BEDFORD COUNTY, TN - COURT - Thomas Eakin vs William Sharp & Martin & Saml. Hancock ----¤¤¤---- Chancery Court Enrollment Book D, 1848 Pages 147-155 Thomas Eakin ¦ vs ¦ A Bill William Sharp ¦ Filed 5th February & Martin & Saml. Hancock ¦ 1852 To the Hnl. B. L. Ridley, Chancellor &c-Your orator Thomas Eakin a citizen of Bedford County, Tennessee, would respectfully show unto your Honor that on the 1st day of April 1850 the Sheriff of said County of Bedford by his Deputy William L. Lime sold at public sale as such Sheriff at the Court House in the town of Shelbyville a certain tract of land situate in said County in Civil District No. 1, adjoining the lands of John Jakes, George Jakes, William Stevens & others, and hereinafter more particularly described; at which said sale your orator became the purchaser of said land for the sum of seventy five dollars. Your orator would further state that said tract of land was sold as aforesaid as the property of one William Sharp of said county by virtue of six orders of sale issue to said Sheriff from the Circuit Court of said County on Six orders or judgments of condemnation of said land rendered at the December term 1849 of said Court-and returnable to the April term 1850. Said judgments of condemnation were founded on the levy of six executions on said tract of land issued on the following named judgments against sd. Sharp; to wit, two judgments recovered by B. G. White &Co. before James Hoover, a Justice of the Peace for sd. County on the 24th day of August 1849 for $57.16 each besides costs; two judgments recovered by John Eakin &Co. against him before the sd. Hoover on the 17th day of March 1849-one of them for $20.81-and the other for $19.32-besides costs-also one recovered by the Nashville & Chattanooga Rail Road Company, before John W. Hamlin, a Justice of the Peace for said County- for the sum of $9.06, besides costs-also one other judgment recovered by sd. John Eakin &Co. against sd. Sharp before Daniel Stephens also a Justice of the Peace for sd. County-for the sum of $42.06, besides costs; a transcript of all which judgments and proceedings will be produced on the hearing of this cause if required. Your orator further states that James M. Johnson, present Sheriff of Bedford County & successor in office to George W. Cunningham, who was Sheriff when the above land was sold as above stated, has executed to your orator a deed of conveyance for the same under his aforesaid purchases dated 24th day of January 1852-and duly registered, and which will be produced upon the hearing- but your orator, although the true owner thereof has not yet obtained the possession of said land to which he is entitled under his said purchase. Your orator would also represent that he is and ["has" crossed out] was at the time of sd. purchase the only surviving partner of the late firm of John Eakin &Co. the plaintiffs in three of the aforesaid judgments and that at the time of sd. purchase of the land aforesaid he was as such surviving partner a judgment creditor of said Sharp, to a considerable amount over the sum for which said land was sold and as such advanced his bid on said land within twenty days after said sale to the further sum of Seventy five dollars, according to the act of assembly in such cases provided. Your orator would also represent that the said William Sharp by deed dated 15th August 1842, conveyed to his brothers-in-law Martin & Samuel Hancock the tract of land purchased by your orators as aforesaid, supposed to contain Sixty two acres, for the pretended consideration of Six hundred dollars as expressed in said deed, also by deed of the same date the tract of land on which the said Sharp then lived situated in said County of Bedford containing three hundred and seventeen acres. Said Sharp also on the same day or the next day conveyed by Bill of Sale his Negroes to his sister-in-law Hannah Hancock, all of which conveyances were duly registered on the 16th day of said month in the Register's Office of Bedford County. Your orator would further represent that the said Sharp at the time he made said several conveyances was much embarrassed with debt and suits were pending against him for the recovery of debts and he has continued to be much embarrassed every since. Your orator expressly charges that all of said conveyances were made to hinder, delay and defraud the creditors of the sd. Sharp, more especially was this the case in regard to the conveyances of the said sixty two acre tract, and being made for this purpose and without consideration as your orator believes and charges are absolutely void. As part of the evidences(sic) that said conveyances were fraudulent your orator states that said Sharp continued in the possession and enjoyment of all said property, especially the two tracts of land from the date of said conveyances until about the close of the year 1850, and cultivated and used them as before said transfers. In the year 1849 when the above named executions were levied on sd. small tract of land said Sharp claimed it as his property and told the officer to levy on it. Your orator would further state that on or about the 27th May 1850 the said Sharp made another conveyance of said 317 acre tract of land to the sd. Martin and Samuel Hancock for the consideration of four thousand four hundred dollars as expressed in the deed, which they received and which your orator supposes may have been paid and bona fide, but is of itself evidence that the conveyances of August 1842 were fraudulent and void. Your orator states that the said Martin and Samuel Hancock, or one of them, have been in the possession of the tract of land purchased by your orator as aforesaid for more than a year past, claiming it under the deed of August 1842, and have cut a large quantity of valuable timber on it and hauled it off & appropriated it to their own use. Your orator charges that said tract of land is principally valueable(sic) on account of the valuable timber upon it; that the soil is of little or no value for agricultural purposes; and if the sd. Hancocks are permitted to use and destroy the timber as they are now doing, the tract will be rendered valueless and your orator will not be able to realize any benefit from it. Your orator further charges that the said deed of August 1842, executed by the said Sharp to the said Martin and Samuel Hancock for said tract of land, although fraudulent, is a cloud and incumbrance(sic) upon your orator's title to said land, acquired under the aforesaid Sheriffs sale. In consideration of the premises and