Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer




НазваниеDarby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer
страница7/121
Дата28.09.2012
Размер5.55 Mb.
ТипДокументы
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   121


Suit 733 #1: BOURBON CO., KY SUIT NO. 73317

PUGH HEIRS VS JOHN SHAWHAN

Transcription and Introduction by Robert E. Francis

Timeline by Ronald T. Shawhan

Introduction

In August, 1822, William Pugh entered a suit in chancery before the Bourbon Circuit Court, Bourbon County, Kentucky, against the heirs of Daniel Shawhan (1738-1791). Pugh listed the defendants as follows: "He (Pugh) therefore prays that, the said widow, the said John, Joseph, Daniel & Robert Shawhon, Isaac Williams & Nancy his wife, Wm Becket & Jane his wife may be defendants in this bill…" Pugh named John Shawhan, Daniel’s third son, as the primary defendant. The reader will note that the youngest daughter, Elizabeth, was not named as a defendant in the suit. The reason will become clear below.

The case is very complicated and requires some detailed examination of the points made by William Pugh in his suit. He claimed that he had purchased a right to 1/7th of the original 130 acres of land belonging to the heirs of Daniel Shawhan dec’d. In 1789, Daniel had purchased land from Reubin Rankin who provided him with a written bond with the promise that a deed was forthcoming. However, Daniel died before the deed could be drawn up; and, since Daniel died intestate, no formal division of the land took place between the widow and the children. This was the heart of Pugh’s argument and would become the basis for his claim to a portion of the land.

Pugh asserted that, since the land had never been legally divided amongst the heirs, no single co-heir could lay claim to the undivided property. Each child had a right to 1/7th of the remaining portion of the 130 acres after the widow’s dower. Pugh had a vested interest in this argument because on July 13, 1822, he had purchased 1/7th portion of the land from Elizabeth (Shawhan) and Eli Robertson. Elizabeth was the youngest daughter of Daniel and Margaret (Bell) Shawhan. In late September 1822, Pugh amended this claim to include a second 1/7th portion of the 130 acres after purchasing said portion from the eldest Shawhan daughter, Nancy, and her husband Isaac Williams. Pugh subsequently removed Nancy and Isaac as defendants in the suit.

Pugh directed his argument specifically against John Shawhan, the third son of Daniel. He accused John of fraudulently obtaining a deed for the land in his own name from a William Miller (the patentee for the land) on June 24, 1800. Pugh argued that, since the land had never been legally divided amongst the heirs, Shawhan had no right to an exclusive claim to the land. He stated that "John Shawhon, without the knowledge or consent of any of his brothers or sisters, except probably Joseph Shawhon who not long thereafter removed from sd land, obtained from Wm Miller the patentee, a deed for said 130 acres of land, in his own name without including therein any of the sd heirs of Daniel Shawhon dec’d". Additionally, Pugh argued that, since the deed was obtained illegally, 50% of the profits that came from the use of the land was now owed to the co-heirs of the land in question retroactive to the date of the illegal deed. I am guessing that this remuneration may have been a part of the "deal" that Pugh made with Elizabeth and Nancy. Pugh further argued that John Shawhan should pay the co-heirs and Pugh their rightful portion of "rents & profits that he has enjoyed" since illegally owning the land.

John Shawhan provided two responses countering Pugh’s claims. The first, submitted May 4, 1823, claimed that, because he had legally obtained a deed from William Miller for the 130 acres, neither Pugh nor any of his co-heirs had any legal claim to the land.. He argued that the co-heirs had verbally agreed upon the need of a legal deed and that he obtained the deed to protect the family against just such fraudulent claims as that put forth by William Pugh.

John’s amended response, filed in November 1826, showed a much more sober and legally savvy answer to William Pugh’s allegations. It seems that Pugh had called John on several points of his original testimony. John spent several pages of this 12 page deposition admitting that he had not clearly thought through the implications of his original deposition. He admitted to mistakes in judgement but denied having done anything wrong. He then painstakingly detailed the events leading up to the purchase of the deed from William Miller. The result of his testimony is an exceptional picture of life in the Shawhan family of Bourbon County, Kentucky, from the summer of 1789 until about 1810. John forcefully argued that he and his siblings had come to an agreement that he should purchase their interest in the land in order to keep the original 130 acres intact. He admitted that, while he and his siblings never entered into written agreements concerning the sale and transfer of their interests to John, everyone agreed to the arrangement. John considered these arrangements internal family affairs that, while informal, were nevertheless legally binding. Once these agreements were made, John then obtained a legal deed to the land in his name.

