Duncan research files of
Mary Ann (Duncan) Dobson
the Genealogy Bug
Last revised November 22, 2010
|
|
Duncan research files of |
1850 Burleson Co. TX Census (also from Lucille Mehrkam 1983)
Pg.437, #130-130, Richard BLACKLOCK 34 KY farmer $40
Elizabeth 25 KY
Benjamin 9, William 7 KY
Elizabeth 5 KY
John 3, Harbut (m) 1 TX
Henry DUNKIN 17 MS farmer $0
1860 Burleson Co. TX Census
Chances Prairie
Pg.117, #161-160, J.W. PORTER (m) 23 KY farmer $0-$1720?
E. (f) 19 TN
William G?. 2, Dora J. 4/12 TN
C.D. DUNCAN (m) 21 TN farm laborer
W.H. THORP (m) 11 TX
(MAD: Charles D. Duncan, son of William Duncan and Dora of Hill Co. TX, Elizabeth Duncan mar. John W. Porter 1/12/1857)
1870 Burleson Co. TX Census
Blue Branch P.O., Western District
Pg.127, #44-46, DUNCAN, Andrew J. 35 GA farmer $1150-$340
Margaret 31 AL keeps house
George W. 8 TX at home
Charles L. 6 TX
Sam G.R. (m) 3 TX
(MAD: said to be son of Mathew Duncan of 1860 Bastrop Co. TX census; indexed in 1880 Bastrop Co. TX census)
Brazos Bottom P.O., Western District
Pg.217, #365-393, RANCH, Lucinda 65 GA BLACK keeps house $0-$132
Stephen 24 TX BLACK farm hand
Harriet 29 TX BLACK domestic servant
DUNCAN, Mary 12 TX MULATTO at home
Jane 7, Laura 5 TX MULATTOS at home
James 3 TX BLACK at home
BARNES, Catharine 24 TX BLACK works on farm
William 4, Emma 2 TX BLACKS at home
RANDLE, Matilda 30 TX BLACK works on farm
James 13, William 11 TX BLACKS work on farm
"Cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during the latter part of the Galveston term 1878 and the entire Austin term 1878" by Terrell & Walker, Vol.XLIX; Texas Reports, Vol.49, pgs.603 to 613 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 2/2004) (MAD: see Bastrop Co. TX for case of Pleasants v. Dunkin)
ELIZABETH DUNCAN et al. v. A. J. VEAL; Supreme Court of Texas; 49 Tex. 603; 1878, Decided.
Appeal from Burleson. Tried below before the Hon. B. H. Davis, special district judge selected by the parties.
September 16, 1874, W. G. Veal brought, in the ordinary form, his suit of trespass to try title, against W. B. Newcomb, James Reynolds, W. H. Calvin and appellants, the heirs of Thomas K. Pierson, to try the title to about 860 acres of land, situated in Burleson county. On April 17, 1875, appellants, the heirs of Thomas K. Pierson, filed their answer, consisting of a general demurrer, plea of not guilty, and general denial.
March 8, 1878, a trial of the case was had. Veal dismissed his suit as to W. B. Newcomb, James Reynolds, and W. H. Calvin. The case was thereupon submitted to said special judge, on the issue made by the pleadings, upon an agreed state of facts. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, Veal. Appellants' motion for a new trial being overruled, they appealed to this court.
The case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, as follows:
"It is agreed that Thomas K. Pierson was a soldier in the war between Texas and Mexico, in 1836, and was killed in that year, in such service, at Goliad, in Texas, in the service of the Republic of Texas; and if the administration upon his estate, together with proceedings under that administration, divested his estate of title to the land certificate referred to in those proceedings, then plaintiff has title to the land in suit; but if those proceedings did not divest his estate of title to said certificate, then the defendants, heirs of Thomas K. Pierson, have title.
"The record of said proceedings is hereto attached and made a part of this agreement.
"It is further agreed, that said Thomas K. Pierson volunteered in the service of the Republic of Texas in the city of New Orleans and State of Louisiana, then a country foreign to the Republic of Texas; and he was at the time a citizen of Louisiana. * * *
"There was a deed by the administrator according to the order of court."
The following is an abstract of the record referred to, from Probate Court of Harris county, Texas:
March 24, 1838, Henry S. Pierson filed his petition in the Probate Court of Harrisburg county for letters of administration of estate of Thomas Kinman Pierson, who was killed in Republic of Texas about last of February, 1836, and who had served as captain in the army of the Republic.
