Duncan research files of
Monroe Co. TN Circuit Court Minute Book 1827-1834 (part 1&2, typed by WPA; index is to original page numbers) (FHL film 24,770)
Pg.194: 10 Nov. 1830, Bartlott Cannon vs Andrew Duncan. This day came the plaintiff and suggested the death of the defendant and on motion a rule is granted him to show cause why this cause should be revived.
Pg.258: 17 May 1831, Miller Frances vs Andrew Duncan, trespass on the case. By consent of parties this cause is revived against John Duncan and Uriah Hunt administrators of Andrew Duncan deceased.
Pg.265: 15 Nov. 1831, Miller Frances Treasurer vs John Duncan and Uriah Hunt, case. By consent of the parties this cause is continued untill the next term of this court.
Pg.324: 17 May 1832, Miller Frances Treasurer vs John Duncan and Uriah Hunt, case. This cause is continued by consent until the next term of this court.
Pg.377: 12 Nov. 1832, Miller Frances Treasurer vs John Duncan and Uriah Hunt, case. Came the plaintiff by attorney and dismissed his suit and the defendants in their proper person confessed judgement for all costs. It is therefore considered by the court that the plaintiffs suit be dismissed and that the plaintiff recover of the defendants all costs about their suit in this behalf expended for which execution may issue.
Pg.442: 15 May 1833, Duncan and Wilkerson vs. Jesse Butler, Apl. Case continued by consent of parties untill next term of this court.
Pg.444: 15 May 1833, Saml. Duncan vs. John A. Aiken, Apl. Case continued by consent of parties untill next term of this court.
Pg.510: 4 Dec. 1833, John Wilkerson and Bartley Duncan vs. Jesse Butler, Apl. Came the parties and dismissed their cause by their written agreement and plaintiffs confessed judgement for 1/2 cost and defendants confessed judgement for the other half and (each recover from the other).
Pg.532: 13 May 1834, John Duncan on jury.
Pg.552: 17 May 1834, Samuel Duncan vs. John A. Aiken, Apl. Came the parties by attorney ... jury ... try the matter in dispute between the parties; find for plaintiff and further find judgement of justice of peace, being $36.93; and further sum of $6.80 interest at 12-1/2% per anum from rendition of judgement to present and all costs in this behalf expended.
Pg.641: 20 Nov. 1834, John C. Duncan on jury.
Monroe Co. TN Chancery Court Minutes, 1832-1842 (FHL film 956,207)
No Duncan; no x-index; no Cannon, Frances, Hunt, Johnson, County of Monroe or Monroe Co.
Monroe Co. TN Chancery Court Minutes 1832-1842, typed by WPA (FHL film 24,769 item 5; MAD: "Maxwell" should be "Marvell")
Pg.172: 22 Sept. 1840; Caswell Torbitt and others, heirs distributees of James Torbitt, decd, complainants, vs. Robert McReynolds, Maxwell Duncan, John Hall & others; by consent, two months are allowed respts. Robert McReynolds, Maxwell Duncan and John Hall so as not to delay. (pg.116)
Pg.176: 22 Sept. 1840; Caswell Torbitt, Charles Kelso & John Torbitt vs. Robert McReynolds, Maxwell Duncan, John O. Cannon, John McGhee et als; by consent of the parties by their sols. all exceptions which might be taken to the competancy of the Court, on account of relationship to J. McGhee, one of respondents, are waived. (pg.118)
Pg.215: 22 Sept. 1841, Caswell Torbett & others, heirs of James Torbett decd, vs. Robert M. Reynolds, Maxwell Duncan & others; this case is by consent continued for taking further testimony on both sides. (pg.140)
Pg.217: 22 Sept. 1841, John Blair, adm. of Joseph Scates, decd, vs. Eli Cleveland, John Stanfield, and others, creditors and heirs at law of Joseph Scates decd; ... the complainant has received and now has in his hands belonging to said estate cash ... and notes on good and solvent persons: (includes) One note on Jackson Duncan, $20.45. (pg.141-142)
Pg.316-317: 20 Sept. 1842, Caswell Torbett and others minor heirs of James Torbett decd, vs. Robert McReynolds & Maxwell Duncan, admrs. of James Torbett decd, & John Hall & Others; Upon the Bill of Complainants, the answers of respondents, the replication and proof and because it appears to the Court that the negro girl Cynthia had been given by James Hall to James Torbett & his wife the daughter of said James and the ancestor of Complts, & that it will be necessary to take an account in the case, ... and ascertain first what is the value of the negro Cynthia in the Bill mentioned, with her increase together with interest thereon, and 2nd what is the value of the life estate of Margarett Hall in said negro with interest thereon, and third what is the value of the hire of said girl Cynthia from the death of James Torbett to the death of Margaret Hall, calculating interest ..., and further what would be the value of