TRANSCRIPTION OF COURT PAPERS ASSOCIATED WITH JAMES
YOUNG
(Transcribed by Cathy Young)
Transcribers Note: I have held
to spellings as much as practical and discernible. Some punctuation has been
added to aid reading. Bolded notes are added in the text to help interpret the
language and highlight sections which are unclear to me. Occasionally, there
were blanks, especially dates, in the text or words that were hard to read. I
did not add dates, but did make the best attempt to make the text readable by
making logical attempts to interpret a word.
James Young Land
Dispute
What follows is a transcription of court records pertaining to a
lawsuit brought by James Young against William Hughes. It followed the loss of
another lawsuit in which James Young was evicted from land he bought from Hughes
because Hughes was not the legal owner. It is an example of the often-chaotic
land dealings in Kentucky during its early days. Courts in both Virginia and
Kentucky found landowners to be squatters on land they'd occupied for years,
forcing people to start over elsewhere. Some of this was a result of crude
surveying techniques, particularly the use of trees, streams, or outcroppings
for landmarks which changed over the years. Another reason was the practice of
granting large tracts of lands to absentee holders, who in turn sold it to
others who bought it without ever seeing the land itself.
The language
used in the transcript is sometimes difficult to follow. It represents the
format of legal documents of the day in frontier Courts. Undoubtedly, some
judges and attorneys were better educated than were others so quality must have
varied widely. Court clerks were usually attorneys themselves. We must remember
that each copy of Court records had to be reproduced by hand from an original.
This transcription is taken from a copy filed with James Young Probate records
in the Shelby County Courthouse in Indiana. The original, if it still exists, is
in Clark County Courthouse in Kentucky.
State of
Kentucky Montgomery Circuit
Pleas before the Hon. Silas W.
Robbins Judge of the Montgomery Circuit Court At the Courthouse thereof in
the Town Of Mount Sterling on Thursday the 15th day of September
1836
James Young's Executors Complaint against William Hughes' Debt
Be it remembered that heretofore to wit on the 26th day of June 1827,
James Young by his counsel filed in the Clerk's Office of the Clarke Circuit his
certain Bill of Complaint against the defendant William Hughes in the words and
figures following to wit:
Bill in Chancery
To the Honorable Judge
of the Clarke Circuit Court in Chancery sitting, humbly complaining, sheweth
unto your Honor, your orator James Young that on or about the 17th day of June in
the year 1817, William Hughes and James Hughes Jr. sold to your orator a small
tract of land in the County of Clarke, containing about thirty-five acres for
which your orator paid them the sum of three hundred dollars, that they made to
him for said land only a deed of quit claim, and to induce him to take a title
of that kind, and to become the purchaser of said land, they falsely and
fraudulently represented to your orator, whilst they were negotiating about the
purchase of the same that they had had the peaceable and adverse possession of
the same for upwards of twenty years, that their title was good and that they
had succeeded in holding the same by their possession in action of Ejectment
brought in the Clarke Circuit Court by Joseph Kelly. Your orator, being an
ignorant old man, and wishing to have said land as it lay adjoining the place he
lived on, and believing in the representations made by the said Hughes made the
aforesaid purchase. But he avers that said statements were false and fraudulent
and made for the purpose of cheating him, that they held no such adverse
possession, that no such Ejectment case had been tried as they represented, and
in truth and in fact, your orator was evicted from the possession of the same by
the said Joseph Kelly who on the _____ day of ______ brought his suit of
Ejectment in the Clarke Circuit Court and obtained Judgment for the same, and
has ever since held it, and he avers that the only possession which the said
Hughes had was a friendly possession, under the claim held by said Kelly. He
therefore prays that said contract may be rescinded and he may have a decree for
his said purchase money back again. He states that the said James [Hughes] has
since died, that he does not know who has administered his estate or who his
personal representatives are, but he will make them defendants hereto so soon as
he can ascertain who they are; he prays that said William Hughes may be made a
defendant hereto as well as said representatives and compelled to answer this
Bill in Oath, and he prays what other and further relief his case may
require.