May, 1838, in accordance with the petition, H. S. Pierson was appointed administrator.
July 31, 1839, on motion of "C. W. Buckley, counsel for the heirs of the succession," the court ordered that said administrator be discharged, he having failed to give bond. By same order, Henry J. Jewett was appointed administrator de bonis non.
August Term, 1839, of said court, the order removing H. S. Pierson and appointing Jewett was rescinded, and citation ordered to H. S. Pierson, returnable to November Term, to report, &c., preparatory to his dismissal.
October 14, 1850, J. De Cordova applied for letters, alleging that Thomas K. Pierson died in Texas several years ago, intestate; that he was a transient person, and had no domicil; that his estate was opened, but not administered; that costs have accrued and are due; that he has been requested by a creditor to administer, &c.
November Term, 1850, the Probate Court of Harris county made an order appointing J. De Cordova administrator.
Inventory was returned and approved at February Term, 1851. The inventory contains "headright certificate for one-third league, issued by board of land commissioners of Harrisburg county to decedent," appraised at $75, which was the only property of the estate.
The appraisement was made by R. A. Hanks, Henry Leavenhosser, and August C. Daws, and purports to have been sworn to before A. C. Daws, notary public.
February 5, 1851, the oath of the administrator was taken before W. R. Baker, county clerk.
Same day, De Cordova filed his bond as administrator, in sum of $150, with August C. Daws and W. R. Baker sureties. The bond was indorsed, "Signed, sealed, and acknowledged before me. W. R. Baker, clerk."
February Term, 1851, the bond and inventory were approved.
February 25, 1851, De Cordova, as administrator, filed petition representing that the headright one-third league certificate was all the property inventoried; that he has no money to locate it; that it is not likely to appreciate in value; "that costs of court have accrued and are due to amount about fifty dollars"; that he has no means to pay them; asking an order to sell the said certificate, &c.
February Term, 1851, order of sale was made; sale to be on twelve months' credit, &c. (Order regular and full in all respects.)
April 16, 1851, De Cordova, administrator, made return of sale, showing that after giving due notice he had sold the Pierson headright certificate on first Tuesday in April, 1857, and a duplicate therefor, to W. R. Baker, for $40.
Return of sale sworn to before W. R. Baker, clerk.
April Term, 1851, sale approved; and Baker having paid his bid, deed was ordered to be made to him.
November Term, 1851, De Cordova rendered his final account as administrator.
Items as follows: "Headright certificate, $40.00 By old costs of court, $50.37 By costs of my administration, 51.10 By commissions on $40, 4.00 By advertising and getting duplicate certificate, 7.50 -- 62.56 Balance due administrator, $22.56
December Term, 1851, the final account was approved, and De Cordova finally discharged.
SMITH & BLACKBURN, for appellants. (MAD: most case citations omitted here)
I. The court erred in deciding that the administration taken out by Jacob De Cordova on the estate of Thomas K. Pierson was a valid administration. The transcript of the record of said administration shows that Thomas K. Pierson died in the year 1836, and the petition for the grant of letters to said De Cordova was not filed until the 14th day of October, 1850; the presumption of law was, that at that time there were no debts and no necessity for administration.
II. The transcript of the record of said administration shows that said Thomas K. Pierson had no domicil in this State, and no property in said Harris county; and the proof in evidence in the case shows that said Pierson died at Goliad, Texas.
III. It is evident, from the transcript of the record of said administration, that the administration was taken out in fraud of law, and for the benefit of the administrator and officers of court, and not for the benefit of said estate.
IV. It was in proof that Pierson was killed in the service of the Republic of Texas, and that he was a volunteer from a foreign country. The record failing to show that De Cordova was next of kin, or had authority from the next of kin to administer on said estate, the administration was without authority of law.
V. The court erred in holding the sale by De Cordova, as administrator of the estate of Thomas K. Pierson, deceased, to W. R. Baker, to be a valid sale of the land certificate and land located under it, it being admitted that Pierson was a volunteer from a foreign country, and had been killed in the service of the Republic of Texas, and the record of said administration failing to show that said De Cordova had the consent or approbation of the heirs of said Pierson to such sale, said De Cordova being an administrator de bonis non on said estate, and his administration being a continuation of the administration of H. L. Pierson, granted on said estate in 1838.
