June 3, 1803
Mr. Rankin this is to satesfy you that brother John and I has divid the land and I am satisfied so you may pay him up and save more trouble
July 1, 1803
Received of Reubin Rankin one hors of £19.10 valieu in consideration of the sum I paid William Miller in regard of the land I now liv on
Test John Shawhan
Joshua Hall July 1st 1803
July 17th 1809
Then received of John Shawhan the written mentioned sum of forty dollars in good property and by this we do agree to Releese him and his heirs from the within mentioned Luke and Polly in consideration of the within mentioned contract.
July 13, 1822
State of Indiana
I Isaac Shelby Clerk of the Circuit Court of Clark County within the second Judicial Circuit in the State aforesaid, do certify that Thomas J. Todd and Lemuel Ford Esquires Before whom the within and foregoing Indenture appears to have been acknowledged by the within named Eli Robertson and Elizabeth his wife the Grantors thereto subscribed—And whose Certificate thereof Appears hereon written, were at the time of receiving such acknowledgements and still are two of the Justices of the Peace in and for our said County of Clark duly Elected commissioned and qualified and that full faith and credit are due and ought to be given to all their Official acts as well in Courts of Justice, as thereonto, In Testimony whereof I have hereto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of Our said Court the 13th day of July 1822.
J. Shelby, Clk
Bourbon County Court Clerks (rwo words illegible) Augt 3rd 1822 This deed of bargain and sale from Eli Robertson & wife to William Pugh was this day produced to me in my office and the same together with the certificates thereon endorsed is thereupon duly recorded in my office--Thomas P. Smith
July 17, 1822
This Indenture made the 17th day of July 1822 Between Eli Robinson & Elizabeth his wife, late Eizabeth Shawhon (daughter of Daniel Shawhon dec’d) of Clark County Indiana, of the one part and William Pugh of Bourbon County Kentucky of the other part—Witnesseth, that the said Eli & Elizabeth for and consideration of the sum one dollar lawful money to them in hand paid by the said William the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged have granted, bargained & sold, and by these presents do grant, bargain and sell unto the said William his heirs and assigns forever, all that certain piece of or parcel of land lying and situate in the County of Bourbon & State of Kentucky aforesaid, being the one equal undivided seventh part of a tract of one hundred & thirty acres being part of a tract on which one John Shawhon now lives on Townsend—the said one hundred and thirty acres being a tract which descended from said Dan’l Shawhon dec’d to his children of whom said John & Elizabeth were two.
Together with all and singular the heriditaments & appertenances thereunto belonging or appertaining—To have and to hold the said equal undivided one seventh part of said tract unto the said William Pugh his heirs & assigns, forever.
In Testimony whereof the said Eli & Elizabeth have hereunto set their hands & seals signed and delivered
In presence of Eli Robertson (seal)
P. Morrison her
State of Indiana
We Thomas J. Todd & Lemuel Ford Justices of the Peace in aforesaid County & State do hereby certify that on this 17th day of July 1822 personally appeared before us Eli Robinson & Elizabeth his wife, known to us as the grantors of the within deed and generally acknowledged that they executed the same as their act & did for the uses & purposes therein expressed. The said Elizabeth being by us examined separately & apart from her said husband acknowledged that she executed the same freely, without any fear, threats or compulsion of (illegible word) from her said husband and at the same time relinguished all her estate in & right & title of dower to the land within described & conveyance.
Thomas J. Todd (seal)
Lemuel Ford (seal)
We the justices of the Peace whose names are (word illegible) to the aforesaid Certificate of Sale & acknowledgement—do hereby farther certify—that the aforesaid deed was made & executed & delivered on the 13th day of this month—but by mistake was wrongly dated to wit, on the 17th and that by a similar error the same mistake was made in our certificate above—which Certificate we have so altered, as to make the above date correct.
In testimony whereof we hereunto affix our hand & seals this 15th day of July 1822.
