions of which deed to Inskeep the
proceeds from the sale of the land in Hampshire, thereby conveyed, were
to be applied first to the payment of the bank debt, and then towards the
discharge of the mortgage debt. The said Claypole land was sold by the
trustee under the provisions of that deed.
It further appears that besides the twelve tracts of
land in Hardy sold by the marshal under the decree of the Winchester
Chancery Court, the said Joseph Vanmeter was, at the date of his said
deed to his sons of the 17th of October 1827, the owner of other lands lying in
the counties of Hardy, Hampshire and Preston, and in the States
of Kentucky, Ohio and Illinois.
*10 It further appears that the objects of the present
suit, brought by the executors of said Jacob
Vanmeter in the Circuit Court of Hampshire
against the said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter and others, were to
compel payment by the said Abraham and Isaac of the balance of
the amount decreed against them personally in the Winchester chancery
suit, after the application thereto of the proceeds of the marshal's sales; and
to subject to that balance so much of the proceeds from the sale of the Claypole
land as was properly applicable thereto, and also the aforesaid unsold lands in
the counties of Hardy, Hampshire and Preston, and the States of Kentucky,
Ohio and Illinois.
It further appears that pending the present suit, the
defendants Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, by leave of the Court,
filed what they called their cross bill and bill of review, for the purpose of
reversing the decree of the Winchester Chancery Court. That bill was
properly dismissed by the interlocutory decree of the 5th of May 1834.
Independently of the want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court of Hampshire
to review the decree of the Chancery Court of Winchester, the grounds of
the bill were wholly untenable. These were, 1. That Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter were not properly liable to a personal decree against them at the
suit of the creditors for the debts due from Joseph Vanmeter which they
had undertaken to pay as aforesaid: 2. That it was error to direct the property
embraced by the deed of trust and the mortgage to be sold, without some
previous proceeding to ascertain the description of the lands. This cannot be
said to be error on the face of the decree, for non constat that any
difficulty on that subject would occur, especially when we take into view the
knowledge which the said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter must be
supposed to have had as the owners of the property. And in point of fact it
does not appear that there was any difficulty or loss, and if there had been,
the proper mode of redress was an exception to the report of the marshal, and
an application to the Court to set aside the sale, not a bill of review after a
final decree. 3. That the sale was improperly conducted by the marshal. This,
if true, which has not been shewn, does not appear upon the face of the decree,
and is therefore not proper matter for a bill of review.
It further appears that by the interlocutory decree in
the present suit of the 12th of October 1832, a commissioner was directed to
ascertain and state the balance remaining due and unpaid to the complainants
upon the decree of the Winchester Chancery Court, after deducting the
amount raised by the sale of lands in that cause; and to ascertain and state
the amount of the fund in the hands of the trustee Inskeep, arising out
of the sale of the Claypole land, properly applicable to the balance due
the complainants; and to ascertain and state the rents and profits taken or
received by the said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter out of the lands
conveyed to them by the deed to them from said Joseph Vanmeter of the
17th of October 1827; and to ascertain and state what tracts of land were
conveyed to the said Abraham and Isaac by the said Joseph
by said deed of the 17th of October 1827, excepting such as had been sold by
the marshal under the decree of the Winchester Chancery Court. And these
matters were accordingly ascertained and stated by the report of the
commissioner.
*11 And by the interlocutory decree in the present
suit of the 5th of May 1834, so much of the said Claypole fund as was
properly applicable to the amount due the complainants was so applied; and the
said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter were directed to pay to the
complainants the amount, principal and interest, of the aforesaid obligation
for 1387 dollars 31 cents, executed by them and said Joseph Vanmeter to
said Jacob Vanmeter, on the 1st of December 1827; and the commissioner was
directed to ascertain and report the balance still due to the complainants
after deducting the sums thereby directed to be paid.
And by the interlocutory decree in the present suit of
the 17th of September 1834, the balance still due the complainants, after
crediting the sum applied from the Claypole fund, and deducting the
amount of said obligation for 1387 dollars 31 cents, was ascertained, from the
report of the commissioner, to be 10,414 dollars 68 cents, with interest from
the 14th of December 1833; in part of which the said Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter were directed to pay to the complainants the sums ascertained on
account of rents and profits as aforesaid; and for the residue of said balance,
the lands not sold in the Winchester chancery suit were directed to be
sold by a commissioner.
And the Court is of opinion, that the proceedings to
ascertain and compel payment from the said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter
of the aforesaid rents and profits received by them was a work of
supererogation, inasmuch as such payment could only enure as a discharge in
part of the balance due from them to the complainants, for which balance they
were already personally bound.
It further appears, that under said interlocutory
decree of the 17th of September 1834, the commissioner sold the lands not sold
in the Winchester chancery suit, and reported the payments made to him
by the purchasers in cash, and their bonds for the deferred instalments; and
that by the decretal order of the 15th of April 1836, confirming said report,
part of the cash payments was directed to be paid, and part of the bonds for
the deferred instalments to be delivered to the complainants in part discharge
of the amount due them, and the rest of the cash payments and of the bonds were
directed to be paid and delivered to a receiver of the Court.
