Duncans in Tensas Par. LA


Duncan research files of
Mary Ann (Duncan) Dobson
the Genealogy Bug

Last revised March 26, 2004

Formed 1843 from Concordia


1850 Tensas Par. LA Census (and from Lucille Mehrkam 10/1983)
Western Dist.
Pg.307, #232, Peter ALEXANDER 22 LA lawyer $0
                  Robert S/T?. DUNCAN 21 TN law student
                  (MAD: middle initial looks more like an "S" but could possibly be a "T"; sometimes the "S" and "T" could be distinguished by "Sarah" or "Tenn." and sometimes they were distinct, but not here)

1860 Tensas Par. LA Census
Waterproof P.O.
Pg.490, #305-305, Saml. P. DUNCAN (age blank) non-resident MS $117,500-$175,000
Pg.492, #320-320, H.M. SUMMERS 44 KY trading $0
                  Eben WILSON 28 LA manager
                  Wm. DUNCAN 25 LA manager
                  Louisa DUNIGAN 29 LA
                  Louisa POWELL 43 VA
                  Vinetta OUDIRE? 18 LA governess

1870 Tensas Par. LA Census
Ward 1, P.O. Ashwood Landing
Pg.182, #73-72, HANKINS, A. (m) 55 VA BLACK farmer $0-$0
                  M. (f) 30 VA BLACK K. house
                  C. (m) 2, H. (f) 12 LA BLACK at home
                  (MAD: ages as given)
                  YOUNG, Major (m) 12 MS BLACK at home
                  DUNCAN, Mollie (f) 50 VA BLACK
                  GREEN, T.P. (m) 27 ENG (white) farmer $0-$0, parents of foreign birth
                  HARLEY, R.N. (m) 27 MD (white) farmer
Ward 3, P.O. St.Joseph
Pg.260, #307-352, DUNCAN, W. (m) 22 VA BLACK farmer $0-$0
                  HENRY, M. (f) 25 LA BLACK keeping house
                  GOLDING, L. (m) 15 LA BLACK works on farm
Pg.266, #399-469, DUNCAN, H. (m) 33 MS BLACK works on farm $0-$0
                  H.(f) 19 LA BLACK keeping house
                  E.(m) 5 LA BLACK at home
                  C.(f) 2 MS BLACK at home
                  LIGGINS, W.(m) 26 LA BLACK works on farm
Pg.286, #772-867, JEFFERSON, J. (f) 45 SC BLACK farmer
                  ROBISON, T. (f) 25 SC BLACK K.house
                  HUDSON, F. (m) 11 LA BLACK at home
                  BAKER, M. (m) 8 LA BLACK at home
                  DUNCAN, J. (m) 4 LA BLACK at home
                  MARLOW, G. (m) 4/12 LA BLACK b.Feb.
Subdivision 105, P.O. Water Proof
Pg.305-306, #258-232, MILLER, Jane 27 KY MULATTO D.servant
                  Lee (f) 13 LA MULATTO D.servant
                  M.(f) 9 LA BLACK at home
                  Sophia (f) 1 LA MULATTO at home
                  DUNCAN, Thos. 14 MS BLACK D.servant


"Cases decided in the Court of Claims of the United States at the December term 1867" by Charles C. Nott and Samuel H. Huntington; Vol.3, pgs.400 to 404 (call number KF125.C5 C55, California State Law Library 12/2003)
      TURNER'S CASE. George W. Turner v. The United States; United States Court of Claims; 3 Ct. Cl. 400; December 1867, Term.
      The claimant for many years was the owner of a cotton plantation in Tensas parish, State of Louisiana. Before 1853 he had resided at Natchez, in the State of Mississippi. In that year he removed to the city of New York. He retained his plantation in Louisiana, and conducted its operations by means of an overseer. In August, 1860, he took out his passports to sail for Europe, but was prevented by sickness in his family and the death of a brother from going until the 26th April, 1861. He remained abroad until the autumn of 1864, when he returned to New York, where he still resides.
      When about to sail for Europe, and just at the breaking out of the war, he procured his brother-in-law, William Poyntell, to go to Louisiana to assist in the care and superintendence of his estates there. Mr. Poyntell remained there until after the return of Mr. Turner, in December, 1864.
      Some time during the war the confederate authorities visited the plantation and burned about a thousand bales of cotton belonging to the claimant, who was considered and treated by them as an alien enemy.
      The property, the proceeds of which are claimed in this suit, consisted of 68 bales and 22 bags of ginned cotton, raised upon the claimant's plantation, and which was concealed to prevent its destruction by the confederates. When the district of country in which it was situated fell into the hands of the national forces, they seized this cotton as abandoned property, and by the military it was turned over to the treasury agent, and by him sold, and the net proceeds have been paid into the treasury of the United States.
      That it was the property of the claimant is clearly and distinctly proved; as little doubt exists of the loyalty of the claimant. He had for a good many years before the war given up his residence in the south; he was at its commencement a citizen and resident of the State of New York; all the presumptions, therefore, were in his favor, as they are against those resident in the insurrectionary districts. But apart from this, he has proved his positive and actual loyalty by the best and clearest evidence. Hon. Robert J. Walker, to whom he is related by marriage, swears that he has known him well and intimately for more than thirty years; that in all that time he was consistently opposed to nullification and secession; that he saw him on the day he sailed from New York for Europe, in 1861, and again several times in Europe in 1863 and 1864, and that in all his actions and sentiments during the entire war he was consistently and uniformly loyal. This testimony is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Stephen Duncan, who had known the claimant forty years. All this is sustained by a number of other witnesses, and also by the fact that his plantation, which had been seized and the property on it, was restored to him by the Secretary of the Treasury because his loyalty was undoubted, and because the property had not been abandoned, and was not subject to capture within the meaning of the acts of Congress.
      After the action was brought by the claimant and the case prepared for trial, James M. Haworth made application to this court, setting forth that he was the legal trustee of Clark, Wright & Co., loyal citizens, and that Clark, Wright & Co., were the legal bona fide owners of the property, the proceeds of which were claimed by Turner in this case, and praying that they might be made parties to the suit by interpleader, and thereby be allowed to prove their ownership of the property and their right to the proceeds. Upon the hearing of the respective claimants we allowed the interpleader, and Mr. Haworth filed his petition in March, 1867.
      The testimony presented in this record leaves no doubt that this property belonged to Mr. Turner. It was cotton grown upon his plantation, which he had owned for more than forty years. His title to it was undisputed and indisputable. His loyalty is not only not impeached by any proof, but is sustained by the clearest and strongest testimony.
      So far as Mr. Haworth or those he represents are concerned, they have failed to show a spark of right or title to this property, or its proceeds.
      We therefore, upon full consideration of the premises, do order, adjudge, and decree that the said James M. Haworth, trustee, &c., take nothing by his petition, and that the United States, as well as the said George W. Turner, go thereof without day, and that the said petition be dismissed.
      And it is further considered, adjudged, and decreed that the said George W. Turner be awarded the sum of $22,074.03, being the net proceeds of the property claimed in this suit, now in the treasury of the United States, and that the same be certified to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment, &c.

