COFFEE COUNTY, TN - COURT - Lucinda Lee vs A. Jacobs, C. C. Jacobs, et al., February 9, 1874 ----¤¤¤---- Coffee County, Tennessee, Chancery Court Loose Papers, 1853-1902 File Number 267 Bill of Complaint To the Hon. A. S. Marks Chancellor &c Presiding at Manchester, Tenn The Bill of Complaint of Lucinda Lee a citizen of Cannon County, Tennessee, Wm F. Moore and wife Elizabeth, citizens of the State of Kentucky, William A. Baynes, James P. Baynes, James C. Hawz and wife Mary A. Hawz, (Temp?) Neal and wife Lucy A. Neal, ______ Fogle and wife Elizabeth Fogle, all of the State of Kentucky—Complts. Wm, Jas. P., Mary A., Lucy A. and Elizabeth being children of the late Tabitha Baynes, and Phillip Henry of Ky a minor and having no regular Guardian sues by John A. Lee his cousin as his next friend, … against 1A. Jacobs of Coffee Co., 2C. C. Jacobs of Coffee Co., Tenn., 3Wesley Jacobs of Coffee Co., Tenn., 4Dovey Jacobs, 5Mary Ann Jacobs of Coffee Co., 6Rebecca Jacobs, 7James Jacobs of (?) Co., Tenn., 8William Jacobs of Coffee and 9Narcissa Jacobs of Coffee Co.—the last seven are children of J. J. Jacobs Decsd—(a son of Jeremiah Jacobs desd)—8William Jacobs of Coffee Co., 9Stokely Jacobs of Coffee Co., 10Sarah now the wife of 11E(?) Barnes of Coffee Co., 12William Pearson of Bedford Co., Tenn., 13Louiza Sharp (widow of Martin Sharp) formerly Louisa Jacobs and if living residing in the State of Missouri, 14the minor children whose names are unknown of Eleanor the former wife of M. S. Hancock, residing in Coffee Co., Tenn., 15Catharine (Pray?) of Coffee Co. (Dovey Jacobs married a man named Yardley and moved to Texas) (The number of minors among the children of J. J. Jacobs are unknown to complts.) John Arnold of Coffee County, Mary Ann Dye & husband Leroy Dye of Coffee Co., Tenn., Harvey Arnold, John Arnold, and Elizabeth Arnold the last four (except L. Dye) being children of William Arnold decsd and all reside in Coffee Co., Tenn. Elizabeth is a minor with no regular Guardian; N. G. Norton and wife Lenora—John Grissom & wife Lucy (formerly Lucy Gregary) of Kentucky, Mary Ann Gregory of Ky. who married a man whose name is unknown to complts., but believed to be King, and Eveline who married ______ Doughtery—given name unknown—as Complts are informed, also of Ky., (Bealsy?) Gaither and wife Malissa formerly Malissa Gregary. Grissom’s wife Kings wife, Doughtery’s wife and Gaither’s wife were and are children of Mary Ann Gregary a daughter of John Arnold deceased, and against the minor children of John W. Baynes Decsd (who was a son of Tabitha Baynes Decsd) and are made defts that they may be also brought before the court by publication—their given names not being known at this drawing of this bill. Also Marshal Duncan, Abner Obles & wife Eveline, formerly Eveline Duncan, of Coffee County, Tenn. Children of Matilda Duncan deceased, the minor child of Anna Jacobs decsd formerly Anna Duncan who was the wife of W. F. Jacobs, said minor named Anna Jacobs, of Coffee Co., Robert Jacobs, Stokely Jacobs, Henry Jacobs of Coffee Co., Tenn., and Harvey Jacobs whose residence is unknown, and the minor children of John Jacobs deceased (son of Anna Jacobs) and Ann, James, Joseph, and Matilda Anderson, all minor children of Elizabeth Anderson decsd (formerly E. Duncan) said minors residing in Rutherford County and have no regular Guardian. All of these last above named being descendents of Matilda Duncan, who was a daughter of John Arnold decsd. Complaining your orators and oratrixes show to your Honor that about the year 1851 John Arnold departed this life intestate in Coffee County, Tenn., the owner in fee of large and valuable tracts of land in said County on the Garrison fork of Duck river and on Narston’s branch of said Garrison fork—the tract on the Garrison fork contained about Three hundred acers(sic), and the other about two hundred acers(sic); the (???) or most of said 300 acers(sic) being now in the possession of Defts A. Jacobs [inserted above: & Stokely Jacobs] and Deft. N. G. Norton and wife, and the 200 acers(sic) save about 24 ¾ acers(sic) being held by Deft John Arnold, all of which can be more particularly defined if necessary. Said intestate was the father of Complainants Lucinda Lee and Elizabeth Moore and the Grandfather of Complainants William A. Baynes and others of that name, and he also left surviving him as his widow Anna Arnold the mother of Complts Lucinda and Elizabeth and the following other children of the said John and Anna Arnold, to wit Matilda Duncan wife of Wm. Duncan; Nancy Gaither wife of Jeremiah Gaither; Lenora Norton wife of (Naasnan?) G. Norton; Tabitha Baynes wife of Philip Baynes, William Arnold and John Arnold, and the children of his deceased daughter Mary Ann Gregary who was the wife of John D. Gregory. These and the children or descendants of those who are dead are the only heirs at law of John Arnold decsd. Complts W. F. Moore and wife Elizabeth are yet living. Grissom Lee, husband of Complt Lucinda, died in the year 