And the Court, without deciding whether it was proper
to subject to sale such of the lands conveyed by the said Joseph Vanmeter
to his sons as aforesaid, as lie beyond the limits of this Commonwealth, is of
opinion that the sales having been made and confirmed without objection, there
can be no propriety in now disturbing the same.
It further appears, that in the progress of the
present suit, Jacob Miller, adm'r de bonis non, with the will
annexed, of one Abraham Vanmeter the elder, and Thomas Brammal,
claiming to be creditors of the said Joseph Vanmeter, and as such entitled
to participate with the complainants in subjecting the lands conveyed by the
said Joseph's deed to his sons of the 17th of October 1827, were, by
leave of the Court, directed to be made parties in the cause, and were
accordingly made so by a supplemental bill of the complainants; but which they
have not answered, nor does it appear that they have been served with process,
or that any opportunity has been afforded them of establishing before a
commissioner the justice of their claims.
*12 And it further appears, that after the said
interlocutory decree of the 5th of May 1834, the said Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter removed beyond the limits of this Commonwealth; and by the said
supplemental bill, the complainants sought to subject a large sum of money, in
which a certain Michael Miller was indebted to the said Abraham
Vanmeter, to the payment of the amount, principal and interest, of the
aforesaid obligation for 1387 dollars 31 cents, executed by the said Abraham
and Isaac, and the said Joseph, to the said Jacob, and
which by said interlocutory decree of the 5th of May 1834, the said Abraham
and Isaac were directed to pay to the complainants.
And by the interlocutory decree in the present suit of
the 10th of April 1837, the said Michael Miller was directed, out of a
part then due of the said debt to the said Abraham Vanmeter, to pay to
the complainants the sum of 1400 dollars, to be applied as a credit to the said
Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter, against the principal money and
interest of this aforesaid obligation for 1387 dollars 31 cents, which by the
aforesaid interlocutory decree of the 5th of May 1834, they were directed to
pay to the complainants; and the master commissioner was directed to state an
account shewing what amount would remain due and unsatisfied to the
complainants after the application of the said credit for 1400 dollars, and
after the application of a credit for so much of the proceeds of sales by the
commissioner under the said interlocutory decree of the 17th of September 1834,
as by the said interlocutory decree of the 15th of April 1836, was appropriated
towards the amount due the complainants: and the master commissioner was
directed to report separately the balance which would remain of the said sum of
1387 dollars 31 cents, and interest thereon.
And the master commissioner, in obedience to the said
interlocutory decree of the 10th of April 1837, made his report, ascertaining
the balance still due the complainants, exclusive of said obligation for 1387
dollars 31 cents, to be 11,546 dollars 63 2/3 cents, with interest on 10,414
dollars 68 cents, part thereof, from the 15th of April 1838; and also
ascertaining the balance still due on the 1387 dollars 31 cents, and interest
thereon, after the application of the credit for the 1400 dollars.
And by the interlocutory decree in the present suit of
the 16th of April 1838, the last mentioned report of the master commissioner
was confirmed, and the said Michael Miller, out of the aforesaid
purchase money in his hands, directed to pay to the complainants the residue of
the amount, principal and interest, of the decree upon the aforesaid obligation
for 1387 dollars 31 cents, after crediting the aforesaid sum of 1400 dollars.
And it further appears to the Court that by the
interlocutory decree in the present suit of the 14th of April 1840, it was held
that the said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter were not personally
bound by the provisions of the aforesaid deed to them from the said Joseph
Vanmeter of the 17th of October 1827, to pay the debts of the said Joseph,
and consequently a decree was denied to the complainants against the said Abraham
and Isaac Vanmeter personally for the aforesaid balance ascertained to
be due to the complainants: and it was decreed that the said Michael Miller
should pay to a receiver of the Court the money admitted in his answer to be
due from him to the said Abraham Vanmeter, after deducting so much
thereof as may have been paid by him to the complainants under said
interlocutory decree of the 16th of April 1838, and after deducting also the
amount of certain moneys paid by said Michael Miller and a certain David
Parsons, as endorsers in bank for the said Abraham Vanmeter.
*13 And the Court is of opinion that the said
interlocutory decree of the 14th of April 1840, is erroneous in holding that
the said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter are not personally liable to
the complainants for the aforesaid balance ascertained to be due them as
aforesaid; and in failing to decree payment thereof against the said Abraham
and Isaac Vanmeter, and Joseph Vanmeter's personal
representative.