It is interesting to note that after this response John Shawhan became quite adept at the legal maneuverings of the court. He actively pursued the process of obtaining depositions from each of the siblings verifying the informal agreements of transfer, as well as witnesses to the original bond, the subsequent deed for the land, and a rather telling piece of paper showing that Mr. Eli Robinson and wife had agreed to sell their interest in the land for a horse.

In a will dated December 15, 1823, William Pugh named his nephew William Chiles as the complainant in the suit against John Shawhan and defendants. The will itself reveals some very interesting details. It looks as if William Pugh had made a deal with Nancy and Elizabeth and their husbands promising a "payoff" if the case proved successful. Eli Robertson and wife were to receive $200 and the Williams $50 for their bargain with Pugh! I wonder how John and family received this piece of information?

In passing, I should say a word about William Chiles. Chiles was something of an expert in litigation, having already been instrumental in another suit brought against John Shawhan brought by the Hoy family in 1821("Hoy Heirs vs. John Shawhan," Bourbon Circuit Court Suit #515). In this suit, Chiles petitioned the Court to have Shawhan’s property surveyed (see addendum). The Hoy’s ultimately lost the case. Chiles was also currently embroiled as defendant with several other families (including my 3rd great grandfather Nicholas Smith) in a law suit. This suit "Thomas Boone Heirs vs. William Chiles and others" made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court and was finally settled (in Chiles’ and my grandfather’s favor) in 1835.

While I am sure that Bourbon Circuit Court Suit #733 is a fairly unremarkable representation of civil suits of the day, from the standpoint of Shawhan family research, it is one of the most remarkable documents to come to light on our Bourbon County branch of the family. Until this time, we had no idea about the early years of this family. This researcher had assumed that the family moved to Bourbon County, cleared the land, established the now-famous Shawhan distillery, and became one of the more influential families of Bourbon and Harrison counties. The truth of the matter was that, after Daniel’s death and for several years following, the family barely eked out a living. John Shawhan assumed the role of the head of the household—and ex-facto father-figure—and determined to keep the family (and land) together against all odds. In the processing he may have succeeded in alienating some members of the family, especially Elizabeth, though this can only be conjectured.

The suit also clarifies some facts concerning the family that researchers have questioned for some time. Firstly, we now have definitive proof that Daniel and Margaret Shawhan had only seven children instead of the eight, as speculated in some quarters. The seven children are as follows: Robert, Daniel, Nancy, John, Jane, Elizabeth and Joseph. An eighth child, "Shawnson," mentioned in the Kentuckian-Citizen article "The Shawhans of Bourbon County," is now clearly ruled out. He is hereby relegated to the status of a "mystery" Shawhan.

Another little known family secret comes to light in this suit. Jane, the second daughter, had two children prior to marrying William Becket in 1802. The children’s names were Polly (born circa 1796) and Luke Shawhan (1799-1877). Polly married a Josiah Thomas and Luke married Nancy McComb. Nothing else is known about these children.

A small detail that could easily be missed is the bond between Reubin Rankin and Daniel Shawhan. Daniel’s signature is not on this bond. Why is this? Could it have been that Daniel was illiterate and another person, a "Daniel Mosby" signed for him? It’s pure speculation, of course, but worthy of consideration.

A final addition to our knowledge about this family is that Margaret Shawhan lived much longer than originally expected. If she was born in 1742 as family tradition reports, at the very least Margaret lived to grand old age of eighty-eight!

I have included a one page addendum to this suit from the above mentioned "Hoy vs. John Shawhan" suit because it provides the clearest survey plat of Daniel Shawhan’s property.