1853; Deft N. G Norton and wife are yet living. Complainants further show to your Honor that after the death of old man Arnold, his widow Anna Arnold was endowed of a portion of the lands of her deceased husband, and the allotment to her was a tract of about 81 acers(sic) on the Garrison and about 24 acers(sic) of the lands on Norton’s Branch; this was done under proceedings in the County Court of Coffee County upon the petition of N. G. Norton & wife and others vs Wm. Arnold and John Arnold and under the same proceedings where Dower was assigned, the sale of the valance of the lands for partition was sought and effected, and your Complainants aver and charge that the proceedings and decrees procuring the sale of the balance of said lands were, as they are advised and believe, not only irregular and defective, but for very many reasons and grounds which can be shown, null and void and therefore a fraud upon the rights of those interested in the lands. And in this connection and with regard to the lands outside of this Dower, your Complt Lucinda Lee, and Complts the Baynesis(sic) as set out in the Captions, ask to reserve the right by an amendment to this bill should they desire it and deem it necessary to insist upon the invalidity of said proceedings as regards the lands outside of the dower; and also to show that the purchasers at said sale, because of a collusion and conspiracy between themselves (or a portion of them) (???), and before the day of sale, in their own behalf and in fraud of other parties in interest, and especially in violation of fiduciary relations which Jeremiah Jacobs assumed towards complts and others when he obtained deeds and entered into obligations as will be hereinafter set out,— vitiated said sale however regular or irregular, perfect or imperfect, the proceedings in the court may have between, and that by reason of said collusion and fraud said purchasers took as valid title. These averments are now here set out to show the connection of a series of impositions and frauds practiced upon complainants by issuing soon after the death of John Arnold and which will more fully appear from the allegations hereafter in regard to the course of said Jeremiah Jacobs and his children. Your orators further show your Honor that the dower lands are set forth and particularly describe as shown on papers hereto attached. (See description by boundaries). Your Complainants further show that about the ___ day of _____ 1857 the widow Anna Arnold died, and after her death a petition was filed in said County Court in the names of of Defts John Arnold, Wm Arnold, N. G. Norton and wife, A. Jacobs, C. C. Jacobs, and others—adults and minors (as heirs of John Arnold decsd and as heirs of Jeremiah Jacobs deceased) against John Grissom & wife and others for the sale of said dower tracts, and under said proceedings a decree of sale for partition was obtained, and the large tract was sold on the 3rd March 1858, and Deft A. Jacobs and William Arnold became the purchasers at $45.50 per acer(sic), making in the aggregate $3685.50. The other tract was on this same day offered, but not sold for want of bidders as reported by the Clerk H. S. Emersons, and before it was again offered by the clerk it was enjoined under the fiat of the late Chancellor Ridley on a bill (?icted) in this court by your Complts W. F. Moore & wife Elizabeth (who had not been made parties to said proceedings) setting up their claims in said dower tracts. Said last bill by Moore & wife and the proceedings thereunder in this Hon. Court were lost and consumed in the burning of the courthouse at Manchester in 1870 as your orators have been informed and believe, said small tract has never since been sold or offered for sale; and the rights of Complts Moore and wife were set up and established under their bill by decree declaring and giving to Complt Elizabeth as one of the heirs of John Arnold one ninth of each of said tracts; and Complts Moore and wife have since by deed of the ___ day of _____ 1872 conveyed said interest in the 81 acers(sic) to Deft A. Jacobs who has paid them for it; but they have never parted with their interest in the other tract of 24 ¾ acers(sic) on Norton’s branch. A copy of said deed will be produced in necessary. Your Complainants Lucinda Lee, and the other Complainants who sue as children and heirs of Tabitha Baynes deceased, and likewise interested in said Dower lands, were not made parties to the petition of A. Jacobs and others in the County Court for sale of said lands as refered(sic) to above, and they all insist that they are in no wise affected or bound by said proceedings of which they had no notice and were not made parties. Your Complainant Wm F. Moore and wife Elizabeth, heard of they proposed sale of said lands, only a day or so before the day and were too late to get the fiat of the Chancellor upon the Clerk before he had taken actions as above stated. Your Complainants are advised and charge and insist that the said proceedings by the