Subpoenas
The Commonwealth of Kentucky to the Sheriff of
Clarke County, Greetings: We command you to summon William Hughes if he be found
in your bailiwick to appear before the Judge of the Clarke Circuit Court at the
Courthouse thereof in Winchester on the 12th day of our present June term, to
answer a Bill in Chancery filed against __________ in said Court by James Young
and that he shall not omit under the legal penalty and have there this
writ.
Witness: Samuel M. Taylor, Clerk of said Court this 26th day of
June 1827 and in the 36th year of The Commonwealth
Sheriff's
Return
Executed on William Hughes 26th June 1827 William C. Sympson,
Deputy Sheriff for James McAfee
The orders made in this case by the
Clarke Circuit Court are in the words and figures following to
wit:
Continuance: At a court continued and held for said Circuit on the
3rd day of Jul 1827, ordered that this cause be continued until the next
term.
Continuance: And afterwards to wit at a court continued and held
for said Circuit on the 3rd day of October 1827, ordered that this cause be
continued until the next term.
Rule for Security for Cost and
Continuance: And afterwards to wit at a Court continued and held for said
Circuit on the 4th day of April 1828, on the motion of the said defendant a rule
is awarded him herein against the said complainant, returnable here on the first
day of the next June term of the Court requiring him to give Security for Costs,
he, the said complainant, being a non-resident, and in his failure to do so, his
Bill will then stand dismissed with costs, and it is further ordered that this
cause be continued until the next term.
Rule for Security for Costs and
Continuance: And afterwards to wit at a Court continued and held for said
Circuit on the 3rd day of Jul 1828, this day came the parties aforesaid by their
attorneys and in the motion of the said complainant, it is ordered that the rule
awarding herein against him at the last term requiring him to give security as a
non-resident be extended until the next term and it is further ordered that this
cause be continued until the next term.
Rule for Discharge of Rule for
Security for Costs and Continuance: And afterwards to wit at a Court continued
and held for said Circuit on the 2nd day of October 1828, James Brassfield, as
the Security for the said complainant, having executed a Bond for costs herein
as a non-resident complainant, it is ordered that the Rule for Security for
Costs for the said defendants against the said complainant be discharged and it
is further ordered that this cause be continued until the next term.
Bond
for Costs
Know all men by these present, that we James Young and James
Brassfield are held and firmly bound unto William Hughes in the sum of $100, the
payment of which well and truly to be made and done. We and each of us bind
ourselves and ours and each of our heirs, Executors, and Administrators jointly,
severally, and firmly by these present, sealed and dated this 2nd day of October
1828. The continuation of the above obligation is such, that whereas the above
bound James Young hath instituted a Sit in Chancery in the Clarke Circuit Court
against the above named William Hughes and he, the said James Young being a
non-resident, hath been ruled by the said Court to give Security for Costs and
he now gives the above bound James Brassfield as Security, who is a resident
within this Commonwealth, now of the above bound James Young shall well and
truly pay unto the said William Hughes and the officers of the Clarke Circuit
Court all such costs as may accrue by reason of instituting said suit, then this
obligation to be void, else to remain in full force and virtue in
law.