VI. By the terms of the agreement upon which the case was submitted, plaintiff's title was dependent upon the validity of the administration on the estate of Thomas K. Pierson, and the proceeding therein to divest the heirs of said Pierson of title to the land in controversy, and the administration and proceeding therein being invalid, his title was invalid.
J. D. THOMAS, for appellee.
I. The existence of debt is not essential to the jurisdiction to grant administration.
II. The Probate law of 1848, under which administration was granted to De Cordova, is broad enough to authorize administration wherever there is unadministered property of the decedent within the jurisdiction of the court.
III. The jurisdiction to grant administration did not depend on Pierson's domicil in the State; but the record does not show that the intestate had no property in the county of the administration.
IV. It does not appear from the transcript, or from appellants' statement, that the administration was in fraud of the law, or for the benefit of the administrator and officers of the court.
V. In October, 1850, when administration was granted to De Cordova, the law did not require authority to administer on a soldier's estate to be procured from the next of kin, or that the administrator should be the next of kin.
VI. If authority to administer, from the next of kin, was essential, then, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed to have been shown to the court before administration was granted.
VII. When De Cordova sold the certificate, April 1, 1851, there was no law requiring him to procure the assent of the heirs of decedent to the sale.
VIII. The act of 1841 (Paschal's Dig., 1399) inhibits the sale of land, but not of personal property, without the consent of the heirs. The land certificate was personal property. (Pleasants v. Dunkin, 47 Tex., 355; Cox v. Bray, 28 Tex., 247; Peevy v. Hurt, 32 Tex., 150.)
IX. De Cordova having been appointed administrator in 1850, was not required by law to procure the assent of the heirs to the sale.
X. If necessary to support the jurisdiction of the court, it will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed that between the time when Thomas K. Pierson volunteered as a soldier, and the time of his death, he became a citizen of Texas. He is admitted to have been a citizen of Louisiana when he volunteered, but the time is not stated. He is further shown to have been killed in the service of Texas, at Goliad, in 1836.
XI. It is now too late for appellants to set up the invalidity of the proceedings in probate. The land certificate was sold April 1, 1851. It was sold because the estate had no money to locate it or to pay costs. The petition alleges title and possession in appellee January 1, 1872, and that appellants on that day entered and ejected him.
XII. When a Probate Court has made the regular and usual orders through the entire administration of an estate, then, in a collateral proceeding, every fact essential to its jurisdiction will be presumed, unless the contrary is clearly proved. (Pleasants v. Dunkin, 47 Tex., 355; Vogelsang v. Dougherty, 46 Tex., 472; Withers v. Patterson, 27 Tex., 496.)
[opinion] MOORE, Associate Justice. -- The transcript in this case exhibits several errors, for which this judgment must be reversed.
In the absence of an averment and proof of some special necessity for the grant of letters of administration upon the estate of Thomas K. Pierson, it must be presumed that there was no occasion for it at the date of De Cordova's application for the appointment of administrator of his estate. Without clear proof to the contrary, it should be presumed that there were no debts due by or to said intestate, or necessity for an administration upon his estate after the lapse of so great a length of time from his death. The absence of existing debts against the deceased, in this instance, however, does not depend upon mere presumption: the record of the pretended administration demonstrates that there was no valid and subsisting debt against said Pierson at the date of the administration; nor were any shown to be due to him. The only pretense of such debts is the cost which had been incurred by one Henry L. Pierson in a futile effort to take out letters of administration upon the estate of Thomas K. Pierson in the year 1838, over ten years prior to De Cordova's application, which, however, was abandoned before letters of administration were actually issued to him. The costs incurred in this abandoned effort to administer upon the estate were, unquestionably, justly chargeable to the party by whom they were incurred, and not against the deceased or his property.
It is too plain to require argument to demonstrate, that De Cordova administered upon the estate, not for the benefit of those in any way interested in it, but of those to be benefited by the costs to be thereby incurred, or who wished to profit by the sale of the certificate belonging to the decedent. The time and circumstances under which the pretended letters were granted, render it obvious, that although nominally he obtained letters of administration on the estate of a deceased volunteer soldier of the Republic, he in fact administered upon that of his heirs; and, under the guise and pretense of administration, he attempted to sell and transfer to the principal beneficiary of the pretended administration property of the heirs with which neither he nor his confederates had any right to intermeddle.
