Duncan research files of
Perry Co. AL Wills (FHL film 1,290,344)
Book A, to 1855 - no Duncan
Book B, 1855-
B-172: (no date), will of David (X) Dunkin; all to wife Catherine; executor wife Catherine Dunkin and Henry Dunkin. Wit. Walter H. McDaniel, Benjamin F. Williams. Prob. 7 May 1863. (and from Claudette Duncan 7/1995)
Perry Co. AL Probate Court records; index to probate minutes v.1 1832-1975 (FHL film 1,577,902 item 1)
No early Duncan
Several Johnsons, did not check each one for husband or father of Polly Johnson who mar. William Duncan 1834.
Perry Co. AL Orphans Court Records
Records v.A 1821-1832 - no Duncan (FHL film 1,577,902 item 2-4)
Minutes v.B&C 1832-1843 - no Duncan (FHL film 1,577,903)
Minutes v.D - no index (FHL film 1,577,903 & 1,577,904)
Minutes v.E 1843-1850 - no index (FHL film 1,577,904 item 1-2)
Minutes v.F 1850-1851 - no index (FHL film 1,577,904 item 3)
Perry Co. AL Estate Papers, ca 1822-1914 Dozier, Benjamin S., to Edwards, William (FHL film 1,508,975)
DUNCAN, JOHN B. - actually John B. Dungan, not Duncan; not copied
DUNCAN, WILLIAM, 53-010-0477. Includes over 100 pages, most not copied or extracted but all looked at. (MAD: apparently two William Duncans, not separated)
1842, bill by Henry Cooper for tuition, paid by 11 March 1846. 1844, bill by James Buzzard for making coffin, paid by 21 March 1846. Estate of William Duncan decd, admin. Martin Cook. Other accounts paid. Tuition due 1858 & 1859. (frame #'s not copied)
Statement 26 June 1847 by Martin Cook, admin., the following are heirs of William Dunkin decd: Joshua Dunkin of full age; Samuel Dunkin, a minor under 21 years as far as he knows; Pickeny? Dunkin a minor under 21 years as far as he knows (frame #617?). Statement Jan. 8, 1845, by Joshua Duncan (X) and Samuel Duncan (X), being sons of William Dunkin and of age, they desire that Martin Cook and John Godwin admin. the estate; wit. Henry Cook Jr. (frame #618).
William Duncan (d.1846) mar. 2nd on 27 Aug. 1834 Perry Co. AL to Polly Johnson; probate file says married Dallas Co. AL, first wife d. in GA on way to AL during childbirth of their son John Duncan who also died. (from probate file, from info W. Glenn Duncan 9/2000 with permission to share)
Bond 13 Dec. 1859 by John F. Vary as exec. of estate of William Duncan, security E.A. Blunt and A.J. Brazletton?. (frame #645).
Bond 11 Feb. 1863 of Jane (X) Dunkin, security Green B. Sanders? and Samuel Whitman, to be guardian of her children M.E. Dunkin, Emeline Dunkin, W.P. Dunkin, H.A. Dunkin, Manerva F. Dunkin (frame #60x).
Bond 21 March 1863 by Malinda E. Dunkin, security Josiah Whitman and Jas. Coburn, as guardian of Jeremiah Dunkin, minor heir of Wm. H. Dunkin (frame #644).
Testimony in response to suit filed 14 Jan. 1867 ... Testimony of Wm. E. Rickard, that decedent left surviving him the following children and heirs, viz, Elias Dunkin over 21, Jeremiah Dunkin Jr. son of Jeremiah Dunkin Sr. who was a son of Wm. Dunkin decd under 21, Bidy L. Martin wife of Wm. E. Martin over 21, Margaret M. Hartley wife of John B. Hartley over 21, Robert W. Dunkin, Martha J. Saxon wife of Wm. E. Saxon over 21, whose husband W.E. Saxon is reported & believed to have died during the late war and who has not been heard from since, Mary E. Colburn wife of Henry Colburn over 21, Amelia E. Dunkin under 21, Harriet A.E. Roberts wife of Horace Roberts under 21, William P. Dunkin under 21, and Minerva Y. Dunkin under 21; that Robert W. Dunkin and Wm. P. Dunkin have died since the death of their father, leaving their brothers and sisters their heirs at law (petition re sale of land which Wm. Dunkin died owning since it could not be divided equitably). (frames 655?-656)
Petition by M.F. Laveratt?, H.C. Lavarett?, John B. Hartley, Margaret M. Hartley, joint owners and tenants in common with Elias Dunkin, Bidy L. Martin wife of Wm. E. Martin, Emma Langston wife of Wm. Langston, Jeremiah Dunkin son of Jeremiah Dunkin decd. who was son of Wm. Dunkin decd, Harriet A. Roberts wife of W.H. Roberts, all of whom reside in said county of Perry, Mary Coleman wife of Henry P. Coleman who resides in MS, Martha Stewart wife of David Stewart who resides in Shelby Co. AL, Charlie Dunkin and Rachael Dunkin minors under age 21 children of Robert W. Dunkin decd. who was a son of Wm. Dunkin decd, all except said Charlie and Rachael are over age 21, said Charlie and Rachael reside in Perry Co. AL, and that they own jointly land in Perry Co., NE 1/4 Sec.30 and 15 acres off W.side of W 1/2 NW 1/4 Sec.29, all T20 R8E, containing 175 acres more or less, said land is all in one body, part of it is cleared and part woodland, with dwelling house and other improvements therein, also one bale lint cotton and one clock; there are 10 shares in the land and personal property, that the parties are children and grandchildren of Wm. Dunkin decd. who owned the land in fee simple when he died, that the land cannot be equitably partitioned or divided among the owners without a sale, that it would be to their interest to sell the land; dated 24 Sept. 1875; Appointment of A.R. Kelley Esq. as guardian at litem for Charlie Dunkin and Rachal Dunkin, Oct. 21, 1875; guardianship accepted. (3 frames 65x)
List of heirs paid: (1) M.F. Leverett and H.C. Leverett; (2) John B. Hartley and Margaret M. Hartley; (3) Elias Dunkin; (4) Bidy L. Martin wife of Wm. E. Martin; (5) Emma Langston wife of Langston Wm.; (6) Jeremiah Dunkin; (7) Harriet A. Roberts wife of W.H. Roberts; (8) Mary Coleman wife of H.P. Coleman; (9) Martha Stewart wife of Daniel Stewart; (10) Charlie Dunkin & Rachel Dunkin minors under age of 21 children of Robt. W. Dunkin. (frame #69x)
DUNKIN, CHARLES and RACHEL, minors, 1877 - not looked at
DUNKIN, ELIAS - mortgages and promissory notes, not copied
Perry Co. AL original estate papers, 1822-1914 (FHL film 1,509,120)
JACKSON, JAMES, Perry Co. Est. 53-017-0685. Admin. bond of Abram G. Jackson, securities Green Jackson and James Jackson, 3 Sept. 1824; petition to sell two tracts in NE 1/4 and in NE 1/2 of NW 1/4, Sec. 33, Twp.19, Range 10. James Jackson Sr. sold to Green Jackson Sr. March 1826.
Will of James Jackson Senor of Perry Co. AL, 10 June 1823, rec. 10 Oct. 1824, being weak in body; to my only beloved brother Green Jackson ten negroes, to wit, Jerry, Job, Pall, Dice, Leavie?, Bolden, Silvy, Charles, Daniel and Anthony; I also give to my said brother Green Jackson one quarter section of land lying in Sec. 33, Twp 19, Range 10 North East Quarter of same, and the east half of the southwest quarter of the same Section, Twp. & Range &c in the District of Lands offered at Cahawba except 100 acres which I have disposed of otherwise. I also give my said brother Green Jackson all my farming utentials of every kind or sort and one waggon and one oxe cart and all my stock of every kind and sort and all my household and kitchen furniture. I give my brother Henry Jackson $2, and the heirs of brother Drury Jackson $2, and the heirs of sister Abigail Duncan $2, and to sister Ann Evan's heirs $2, and the heirs of brother John Jackson $2, and the heirs of Else Kimbrell $2. I appoint my beloved brother Green Jackson and A.G. Jackson the soul executors, and revoke former wills. /s/ James (X) Jackson; wit. Sebourn Aycock, Alphred Fuller, Thomas Harvill JP. (the clerk's copy of the will shows the witness' names as Seborn Acock, Alfred Fuller, Thos. Harvell.) Recorded October 10, 1824, in Book N? (B?), pg.47.
(no receipts from heirs in file) (MAD: see 1787 will of John Jackson in Edgefield Co. SC naming dau. Abigail Duncomb)
Perry Co. AL Administrators and Executors index 1841-1850 (FHL film 1,578,154 item 1; SLC 6/14/2008)
Return to the Perry Co. AL Research File
"Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama during June term 1871" by Thomas G. Jones, Vol.XLVI; Alabama Reports, Vol.46, pgs.523 to 528 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 2/2004)
DUNKIN v. HODGE; Supreme Court of Alabama; 46 Ala. 523; June, 1871, Decided.
Appeal from Circuit Court of Perry. Tried before Hon. Milton J. Saffold.
The appellee sued the appellant to recover from him money which the complainant alleged she had deposited with him as indemnity against his liability as bail for her son, who was in jail, under the commitment of a magistrate, for assault with intent to murder. He defended on the ground that the money was paid to him in consideration of his becoming bail for her son, so that he might get out of jail and run away. This defense was supported by his own testimony, while the complaint was sustained by two witnesses, one of whom was the party who made the agreement with the defendant, as agent of the plaintiff. A final judgment had been rendered on the bail bond for its full amount, $1,000, which, it was claimed, had been satisfied by the payment of about $250, under an agreement to that effect between the solicitor and the counsel of the accused.
The bail bond was approved by the sheriff; there was evidence tending to show that before suit, defendant, on demand by appellee's attorney, promised to refund. The defendant testified that he had no conversations with the plaintiff about going on the bond, and the witness who made the arrangement for the plaintiff, testified that he had no authority for the plaintiff to make the arrangement, that the defendant should flee from justice. The solicitor testified that he compromised the judgment, because strenuous efforts were being made to induce the governor to remit the amount, and he feared the governor would remit it.
Among other charges, the court gave the following, which was excepted to by the appellant: "That the defendant Dunkin having admitted in his testimony, that he was induced to and did go on the bond, under the expectation and for the purpose of making money, believing that Plummer Hodge would, if bailed out, never return to stand his trial, and the case would be compromised; and based his defense on the ground that the transaction out of which the suit grew was illegal, and contrary to public policy, he can not invoke the aid of this court for his protection, and the jury cannot consider any matters of law or evidence alleged in his favor.
"If they believe, on the contrary, that plaintiff in no way knowingly and intentionally participated in the transaction which led to the non-appearance of Plummer Hodge to stand his trial, but deposited this money with defendant, as an indemnity against any legitimate loss he, defendant, might sustain, under the promise of defendant to refund all or any part of the amount not needed to reimburse him any loss in money he might sustain, then she can recover, and the measure of damages is the amount left in Dunkin's hands after payment to the solicitor, and interest from the time the demand on him was made."
To the refusal of the court to give the following charges, (among others asked), appellant excepted:
1. "That if the jury believe from the evidence that the agreement sued on in this case was made and entered into to prevent or impede the due course of public justice in the case of the State of Alabama against J. P. Hodge, on a charge of assault with intent to commit murder, then they must find for the defendant.
2. "That the liability of the defendant Dunkin, on his forfeited bond for the appearance of J. P. Hodge, on a charge of assault with intent to commit murder, could not be discharged by a compromise with the solicitor, and that any such compromise is a part payment of said liability only to the amount actually paid, under and by virtue of said compromise." The judgment of the court below was for the appellee.
[Counsel] Bailey & Bragg, and Shivers, for appellant. (No brief for appellant came to Reporter's hands.)
J.C. Reid, contra. -- It is insisted, that if the bond for one thousand dollars, made by Hodge, appellant, and M. D. L. Stewart, was made expressly to get the said Hodge out of jail, in order that he might escape, and not appear for trial, that there is no proof to show that the appellee was particeps criminis, or that she was a party to any contract for that purpose. Under the contract then made by said appellant with Thomas G. Clancy, as the agent of appellee, she had the right to sue for and recover from the appellant the surplus of money left in his hands after being discharged from liability on said bond.
2. There is no evidence to show that H. H. Moseley, as sheriff, had any authority to take the bond of Plummer Hodge, Elias Dunkin, the appellant, and M. D. L. Stewart, a copy of which is set forth in the record. Bail must be taken by a court of competent authority, magistrates or other officers; or, if committed to jail upon a preliminary examination, the prisoner may give bond to the sheriff, if the committing magistrate has rendered in the commitment the amount of bail required, and signed his name thereto.
3. The bond taken by the sheriff aforesaid is, therefore, null and void, and "is no more than so much blank paper."
4. If the bond was void, then the judgment rendered on said bond is void.
5. If the judgment rendered on said bond is void, then it may be collaterally assailed by the appellee.
6. The evidence shows that the judgment on said bond was compromised by John C. Reid, acting for the appellant and appellee in this case, with Rufus J. Reid, as solicitor, at two hundred and fifty dollars. Admitting that the said solicitor had no authority to make said compromise, yet under the evidence in this cause, it is submitted that the said appellant is estopped from setting up the want of authority in said solicitor to make said compromise.
7. Said bond being void, it was the duty of said appellant to have prevented judgment being rendered on the same, and if through his negligence or ignorance he suffered judgment to be rendered against him, he will not now be heard to complain, although he may be compelled to pay the balance of said judgment.
[Opinion] B. F. SAFFOLD, J. -- The rules of law applicable to this case, as presented by the bill of exceptions, are as follows:
Such a contract as that set up by the defendant is one obstructing or interfering with the administration of public justice, and is void. The purpose of bail is to restrain as little as possible the liberty of the citizen. consistent with his retention until his guilt or innocence of the offense alleged against him can be ascertained by due course of law. Whatever may be the duty of a citizen who knows that an accused person is endeavoring to give the bail required of him in order that he may escape from trial, it is certainly against his duty to aid him to do so. The punishment of felony prescribed by law, can not be commuted by the payment of money. If the testimony sustained the defense, the plaintiff could not recover, because the agreement would be void as against public policy, and therefore the money could not be recovered back. And, if valid, it gave the money to the defendant.
After the rendition of a judgment final on a forfeited bail bond, the solicitor has no authority to make any compromise in satisfaction of it. Neither has the court, after the adjournment of the term.
After judgment without objection on a forfeited undertaking of bail in a case of felony, which was approved by the sheriff, it will be presumed that he was authorized to do so by the proper court.
The ruling of the circuit court was not in conformity with the principles herein declared.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
PETERS, J., (dissenting). -- The reversal in this case is proper, but I am not able to consent to the argument upon which it is based or the deductions from it.
Undoubtedly it is the right of all persons, before conviction, to be bailed by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great; and excessive bail shall not in any case be required. After a defendant is once discharged on bail, I know of no law that confines him to remain in any one particular place or county in the State, or in the nation. It is neither immoral, criminal, or against the public policy, for a person who is not under arrest to go where he pleases, so he does not trespass upon the rights of others. He is not bound to remain in the jurisdiction. He is only bound to appear at the place and time appointed, or to pay a certain sum of money to the State for the use of the county, in which he stands charged. And after his release upon bail from custody he may lawfully leave the court, the county, the State, or the nation. And he may go away at just such rate of speed as suits him, and at his own time. He may run away if he thinks it best. Then, a contract to aid one to procure bail for the purpose of running away, after his release from custody, is not illegal. And money deposited for that purpose, which is not used, may be recovered back by the true owner.
The judgment on a forfeited bail piece is the property of the county. It is the duty of the county solicitor to attend to its collection; and for this purpose, he has the same power over it that any other attorney has over the case of his client. The county, then, through its proper authorities, may authorize him to compromise the judgment, or it may accept and ratify a compromise that the attorney may make. Such a judgment is a judgment in a civil suit, and it is governed by the law applicable to such suits. The compromise of a prosecution is illegal and forbidden by the public policy, but this is not the case with a civil suit. A contract based upon the former is illegal, but not one based upon the latter.
For these reasons I feel compelled, most respectfully, to differ with the majority of the court in the application of the law sustaining the argument of the court in this case. In my opinion the plaintiff has clearly the right to recover, even if the accused in the criminal prosecution was bailed in order to afford him an opportunity to run away.
Return to the Perry Co. AL Research File
Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in Alabama
Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page