MECKLENBURG CO NC ESTATES - A. Cunningham Miller 1865 ************************************************************************ File contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by: Donna J. Johnson - bounty@charlotte.infi.net 22 May 1999 USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing free information on the Internet, material may be freely used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material, AND permission is obtained from the contributor of the file. These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or presentation by other organizations. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material for non-commercial purposes, MUST obtain the written consent of the contributor, OR the legal representative of the submitter, and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent. USGenWeb NOTICE: Libraries and individual researchers may download this file for personal, non-commercial use only. Any other use requires written permission from the transcriber. ************************************************************************ Surnames mentioned: Alexander, Auten, Black, Boyd, Cooper, Deaton, Dowd, Ellwood, Faires, Ferris, Flow, Frazier, Griffith, Jamison, Henderson, Howie, Hunter, Hutchison, Irwin, Kerr, King, Little, McComb, McDonald, McLure, McNeely, Maxwell, Means, Miller, Monteith, Morrow, Orr, Plummer, Williams, Wilson >From the North Carolina Archives: Mecklenburg County, NC Estates 1762-1957 CR.065.508.178 A. Cunningham Miller 1865 BOND Apr 1865 - State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County - James Wilson, James Flow, Wm McComb and J. M. Alexander enter into bond as executors for the estate of A. C. Miller on (14?) April 1865. Amount of bond is twenty thousand dollars. Witness is Wm Maxwell. - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - INVENTORY An Inventory of the Estate of A. C. Miller, dec'd which came into the hands of his administrators James Wilson and James Flow. Good Notes 1 Note on E. Nye Hutchison dated 25 Sept. 1862 for $225.00 1 " " H.B & SS Williams " 1 Jan. 1862 " $260.38 1 " " James M. Henderson " 17th Mar. 1863 " $175.00/100 Confederate 1 ______ Wm Boyd " 1st Jan. 1862 " $28.00/100 Confederate 1 Note Catherine E. Hutchison ^Doubtful Note " 31st Aug '49 for $160/10 Cr. on Same of One Dollar 2 decr 1857 2 shares of Stock in the Bank of Charlotte 1 " " " " " " " North Carolina List of Articles sold at by James Flow & James Wilson administrators of A. C. Miller May 16, 1865 amounting in the aggregate $500.35 July 25, 1865 - Amt wheat sold $292.81 " " " " Oats " $60.68 " " " " Cotton " $53.96 407.45 - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - COMPLAINT 19 Nov 1873 Mecklenburg County } Superior Court North Carolina } Fall Term 1873 Complaint Soply Elwood, J. L. Orr and wife, Margaret Jane, and T. J. Wilson, Plntfs against R. A. Plummer and John Ferris, Dfdts Plaintiffs complain and allege 1. That A. Cunningham Miller, late of said County, died intestate in the year 18 , and that the plaintiffs Soply Elwood, M. J. Orr, wife of J. L. Orr, and T. J. Wilson are the only heirs at law of the said decd. 2. That the said plaintiffs as tenants in common and as such heirs at law of A. C. Miller are the owners in fee of a certain tract of land in said county containing about 44 acres, adjoining the lands of Elam Hunter, Jackson (Drum?) and Martin Alexander the same being one third of the Susannah Alexander tract. 3. That the defendants ^unlawfully withheld the possession thereof from plaintiffs. Wherefore plaintiffs demand judgement 1. For the possession of said premises 2. For One Hundred Dollars damages for the withholding of the same 3. For costs of this action Vance & Bumble Attys J. L. Orr makes oath that the facts set forth in the above complaint are true, to the best of his knowledge and belief. J. L. Orr Sworn to and subscribed before me Nov. 19, 1873 C A Osborne C.S.C. - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - ANSWER 24 Nov 1873 Superior Court Mecklenburg County Answer Soply Elwood, J. L. Orr & wife Margaret Jane & T. J. Wilson - Plffs against R. A. Plummer & John Ferrie - Defts. The defendants, R. A. Plummer & John Ferris answering the complaint herein I. Say - That it is true as set forth in the first allegation of said complaint that A. C. Miller died intestate some time