Witness: George Smith Signed: James Brassfield
William Hughes
Answers Suit: And afterwards to wit at the Court held for said Circuit on the
23rd day of March 1829, this day came the said defendant by his attorney and
produced his answer herein which is filed and is in the following words and
figures to wit: The answer of William Hughes to a Bill of Chancery complaint
exhibited against him in the Clarke Circuit Court by James Young. This
defendant, reserving, etc. for answer thereto states that the James Hughes
mentioned in said bill died in Nicholas County and the County Court thereof
granted to this defendant and Keturah W. Hughes (the widow of said James)
letters of administration on his personal estate (the said James having died
without having made or published any last will or testament). This defendant
states that the said decedent and he sold to the complainant a tract of land
lying in Clarke County at the price of three hundred and forty dollars, that at
the time of the making said contract, the complainant executed to them his two
bonds for the payment of one hundred and seventy dollars each, payable some time
afterwards and at different periods, being for the purchase money aforesaid, and
at the same time they executed to the complainant their bond binding them to
convey said land to the complainant by a quit claim deed, that when the bond
aforesaid for the $170 (the first installment) fell due, on or about the time or
shortly afterwards, the complainant paid off and lifted said bonds and they
executed to him a quit claim deed for said land and lifted their bond aforesaid
for the conveyance, and said deed being duly acknowledged, was admitted to
record in the Clarke County Court, and reads in the words and figures following
to wit: "This indenture made this 17th day of June 1817 etc., etc." as by
reference to an official copy thereof herewith filed and prayed to be taken as a
part of this answer will more at large appear. He states that in part of the
$170 bond for the installment last falling due, the complainant paid them the
sum of forty dollars, making in all the sum of $210, paid by the complainant to
them for said land. He states that he does not recollect the precise period when
said $40 was paid, but it has been credited on said $170 bond (both as to amount
and date of payment) which is not now present, but he will file as a part of the
answer said bond, which he prays may be taken as a part thereof, that said
conveyance bond when complied with as aforesaid was destroyed, and he believed
that it bore even dates with said bonds for the purchase money. He states that
said deed was drawn in exact conformity to said bond for conveyance of the said
land and strictly pursues the contract of purchase and sale between them and
complainant in regard to said land. He denied that they made any representation
whatever as to their title to said land to the complainant, but he charged that
the complainant was as well acquainted with the nature of their title to said
lands as they were themselves, that he had lived within one or two hundred yards
of said land for upwards of twenty-five years before and up to the time of the
making said contract and knew that their deceased father and those claiming
under him had held an ancient possession of said land and that said possession
continued in this defendant and his brother James and those claiming under them
up to the time of making said contract. He states that his father died possessed
of a tract of land in Clarke County containing one hundred acres or thereabouts,
including the land so sold to the complainant and after his death, this
defendant and his brother James being in possession of said land by their
tenant, Edward Atkins. Joseph Kelly instituted on the Common Law side of this
court an Action of Ejectment against said Atkins as tenant in possession and
said suit such proceedings were had, that at the September term 1814, this
defendant and said James Hughes were made defendants in said Ejectment and at
the June term 1815 said suit was tried, and Judgment rendered against the
defendants therein for all the land in contest except the parcel so sold by this
defendant and said James to the Complainant, that the Complainant was present at
said trial, attending as a witness therein for the purpose of proving the fact
of an adverse twenty years' possession of said land, that is the part so sold to
him by the defendant and said James (Hughes), by this defendant and said James
and those them when they claimed said land, that he believes the Complainant was
regularly summoned as a witness in said suit for the defendants, and was
apprised of the purpose aforesaid, for which he was summoned, that in said
trial, the defendants insisted upon Plaintiff's right of recovery in said suit,
as to said land so sold to the Complainant, a twenty years' adverse possession
by the defendants and those under whom they claimed and that they and those
under whom they claimed had cleared, cultivated, enclosed, and exclusively
possessed and enjoyed by a fence the parcel of land sold as aforesaid to the
Complainant and saved to the defendants and excepted out of the recovery of the
Plaintiff in said action of Ejectment which facts of clearing, cultivation and
adverse enjoyment and possession under fence as aforesaid, the Complainant