the hire of said negro from the time she has been in the possession of John Hall; and the complainants waive relief as to the taking any further account of the personal estate of James Torbett decd, and that he charge the Respts McReynolds and Duncan as administrators of James Torbett with the above sums, and that all other points in this case be reserved until the coming in of said report and that the question as to the admissibility of the deed of gift from David Miller to Margaret Hall and John Hall as evidence and the effect thereof on the rights of the parties be also reserved. And further that the Clerk and Masters ascertain what advances were made by the administrators of James Torbett, if any, toward the support and maintenance of complts. (pg.200-201)
Index to Monroe Co. TN Chancery Cards, typed (FHL film 956,251; others after Civil War)
#440: Original bill filed 1 Sept. 1849, B.M. Russell vs. Philip & John Hamentree (Hammontree). Barckley M. Russell assignee of Martha Henry of Blount Co. John Hammontree of Blount Co. died Aug 1840 testate, wife Sarah, sons Philip, John, Hugh, and Harvey; daughters Elizabeth Rosin, Martha Henry, Margaret, Phebe, Cintha J. Cathcart, Polly Black wife of Joseph Black. Wit: John McClain Jr., David Hammontree. Execs: Philip Hammontree and Berry Abernathy. Will made 18 Aug. 1840. 1850: Mr. Saml. Douthet, 72, of Blount Co., and Dr. James W. Lea, 42, of Roane Co. witnesses, also Betsey Rosin 54, David Hammontree 53, brother to John Sr. Martha Henry, widow of Wm. Henry, had 3 children when when (sic) father died, has had 2 since, and 1 has died, and they all lived with John Hammontree and mother Sarah for 9 yrs. after John Sr. died. 1851, witness Sarah Hammontree about 78. 1851: witness Margaret Duncan of Blount Co., 45, is dau. of John Hammontree Sr.
Monroe Co. TN Chancery Court Case #440 (FHL film 956,257)
#440: Original bill filed 1 Sept. 1849, B.M. Russell vs. Philip & John Hamentree (Hammontree). ... Deposition of Margaret Duncan, age about 45, in 1851, deposition at Blount Co. ... question by Philip Hammontree: Where did Martha Henry live when my father died? She lived with my brother John Hammontree and my mother. How long? About nine years. ... (MAD: wife of Leander Duncan)
Monroe Co. TN Chancery Court Minutes (FHL film 956,209)
1873-1877: (looked at most entries for Stephens)
Pg.356: Dec. 9, 1875, John H. Stephens, adm. de bonis non & c, vs. David Stephens & others; amend bill to make Anna M. Wyley, a minor who has no regular guardian and is the daughter and only child of Sarah Wyley decd, who was a dau. of Isaac Stephens, decd, a party defendant.
Pg.114: June 4, 1878: Larkin Cardin, admr. of Isaac Stephens, decd, and Henry C. Stephens, vs. J.B. Stephens, D.H. Stephens, John Stephens, F. Stephens and Thomas J. Stephens, Margaret Floyd, Mary Ann Stephens, Sarah G. Stephens, Jno. I/J. Stephens, Lilly L. Stephens, W.W. Stephens, Henry C. Stephens, guardians &c of Annie Wyly, non rest. (sic) Report of sale to June term 1878. Sale of land on Tellico River at mouth of Cain Creek, known as the Isaac Stephens place supposed to contain 800 acres more or less; bounded by J.B. Stephens, W.W. Stephens, Dorcas Hooper, L. Williams, adj. land in litigation between John H. Stephens admr. vs. David Stephens et al, it being the same lands owned and occupied by Isaac Stephens at the time of his death; also another piece, 80 acres, on Harlyn Mountain, adj. Johnson, Roberts, Best; also the interest of said Isaac Stephens had in 1500 acres of mountain land in 20th Dist. of Monroe Co.; deed to William Ellige as highest bidder; Ellige transferred his bid to T.P. Milligan. (FHL film 956,209)
Pg.221: Dec. 5, 1878, John H. Stephens admr. vs. David Stephens & others; reading of deposition of Wm. Bayless who was or is interested in this cause; question if he was a competent witness; since Wm. Bayless and wife Margaret conveyed their interest 21 July 1877 in the land to John H. Stephens; objection overruled. On 25 April 1859, ancestor of respondents, Isaac Stephens decd, executed to complainants intestate William F. Stephens decd, a promissory note which constitutes a lien on the land (a vendor's lien); that he held the land as William Stephen's vendee, under title bond; that unless the $2,026.70 is paid within two months, the land will be sold, being the same land sold by W.F. Stevens to Isaac Stevens on Cane Creek, and other lands owned by Isaac Stevens heirs, and containing 250 acres. A lien is declared in favor of R.M. Barton Sr., Robert Pritchard and E.C. Reeves, Esq., solicitors for complainants, to pay their fees. (the land sold June 1879, purchasers T.J. Stephens and F. Stephens, for $800).