But if the administration had not been wholly unwarranted by reason of the lapse of time between the death of Thomas K. Pierson and the issuance of the letters of administration, his estate should have been administered upon in Goliad county, where he died, and not in Harris, where it is plain he had neither domicil nor property at the date of his death, or at any time prior thereto.
But even if the estate of the decedent had been subject to administration in Harris county at the date of De Cordova's appointment and qualification, the grant of letters of administration to him, the order of sale, and the sale of the certificate under which the land in controversy in this case is held, were all in plain violation of the act of January 14, 1841, entitled "An act to protect the rights of the heirs and next of kin to the members of the Georgia battalion, and other volunteers from foreign countries, who have fallen in the battles of the Republic, or otherwise died in the limits of the same."
There is no pretense that the requirements of this statute were complied with in the grant of the letters of administration to De Cordova, or in ordering the sale of the certificate to which the estate of Thomas K. Pierson was entitled.
It is claimed, however, that the omission to do so does not affect the title acquired by the purchaser from the administrator. First: Because the certificate was personalty, and therefore not, as appellee maintains, within the statute; but, unquestionably, it is within its spirit and meaning. It was the purpose of this statute to protect the estates of deceased soldiers from just such sales as this; and it would be a narrow and technical construction of it to allow their estates to be stripped of the property given them by the Republic, and which, it may be inferred, was all they had which an administration could reach, and therefore just that which must have been in the mind of the Legislature, because of a technical distinction between land and a certificate for, or a right to acquire, land. It was land that was promised to those who should volunteer as soldiers for the defense of the country, and it was just such certificates as this which were given them in fulfillment of this pledge. It would be plainly in violation of the spirit and purpose of the law forbidding the sale of land belonging to the heirs of deceased soldiers, if until its location, the certificate by which the land promised therein by the government could alone be obtained, could be sold without the consent of the heirs. Second: It is insisted that this act forbidding such administrations was repealed by the act to organize Probate Courts, approved May 11, 1846; but, evidently, to hold the act of January 14, 1841, enacted for the special purpose of protecting the estates of volunteer soldiers from foreign countries who had fallen in battle or otherwise died in the Republic, repealed by the repealing clause of this general act of 1846 organizing Probate Courts, would do violence to the well-established canons for the construction of special and general laws, and their proper relation and bearing to each other.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
1893 "History of Texas, together with a biographical history of Milam, Williamson, Bastrop, Travis, Lee and Burleson counties : containing a concise history of the state, with portraits and biographies of prominent citizens of the above named counties, and personal histories of many of the early settlers and leading families" pub. by Lewis Publ. Co. (FHL film 1,000,605 Item 2; from Jean Walker 7/1984)
Pg.402-3: J.W. PORTER, an honored pioneer of Burleson Co. TX, ... born in Kentucky, September 18, 1836. His parents, Benjamin J. and Matilda J. (Wilson) Porter, were also natives of that ... State ... Benjamin J. in 1846 emigrated with his family to the new and unsettled country of Texas ... arriving in Burleson Co. in March, 1847. J.W. Porter, whose name heads this biography, was the only son and next to the youngest of seven children. In 1857 he married and removed to a home of his own, where he commenced operations for himself. This peaceful life was interrupted by the civil war which threatened to destroy the country. He entered the Confederate army in March, 1862 ... Mr. Porter was first married to Miss Elizabeth Duncan, a daughter of William and Dora Duncan of Tennessee. Her parents came to Texas about 1854, and after a few moves they settled in Burleson county, where her father died in 1864, her mother still surviving in Hill county. By this marriage Mr. Porter had four children: William B., resident in Nolan county; Dora J., wife of J.B. Hill; John D., married; C.C. teaching school in Milam Co. The devoted wife and mother of this family died December 10, 1866, leaving to the care of her husband their four small children. In 1867 Mr. Porter married Miss Ellen Gresham, ... In 1882 Mr. Porter married ...