County Court are and were wholly unauthorized by law, and that the sale under them ought to be declared Null and void. Minors are made parties applicants; all the heirs of John Arnold were not brought before the Court; no such proof was was (sic) ever taken as is required under the laws to authorize the sale of lands for partitions in such cases. The proof on file upon which the report of the clerk is made and the Decree is based is wholly inadequate according to our law and authorities. The Petition contains loose and broad averments, to sustain which there is no proof, adduced or on file, and for these and various other reasons apparent on the face of the proceedings and in the filings, your complainants are advised and insist & charge that the whole proceedings are null and void and a fraud upon your complainants rights. Your Complainants would further show that Jeremiah Jacobs the father of Defts A. Jacobs, C. C. Jacobs, and other Defts—held in his life time a deed from Complt Moore and wife, Baynes & wife Tabitha, Grisson Lee and wife complt Lucidna, and Jeremiah Gaither & wife Nancy and it was through these deeds that his heirs and others sought to ignore their rights in the dower lands when your Complainant aver, and will be able to prove, that said deeds never had any reference to the dower land, and that it was the understanding at the time they were given, both of the bargainers, and the bargainee, that said deed was only intended to embrace interests in the lands of John Arnold decsd outside of the Dower. Said deeds are to be found on record in the Registers office of Coffee County, copies of which will be produced if necessary, but your orators charge that said original deeds were in the possession of Jeremiah Jacobs at the time of his death and suppose they fell into the hands of someone of the Defendants his children and they are asked to be required to file the same if they are in possession of either of them and let Defts A. Jacobs, C. C. Jacobs, S. D. Jacobs, Norton & wife each answer if he has not possession of one or more of said original deeds, and especially the one from Wm F. Moore & wife and the one from G. Lee & wife, and the from Phillip Baynes & wife to the said Jeremiah Jacobs decsd, who was the Uncle of Complts Elizabeth & Lucinda. Your Complainants further state that at the time said deeds were given to said Jeremiah Jacobs, he executed on his part to your complainants Moore & wife and to Grissom Lee and his wife, Complainant Lucinda, an obligation covering the sum specified in each deed agreed on as the consideration for the interest each conveyed in the deed, and said obligation, according to the recollection of your Complainants Moore and wife and Complainant Lucinda Lee, also contained a stipulation that if the lands of John Arnold, outside of the widow’s dower, when sold, should bring more than enough for the aggregate to make the one ninth thereof exceed the sum of $400 mentioned in the deed of each, or as agreed on then, that said Jeremiah Jacobs was to pay each enough to make up the full ninth part of the sale proceeds; it being at the time the expectation of said Jeremiah Jacobs and Moore & wife and Lee & wife and others that the lands outside of the dower tracts—then to be laid off—would soon be sold for partition. Complts Respondent Moore and wife on their part aver that such was the understanding and agreement between them & Jeremiah Jacobs at the time of this trade and the giving of said deed, and according to their recollection such were substantially the terms of the obligation from Jeremiah Jacobs, and if the particular terms were not fully and specifically set out in said obligation from said Jacobs, such was the express and positive agreement between them at the time and this forms the real consideration of the deed (from?) (th?) some years after this, that obligation was paid off, and the obligation itself, which was placed by Moore & wife in the hands of an agent to collect for them, was, as they are informed, delivered, on settlement, by said agent under direction of Jeremiah Jacobs to Deft A. Jacobs who for his father satisfied said obligation and took it up, and complainants infer that said A. Jacobs yet has said obligation, and he is called upon to say if he has it not, and if he has, to produce it or any others of said obligation that may have been given to others for the ninth interest deeds to his father. Complainants Lucida avers the same state of facts as to the execution of deed by her and her husband to said Jeremiah Jacobs, and the giving of obligation by said Jacobs to them, and she has the same recollection as to the terms and conditions of her obligation. She does not remember what has become of her obligation, but supposes it also went into the possession of her uncle Jeremiah, or some of his children and she calls for its production and exhibit if in the possession of either of them. Complainant Moore and wife and Complainant Lucinda respectively aver as their recollection