Submitted by: M. Kathy Felsted mkfelsted@gmail.com May, 2006 Solomon Husted vs. John Husted, et al, heirs at law of John Husted, deceased. August Term 1836 Solomon Husted vs. John Husted, et al, heirs at law of John Husted deceased. In Chancery. Pleas holden in the Court of Common pleas on Monday the first day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six before Joseph R. Stoan President Judge of our said Court with Daniel McKimon, William G. Serviss and Joseph Perrin his associate Judges of said Court sitting as a Court in Chancery. Be in remembered that on the nineteenth day of September eighteen hundred and thirty five, Solomon Husted filed with the Clerk of the Court aforesaid a certain Petition in Chancery in the words and figures following to wit: To the Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in and for Clark county and State of Ohio in Chancery Sitting in Your Petitioner Solomon Husted of Clark County represents that in the year eighteen hundred and thirty two, John Husted the father of your petitioner borrowed of him the sum of four hundred dollars and his father being about to take a Journey to the State of Indiana, and to that part which lies upon the Wabash River did on the 22nd day of August AD 1832 enter into a written contract or agreement with your petitioner whereby it was agreed that in case he the Father of your petitioner did not repay to your petitioner the said sum of four hundred dollars loaned as aforesaid to him by your petitioner upon his return from the Wabash County in the State of Indiana his non payment of the said sum of four hundred dollars should be considered as a contract & agreement for the farm or homestead on which the father of your petitioner then desided (sic) being in the County of Clark aforesaid to which agreement marked (A) your petitioner refers & prays it may be considered apart of this petition. Your petitioner takes that his father upon his return did not refund to him the said sum of four hundred dollars but agreed that your petitioner should take said farm at the price agreed upon in the Contract above refered (sic) to marker (A) being the sum of thirteen hundred dollars payable at the times in that behalf limited in said written agreement. Your petitioner further states that the land sold to him and called eighty five acres in said written agreement was then land then owned with by and in possession of the father of your petitioner lying in two tracts and bounded as follows: . [did not include actual land description]. . Your petitioner further states that after said contract and before the time ?-instead for the payment of said land had expired, the father of your petitioner died. Your petitioner then and before that time having entered into acquired peaceable possession of said land under the contract aforesaid had still remaining? In possession of the same, leaving the following his heirs and legal representatives to wit: Jacob Simmons & Phebe his wife formerly Phebe Husted, John Husted, Jane McDaniel late Jane Husted, intermarried with Isaac McDaniel, Moses Husted of Montgomery County & State of Indiana, Rachel Taylor late Rachel Husted, intermarried with Thomas Taylor of Indiana County unknown, Aaron Husted of the State of Virginia, Hannah Hawke late Hannah Husted of Montgomery County Indiana, Anna Strausburg late Anna Husted intermarried with David Strausburg of Green County, Ohio, Polly Hanly late Polly Husted intermarried with George Hanly of Mercer County, Ohio, Isaac Handy and Mary Ann Handy, nine (looks like nine - but must be minor after reading document) children of Elisabeth Hanley deceased late Elisabeth Husted intermarried with John Hanley of Mercer County, Ohio. All of whom your petitioner prays may be made defendants to this petition. Your petitioner states that he has paid to the said John Husted his father in his lifetime the greater part of the purchase money for said land and to the administrators of his father's Estate since his decease the residue of said sum of thirteen hundred dollars the purchase money aforesaid. Your petition refers to the part and survey marked (B) and prays A may be taken as a part of this petition. Your petitioner therefore prays that a guardian ad litem may be appointed for the minor defts (an abbreviation of defenants?) in this petition mentioned, that writs of subpoena may be issued against the defendants resident in this State & that they may be compelled to answer all and singular the allegations of this petition & that upon the final hearing of this petition, said defendants may be decreed to execute and deliver to your petitioner a good and sufficient deed in fee simple for the lands above described, or in default thereof that said decree operate as a conveyance of the lands aforesaid to your petitioner Mason & Torbert, Soliciter(sic) for complainant in State of Ohio Clark County to personally appeared in Open Court Solomon Husted who in oath says that the defendants in the above petition who are therein stated to be non residents of this State are non residents as stated. Sworn to and Subscribed in Open Court this 15 day of September 1835. Solomon X Husted (his mark), J S Conk ??? (another name too light to read). And thereupon the following subpoena was issued in the words and figures following to wit: The State of Ohio Clark County ??