1892 "A Memorial and biographical history of Johnson and Hill Counties, Texas : containing the early history of this important section of the great state of Texas, together with glimpses of its future prospects : also biographical mention of many of the pioneers and prominent citizens of the present time and full page portraits of some of the most eminent men of this section" pub. by Lewis Pub. Co. (FHL film 1,000,604 item 6; Houston, TX, library book 976.43M from Lucille Mehrkam 1984; and from Kit Smith 1983)
Pg.367-8: W.G. DUNCAN, County Clerk, Hill Co. TX. He is a son of William W. and Dora Duncan, both natives of TN in which State they were reared and married, and from which they removed to Texas in 1854, settling in Burleson County. There they made their home until 1860 when they moved to Port Sullivan, Milam County, where the father died in 1864, on the sixth day after his return home from the war. Mr. and Mrs. Duncan had nine children, seven daughters and two sons, and the eldest Charles D., died at Bremond, Texas, in 1879. He was also in the Confederate service. The daughters all reside in Hill County, as does W.D. Duncan (subject) who was the youngest member of the family. He was born in Burleson County, December 23, 1859, and was reared in that county and in Waco, where his mother moved in 1870. He came to Hillsboro on the 1st of January, 1887, ... He was married in this county June 23, 1883 to Laura J., daughter of William L. Long. Mrs. Duncan was born in Missouri but was reared in Hill County. (MAD: 1850 Sevier Co. AR census, 1860 Milam Co. TX census; Dora (Mandora) was Civil War pensioner in Hill Co. TX; William W. Duncan was son of William Duncan of Franklin Co. TN; William W. Duncan's wife was Musidora Davis, also known as Musidora MAY, per Carolyn Frame's info 5/2002)
"Who's Who in Arizona." by Harry Welsh, John F Myers, R J Young, Joseph H Gray, et al; pub. unknown: J. Connors, 1913, 824 pgs. (LH11648, HeritageQuest images 4/2007; FHL book 979.1 D3c and film 934,828 item 2)
Pg.569-570: W.G. DUNCAN, Assessor of Gila County, was born in Burleson County, Texas, in 1859; he was left an orphan at an early age, and was the support of his widowed mother and his sisters. The Civil War having reduced the fortune of the family greatly, he secured a position as bookkeeper, and by his efficiency won the confidence and esteem of his employers, and became known as a sterling, competent and honest man. He was elected County Clerk and succeeded himself without opposition, because of his excellent record. Mr. Duncan moved to Arizona in 1896 with his family, composed of his wife, four boys and one girl. One of his sons is at present his chief deputy in the assessor's office. Soon after his arrival he became associated with J.N. Porter in the mercantile business at Fort Thomas. He moved to Globe in 1901, and was associated with different firms until 1903, when he went to San Carlos and engaged in the business of post trader. In 1907 he returned to Globe, served as Deputy Sheriff and Constable, and resigned the latter position to enter the campaign for the office of Assessor, to which he was elected ... Jeff A. Duncan, Chief Deputy Assessor, like his father, is a Texas Democrat. He received an excellent education in the common schools, and from an early age was employed in the butcher business in Globe, until appointed Deputy Assessor. Wallace A. Duncan, another son, received a good business training, and at present is Chief Clerk for the Hayden Mercantile Company, at Hayden, Arizona. John A. Duncan, the third son, is Agent of the Arizona Eastern Railroad Company at Fort Thomas. The youngest of the four boys is Clarence C. Duncan, a jeweler, who holds a good position in Phoenix. The Duncan family ... Democratic majority. (photo of W.G. Duncan and of Jeff Duncan). (MAD: nothing said of the wives) (MAD: 1860 Milam Co. TX census)
Knox Co. TN Deed (FHL film 502,436)
Z2-205: Burleson Co. TX, 10 April 1860, Isaac (X) Duncomb and wife Martha (X) formerly Martha Magget, both now residents of TX, to Samuel Croft of TN, $200, their interest in lands formerly belonging to the late Hugh B. Magget of Knox Co. TN by inheritance from said brother of Martha and son of said Hugh who had acquired an interest in the land by will of his father, the brother Hugh B. Magget; wit. Jno. Thomas, G.M. Moore.