attended as a witness to prove on behalf of the defendants, and at that time
averred that he could and would prove if sworn as a witness, and although he was
not sworn as a witness yet, it was because the lesson of the Plaintiff knew or
he heard that the Complainant would swear to the above facts, that the fact of
such possession was admitted at said trial and the verdict was rendered as
aforesaid. He states that there was made out in said suit a connected plat,
showing the part of said land, to which the defendants in said suit set up the
twenty years adverse possession and he charges that the Complainant attended the
survey and pointed out on the ground the boundaries of said parcel, which is the
same parcel sold and conveyed by the defendant and his brother James to the
Complainant. He prays that the proceedings in said action of Ejectment may be
considered a part of this answer. He denies that he and his brother James sold
the Complainant any parcel of land for three hundred dollars or that they
received from him that sum for the purchase
of land as the Complainant has stated after the trial of said Ejectment
and at the time of the making of said contract with the Complainant, said Kelly
was trying to buy said land from them, that the Complainant knew it and to
prevent said Kelly from effecting said purchase the Complainant sent to this
defendant and his brother James a message that he would buy said land, that this
defendant then lived in Bath County and his brother James lived in Bourbon
County, and the defendant went to Clarke County where the Complainant was living
near said land and made the contract herein before set forth for himself and by
said brother to wit: At the price of $340 by a quit claim deed and without any
representation, made either then or before by him or his brother James, in
relation to the nature of their title so far as this defendant knows or
believes, he knows nothing of the subsequent recovery in Ejectment by said Kelly
of said land from the Complainant, except by report as he was not present at the
trial nor has he ever seen any record of such recovery and therefore he calls
upon the Complainant for such proof of such recovery, its extent and the grounds
thereof. This defendant charges that at the time of the commencement of this
suit, more than five years had elapsed since the complainant paid to him and his
brother James the said two hundred and ten dollars and he insists, when by way
of answer as if pleaded in bar, the lapse of time since the payment of said
money by the Complainant to the defendant and said decedent James Hughes, and he
avers that at the commencement of the suit more than five years had elapsed
since such cause of suit or action accrued to the Complainant to recover back
from the defendant the aforesaid $210 or any part thereof as he has set forth in
his said Bill. He denies that he and his brother James or either of them, whilst
they were negotiating with the Complainant said purchase or at any other time,
represented to the Complainant that they had had the peaceable and adverse
possession said land (so sold) for upwards of twenty years and that their title
to said land was good and that they had succeed in holding the same by their
said possession in an action of Ejectment brought in this Court, nor did they
make any part of said representation to said Complainant and the defendant
denies that the Complainant was induced to make said purchase by any
representations whatever by the defendant and his brother or either of them, but
he charges that the Complainant made the purchase of aforesaid when his
knowledge of the facts connected with their title to said land. He states that
when said Kelly sued said Atkins in said Ejectment, the defendant believed, and
at the time of the making of said contract with the Complainant, still believed
that the said Kelly was barred of his right of Entry to the land saved in said
Ejectment by the adverse possession of the defendants in said suit, which belief
was confirmed by the fact of said land's being saved in said Ejectment as before
stated. He states that he is not a lawyer nor is he skilled in law points, and
thus he cannot rely on his own judgment as to questions of law. Yet he would
state that he yet believes that Kelly's right of Entry to said land (so sold to
Complainant) was taken away by an adverse and continued possession thereof in
the defendants in said Ejectment ________ to the commencement thereof and he
firmly believes that if he and his brother James had not sold to the complainant
said land that said Kelly would have purchased their title to the said land. He
states that his father David Hughes gave a bond to James Douglas for upwards of
a hundred acres of land, including the parcel sold to the Complainant, and this
defendant and his brother James. Since their father's death and before they sold
to the Complainant, [they] purchased from said Douglas said land. He denies the
fraud imputed to him and his brother James Hughes and having answered said Bill,
he prays to be hence dismissed with his costs.
Return to HOME
PAGE. This page updated on April 4, 2004.
This site is maintained by Sharon Young Jebavy. To communicate about this
site or to contribute other Kentucky Young primary records for display on this
site please send an email to [email protected].