in the year 1865 but they have no Knowledge of the other matters set forth in said allegation and hold plaintiffs to strict proof of the same. II. The defendants deny all the other allegations of said complaint but over that the lawfull title to said land is in the defendant R. A. Plummer as they are advised and believe III. That defendant Ferris is the tenant of his co defendant R A Plummer & hold same for him. Bynum Jones & Johnston Defts. Attys John A. Ferris and R. A. Plummer makes oath that the facts set forth in the foregoing answer are true to the best of his belief & as he is advised. R. A. Plummer John A. Faires Sworn & Subscribed Before me 24 Nov 1875 C A Osborne CSC By Wm M------ DC - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - BOND 12 Jan 1875 No. 123 Sophie Ellwood et al vs R. A. Plummer & another Bond Filed Spring Term 1875 in open court Superior Court Mecklenburg County Sophia J. Elwood J. L. Orr & wife Margaret J. & T. J. Wilson } plffs against } R. A. Plummer & John Ferris }defts Know all men by these presents that we R. A. Plummer are held and firmly bound unto Sophia J. Elwood, J. L. Orr & wife Margaret J. and T. J. Wilson plaintiffs above name - in the just and full sum of Two Hundred Dollars lawful money for the payment of which well and truly to be made we do hereby bind ourselves our heirs executors and administrators (firmly?) by these presents - Witness our hands and seals this the 12th day of January 1875. The condition of above obligation is such that whereas the above named obligees have fought an action for certain real Estate which the defendant Plummer claims Now of said R. A. Plummer shall pay to the plaintiffs all such costs and damages as said plaintiffs may recover in the action then the bond to be void otherwise ____ face & efface= In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals this the day and date above named. R. A. Plummer {seal} R. A. McNeely {seal} William N. Black {seal} - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - Meckenburg County Spring Term 1876 In the Superior Court James Flow, administrator of A. C. Miller deceased vs William J. Black Plaintiff complaining alleges that 1st. In the month of August 1864 the defendant had in his possession a negro boy named Moton, aged about 21 years & claimed to hold the same as his slave. That he sold the said boy to A. C. Miller as a slave for the sum of Five thousand two hundred ^Dollars And executed and delivered to the said A. C. Miller A Bill of sale with Covenants as follows viz: Received of A. C. Miller Five thousand and two hundred dollars in full for one negro boy named Moton aged 21 years old, which negro I worent sound & healthy also I worent the title of said boy good in the claims of all persons whatever. Given under my hand & seal this 20 Aug 1864. Test S A Harris Signed W. J. Black {seal} 2nd. That said boy Moton at the time of said sale was not a slave. That he was free born, and had always been free. And was so known to be to the defendant when the Bill of Sale was executed. 3rd. That the said A. C. Miller departed this life in February 1865 _ And the plaintiff James Flow has been duly appointed & now is the Administrator for upon this estate. Wherefore plaintiff demands Judgement against the defendant for Five thousand two hundred dollars with interest from Augt 20, 1864. And for Cost of this Action. H W Guion Atty - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - ANSWER Superior Court, Mecklenburg County Answer James Flow, Admin of A. C. Miller against W. J. Black Dfet The defendant answers its complaint, and says I. That he admits all the allegations contained in Sec. 1 of the complaint II. That the boy Morton, mentioned in Sec 2 of the complaint, was a slave at the time of said sale, and that he, the said Morton, was in the service of said Miller or his administrators till he was freed by the government of the United States. Vance & Bumble Attys - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - JUDGEMENT Fall 1877 Mecklenburg County } Superior Court North Carolina } Fall Term 1877 Sophia Ellwood et al Ptffs Against Robert Plummer et al Dfdts The facts agreed upon between the parties above named having been submitted to this Court, and after hearing A. Burwell counsel for plaintiffs, and Jones & Johnston counsel for defendants, and due deliberation having been had thereon It is adjudged that the plaintiffs do recover of the defendants the possession of the real property described in the complaint; and further that they recover of the defendants the sum of Fifty Dollars damages for the withholding thereof, and also the costs of their action to be taxed by the Clerk. John Kerr Presiding Judge - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - JUDGEMENT January 1878 North Carolina Supreme Court January Term, 1878. 