that the sum agreed on at the time to be specified in their Respective deeds as the consideration was four hundred dollars instead of six as appears from the Register’s book, and they believe if the original deeds are produced it will be so seen from them as well as from the counter obligation from A. Jacobs to them respectively as above stated. Complt Lucinda Lee further avers that she has never even received all of $400 dollars, that three hundred and sixty is all she has ever received from the proceeds of her father’s very valuable lands. Complts Moore and wife and Complt Lucida Lee not from personal knowledge but from information and beliefs aver respectively that the same or similar agreements and conditions entered into the negotiations between Jeremiah Jacobs and Baynes and wife, and Jeremiah Gaither and wife Nancy and the co- complainants the children and heirs of Tabitha Baynes as such upon information and belief adopt and make the same averments so far as pertinent to their rights as heirs and representatives of their deceased mother, insisting that said proceedings of the County Court are as to them also null and void and in fraud of their rights, and seeking also the interposition of your Honor’s court to declare and establish their rights in the (premises?). Your Complainants have not designated the children and descendants of Nancy Gaither deceased as defendants to this bill but if it becomes necessary will ask that it be done; but having learned that a bill is now pending in your Honor’s Court in the name of John Gaither vs A. Jacobs & others—seeking their mother’s share in the Dower lands aforesaid they ask if it is proper that this bill of complainants may be consolidated with that. The premises considered (sic) your orators and oratrixes insist that the sale of said 81 acers(sic) of the Dower lands by Decree of the County Court proceedings, and under the circumstances as before stated, was Null and void and communicated not title, and from said complainants have never received any thing and that so far as those proceedings are concerned insist that they are yet the legal owners of their shares of said lands, and they come into your Honors Court seeking to have their titles established and all clouds caused by said illegal proceedings, and the actions of a portion of Defendants as already set out recovered. Your Complainanant(sic) Baynes is, were residing in Kentucky at the time of said sale (and are yet now residents of Tennessee) had no knowledge of said proceedings , were not parties to said suit and their mother’s interest in said lands were never received by her, and as before stated her descendants have never received or enjoyed any part of it. Your Complainant Moore & wife having as already stated recently sold their interest in the 81 acers(sic) to defendant A. Jacobs, claim only their right or portion of the other tract of 24 ¾ acers(sic) and come into your honor’s court for the sale of it. The premises considered your Complainants pray your Honor that process may issue, that order of publication as to now resident defendants be made that Guardians ad litums be appointed for the minors; that those named as Defendants be made such and that they be required to fully answer all the allegations of this bill and on the hearing that your honor will declare Null and void the proceedings in said County Court, and by Decree declare and establish the titles of your Complainants, of Complainant Lucinda Lee to the one ninth of said lands, and to Complainant Baynes to the ninth which belonged to their deceased mother Tabitha Baynes, and to Complainant Moore and wife as before set out, and at this same time by your Honor’s decrees settle and adjust the rights and interest of other heirs of John Arnold deceased if others who are made defendants claim and are entitled to relief. That your Honor will decree the resale of said Dower lands for distribution of proceeds to the respective parties who under the law and equities of the case may be entitled &c. and your Complainants pray for all such other orders, Judgments and decrees in their behalf to which under all the allegations of this bill and under the proofs to be made they may be entitled and your Honor may be authorized to Grant, and for all full other and general relief & as in duty bound they will ever pray, &c. Gillman & Price Solicitors for Complts. S.E. Carnes [Note: The antecedent superscript numbering of defendants appears not to be consistent in its sequence, with the number 8 being associated with mention of the name of William Jacobs twice, and the number 9 first associated with Narcissa Jacobs and then Stokely Jacobs.] Transcribed by Dan S. Sharp from a copy of the original provided by Joan W. Pruett from the Tennessee State Library and Archives, 26 December 2003. ___________________________________________________________________ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by: Dan Sharp ___________________________________________________________________