"Louisiana Annual Reports; Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of Louisiana for the Year 1870" by J. Hawkins; Vol.22, pgs.398 to 400 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 2/2004)
      MATILDA J. BOWIE v. SAMUEL M. DAVIS; No. 2657, Supreme Court of Louisiana, New Orleans; 22 La. Ann. 398; May, 1870, Decided.
      APPEAL from the Thirteenth District Court, parish of Tensas.
      [opinion] LUDELING, C. J. This is a petitory action by a married woman, separated in property from her husband, to recover a tract of land situated in the parish of Tensas. She claims to be the owner of the property by virtue of an act of donation from her brother, John K. Ruth, made in June, 1850. The act recites "for and on account of the love and affection which he has and bears towards his sister, Mrs. Matilda J. Bowie and her children, and for diverse other good and sufficient reasons, he does give, grant, donate and transfer all and singular his right, title and interest in" the property. The act further recites that it is "expressly understood and agreed that the proceeds of the crops of said Franklin plantation are to be subject to John K. Ruth's disposition, until the full and final payment of the debt which is now due by said place to John Armfield, and that the said transfer shall not, in any manner, interfere with the mortgage now held by John Armfield."
      The evidence shows that the plaintiff, who was then not separated in property from her husband, went with him to live on the plantation, and that out of the products thereof, Dr. Bowie, her husband, paid the debts due to Armfield. On the tenth of February, 1859, John K. Ruth and his wife, and Mrs. M. J. Bowie, assisted by her husband, in a notarial act, passed before A. Mazureau, a notary public, declared that John Armfield had purchased said plantation, at a marshal's sale, under an execution issued against John Ruth, the father of John K. Ruth and Matilda J. Bowie, and that he had transferred the property to John K. Ruth, under an agreement that he should transfer the property acquired by him at the marshal's sale to some one of the children of John Ruth, for the price by him bid for the property, and that the parties intending to substitute Matilda J. Bowie and her husband in the place of John K. Ruth, they erroneously called the transfer from John K. Ruth to Matilda J. Bowie a donation. That they all intended it to be a sale of the rights and interest of said John K. Ruth to said property to Mrs. M. J. Bowie and her husband, Allen B. Bowie, on their assumption of the debt due to Armfield; and that said Allen B. Bowie had discharged the debt; John Armfield also signed that act. It was duly recorded.
      About seven months after this public declaration of the understanding and intention of the parties to the act of twentieth June, 1850, Allen B. Bowie borrowed $70,000 from Leveritch, and he executed a mortgage on the Franklin plantation (being the property mentioned in the transfers aforesaid), to secure the payment thereof. In this act of mortgage, Mrs. Bowie joined to renounce her mortgage on the property in favor of the mortgagee. On the seventeenth May, 1866, Mrs. Bowie sued her husband for a separation of property and for a dissolution of the community of acquets and gains, and she obtained a judgment against him on the following day for a large sum of money and for the Glen Allen plantation, her paraphernal property, etc.
      Although the "Franklin plantation" was then in the possession of her husband, she did not claim it to belong to her.
      In the meantime Stephen Duncan had acquired the mortgage notes of Allen B. Bowie, given for the money loaned by Leveritch, and he sued Allen B. Bowie. Judgment in his favor, making executory the mortgage on the Franklin plantation, was rendered on the twenty-fourth of November, 1866.
      On the second of March, 1867, the Franklin plantation was sold under execution issued under the judgment in the suit of Duncan v. Bowie, to Samuel M. Davis for $34,524.90. On the thirty-first day of October, 1868, this suit was instituted.
      We do not think the plaintiff has made out her case. She claims under the act of twentieth June, 1850, as a donation from her brother. As an act of donation it can have no effect against the defendant, as it was never recorded in the book of donations, which is kept in the parish where the property is situated. Article 1544 C. C., and articles 1541, 1542, 1545. Acts of 1855, 335.
      Besides, if she had had any title to the property, she would have been estopped from claiming the property of the purchaser by her acts above enumerated. Judice v. Kerr, 8 La. Ann. 462.
      It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs of appeal.
      Mr. Justice Wyly dissents.
      Rehearing refused.


Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in Louisiana

Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page