Admr. of Hiram Jordan vs. Margaret Swann, etc: Chancery Cause, Frederick County (Part 1 of 4)
Zoom in to read each word clearly.
Some images may have writing in several directions. To rotate an image, hold down shift-Alt and use your mouse to spin the image so it is readable.
You don't have permission to transcribe this page.
which as since been [illegible] in the County Court for said County of Frederick. That it will be seen, that the other children of said Catharine, were made [illegible] to be [illegible] parties thereto, and that was deemed necessary as Respondent was advised at the time in [compliance?] of said Sylvester being supposed still to be a slave, and at some time he was also made a party thereto to cover any [proper?] rights, or interests, which thereafter it might appear he had in said Lot &c, if any he [illegible] had, as Respondent was also then informed. It will be seen that the Amounts referred to in said papers as owing to the Respondent, are so [illegible] as to [cover?] all [illegible] might be due him, either, from said Catharine, or said Sylvester, though in part all were due to him from the [illegible], and were principally, if not entirely for the means so presented by him as above stated to aid in purchase of said Lot and the erection of said dwelling &c thereon, and did not by any means [illegible] which thereof a considerable part having been given up by him to set the balance [illegible]. Altho the part was so mentioned, as above stated, to Counsel in reports of said Sylvester being a Slave, yet the sd bill sale, was not before him, and hence the said accounts were [described?] in said paper of 7th of January 1854, as above stated. [Whether?] said Counsel or the Respondent, at that time being aware of the [creation?] of the alleged deed of trust was set up by the complainant for his indemnity. [Otherwise?] the consequence of said paper of 7th of January 1854, and its general [illegible] none as Respondent is now advised was Materially different. Respondent is however advised, that, unless it can be shown that said Sylvester had been duly emancipated prior to the [illegible] of said alleged deed of trust, that paper is wholly void and of not effect in law or Equity, and not therefore entitled to proceeds [over?] the hire of the Respondent under said paper of the 7th day of January 1854: And that subject to the latter, to pay as it was [consented?] by the children of said Catharine said Lot with the improvements thereon, described upon the death of said Catharine to her children as her heirs at Law. Upon the foregoing statement of facts &c, this Respondent submits to his hon: court, his rights in the premises under said paper of the 7th day of January 1854, and as one of the Heirs of said Catharine And prays that he may be protected in the same Said Respondent having thus fully answered, and denying all fraud &c, prays to be hence dismissed with his proper costs &c Byrd For Respondent