Robert E. Francis

May 10, 1999


Timeline

August 17, 1822 – Bourbon County Court. File Box 733; suit filed by Pugh heirs vs. John Shawhan. (Amended May, 1823). Suit states that William Miller obtained 300 acres on Townsend (Creek), then sold them to Wm. Hoy. Hoy sold land to Reuben Rankin, Robert Bell, and Pugh; Rankin sold his 130 acres to Daniel Shawhan who occupied land and made improvements. Daniel Shawhan died in 1791, intestate and the land descended to his children, John, Joseph, Daniel, Robert, Nancy (m. Isaac Williams), Jane (m. Wm. Becket), Elizabeth (m. Eli Robinson); his wife Margaret was administrator. The widow and children continued to live upon said 130 acres, and John made considerable improvements, particularly by way of clearing and enclosing land. Daniel Shawhan did not obtain a deed from Rankin. About 1800, John Shawhan, without the knowledge of his brothers and sisters, paid Miller $19 for a deed in his name; John Shawhan demanded and obtained said sum from Rankin. On July 13, 1822, Pugh purchased from Eli Robinson and wife, Elizabeth, their undivided seventh part. On Sept. 4, 1822, Pugh obtained from Isaac Williams and Nancy, his wife, a deed for their undivided seventh part. The orator (Pugh) demands that John Shawhan answer how many acres of cleared and cultivated land there is, and that rents, profits, and land be allotted to him accordingly.

Sept. 20, 1822 – Allegheny Co., PA deed filed that Isaac and Nancy Williams received $75.00 and conveyed their interest in 1/7th of the 130 acres where John Shawhan resides to Wm. Pugh and his heirs.

May 24, 1823 – Bourbon Co. Court. John Shawhan response to bill filed by William Pugh. Stated that the original bond of said Rankin to his father Daniel Shawhan, was dated Aug. 1789; that his father built a house on the land and his brother Daniel, who was married, built on another part of the land. Stated that William Miller obtained patent "on the waters of Townsend" for 330 acres, but denies that said Miller ever sold said land to Wm. Hoy or anyone else, though he had heard of a claim filed by Pugh, Rankin, and Bell for 330 acres. Stated that he (John) had made diligent search in offices of record for evidence showing sale of land from Miller to Rankin; admits that his father Daniel did purchase 130 acres of land from Rankin for the sum of $200 in 1789 and settled thereon. Some years later, as sisters were coming of age and getting married, and the land was too small to divide among all seven children, over the years, John made arrangements to obtain the land interests of his brothers and sisters, through their general willingness and consent. This included payment, on July 22, 1799, of a horse and additional dollars to Eli Robinson and his wife Elizabeth. for their interest, executed in writing. In July 1809 he contracted with his sister Jane. Other agreements were made with his brothers Daniel and Joseph. His brother Robert, and sister Nancy Williams, had stayed in Pennsylvania; and had already received land from their father Daniel. During this time, Wm. Miller informed John that the land on which he lived belonged to him (Miller), and threatened a suit; Miller exhibited title papers and said that he had never conveyed the land to any person – that Rankin’s claim was worthless. Miller asked for 19 pounds, 10 shillings for the land. John took time to examine the validity of Miller’s claim before concluding to pay the requested sum to Miller, with the knowledge of John’s coheirs, on June 24, 1800. Stated that Pugh had thrust himself into the family’s affairs for the sole purpose of making mischief.

Dec. 15, 1823 – Will signed by Wm. Pugh grants his claim against John Shawhan to his nephew, Will Chiles; filed with Bourbon Co., Court, July 1824.

Nov. 1826 – Bourbon Co., KY Court -- Amended Response of John Shawhan, John showed a much more legal response to William Pugh’s allegations. He spent several pages admitting that he had not clearly thought through the implications of his original response. He admitted to mistakes in judgement but denied having done anything wrong. He detailed the events leading up to the purchase of the deed from William Miller. John argued that he and his siblings had come to an agreement that he should purchase their interest in the land in order to keep the original 130 acres intact. He admitted that, while he and his siblings never entered into written agreements concerning the sale and transfer of their interests to John, everyone agreed to the arrangement, including his sister Nancy Williams in Pennsylvania. John considered these arrangements internal family affairs that, while informal, were nevertheless legally binding. Once these agreements were made, John then obtained a legal deed to the land in his name.