"Tennessee Reports - Report of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of Tennessee" by West H. Humphreys, Vol.IV; a New Edition with notes and references, by William Frierson Cooper, pgs.159 to 161; (spine title: Tennessee Reports - Cooper's Edition 23 - Humphreys Vol.4); "Tennessee Reports" Vol.23, pgs.215 to 217 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 3/2004) (MAD: Madisonville, Monroe Co. TN; see also Duncan and Mills v. Blair in 1813 Washington Co. TN decision 2 Tenn. 213)
TORBET'S heirs vs. McREYNOLDS et al. admr's.; Supreme Court of Tennessee, Knoxville; 23 Tenn. 215; 4 Hum. 215; July, 1843, Decided.
This bill was filed in the Chancery Court at Madisonville, by the distributees of Torbet, against Duncan and McReynolds, the administrators of Torbet, and against the administrators of Blair, deceased, who was co-executor of Torbet with Duncan and McReynolds. It was filed for an account; and a decree was rendered in favor of complainants, on a hearing on bill, answers, replications and proof, before Chancellor Williams; from which the defendants appealed.
REESE, J. delivered the opinion of the court.
This bill was filed for a general account of the administration of James Torbet, deceased, but in its progress became narrowed down to a claim for the value of the hire of a negro girl slave, named Cynthia, from 1828, the time of the death of James Torbet, till 1840, the time of the death of one Margaret Hall, upon whose death the negro became, by limitation in a deed set out in the record, the property of one John Hall. The claim of the complainants is based upon this, that on the intermarriage of James Torbet with the daughter of one James Hall, the owner of the said girl for the life of his wife Margaret, the said Hall made a parol gift of this girl to Torbet and wife, and placed her in their possession, where she remained till the death of Torbet, being a period of five or six years. After Torbet's death, James Hall took this negro girl and Torbet's children to his house, reserved his claim of the negro girl, and the administrators of Torbet permitted the negro to continue in the possession of Hall, claiming her as his own, till by operation of the statute of limitations, the title became vested in him exclusively. The loss arising from their neglect to bring suit, is a loss of their own, as complainants insist, and they seek an account on that ground. The fact of a parol gift and delivery of possession to Torbat and wife is, we think, well established by the testimony. This was before the act of 1831, and therefore at a time when such gift, accompanied by possession, was valid. This being the state of the fact, we deem it equally clear, that nothing has been shown in the case which in point of law will throw off from the defendants the responsibility of accounting for the value of the property. It was, to be sure, a family transaction, and the property would ultimately belong in remainder to John Hall. Still, their title was good for the life of Mrs. Margaret Hall and it was their duty to look after that. No doubt there was an entire absence of fraud and of all mala fides, but not of all neglect in the transaction. For this neglect, they were held by the Chancellor to be responsible: but under all the circumstances of the case, the honorable Chancellor, we are satisfied, adopted a principle of accountability somewhat too stern and rigid, namely, that the annual value and the interest thereon should be computed together from year to year. The defendants are not guardians, and there is no law prescribing this mode of computation. The Court of Chancery may adopt it, in cases of fraud on the part of the trustee, or crassa negligentia amounting thereto, or where he has had funds in his hands and probably profited by them, or has failed to make a frank disclosure. In these cases, and in cases of like description, this mode of computing the interest may be proper: but not in a case bearing the aspect and attended by the circumstances of that before us in the record. To make the party account for the full value, with interest, is a measure of justice sufficiently stern, without subjecting him to compound interest. Let that be corrected.
There is, also, on the face of the final decree, a mistake against the defendants of ninety dollars and ten cents. The decree on the face of it shows that it was the purpose and object of the Chancellor to make the defendants liable for the hire during the life only of Mrs. Margaret Hall. That, with interest computed as above, to March, 1843, amounted to five hundred and ninety-nine dollars and eighteen cents. But the clerk, as he was ordered, computed the value of the hire after the death of Margaret Hall and while she was in possession of John Hall's family, from May, 1840, to March, 1843, which, with interest, amounted to ninety dollars. To show a general aggregate, this was added to the other, making six hundred and eighty-nine dollars and twenty-eight cents; and this sum the court took by mistake as the basis of defendants' liability, although the decree declares that John Hall, being owner, was not liable for any thing. This must be corrected; and the defendants must not be held liable for the costs of the administrators of Blair, who was co-administrator of Torbet. They should recover no costs. The defendants will pay the balance of the costs in the Chancery Court, and the one half the costs in this court. The other half must be paid by the complainant and Blair's costs in the first action.
Return to the Monroe Co. TN Research File
Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in Tennessee
Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page