277 - Mecklenburg Co. Sophia Ellwood et al vs Robt A. Plummer et al This cause came on to be argued upon the transcript of the record from the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County; upon consideration whereof this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the record and proceedings of the said Superior Court; It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court here that the plaintiffs, the said Sophia Ellwood, J. L. Orr and wife Margaret, and T. J. Wilson, do recover of its defendants, the said Robert A. Plummer and Jno. Ferris the possession of the land described in the complaint in this cause; It is further adjudged that the said plaintiffs do recover of the said defendants, and of R. A. McNeely and W. N. Black, the sureties on the defendants bond filed in this cause the sum of Fifty dollars ($50) damages for the detention of the land, with interest on said sum from the 15th day of November, 1877, that being the amount stated in the case agreed; It is further adjudged that the said plaintiffs do recover of the said defendants and their surety for the appeal the costs of the appeal in this Court incurred, to-wit, the sum of twenty four and 50/100 dollars ($24.50) and let executions issue accordingly. A true copy Test: Wm H Bagley Clerk - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - OPINION State of North Carolina } January Term, 1878 Superior Court } No. 277 Mecklenburg Opinion Sophia Ellwood et al vs R. A. Plummer et al Faircloth, J. The only question presented by the record is whether the estate of R. A. Plummer was a vested or contingent interest at the time of the sheriffs sale, during the term of the life tenants, and that depends on the question whether his estate vested at the death of the testator or at the death of the surviving life tenant who is now dead. This seems to be a plain question, both from the authorities and the language of the testatrix. A copy of the entire will is not before us, but only extracts from which alone we are to gather the intention. If the intention was uncertain and doubtful the Court would incline to a vested estate, because that construction tends to certainty and settles the right of property. The whole tract of land is devised to one Orr, in trust for two of the testatrix' daughters during their natural life time, to be equally divided and after the death of either, in trust, in part, for her three grand children, until the death of the other daughter, "at which time" said plantation is to be "equally divided" between said three grandchildren of whom R. A. Plummer is one. Here both the object of the gift and the event of its full enjoyment are certain, which makes a vested remainder unless a different intention can be discovered in the will. It is plain, also, that equality was the desire of the testatrix, but a different conclusion would lead to inequality in the event of the death of one of the grand children, leaving children, before the death of the tenant for life. There is a class of cases in which the gift is postponed to some future time, in which, usually, some express reason is given, or is easily gathered from the context of the will, for the postponement. This class is usually recognized, when there is nothing else to control by the use of the words give or devise to a man, "at" "when" or "if" -- meaning at the death of the particular tenant, or when the devisee shall obtain a certain age or if some other event shall take place. These expressions are as applicable to the substance of the gift as they are to the time of its enjoym01ent and the legacy would lapse if the legatee should die before the time indicated by these expressions, and this is the general rule. There is another class distinguishable from the above, such as a gift to one, payable at a particular time or to be paid when a particular thing shall happen. In these