(some abbreviation). To the Sherrif of Green County Greeting. We command? you that summon David Strawsburg and Anna his wife to appear before the Judges of our Court of Common pleas at the Court House in Springfield on the first day of their next term to answer a petition in Chancery Exhibited against them and others by Solomon Husted and this they will in no wise omit under the penalty of one thousand dollars and have you then there this written Witness the Honorable Joseph R. Swan Judge President Judge of our said Court at the Court House this 29th day of October AD 1835. Saul Henkle Clerk. And afterward to wit on fourth day of April 1836 this court was returned unto our said court endorsed as follows: Feb 9, 1826 in obedience to the within command. I have served this summons by reading to the within named persons and gave them an attested copy at their residence. James A. Scott, Sheriff, Green County. And afterwards, to wit on the twenty ninth day of April aforesaid subpoena was served to the Sheriff of Mercer County Ohio in the words and figures following towit: The State of Ohio Clark County: To the Sheriff of Mercer County Ohio Greeting! We command you that you summon George Hanley & Polly, his wife, Isaac Hanely and Maryann Hanely, Minor children of Elisabeth Hanly deceased to appear before the Judges of our Court of Common Pleas at the Court House in Springfield on the first day of their next Term to answer a petition in Chancery exhibition against themselves and others by Solomon Husted, and that they will in nowise omit under the penalty of one thousand dollars and have then there his writ. Witness, the Honorable Joseph N Swan, President Judge of our said Court, at the Court House this 29th day October AD 1835. Paul Henkle, Clerk. And afterwards towit on the fourth day of April eighteen hundred and thirty six this writ was returned unto our said court evidence as follows, towit: Served November 5th 1835 John Elliott Sheriff of Mercer County. And afterwards towit on the eighteenth day of September eighteen hundred and thirty five, on motion to the Court by Mason & Torbert council for the plantiff it is ordered that W. V. Kushing be appointed Guardian ad litem for the minor dependants Isaac Hanley and Mary Ann Hanley and that notice of the pendency of this bill and the prayer thereof be published for 4 consecutive weeks in the Springfield (Ohio) Pioneer and Clark County Advertiser prior to the next term of this Court to which this cause in continued. And afterwards towit on the fourth day of April aforesaid William V. N. Cushing Guardian ad litem of the minor defendants to this petition filed his answer in the words and figures following towit. The joint answer of Isaac Hanley and Mary Ann Hanley Infant defendants to the bill of Solomon Husted complainant by William V. N. Cushing, Esqr. Guardian ad litem. And the said Isaac Hanley and Mary Ann Hanley by William V. N. Cushing their Guardian ad litem say that they have no personal knowledge of the facts stated in complainants bill but from papers filed in the court and from information they believe that the facts charged in the bill are true and they to be hence dismissed with their costs. Isaac Hanley, Mary Ann Hanley, by William V. N Cushing, Guardian ad litem in the State of Ohio, Clark County. (some letter maybe "by") I, William V. N Cushing being duly sworn depose and say that all the several matters & things stated in the previous answer are (done or here) from the information of others, I believe to be true in substance and in fact sworn and subscribed in open court this 4th day of April 1836. And afterwards towit on the firth day of August (it being of the term of August) eighteen hundred and thirty six, this cause came on to be heard upon the bill and exhibits in the cause, the answer of the defendants by William V. N. Cushing their Guardian ad litem was submitted to the Court without argument. And the court being satisfied that all the defendants have been notified of the pendency and prayer of the complainant bill, the nonresidents defendants by Publication and the resident defendants by process. And the defendants of full age having failed to appear, I place answer or deman (sic?) to the said bill. A is allowed that said bill be taken as confessed against the defendants so in default and the Court being satisfied that the contract as set forth in the bill was entered into by complainant and that John Husted deceased in his lifetime as alledged (sic) in said bill, and that the complainant has fully paid the value of the purchase money for the two tracts of land in said bill mentioned according to the contract and that the two tracts of land in said bill mentioned according to the contract and that the law and equity from the of the case (sic), from the Proofs and testimony in the case are with the complainant and that he is entitled to a conveyance fro the two tracts of land described in said bill the amount on consideration of the premises do order and decree that the defendants of full age within six month from this date within six months from this date (sic = repeated) and the minor defendants within six months after they shall respectively become of age make execute and deliver to complainant deeds in fee simple with covenants of General Warranty for the two tracts of land in the bill mentioned lying and being in Clark County Ohio towit, one tract of 62 acres and 34 hundredths of an acres, 48 34/100 of which is in Section C No. 2 Town 3 and range G and the resiam?(doesn't look like remaining) 14 acres is in Section 3 Town 3 and range G bounded and described as follows towit: . . . And that is default of deeds being made by the defendants by the time herein before mentioned that this decree operate as a conveyance in fee simple for the two tracts of land above described and that complainant pay the costs of this suit within sixty days and in default that Execution issue therefore as on Judgments at law - --Decree- J. R. Ohm NOTE: I put in paragraphs and commas - MKF WORD corrected some spelling errors.