inasmuch as your orator is without adequate redress save in your Honorable Court, he prays your Honor that the said Martin Hancock and William Sharp, citizens of Bedford County and the sd. Samuel Hancock, a citizen of Coffee County, be made defendants to this Bill- that copies & subpoenas issue &c-and that said defendants be required upon their oath to make full, true and perfect answers to the several allegations in this Bill as fully as if they were here again severally repeated, and may it please your Honor to enjoin and restrain the said defendants, or either of them, from cutting timber on said tract, and committing further waste thereon until the final hearing. And may it please your Honor upon the hearing to declare the deed of August 1842 to said Martin and Samuel Hancock for said land void, and set the same aside, which said tract is bounded and described as follows- "Situate in Bedford County, on the waters of Scott's Branch, beginning on a beech and buckeye tree, running thence North 12° East 63 poles to a poplar in a hollow, thence with the meanders of the hollow South 11° East 38 poles to a stake, thence South 35° East 42 poles to a walnut & honey locust in Harrison Gaston's West boundary line, thence South across a ridge to a beech in John Jakes North boundary line, thence West with said line to a stake at the end of the lane between Jakes and William Stevens, thence with Stephens line to two Sugar(sic), said Stevens North East boundary, thence West with his line to his North West corner in George Stephenson's line, thence North West with said Stevens line to a chesnut(sic), thence with his line North East to a stake in William Robinson's line, thence South 66° East to the beginning." May it also please your Honor on the hearing to decree that an account be taken of the value of the timber cut and wasted on said tract by the said defendants Hancocks since your orator's sd. purchase and that the same be paid to your orator; and also to decree to your orator the possession as well as the title of said tract of land, and such other and further relief grant your orator in the premises as he may be justly and equitably entitled to-and as in duty bound &c- Whiteside & Davidson Sols. Answer The separate answer of Martin Hancock to the Bill of Complaint filed against him and others in the Chancery Court at Shelbyville by Thomas Eakin. This Respondent saving and reserving the usual exceptions to Complainant's Bill for answer thereto states, that he knows nothing of the recovery of the several judgments described in Complainants Bill; of the levy of the executions issued from said judgments on the land described in said Bill-of the judgments of condemnation, and the subsequent sale of said land under the orders of sale issued thereon and the purchase thereof by the Complainant; and therefore he insists on their production for the examination of the Court. He is induced to do this and is strengthened in the belief that the facts are not as stated in Complainant's Bill, because as he is informed and believes the judgment in favor of B. G. White &Co. was not pressed to collection with their consent, when they were informed that Respondent had jointly and honestly bought the said land. Respondent states that he bought the tract of land now sought to be reached bona fide and in good faith of William Sharp on the 15th day of August 1842- for the consideration of Six hundred dollars, every dollar of which he has faithfully paid over to said Sharp, or in satisfaction of the debts of the sd. Sharp, years before the recovery of the Complainant's judgment or the sale under said "venditione exponas" at which he purchased. That it is true that the deed executed by William Sharp conveyed the said land to Respondent and Samuel Hancock, but Samuel Hancock by deed has long since conveyed his interest in the said land to the Respondent. Respondent admits that on or about the same time the deed for Sixty one acres was executed-that William Sharp also conveyed a larger tract of land to this Respondent and Samuel Hancock-and that he afterwards on the 27th day of May 1850 did execute another deed for the 317 acre tract to Respondent and Samuel Hancock, which Respondent received, but Respondent did this not because the original trades between William Sharp & them were fraudulent, but because a judgment creditor had found filed a Bill and by process of attachment and Injunction had obtained a portion of the purchase money then in Respondent's hands, which Respondent knew he would have to pay and he did not deem it necessary to defend said Bill, knowing that having the money in his hands he would have to pay the debt and not because it was intended by William Sharp & Respondent to defraud any or either one of William Sharp's creditors and being informed that such a decree had been rendered in the Chancery Court in favor of George W. Fogleman as rendered said sale void for fraud, he did upon the advice of counsel take a new deed for the 317 acre tract having fully & fairly at the time of the deed paid up all the purchase money. No such cause existed as to the tract of land now in dispute. Respondent's title to that had never been disputed. He had been the quite uninterrupted possession of it for more than seven years, using and enjoying it as his own, no complaint against it fairness-and therefore Respondent was greatly astonished when served with a copy of Complainant's Bill. Respondent did not at the time he made said purchase, nor has he since by any arrangement which he has made with William Sharp in regard to said land, intend to hinder, delay or defraud any of the then existing or subsequent creditors of William Sharp-and he therefore most positively denies those charges in Complainant's Bill. Respondent has committed no waste on said land; has cut but little timber off of it; but has ever since his purchase treated it as his own and used and enjoyed it as such. Respondent knows nothing of William Sharp's claiming said land in 1844 as his own, on the contrary as Respondent believes William Sharp has always stated that said land was Respondent's in accordance with what he knew to be true-and having fully answered Respondent prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs. E. & H. Cooper Sols. Transcribed by Dan S. Sharp from a copy of the original, 7 May 2003 ___________________________________________________________________ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by: Dan S. Sharp dansharp@adelphia.net ___________________________________________________________________