Matagorda Co. TX Probate Minutes v.A-C 1837-1858 (FHL film 1,011,113; SLC 6/2009)
C-69: Petition of Wm. L. Sartwell of Matagorda Co. TX, that 3 May 1846, Mrs. Julia Duncan, a resident of said county and wife of John Duncan of said county, died intestate; she left large possessions consisting of undivided half of community of acquests and gains acquired during their residence in said county, petition for administration, signed Jas. Denison, atty for petitioner. Letters issued Nov. 24, 1851. Appraisers appointed. C-74: Inventory filed 29 Dec. 1851. C-78: Petition of John Duncan of same county, the estate of Julia Duncan, decd, former wife of this petitioner, is indebted to this petitioner in the sum of $24,705.00; the money was part of a sum belonging to this petitioner individually and expended in the purchase of community property during the lifetime of said Julia Duncan his wife now deceased; the property in the inventory was her share of community property. C-80: Accounting $60,000 furnished by petitioner expended to purchase money property in Texas after removal to Texas in 1837 ... 1/2 crop of rice in 1846 ... and debts in 1846. Land in ... Brazoria, Wharton, Calhoun, Bastrop, Burlison Co. and Matagorda Co.
Matagorda Co. TX Deed
H-310/312: #3357. William L. Sartwell, administrator of the succession of Julia Duncan decd. appointed by County Court of Matagorda Co., by virtue of a decree of said court 30 Dec. 1851, after advertisement, on first Tuesday in Feb. 1852, offered for sale to highest bidder for cash, property belonging to succession of Julia Duncan decd, when John Duncan became the purchaser as last and highest bidder of the undivided 1/2 of 3090 acres in Matagorda Co. on Caney Creek, originally granted to I. Foster, for $1549.50; and the undivided half of 2214 acres in Matagorda Co. on Caney Creek originally granted to Wm. Baxter, for $415.12; and undivided half of 206 acres in Matagorda Co. on Cedar Lake originally granted to McCoy & Decrow, for $206.00; and undivided half of 2159 acres in Matagorda Co. on Live Oak originally granted to Williams & Flowers, at $1 per acre amounting to the sum of $1079.50; the undivided half of 4611 acres of land in Matagorda Co. on Live Oak originally granted to S. Williams for $1305.50; the undivided half of 1373 acres in Matagorda Co. on Caney Creek originally granted to A.C. Buckner for $2059.50; the undivided half of 500 acres in Matagorda Co. originally granted to Isaac Vandorn for $750.00; the undivided half of 740 acres in Matagorda Co. on Trespalacios Bay originally granted to I.E. Robertson for $625; the undivided half of 1,666 acres in Matagorda Co. on Trespalacios Creek originally granted to George J. Williams for $208.25; the undivided half of 177 acres in Matagorda Co. on Trespalacios Bay originally granted to James Hughson for $350; the undivided half of 4205 acres in Matagorda Co. on Turtle Bay originally granted to John Duncan for $575.63; the undivided half of 4 acres of land in Matagorda Co. on the Colorado river originally granted to Henry Williams for $25; the undivided half of 640 acres in Matagorda Co. in Bay Prairie originally granted to R.S. Briggs for $80; the undivided half of 1280 acres in Matagorda Co. in Bay Prairie originally granted to William Brown for $160; the undivided half of 640 acres in Matagorda Co. in Bay Prairie originally granted to J. Whitworth for $80; the undivided half of 1107 acres in Brazoria Co. on Linvill bayou originally granted to W.C. Carson at $1 per acre amounting to $553.50; the undivided half of 2214 acres in Wharton Co. on the Colorado river originally granted to J. Tumlinson for $2214; the undivided half of of 333 acres in Calhoun Co. on Matagorda Bay originally granted to James Hughson for $41.63; the undivided half of 4428 acres in Bastrop Co. on Rabbs Creek originally granted to J.D.G. Vanellman for $553.50; the undivided half of 4428 acres in Bastrop Co. on Colorado river originally granted to Perry B. Iles for $553.50; undivided half of 2214 acres in Burlison Co. on Elm Creek originally granted to David Clark for $276.75; undivided half of 2214 acres in Burlison Co. on Yegua Creek originally granted to Orvil Perry for $276.75; also undivided half of 500 head of cattle in Matagorda Co. for $750. On 23 Feb. 1852, I, William L. Sartwell Admin., filed in the County Court a return of sale, the Chief Justice confirmed it and ordered a conveyance be made to the purchaser; now William L. Sartwell as Administrator in consideration of $14,965.38, convey to said John Duncan all the interest of said Julia Duncan deceased to the described property. 24 Feb. 1852. /s/ W.L. Sartwell. Wit. Jas. H. Selkirk, Galen Hodges. Recorded 22 March 1852. (FHL film 1,011,104; SLC 9/11/2010)
END
Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in Texas
Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page