Nov. 16, 1826 – Deposition of Elizabeth Pugh, Bourbon Co., KY. Elizabeth was wife of Joseph Pugh. Stated that Daniel Shawhan had contracted to purchase 130 acres of land from Reuben Rankin, land which had formerly been "laid off by said Rankin, (my husband) Joseph Pugh, and Robert Bell" under a contract between them and Major Wm. Hoy. Also stated that her husband, John Shawhan, and others had settled with Wm. Miller.

Nov. 16, 1826 – Deposition of John Tucker, Bourbon Co., KY. Stated that he recalled a contract between Reuben Rankin, Joseph Pugh, and Robert Bell for 330 acres with Major Wm. Hoy; that Daniel Shawhan took possession of Rankin’s part. Also stated that Rankin had given a horse to John Shawhan as remuneration for the money that John had paid Miller.

Nov. 17, 1826 – Deposition of Joshua Hall, Bourbon Co., KY. Stated that he had seen the original receipt, dated July 1, 1803, that John Shawhan made out for receiving a horse valued at 19 pounds, 10 shillings, from Reuben Rankin.

Oct. 9, 1827 -- Deposition of Jane Shawhan Becket and Margaret Shawhan, Clark Co., IN. Jane was present in 1799 when Eli Robertson sold his share of the land to John Shawhan. Margaret attested that she witnessed Eli and Elizabeth (Shawhan) Robertson sign the July 22, 1799 release of their share to John Shawhan.

Oct. 25, 1827 – Deposition of Joseph Shawhan, Bourbon Co., KY. Stated that John Shawhan purchased the interest of Eli Robertson and wife by giving them a horse. Joseph witnessed seeing the receipt for said horse.

July 25, 1829 – Deposition of Jane Becket, Clark Co., IN. Stated that Daniel Shawhan bought 130 acres of land from Reuben Rankin and had Rankin’s bond for the title; the land was not surveyed. Daniel built a cabin adjoining corner of Robert Bell’s land. Her brother John became head of family. Land was too small to divide among heirs, so John commenced buying interests of other heirs. In the 1790s Wm. Miller made a claim on the land. The coheirs became alarmed and directed John to offer a compromise with Miller and to take a deed from Miller in his (John’s) own name. Stated further that John had purchased her interests and had also sold her brother Daniel’s share to Joseph and some 12 – 15 years later bought it back from Joseph; there were no deeds exchanged for these transactions.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   121

Похожие:

Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer iconThe Regular Meeting of the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Ocean was called to order on April 4, 2012 at 4: 00 P. M., Room 119, County Administration

Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer iconAsa maryland events | hb 1339 Introduced Call your State Delegates! Delegate Henry Heller (d-montgomery County) introduced legislation, hb 1339, that creates a task force to study the issues related to medical marijuana throughout the state of Maryland

Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer iconUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County Department of Social Work

Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer iconLoraine, Samuel (former L. C. V. I. Teacher) Died peacefully after a long illness in Kingston. He was born in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1923, son of Marie Winnifred

Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer iconBorn on September 9, 1742 in Scotland. John died in Scotland before 1805; he was 62

Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer iconCarman C. Jamieson, 49, Mountville, Pictou Co., died Friday, Feb. 12 at home. Born in Guysborough, he was a son of Frank and Nettie Jamieson. He had lived in

Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer iconMccully, Verna Mae Of The Mira, 426 Young Street, Truro, died January 23, 2001, in The Mira. Born in Poplar Grove, P. E. I., she was a daughter of the late

Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer icon1 David S. Cloud, “Here’s Donny! In His Defense, a Show Is Born,” The New York Times, April 19, 2006

Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer iconПрограмма развития гоу прогимназии №1736
Программа развития государственного образовательного учреждения города Москвы Прогимназии №1736 на 2010 – 2014 годы
Darby was born in Ireland in 1673. Darby died in Kent County, Maryland, on April 3, 1736; he was 63. Occupation: Farmer iconA cooperative of Partner Libraries in the State of Maryland Maryland AskUsNow! Plan a cooperative of Partner Libraries in the State of Maryland

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница