GREENE CO. OH
COURT RECORDS, Part 3, December 1842 and June 1894
 

"Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, in Bank" by Edwin M. Stanton, Reporter, Vol.XI; "Ohio Reports" Vol.11, pg.192 to 197 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 1/2004)
      WILLIAM D. BELL and Wife v. JOHN DUNCAN, DANIEL DEAN, and others; Supreme Court of Ohio; 11 OHIO 192; December, 1842 (Term).
      (syllabus or headnote) Where a patent for land, issued by the United States, recites assignments by persons competent to convey, there is no presumptive notice, to one who derives title under such patent, of latent defects in the assignments. The defense of bona fide purchaser, is available to one deriving title under such patent. It is otherwise, if the patent recites assignments by persons not competent to convey title.
      This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Greene. The complainants filed their bill to obtain the legal title to a part of sundry tracts of land granted by the United States, in satisfaction of Virginia military land warrant No. 3,286, for 2,666 2/3 acres of land, issued to John McAdams, for services as a lieutenant in the war of the revolution. McAdams, by his will, made his sister Charlotte his residuary legatee, under whom both parties to this suit claim title.
      These patents were issued, in 1819, to Thomas Watson, and also to Nancy, William, James, and Sarah Ann Payne, heirs of Sarah Ann Taylor, one of the daughters of the legatee, and contain a recital that the right of McAdams "has been assigned, in part, unto the said Thomas Watson, by Thomas Taylor and Martha Conway Taylor, his wife and also by Robert Nutt and Charlotte M. Nutt, his wife, formerly Charlotte McAdams Taylor, which said Martha Conway Taylor and Charlotte M. Nutt, together with the aforesaid Sarah Ann Payne, formerly Sarah Ann Taylor, are the only children and heirs of Charlotte Taylor, deceased (formerly Charlotte McAdams), the sister and legatee of the said John McAdams, deceased."
      It appears, by a certified copy from the office of the commissioner of the general land office, that the assignment of Martha C. Taylor and her husband, and of Charlotte M. Nutt and her husband, were executed in Virginia, in 1819, under seal, and acknowledged before a magistrate in this form: "Robert Nutt and Charlotte M. Nutt, this day personally appeared before me, C. W., a justice of the peace," &c, "and acknowledged the above instrument of writing to be their act and deed; given," &c. There was no separate examination of Martha C. Taylor and Charlotte M. Nutt apart from their husbands. Before these assignments were executed, the warrant had been located and surveyed, and the land embraced in the patent thereby appropriated.
      The defense set up by the defendants, who claim title adverse to complainant, is, that they are bona fide purchasers of the legal title, for valuable consideration, without notice of any defect. The lands have been occupied and improved by them, and those under whom they claim, since the year 1816.
      A. Harlan and William Ellsberry, for complainants. Odlin & Schenck, for defendants.
      The points made, and the cases cited and reviewed by the counsel, are noticed in the opinion of the court. The arguments are, therefore, omitted.
      (opinion) BIRCHARD, J. There is nothing in the proof to create a suspicion, that the sum paid by Watson, in 1816, amounting to about $2,000, was not, at the time, a fair consideration, for the interests of Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Nutt; and we may suppose it was honestly and fairly intended that the sale should be made effectual by the assignment then executed. The proof does not charge the respondents with notice of any defect in the legal title. Unless the recitals of the deed are, in law, presumptive notice, they had none. In the opinion of my brethren, the case is with the complainants, and they are entitled to a decree, if notice to the defendants can be established.
      In behalf of complainants, it is urged, that the recitals of the patent are sufficient to charge the defendants with notice. It is alleged that the rule is well settled. The nature of the question, and the very important bearing it must have upon, perhaps, twenty millions of property within this state, the titles to which have been granted on assigned entries, certificates, and warrants, require, at our hands, a careful examination, whether or not the rule contended for is as inflexible as is supposed. The case of Brush's Adm'rs v. Ware, 1 McLean, 535, was a case between the heirs at law of one Hackaday, entitled to a Virginia military warrant, and the assignee of the warrant. It is relied on by complainants as conclusive. Judge McLean remarks: "This is not a controversy between a claimant under Hackaday and a stranger to the claim. It might well be doubted, whether a person claiming adversely to Hackaday's assignee, could go into the validity of the assignments, either before or after the issuing of the warrants. As between such parties, the entry and patent might be conclusive."
      The case showed that Brush, the patentee, was connected with the claim before the patent issued; and, before patent, he, of course, had but an equity, which could not defeat an equal equity of prior date. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the decision affirmed. 13 Pet. 93. This decision is also cited as conclusive. We have carefully examined the case, and the reasons given by the court. So far from its being decisive of the merits of this question, it is certain that the point here made by the respondents did not arise in that cause, and was not before the court. On page 108, the case is put upon this ground: "Until the patents were obtained, this warrant, through assigned and entered, in part, on the land in controversy, conveyed only an equitable interest." All the remarks of the judge, in pronouncing the opinion of the court, should be considered in reference to the case then on trial. It was a case where lands had been entered, in the name of George Hoffman, in 1809, and patented in 1818, to "Brush, assignee of John Hoffman, who was assignee of Joseph Hoffman, and others, assignees of George Hoffman, who was assignee of J. Ladd, assignee of R.S. Ware, executor of Hackaday." The difficulty was, that Brush, being an assignee before the patent issued, had but an equitable right to demand a legal title; and the paper evidence of his equitable (not legal) right to the land, showed that a deed from Ware, an executor, who had no control over such property, and whose conveyance was void, was one link in his chain of title. The recital showed no authority, on the part of the executor, to make such a transfer. The law being clear that an executor could not convey real property, and every one being bound to know the law, it was rightfully presumed that Brush had notice that an executor's deed did not divest the heir. "Can it be contended (say the court), that the defendant, who purchased an inchoate title, a mere equity, was not bound to look into the origin of that equity? To us, it seems that these cases, rightly understood, make for the respondents. The case of Reeder et al. v. Barr et al. in 4 Ohio Rep. 496, also relied upon, seems to be clearly distinguishable from the present. In that case, the patent was issued to Newell, as assignee of the administrator of Hanson Reeder;" the court held, that the recitals in the patent were notice to a subsequent purchaser, sufficient to put him on inquiry, because an administrator had no right to sell the land. "If," say the court, "the assignment of an administrator, per se, conveyed the equitable rights of the intestate, the purchaser might stand in a different situation." The cases in 9 Cranch, 98, and 5 Wheat. 304, deciding that the existence of a grant is presumptive evidence, that every prerequisite has been performed, are cited with approval, and the decision is placed upon the distinct ground, that the patent shows, upon its face, that the heirs of Reeder were owners of the estate, after his death. These patents show no such defect. The assignments recited, were those of persons who had an interest, and who could convey. The next case relied on by complainants is that of Bonner v. Ware, 10 Ohio Rep. 465. It presented to this court, for consideration, the same patent referred to in 15 Pet. 93. The complainant, Bonner, sought, by his bill, to quiet the equity of the heirs, by setting up that he had an equal equity, though junior, coupled with the legal title acquired, bona fide, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of the elder equity of the heir. The bill was dismissed, not on the ground that the doctrine of bona fide purchasers is a weapon of defense, and not of attack, but upon the authority of the cases in 4 Ohio Rep. 446; 1 McLean, 535, and 15 Pet. 93; which decisions were concurred in, and, beyond the principles, as therein held, it was not, as I am informed by the judge who pronounced the opinion, intended to go. It is, however, said, in that opinion, that the case of Reeder v. Barr et al., 4 Ohio Rep., held "that the rule of notice applied to patents, as to private deeds." The rule spoken of, was the rule which I have above explained. That every purchaser is presumed to have notice of any defect of title, apparent upon the face of his patent; not that he is required to look for a latent defect in the chain of assignments recited in the patent, where such assignments purport to have been made by the proper persons. This would defeat the law, recognized in the case of Reeder v. Barr, 4 Ohio Rep., as correctly settled in 9 Cranch, 98, and 5 Wheat. 304. It would, in effect, be to set up a presumptive notice, against the legal presumption, that, in executing the grant, the president of the United States performed his official duty; a presumption which the patent, issued by him, if regular on its face, raises in favor of the patentee, and upon which it is safe for subsequent purchasers to rely. A contrary rule would work immense injury to the holders of real estate derived from the general government, and to the public. The amount of mischief it would produce in the Virginia military district can hardly be imagined. Bill dismissed.
 

Greene Co. OH Supreme Court, Chancery Record Vol.B, 1840-1851 (FHL film 1,029,186) (MAD: I have frequently shortened the date, and have written the quantity of acres in numbers instead of words; spelling of names as best as I could read them but Clerk's handwriting was worse on these pages; I have added paragraphing and some punctuation for ease in reading.)
      Pg.445-454: Proceedings in Chancery before the Hon. Edward Avery and Ralph P. Spaulding, Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, within and for the County of Greene, on the 7th day of June 1849. The State of Ohio, Greene County, S.S.
      William D. Bell & wife, vs. Robert Dean et al, In Chancery.
      Be it remembered that heretofore on 29 November 1847, William Bell and others filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court aforesaid the following Bill in Chancery against Robert Dean and others, to wit:
      [Margin: Bill] To the Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio in and for the County of Greene in said state in Chancery sitting. Your petitioners Wm. D. Bell and Charlotte Bell his wife sheweth to your honours that they your petitioners of the County of Northumberland in Virginia heretofore, to wit, on 25 November 1839 filed their bill in chancery in the Court of Common Pleas in the County of Greene in said state, and on 2 May 1840 their amended bill setting forth in substance & effect
         "That heretofore on 1 July 1784 John McAdams for his services in the Army of the Revolution in the Virginia line in Continental establishment as a Lieutenant for three years, attained a Virginia Military Service Warrant No. 3286 for 2666 and 2/3 acres of land to be located within the district of lands set off for the satisfaction of such warrants, a copy of which said warrant, duly certified by the commissioner of the General Land Office, was therewith shown marked (A) and to which was attached the depositions of Mary Lee and Catherine Edwards also therewith shown as evidence of the facts therein stated. That the said John McAdams caused said warrant to be located within said Virginia Military District in two distinct tracts or surveys of 1333-1/3 acres each, both in the County of Greene in said state of Ohio, one of which said surveys is No. 1995 and the other is No. 2247 setting out the said two surveys by meets & bounds, to wit, Survey No. 1995 bounded and described as beginning at the East corner of Warner & Adison Lewis's survey No. 2244 at 3 elms & hickory ... crossing a creek, corner to Wm. McGuires survey No. 2240, passing Lewis's corner, with his line crossing the creek, to the beginning. Survey No. 2247 bounded and described as beginning at 2 elms an ash and white oak, east corner to said survey No. 1995, then north ... with said survey .. to the beginning. That the said John McAdams caused the location and surveys to be made and returned to the General Land Office of the two surveys of land above described & nothing remained to be done except the issuing of the pattents to perfect the title in the said John McAdams. That the said John McAdams died, having first made his last will & testament in writing in due form of law which was duly proven & recorded in the County of Northumberland in the State of Virginia by which said last will & testament the said John McAdams did devise to his sister Charlotte McAdams the said land warrant entry survey and lands above described (as residuary legatee) to her & her heirs, a copy of which will is herewith shown marked B with the probate (dated 13 December 1784).
         That Charlotte McAdams after the death of her brother was legally married to Thomas Taylor by whom she had three children and heirs, to wit, Sarah Ann Taylor, Charlotte McAdams Taylor and Martha Conway Taylor, and died (her husband surviving) intestate leaving the said three daughters her only children & heirs at law surviving.
         That Charlotte McAdams Taylor (the daughter) afterwards intermarried with Robert Nutt by whom she had one child & heir (to wit) your petitioner Charlotte M. & died intestate having survived her said husband Robert Nutt & leaving the said Charlotte your petitioner her only child and heir at law surviving (who has since intermarried with your petitioner Wm. D. Bell with whom she is yet living as her husband in the county of Westmoreland in the State of Virginia).
         That the said Sarah Ann Taylor intermarried with Wm. Taylor by whom she had four children & heirs, to wit, Nancy, Wm.[,] James, & Sarah Ann & died intestate having survived her husband leaving her said children & heirs at law.
         That Martha C. Taylor intermarried with Thomas Taylor by whom she had three children (to wit) Henry L., Ann C. & Thomas, her heirs at law, the said Thomas her husband is also since dead.
         That sometime previous to the death of the said Robert Nutt & Charlotte M. Nutt, one Thomas Watson then of the County of Greene & State of Ohio but subsequently of the State of Indiana for some trifling consideration or promise thereof induced the said Robert Nutt to sign & by threats and putting in fear to compell his wife to sign the instrument of writing now on file in the General Land Office, a copy of which with the necessary certificates of authentication & of having been acknowledged before a Justice of the Peace by the said Nutt & wife, certified by the commissioners of the General Land Office therewith shown marked (C).
         That said instrument of writing did purport to have been signed and executed by the said Nutt & wife [pg.447] for value received & to be an assignment by them to the said Thomas Watson of all their interest right & title in and to the said two surveys of land above described but charges? that the said Charlotte M. Nutt the wife never did sign said instrument of writing voluntarily & freely as the laws did require to pass her right to the lands there being no private examination apart from her husband & no certificate of any such privy? examination, and that no other instrument or contract ever was made by her in any way affecting her interest in said lands, & that was the act of Robert Nutt alone not hers.
         That on the same paper marked (C) is a copy of another instrument in writing & under seal by which it was pretended? that said Watson acquired the interest of the said Thomas Taylor & Martha C. Taylor his wife in & to the said two surveys of land but which is in fact wholely invalid & insufficient to transfer the interest of the said Martha in & to said lands for the same reasons, that the pretended assignment by the Charlotte M. Nutt was insufficient & invalid and that neither of said assignments could confer on said Watson any estate or interest in said lands except during the lives of the said husbands Nutt & Taylor.
         That this instrument of writing thus executed was by the said Watson laid before the Commissioner of the General Land Office who was induced thereby improperly & without lawful authority and under a mistaken view of his duty to issue pattents for both of said surveys of land to himself the said Watson & to the said children & heirs of the said Sarah Ann Payne in the proportion of two thirds to the said Thomas Watson and one third to the said heirs (copies of which said Pattents respectively marked D & E for said respective surveys are shown).
         That said Watson afterwards about the (blank) day of (blank) 1820 procured an order of the Court of Common Pleas for the partition of the said two surveys of land and caused two thirds thereof to be set off to himself & one third to the said heirs of Sarah Ann Payne. That there was set off to the said Watson two lots of lands in said surveys (to wit) one lot in Survey No.1995 bounded & particularly described in said bill & the other of said lots in Survey No.2247 which is likewise particularly described by meets & bounds in said bill. That partitions of said surveys were set off to the heirs of Sarah Ann Payne as their equal shares of said two surveys. That a portion of the lands never were partitioned under the order of the court but so far as partition was made they had no wish to disturb it, that is, the part to the said heirs of Sarah Ann Payne.
         It is further stated that the said complainants nor either of their said ancestors were ever in the state of Ohio nor had they or any of them at any time an agent in said state untill within the last three years, but that they & their said deceased ancestors always resided in the state of Virginia.
         That Daniel Dean, Robert Dean, Wm. Dean, Joseph Dean, Hugh Campbell, James Moore, Walter Parry, John Bishet, Muffet BrownLee, Wm. Struthers, Thomas Blakely, John MacFarland, Thomas Spencer, John Duncan, [pg.448] Abel Jenny, Henry Deurduff?, Wm. Hendricks, Wm. Guthry & Mary Guthry his wife, Thomas Watson, James McMillan, & Melinda his wife, Milda Hagler, Hulda Hagler & Jacob D. Hagler children & heirs of Jacob Hagler, minors under the guardianship of Timothy D. Neal, all of whom claim some interest in said lands under the said Thomas Watson and are made defts. And that one half of the said two thirds of said two tracts of land pattented to said Thomas Watson was for the said Daniel Dean and was purchased by the said Watson for him as his agent & with his money and that he the said Watson was as to the title a trustee for the said Daniel Dean and that he the said Dean is since dead having apportioned & divided his said land amongst his children the other defendants (to wit) Robert, Wm. & Joseph Dean his sons and Hugh Campbell, James Moore, Walter Perry & John Bashet his sons in law.
      Prayer of the bill is that the defendants may? answer that they be decreed to retire? & for general relief &c.
      Your petitioners further say that all the said defendants put in answers to said bill, in which they amongst other things claim to have been innocent purchasers without notice of the complainants equity. The said defendant Daniel Dean in his answer admits that the purchase made by said Watson was for his benefit to the interest of the one half of that purchase as stated in the bill and that he did furnish the money for that purpose.
         Depositions were taken by the complainants proving the allegations in their said bill with the exhibits on file in this cause & such other and further proceedings had that the cause came on to a hearing before the said Supreme Court for the State of Ohio in and for the County of Greene on an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas at the May term 1842 and was by said Court presented for decision in Bank & at the next term of said Court in bank to wit, the December term A.D. 1842 the said cause came on to hearing & it was decreed by the said Court that the Bill of the Complainants be dismissed and that they should pay costs &c.
         But your petitioners do aver & say that they are agrieved by said decree & that they ought not to be bound thereby, nor should any such decree have been made against them, neither ought your petitioners to pay costs as by the said decree is appointed; & that the said decree is erroneous and ought to be rescinded, for the errors following.
         1st That all the defendants hold hold (MAD: sic) under the two pattents referred to & on file with the bill, which were issued to the said Watson & the heirs of Sarah Ann Payne & the said recitals in these pattents do respectively show the title derived from John McAdams & under a land warrent issued to him for his services as an officer of the Revolutionary Army. That the said defendants were by said recitals put upon their guard & were bound to know that the title was legally & properly derived.
         2nd For that the said rescitals in the said pattents respectively also? show that the said alledged assignments to said Thomas Watson were by the said Nutt & wife and the said Taylor and wife was of the interests of the wives who were femes covert and who could not convey or transfer their said rights & interests in any other way than that provided by the statute law of the state of Virginia where the assignment were professidly reside?, they the said defendants were therefore bound to know that their title was well derived, the said assignment being a link in the title of which they were cognizant.
         3rd For that the assignment by the said Charlotte Nutt & Martha Taylor as made by them was and is a ..sulity & as to possessing any right stands on the same footing as if the same had been issued? (prayed?).
         4th For that the said Daniel Dean was a purchaser by his agent Thomas Watson & had actual notice in the very act of obtaining the assignment to the extent of one half of the said two thirds purchased & in that proportion pattented to said Watson and was afterwards partitioned and set off to the said Dean & Watson in pursuance of the trust & in that proportion divided? by the said Watson to the said Daniel Dean as far (for?) the proceedings in partition and deed from Watson also referred to.
         5th With? the other defendants had at least constructive notice & could not avail themselves of the plea of innocent purchasers without notice their being no difference in effect between actual & constructive notice as to its effect.
         6th For that no defendant can be ijusrcent? of any defect in the title under which he holds and especially where apparent in the face of any proper? making a link in the title, if the recitals in the pattents of the assignments of the interests of Charlotte Nutt & Martha Taylor being femes covert was sufficient to put the defendants on their guard and was good notice.
         For all which said errors & imperfections in the said decree, your petitioners have brought this their bill of review, and humbly conceive they should be relieved therein. In tender consideration whereof & for that there are divers other errors & imperfections in the said decree & proceedings by reason whereof the same ought to be revised & reviewed to the end therefore that the said decree and all the proceedings thereupon may be reviewed & revised and that the said defendants Robert Dean, Wm. Dean, Joseph Dean, Hugh Campbell, Walter Parry, John Bichet, Muffit Brownlee, Wm. Struthers, Thomas Blakely, John McFarland, Thomas Spencer, John Duncan, Abel Jenny, Henry Deurduff?, Wm. Hendrix, James McMillen & Malinda his wife, Milda Hagler, Huldah Hagler, Jacob D. Hagler & Thomas Watson be made defendants.
         The defendant Daniel Dean has since departed this life but had before conveyed all his remaining interest in those lands to one of the other defts. Wm. Bichet. The defendant James Moore is also since dead intestate but left his widow Mary? (Mercy?) surviving & children & heirs to wit, Samuel Moore, James Moore, Wm. Moore, Thomas? Moore, Daniel Moore?, Sarah Moore, Jane Moore now the wife of Samuel Orr, Mary now the wife of [pg.450] George Houston, Jeremiah Naincy & Jennett, the said Jinnett & Daniel are minors & the said Samuel Moore are? also the said Samuel Orr & Jane his wife live in the state of Indiana & all the others in the state of Ohio & in Greene County. All of whom are made defendants that they answer the processes? (premises?) & that your petitioners may be relieved in all & singular the premisses? according to equity & good conscience, and prays the writ of subpoena to revive & answer an order of publication to the defts. Thomas Watson, Samuel Moore & Samuel Orr & Jane his wife, Henry Deurduff? (Densduff?) or considerates? to the same end, Wm. Ellsberry Soliciter.
      And thereupon was issued out of the Clerk's office aforesaid the following writ: to wit;
         The State of Ohio, Greene County, S.S. To the Sheriff of said County, Greetings. You are hereby commanded to summon Robert Dean, William Dean, Joseph Dean, Hugh Campbell, Walter Parry, John Bicket, Moffet Brownlee, William Struthers, Thomas Blakely, John McFarland, Thomas Spencer, John Duncan, Abel Jenny, Henry Dearduff, William Hendrix, James McMillan and Malinda his wife, Milda Hagler, Huldah Hagler, Jacob D. Hagler, Thomas Watson, Mary Moore (widow of James Moore decd.) and Samuel Moore, James Moore, William Moore, Thomas Moore, Daniel Moore, Sarah Moore, Jane Orr, Samuel Orr, Mary Houston, George Houston, Jeremiah Moore, Nancy Moore and Jennet Moore if they may be found in your bailiwick, to be and appear before the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio within and for said county of Greene at the courthouse in Xenia on on? the first day of the next term thereof to answer unto a petition in Chancery exhibited against them by William D. Bell and Charlotte Bell his wife, and this they shall in no wise and under the penalty of one thousand dollars and have you then there this writ. Witness my hand and the seal of said Court at Xenia the 29th day of November A.D. 1847. James J. Winers?, clerk, SEAL.
         Which said writ at the time the same was issued as aforesaid was endorsed for costs as follows, to wit, "I acknowledge myself security for plaintiffs for costs in this case Nov. 29th 1847, Wm. Ellsberry."
      [Margin: Shff's Return] And afterwards to wit on the second day of June in the year A.D. 1848 said writ was returned to the Supreme Court aforesaid indorsed by the Sheriff as follows, to wit:
         In obedience to the command of the within on the 30th day of November 1847 I have made service by personally sending to and leaving with each of the following within named William Dean, Hugh Campbel, Thomas Blakely, John Bisket, Muffet Brownlee, Thomas Spencer, John Duncan, Abel Jenny, Henry Deurduff, James McMillan, Malinda his wife, Milda Hagler, Huldah Hagler, Mary Moore, Sarah Moore, Nancy Moore, Mary Houston and the following within named Robert Dean, Joseph Dean, Walter Parry, William Struthers, Jacob D. Hazler, Samuel Moore, James Moore, William Moore, Thomas Moore, Daniel Moore, Jeremiah Moore and Jennet Moore each one I left a copy of the within at their residence on the first [pg.451] day of December A.D. 1847. Samuel Harry, Shff, G.C.
      [Margin: Demurrer] And afterwards, to wit, on the 13 March 1848 the said defendants filed in the Clerk's Office aforesaid the following demurrer to the Bill of Review, to wit:
         Robert Dean et alias vs. William D. Bell & wife, Greene Supreme Court, Bill of Review. And the said defendants by P. Adlin their attorney come and demur to the said Bill of Review as exhibited against them by the said complainants and assign for cause that there is no error in the decree complained of and that the said complainants by their bill and record therein referred to do not make such excuse as entitles them in a court of Equity to open up said decree or for any answer or relief against these defendants. Wherefore & for other good causes the said defendants demur to said bill and pray the judgment of this court whether they shall be compelled further to answer the same and that they may be dismissed with costs. P. Adlin, Solictor for Defts.
      [Margin: Leave to amend bill & add parties & continued] And afterwards to wit on 2 June in the year last aforesaid on motion to the court by Wm. Ellsberry Esq. counsel for Complts. leave was given to amend the bill & to add parties in sixty days and thereupon this cause was continued untill the next term of this court.
      And afterwards to wit on the first day of August in the year A.D. 1848 the said complainants filed in the Clerk's office aforesaid the following amended and supplemental bill, to wit,
         [Margin: Amended & supplemental bill] The the (MAD: sic) Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio in and for the County of Greene in Chancery. By leave of the court an amendment & supplement to the bill of Wm. D. Bell & Charlotte his wife against Robert Dean & others filed on the 29th day of Nov. 1847. Your petitioners state that Abel Jenny is since dead intestate having conveyed his said lands to his two sons James W. and Jonas Jenny by deed of gift, the said James W. now lives in Warren County Ohio and the said Jonas in the County of Greene both of whom they pray may be made defendants. Your petitioners further state that the said Henry Dearduff is also dead intestate & that he also left children & heirs, to wit, John Dearduff who now lives in the state of Ioway, Jacob Dearduff who is since dead leaving one child his only heir to wit Jacob Dearduff now residing in the County of Green, Henry Dearduff who also resides in the county of Greene, & S?arah Dearduff also in Greene County & Hannah now the wife of Spottswood Robison of the same county & state, ---- Dearduff married James George & with whom she now lives in the state of Texas & ---- Dearduff & ---- Dearduff of the county of Greene afsd., all of whom are made defendants.
         A duly certified copy from the records of the County Court of the County of Northumberland in the State of Virginia of the said last will & testament of the said John McAdams [pg.452] deceased with the probate thereof has been legally presented and produced to the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County of Greene for record thereof & his heirs by the order of the same court ordered to be recorded in pursuance of the statute in such cases provided & now remains of record which said copy be certified & ordered to be recorded will be by your petitioners produced in the trial of this cause.
            Your petitioners pray as in & by their said bill they have already prayed & also that subpoenas may issue against the defendants James, Jenny, Henry Dearduff, Jacob Dearduff (Densduff?), Sarah Densduff, Densduff & Densduff, Spotswood Robison & Hannah his wife all Greene in the State of Ohio, & James W. Jenny of Warren County Ohio and an order of publication as to the defendants John Dearduff & the said James George & (blank) his wife, that they may answer and set forth their title or titles, respectively &c. Wm. Ellsberry, Sol.
      [Margin: Notice & proof of publication] Having previously at the June term of said Court 1848 filed in said Court the following Notice and proof of the publication thereof, to wit,
         Greene County Supreme Court, Wm. D. Bell and Charlotte Bell his wife vs. Robt. Dean, John Duncan, Thomas Watson, Samuel Moore, Samuel Orr and Jane his wife, and Henry Desarduff & others, defendants; In chancery. The defendants Thomas Watson, Samuel Moore, Samuel Orr and Jane his wife and Henry Densduff who are nonresidents of this State are hereby notified that the complainants Wm. D. Bell and Charlotte his wife, have filed in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court in and for the county of Greene in the State of Ohio, a bill of review, to review and reverse a decree of the said Supreme Court in Bank, made at their December term 1842 in the case of the said Wm. D. Bell and Charlotte his wife, complainants in Chancery, against the said John Duncan, Daniel Dean, and others, in Chancery, affecting the title to two surveys of land in the county of Greene, entered and surveyed in the name of John McAdams and pattented to Thomas Watson and the heirs of Sarah Ann Payne, deceased, in the proportion of two thirds to said Watson and one third to the said heirs. The said two surveys of land are for one thousand three hundred and thirty-three and one-third acres each, in the Virginia Military district in Ohio, the said non-resident defendants are therefore hereby notified of the pendency and object of the said bill and that they be and appear at the next term of the said Supreme Court holden in and for the said County of Greene, and plead answer or demur to the said bill of review, according to the rules of said court or that the same will be taken for confessed as to them and the matters thereof decreed accordingly. Wm. Ellsberry, Solicitor.
         Proof of publication. Green Common Pleas, March term A.D. 1848. Personally appeared in open Court Robert McBratney publisher of the "Xenia Torch Light" who being sworn in due form of law makes oath that the annexed [pg.453] advertisement of Wm. D. Bell & Charlotte his wife vs. Robert Den. et al was published for six consecutive weeks prior & after the 2d. day of December A.D. 1847 in said paper published in Xenia and of general circulation in the county of Greene and that the letter and spirit of the law fixing the price of printers for the insertions of legal advertisements has been complied with to the best of his knowledge and belief. R. McBratney. Sworn to in open Court this 14th day of March 1848. Wm. E. Mirris, Clk.
      And thereupon were issued out of the Clerk's Office aforesaid the following writs of subpoena, one directed to the Sheriff of Greene, the other to the Sheriff of Warren County, to wit:
         [Margin: Subpoenas to Shff G.C.] The State of Ohio, Greene County, S.S. To the Sheriff of said County. Greetings. You are hereby commanded to summon James Jenny, Henry Dearduff, Jacob Dearduff, Sarah Dearduff, Margaret Dearduff and Matilda Dearduff, Spotswood Robison and Hannah his wife, if they may be found in your bailiwick to be and appear before the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio within and for the said county of Grene at the Court House in Xenia on the first day of the next term thereof to answer unto a petition in chancery exhibited against them and others by William D. Bell and Margaret his wife and this they shall in no wise omit under the penalty of one thousand dollars, and leave you them there this writ. Witness my hand and the seal of said Court at Xenia this 2nd day of August A.D. 1848. /s/ James J. Minins, Clk. (SEAL)
         [Margin: Subpoenas to Shff W.C.] The State of Ohio, Greene County, S.S. To the Sheriff of Warren County, Greetings. You are hereby commanded to summon James W. Jenny if he may be found in your bailiwick to be and appear before the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio within and for the said County of Greene at the Court House in Xenia on the first day of the next term thereof to answer unto a petition in chancery exhibited against Dean and others by William D. Bell and Margaret his wife and this he shall in no wise omit under the penalty of one thousand dollars. And have you then there this writ. Witness my hand and the seal of said Court at Xenia, the 2nd day of August A.D. 1848. James J. Minien?, Clerk. (SEAL)
      And afterwards to wit, on the 6th day of June in the year of our Lord 1849 said writs were returned, the former endorsed by the sheriff of Greene County as follows, to wit:
         [Margin: Shff's G.C. Return] In obedience to the within command I have made service by personally readding and copy in the within named Jenus Jenny, Henry Dearduff, Jacob Denduff, Margaret Dearduff, Matilda Dearduff, Sarah Dearduff, Spotswood Robinson and Hannah his wife, Samuel Harry Shff. G.C. September 25, 1848.
      And the latter by the Sheriff of Warren County as follows, to wit,
         [Margin: Shff's W.C. Return] Served on the deft. James W. Jenny by reading and also by handing him a true copy of the writ, Nov. 15, 1848. Wm. Eulass, Shff. War. Co. by C.A. Smith Deputy.
      And afterwards, to wit, on the day & and year first aforesaid this cause came on for hearing upon demurrer to complainants Bill of Review, and joinders and was argued by counsels and the court being fully advised therein found there was no error in the original decree and the facts found upon which said decree was founded, they therefore sustain the demurrer of the defendants to said Bill of Review and dismiss each Bill at the costs of the complainants to be taxed by the Clerk and that execution issue therefor as executions issue at law. /s/ Rufus P. Spalding, Presiding Judge.
 

Go to the Greene Co. OH Court Records Part 1, May 1842

Return to the Greene Co. OH Research File
 

END

Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in Ohio

Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page