the time does not refer to the substance of the gift, but only to the time of its complete enjoyment and no lapse can occur in the meantime. And it has been held that the expression "equally to be divided" means the same as payable or to be paid. Guyther vs Taylor 3 Ire. Eq. 333. Giles vs Franks 2 Dev. Eq. 521. It will be seen that the expressions in the present case are substantially identical with those in the latter class of cases. No reason whatever appears why the gift should not take effect until the death of the surviving life tenant, but a good reason does appear why the division merely was postponed until that time, which was that the purposes of the trust might be performed by the trustee, at which time is duties ceased and the grand children were entitled to a division and possession of their estate. This being so the plaintiffs are entitled to recover. Sulton vs West 77 N.C. Rep. 429. No error. Judgement here for the plaintiffs. Per Curium. Affirmed. A true copy Test Wm H. Bagley Clerk [See Mecklenburg County, NC Will Book J, 1059, page 31. Susannah Alexander. 26 August 1846, prb in Oct 1856 Ct.] - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 20 May 1878 (cover sheet) Clerks Office vs R. A. Plummer R. A. McNeely & William N. Black Judge for cost 20 May 78 J R Erwin CSC $11.40 E A Osborne 1.60 W Maxwell 1.00 A Burwell 4.00 J. N. Caldwell 1.20 (total) $19.20 R A Plummer R A McNeely & William N. Black E 77 off Spring Term 1878 (document) Superior Court Mecklenburg County Sophia Ellwood et al Against Robt A. Plummer At a Superior Court held at the Court House in Charlotte, in the County of Mecklenburg on the 20 day of May 1878 Present, Hon. W. R. Cox, Judge. This action having been brought to a trial by the Court, a trial by Jury having been waived, and a decision therein rendered for the Plaintiff, it is now on motion of A Burwell Counsel for the Plaintiff Adjudged That the Plaintiffs, recover of the Defendant, R. A. Plummer and his surety the costs of action, to be taxed by the clerk. Wm. R. Cox Judge Presiding - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - Ellwood vs Plummer Facts agreed upon Mecklenburg County Superior Court Sophia Ellwood et al vs R. A. Plummer In this case the following facts are agreed upon. That plaintiffs are the heirs at law of Cunningham Miller, who died intestate. That the land described in the complaint is in possession of defendant, who claims the same under the will of Susannah Alexander, decd, a copy of which will is a____d. That plaintiff claims said land under the deed from the Shff of Mecklenburg County which is hereto a____d. It is agreed that if the Court should be of opinion that the interest of defendants in the land devised by Susannah Alexander to her two daughters for life was liable to be sold under execution against defendants during the life of said daughters, then there shall be a judgement for plaintiffs for the possession of the premises and for Fifty Dollars damages, _____ judgement for the defendant. A. Burwell, atty for ptff - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - State of North Carolina } Spring Term Mecklenburg County } 1885 G. W. King, M. C. King, Thomas Ellwood & John Ellwood Pltffs } vs. } Susan Miller Def } The Plaintiffs complaining allege I. That A. C. Miller was in his life time seized in fee of Land in the County of Mecklenburg of which the premises here after described as a tract II. That on the day of 1865 being ____ _____ he died intestate leaving the defendant Susan Miller his widow. III. That the defendant Susan Miller thereafter entered upon ____ ____ ____ and of her dower during her life of one third part of said land to wit the following described premises Beginning at a B. J. Cinthia Robinsons corner & runs N 110 poles to a W. O. Parks corner. Thence with 4 of his lines S 81 E. 22 poles to a B. O. on west side of Thence along side road N 4. W. 64 poles to a Stake - Thence 1 W. 88 poles to a stake - Thence N. 11 E. 28 poles to a B. O. on the east side of the Road on ____ _____ line. Thence N. 66 W. 23 poles to a dead P. O. in a field - Thence S. 27 poles to a small P. O. Thence N. 87 W. 57 poles to a B. O. & W. O. ____ corner. Thence S. 65 W. 102 poles to a white oak on Road. Thence S 4 W 66 poles to a B. J. Thence S. 10 E 21 poles to a B. O. in west side of branch - Thence S. 13 W. 25 