And it further appears that by the decree in the
present suit of the 13th of September 1842, upon a rehearing which had been
granted to the said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter of part of the
aforesaid interlocutory decree of the 17th of September 1834, it was held that
the said Abraham and Isaac Vanmeter were not liable for rents and
profits of the lands conveyed to them as aforesaid; and therefore so much of
the last mentioned interlocutory decree as decreed rents and profits against
them was vacated and annulled: and it was further ordered and decreed that the
receiver of the Court should pay to the said Abraham Vanmeter the money
directed to be paid into said receiver's hands by the said interlocutory decree
of the 14th of April 1840; and it was further ordered and decreed that the
bills of the complainants should as to the said Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter, be dismissed.
And the Court, without deciding whether the said Abraham
and Isaac Vanmeter were accountable for rents and profits, is of
opinion, for reasons already suggested, that the vacation by said decree of the
13th of September 1842, of so much of said decree of the 17th of September
1834, as awarded rents and profits against them, is wholly immaterial.
And the Court is further of opinion, that so much of
said decree of the 13th of September 1842, as directs that the receiver of the
Court should pay to the said Abraham Vanmeter the money which had been
directed to be paid into said receiver's hands by the said interlocutory decree
of the 14th of April 1840 is erroneous, because that money was properly
applicable, as funds of the said Abraham Vanmeter, towards the discharge
of the personal liability of him and the said Isaac, for the debts of
the said Joseph Vanmeter; and because it had already been so far as
requisite, appropriated by said interlocutory decrees of the 10th of April
1837, and the 16th of April 1838, to the payment of the aforesaid debt of 1387
dollars 31 cents, for which the said Abraham and Isaac, together
with the said Joseph, had by their aforesaid obligation of the 1st of
December 1827, subjected themselves to a personal liability unquestioned and
unquestionable.
And the Court is further of opinion, that so much of
the said decree of the 13th of September 1842, as dismisses the bills of the
complainants is also erroneous, they having already received, and being
entitled to still further relief. The further relief to which they were
entitled was a personal decree against the said Abraham and Isaac,
and the personal representative of the said Joseph Vanmeter, who has
died, for the aforesaid sum of 11,546 dollars 63 2/3 cents, with interest on
10,414 dollars 68 cents, part thereof, from the 15th of April 1838, till paid,
and the costs expended by them in the prosecution of their suit; and to the
following application of the funds within the control of the Court, to wit: The
balance of the debt due from the said Michael Miller to the said Abraham
Vanmeter, after reimbursement of the moneys paid by the said Michael,
and David Parsons, as endorsers in bank for the said Abraham
Vanmeter, ought to have been applied absolutely and unconditionally, to the
discharge of the principal and interest of the debt of 1387 dollars 31 cents,
for which the said Abraham and Isaac, with the said Joseph
Vanmeter, had executed their obligation, and which by the aforesaid
interlocutory decree of the 5th of May 1834, they were directed to pay to the
complainants; and any residue of the said debt due from the said Michael
Miller, ought then to have been applied towards the discharge of the
principal and interest of the aforesaid balance due the complainants of 11,546
dollars 63 2/3 cents. And the other funds within the control of the Court
arising out of the sales of lands unsold in the Winchester chancery
suit, ought also to have been applied towards the discharge of the principal
and interest of said balance of 11,546 dollars 63 2/3 cents. But these
applications in favour of the complainants of the said funds within the control
of the Court, ought to be subject to the proper modification, if any, arising
out of the claims of Jacob Miller, administrator de bonis non
with the will annexed of Abraham Vanmeter the elder, and Thomas
Brammal, as creditors of the said Joseph Vanmeter, to participate
therein, with a view to which the debts, if any due them, ought to be
established before a commissioner, and then the question adjudicated whether
they are entitled therefor to such participation.
*14 It is therefore adjudged, ordered and decreed, that
so much of the said decrees of the said Circuit Court of the 14th of April
1840, and the 13th of September 1842, as is above declared to be erroneous, be
reversed and annulled, and that the appellees Abraham and Isaac
Vanmeter, and Joseph Vanmeter's personal representative, do pay to
the appellants their costs by them expended in the prosecution of their appeal
aforesaid here; and the cause is remanded to the said Circuit Court to be
farther proceeded in according to the principles of the foregoing opinion and
decree.
ALLEN, J. concurred in the results. But being
of opinion that the decree of April 1830, was a personal decree against all the
parties; that the Court of Hampshire county had no jurisdiction to
review it, and that it still remains in full force, unreversed and not appealed
from, did not deem it necessary to determine as an original question, whether
the sons by taking under the deed in question, became responsible for all the
debts of their father, or were chargeable in respect of the property conveyed
alone, and for the value thereof, and no farther. For whether the personal
liability of the sons resulted from the deed and their acceptance of its
provisions, or from the decree fixing their personal liability did not affect
the questions involved in the appeal.
Va. 1846.
WL 2600 (Va.)
END OF DOCUMENT
Copr. (C) West 2004
Vanmeter's Ex'rs v. Vanmeter 1846 WL 2600, *14 (Va. 1846)