The court is further of opinion, that the said decree of the circuit court of Smythe county is wholly erroneous; and it is therefore decreed and ordered that the same be reversed and annulled, and that the appellant recover against the appellees his costs by him expended in the prosecution of his appeal aforesaid here; and this cause is remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be had therein to final decree in conformity with the opinion and principles herein expressed and declared; which is ordered to be certified to the said circuit court. It is further ordered, that this decree be entered on the order book here, and forthwith certified to the clerk of the court at its place of session aforesaid, who shall enter the same on his order book and certify it to the said circuit court of Smythe county. DECREE REVERSED. Staunton. CROCKETT. SEXTON &als. September 20. Absent, Anderson, J. 1877. 1. The court of appeals having reversed a decree of the court Septem'r Term. below for the sale of land, and another confirming the sale and distributing the proceeds, in the absence of the owners of one moiety of the land, and having sent the case back, that they may be made parties and have an opportunity to defend their interests; though the decree is in other respects confirmed, these absent owners, when made parties, have the right to except to the sale and its confimation; and are not precluded by the affirmation of the decree in other respects than those on which it was reversed. 2. A commissioner appointed to sell land, makes a report of his sale in 1863, and whilst he states the amount for which the land sold, he does not say anything of the kind of money for which it was sold. Some of the owners of the land not having been parties in the cause when the decrees for the sale and its confirmation were made, are afterwards made parties; and they except to the sale, if it was made for Confederate currency. The commissioner then presents a supplemental report, stating that the land was sold for good money, and the report is not excepted to, but is received and acted on by the court. It cannot be objected to in the appellate court. 3. A commissioner for the sale of land, is required to make report of his proceedings. If his report be incomplete, insufficient, or in any way imperfect, he may be required to make a further report; and so, if after he has made his report, and it has been received and accepted, at any time before final action upon it, he discovers any material mistake, or omission, or ambiguity in it, he may, by leave of the court, and it would be his duty, to file an amended, additional or supplemental report, correct ing the mistake, supplying the omission, or explaining the ambiguity. 4. In such a case the report may be excepted to. But in all cases where exceptions are necessary, they should specify with reasonable certainty, the particular grounds of objection, so as to enable the opposite party to see clearly what he is to meet, and the court what it is to decide. 5. An ante-war creditor refuses to receive from a purchaser of property sold for payment of debts in 1863, Confederate currency in payment, and the purchaser obtains an order of the court to invest the amount in Confederate bonds. It is the purchaser's money which is invested, and he must bear the loss. This case was argued at Wytheville, and decided at Staunton. It is the sequel of the case of Sexton v. Crockett &als., reported in 23 Gratt. 857. The subsequent proceedings in the cause are stated in the opinion delivered by Judge Burks. There was a decree in the defendant, Crockett; from circuit court against the which he obtained an appeal. Crockett & Blair and J. P. Sheffey, for the appellant. R. C. Kent, for the appellees. BURKS, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This is the sequal of the case of Sexton v. Crockett and others reported in 23 Gratt. 857, et seq., where a statement of the case by the reporter, as it then stood, may be seen. After the case had reached again the circuit court of Wythe county, to which it was remanded by the decree of this court, it was duly revived against the heirs of Robert I. Crockett, pursuant to said decree, and Joseph W. Caldwell, the commissioner who made sale of the Wytheville hotel property under a former decree, filed a report supplemental to his former report of the sale, to 1877. Septem'r Term. Crockett V. Sexton & als. V. als. 1877. which supplemental report S. S. Crockett, a defendant in Septem'r Term. the cause, and the purchaser of the property at the sale, filed exceptions; and the heirs of Robert I. Crockett Crockett (defendants) and David Sexton, and Laurence, Myers & Sexton & Co. (complainants) united in exceptions to the confimation of the sale. By the last mentioned exceptions, the exceptors objected to the sale "unless it should be confirmed upon the express condition that the purchaser, S. S. Crockett, should pay the sum of ten thousand dollars in money lawful then (the date of the exceptions) to be received in payment of debts." The cause came on to be heard the 13th of March, 1875, on the papers formerly read, the decree aforesaid of the court, the said supplemental report of Commissioner Caldwell and the exceptions aforesaid, and the court pronounced its decree declaring its opinion that the said supplemental report was properly filed; that the said sale was for good money and not for Confederate money; and, in that view, considering the heirs of Robert I. Crockett, David Sexton, and Laurence, Myers & Co., as making no objections to the sale, overruled the exceptions of S. S. Crockett, and decreed that the sale was for $10,000 in good money, payable as in the proceedings mentioned, and that said sale be confirmed, and sanctioning as valid the payment by S. S. Crockett of Confederate States treasury notes to such of the creditors as accepted them in satisfaction of their respective debts, but holding that the said David Sexton and Laurence, Myers & Co. had never accepted nor agreed to accept such notes in payment of their respective debts, and that said debts, with the costs of these parties in the circuit court and in this court, remained wholly unpaid, further decreed that unless payment thereof be made within thirty days, the said Wytheville hotel property should be rented out and payment be made out of the rents, &c. The case is now before this court on an 1877. Septem'r appeal allowed to the said S. S. Crockett from this de- Term. cree. The first assignment of error is in these words: "1st Error. The court should have simply, after R. I. Crockett's heirs were before the court, reaffirmed the decrees of 13th May, 1863, and of 10th October, 1863, as your appellate court, without therefore deciding any other question in the case,' ordered a reversal of cause for want of R. I. Crockett's heirs as parties, and directed said circuit court to proceed in accordance to the principles herein above declared.' But said court of its own accord, and not by direction of appellate court, overturns and disturbs on their merits, the said two decrees of ten years' standing, and that too in the face of Commissioner Caldwell's reports and the decrees of the court of the year 1863. It was manifestly contrary to the law and evidence of the case." The objection intended to be presented by this assignment, as would seem from its terms, and as I understand from the argument of counsel, is, that the circuit court. misunderstood and misconstrued the meaning and effect of the decree of this court reversing and annulling the decrees of the 13th of May, 1863, and the 10th of October, 1863; that the only purpose and effect of that decree was to reverse and annul said decrees of the circuit court so far only as to require the heirs of Robert I. Crockett to be made parties, and as soon as that was done, that said decrees should be reaffirmed, and that no other nor different decrees should be rendered. This, I think, is a total misconception of the meaning and legal effect of the decree of this court. Robert I. Crockett was owner in common with S. S. Crockett of VOL. XXIX-7 Crockett V. Sexton & als. |