poles to a hickory - Thence S. 70 E. 9 poles to a W. O. by Millers fence Thence S. 20 W. 80 poles to a B. O. Thence N. 89 E. 28 poles to a B. O. Thence S. 75 E. 142 poles to the Beginning containing 200 acres, and also one other tract, Beginning at a Stake in a meadow and runs N. 82 W. 5 1/2 poles to a dead B. J. Thence N 27 W. 24 poles to a ____ ____ in a branch Thence N. 58 E. 28 poles to the Beginning containing 2 1/2 acres. IV. That Plaintiffs M. C. King, John Ellwood Thomas Ellwood with one ____ McDonald and A. C. Ellwood & S. E. Means as heirs at law of A. C. Miller are entitled to the premises in one half of described premises V. That A. C. Ellwood has _____ by deed in fee simple his interest in said property to M. C. King and S. E. Means and transferred her intent to one James McDonald. VI. That said Susan Miller, defendant with intent to injure plaintiffs, cut down and caused to be cut down large quantities of timber, oak, hickory, pine and other wood, and sold the same for fire wood, and to be cut ___ lumber - to ____ ____ Plaintiffs intentions. VII. That said defendant has caused a large amount of wood land to be cleared and turned into _____ __ cultivated field & meadow ____ converted into usable land by which said premises have been greatly damaged. VIII. (page torn at bottom - text missing) (page torn at top - text missing) I. Judgement for _____ (page torn) II. For possession of the _____ ____ _____ and ____ of _____. J. E. B_____ Atty for Plffs G. W. King one of the Plaintiffs makes oath that the facts set forth in ______ ______ of his knowledge are true. Upon ____ & _____ _____ ____ Sworn & Subscribed Before me May __ 85 J. R. Erwin? G. W. King - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - State of North Carolina } Supreme Court Mecklenburg County } Fall Term 1885 G. W. King, M. C. King / Thomas Ellwood & Flora / Mary, Margaret, Lena, / & Alice Elwood infants & heirs at law of John Ellwood, by ___ ____ ____ Harriet Ellwood Plff vs Susan Miller, James McDonald, Sarah McDonald, Thomas J. Wilson, J. L. Orr & Margaret Orr Defnd The Plaintiffs file this their (annual?) complaint by leave of the court ___ & obtained - I. That A. C. Miller was at the time of his death seized in fee of certain lands in the county of Mecklenburg of which the premises hereinafter described was a part. II. That on the day of 1865 being so seized he died intestate, leaving the defendant Susan Miller his widow. III. That the defendant Susan Miller soon thereafter had assigned to her, entered upon & was possessed of her dower, for the term of her life, which said dower is a part of said land and described as follows - Beginning at a Black Jack Cinthia Robinson's corner (description of two parcels of land follows) IV. That M. C. King, Thomas Ellwood, Sarah McDonald, A. C. Ellwood, S. E. Means and John Ellwood as heirs at law of Sophia Ellwood decd a sister of said Miller, would be entitled to one _____ one half of the premises in said land, but that said A. C. Ellwood has sold & conveyed his interest in fee to said M. C. King & said S. E. Means has sold & conveyed her interests to said James McDonald. And the said John Ellwood having died his interests have descended to his heirs at law - Flora, Mary, Margaret, Lena & Alice Ellwood - the infants made plaintiffs, who (sue Cynthia next ____ Harriet???) Ellwood - and that Thomas J. Wilson & Margaret Orr wife J. L. Orr an heir at law of Orr* who was a sister of said Miller** are entitled to the remaining undivided one half of said premises. V. That said J. R. McDonald, Sarah McDonald, Thomas J. Wilson, J. L. Orr & Margaret Orr declined to ____ plaintiffs in this ____ and are therefor made defendants. VI. That said Susan Miller defendant, with intent to injure plaintiffs, has cut down and caused to be cut down ^from said land large quantities of timber, oak, hickory, pine & other wood, for timber and for fire-wood and sold the same to the great damage of plaintiffs inheritance. VII. That the said defendant Susan Miller has cleared or caused to be cleared a large amount of wood-land and turned the same into arable or cultivated fields when there was already a sufficient of arable land to support her when she came into possession of said dower - and caused meadow land to be converted into arable land, and permitted the land which was in cultivation to grow up in shrubs, bushes & trees & become wasted to the great damage of plaintiffs. VIII. That by the said _____of said defendant Susan Miller, and also the ____ ____ in the nature of ____ ____ as set forth. Thence plaintiff has been damaged to the amount of Five Hundred Dollars. Wherefore they demanded payment. I. For Five Hundred Dollars II. For possession of place wasted and costs of suit W. H. Baily & J E B(ynum?) Attys for Plaintiffs G W King, one of the plaintiffs, makes oath that the facts set forth in foregoing complaint of his knowledge are true. Those ____ set forth upon information & belief he believes. G hisXmark King ____ ____ true _____ this 13 day of before me D Y ______ JP - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - Mecklenburg Superior Court Fall Term 1887 Mary C. King & others Heirs at Law of C. Miller vs Susan Miller et al Issues 1. Did the defendant Susan Miller commit waste upon the lands described in the complaint Answer. No 2. What damage if any have the plaintiffs sustained by reason thereof/ Answer State of North Carolina } At a Superior Court Mecklenburg County } held at Charlotte Mecklenburg County Feby 25th 1889 Mary King & others vs Susan Miller It is ordered that the Clerk of this court re tax the bill of court in this case and inform the _____ in accordance with _____. Walter Clark Judge Presdg - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - North Carolina } Superior Court Mecklenburg County } May 21, 1889 M C King et al vs Susan Miller et al It having been Ordered at the last term of this court that the cost in the above entitled Cause be retaxed by the Clerk. Therefore pursuant to said order I summoned all of the witnesses, who proved their attendance in the above Cause who being duly sworn and examined by me said that the statement of the days attendance and mileage as set forth in said Witness Tickets were true and correct. The following witnesses further stated that they appeared in Court and were sworn in the trial of said Cause but not examined to wit R H Orr, W D Jimmison, R J Monteith, J L V Orr, James Flow, James McDonald & W J Hutchison also that they were summoned by the defendant. I will also further state that J P Hunter one of the witnesses in this Cause was summoned by both Plaintiff and Defendant and proved his attendance for both viz for the Plaintiff eight days and for the Deftd 3 days. Upon the foregoing facts I retaxed the Cost in said Cause as per bill hereto attached & marked Exhibit A this the 8th day of May 1889 J M Morrow Clerk Superior Court - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - North Carolina } Supr C't Mecklenburg County } May 21st 89 M. C. King et al vs Susan Miller et al It having been ordered at the last term of the Court that the Cash in the above Entitled Cause be retaxed by the Clerk. Therefore pursuant to said order I summoned all of the witnesses who proved their attendance in the above cause who being duly sworn and Examined by me said that the statements of the days attendance and the mileage as set forth in said Witness Tickets were true and correct. The following witnesses further stated that they were sworn in the trial of said Cause but not Examined, to wit R. H. Orr, W. D. Jammison, R J Monteith, J. L. V. Orr James Flow Jane McDonald & W J Hutchison. Also that they were summoned by the Defendant. Upon the foregoing facts, I retaxed the Cash in said Cause as per bill hereto attached & marked Exhibit "A" This the 8th day of May 1889 J M Morrow Clerk Superior Court - - - - - - - i t e m - - - - - - - Clerks Office and Susan Miller and others vs Geo King, M. C. King, Thomas Ellwood & John Ellwood & L. J. Walker Bill of Cost J. M. Morrow 10.85 2.40 J. R. Erwin 4.00 D. G. Maxwell .25 Smith J. P. Hunter .25 4.80 W. F. Griffith 1.80 T. S. Cooper .90 J. C. Dowd 1.50 J. W. Auten 2.40 J. H. Howie .60 Wm P. Little 1.20 C. M. Orr .30 #240 (torn) J. P. Hunter 11.86 alld 5 Dr. J. R. Irwin 3.70 J. A. Frazier 8.43 alld 2 J. S. McLure 8.43 alld 2 J. L. Deaton 1.10 C. M. Orr 8.43 alld 2 Grandison Miller 6.90 0 R. H. Orr 8.43 alld + W. D. Jamison 8.43 + R. J. Montgomery Monteith 8.43 alld J. L. V. Orr 5.30 alld + J. F. Holton 8.50 alld 2 John Henderson 8.43 alld 2 Jas Flow 4.10 + Jas McDonald 8.43 alld + Chas P. Henderson 8.56 alld 2 + W. J. Hutchison 4.36 alld + # 129.92 #153.97 Book G #167 Jury 3.00 $156.97