Tho. J. Todd (seal)
Lemuel Ford (seal)
August 24, 1822
To the Honble the Judge of the Bourbon circuit court in chancery siting your orator William Pugh would shew that in the year (blank) a certain William Miller obtained a patent for three hundred and thirty acres of land situate in the now county of Bourbon on Townsend. All which will more fully appear by the patent, which if necessary will hereafter be filed & made a part of this bill—That said patentee previously to the (emanation?) of his patent, to wit, on the (blank) day of (blank) in the year (blank) sold to a certain Wm Hoy the whole of sd 330 acres of land to a certain Reubin Rankin, Robert Bell & Joseph Pugh, and executed to them a bond therefor binding himself to convey the title to the land. That about the year 1788, the said Rankin, Bell & Pugh made a friendly partition of said 330 acres among themselves, by metes & (word illegible) that Rankin’s portion was 130 acres. That Pugh & Bell about the same time entered upon their respective parts of said land. That about the same time the said Rankin sold to a certain Daniel Shawhon his said 130 acres so as aforesaid alloted to him in said partition; and executed to him a bond therefor binding himself to convey the title of said land to said Daniel. That said Daniel Shawhon immediately settled upon said 130 acres, made valuable & lasting improvements, & resided thereupon untill his death which happened in the year 1791. That the said Daniel departed this life intestate leaving said land to descend among his children, of whom there were seven in number, whose names were John, Joseph, Daniel & Robert Shawhon, Nancy who has since intermarried with a certain Isaac Williams, Jane Shawhon, who has since intermarried with a certain Wm Becket, and Elizabeth Shawhon, who has since intermarried with a certain Eli Robinson—That the said decedent Daniel left his wife Margaret Shawhon a widow who obtained letters of administration upon said decendents estate, from the county court of Bourbon—Your orator would shew that said Daniel Shawhon during his life did not obtain a deed for said land from his vendor Rankin or from any other person. That the said widow & children continued to reside upon said 130 acres of land for ten or twelve years; and during that time the said (word illegible) of said Daniel Shawhon made considerable lasting & valuable improvements, particularly by way of clearing & inclosing land, in addition to the improvements made by said Daniel in his life time. That about ten or twelve years after the death of said Daniel, the said widow & all the children except John & Joseph removed from said land & never since returned to said land. That during this said ten or twelve years, say in the year 1800, the said 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 said 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 That sd John All which will more fully appear by reference to sd deed a copy of which is made a part of this bill. That the said John paid said Miller upwards of 19 pounds for the purpose of procuring said title, the said Miller pretenting there was that sum due to him from afs’d Hoy, towards said 130 acres of land. That said John Shawhon shortly after procuring said deed applied to sd Rankin, who had sold said 130 acres of land to sd decedent Daniel Shawhon, and demanded from him the said sum which he said John had paid said Miller, and obtained the same in full from sd Rankin, & thereby reinbursed himself the money which he had paid to said Miller. That since said Joseph Shawhon removed from said land, which was in the year 18 (last two digits missing) the said John Shawhon has solely enjoyed occupied and enjoyed said 130 acres of land. That there has never been a partition of said land among the said heirs of sd Daniel Shawhon dec’d nor has said John ever released his title legal title so improperly obtained, to and am sd heirs. Nor has dower ever been alloted to said widow in said land.
Your orator would represent that on the 13th day of July 1822, he purchased from said Eli Robinson & Elizabeth his wife their undivided seventh part of said 130 acres of land and obtained from them a deed therefor, which is recorded in the clerk’s office of the Bourbon county court, & is hereby made a part of this bill. That said John has enjoyed the whole & entire profits of said land since about the year 1800, except for a few years thereafter during which said Joseph remained thereon, and has never accounted with his (word illegible) for their portions of said profits, or any part thereof. That during that time sd John has commited great (word illegible) and destruction of timber upon said land. He 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 to this bill; and that, inasmuch as he stands in the shoes of said Robinson & wife, and is without remedy at law, they may be compelled to answer the allegations of this bill in as full and ample manner as if again put by way of interrogatory: And he prays that said John particularly may on his corporal oath answer state how (word or words illegible) of cleared land there are in said tract of (word or words illegible) cultivation? How long he enjoyed the said (word or words illegible) (conpinction??) with said Joseph Shawhon & how (word or words illegible) alone? What was the average value of each acre of that land by the year as (word or words illegible) He prays that said defendants be compelled by a decree of this court, to make partition of sd land (word illegible) allot to that each be alloted his respective portion of sd land, & your orator have the portion of said Robinson & wife alloted to him—He further prays that said John upon a final hearing of this case be compelled to release to the said parties his title so as afs’d, obtained. He further prays that said John be compelled to account with said heirs & your orator for the rents & profits that he has enjoyed said land separately, & for one half of them during the time he enjoyed the same in conjunction with sd Joseph. He also prays that he be compelled to account for the waste and destruction of timber, by him commited—He states said John has the possession of the land executed as afs’d Rankin to sd Daniel dec’d, (Word illegible) that he be compelled to produce & file the same in this suit—He states that Robert Shawhon, Isaac Williams & Nancy his wife, Wm Becket & Jane his wife & sd Margaret the nonresidents & therefore he prays an order of publication ag’t them, & he prays such other and further relief as to equity belongs & the nature of his case requires & be as in duty bound with pray it.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky to the Sheriff of Harrison County Greeting: We command you to summon John Shawhan to appear before the judge of our Bourbon circuit court at the courthouse in Paris on the 18th day of our present August Term to answer a bill in chancery exhibited against him by William Pugh And this he shall in no wise omit under the penalty of one hundred pounds. And have there then this witness Thomas Arnold clerk of our said court at the courthouse aforesaid this 24th day of August 1822. In the 31st year of our Commonwealth. Thos. Arnold
September 7, 1822
This indenture made and entered into the seventh day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two between Isaac Williams and Nancy his wife late Nancy Shawhan, of Allegheny County, State of Pennsylvania, of that one part, and William Pugh, of the County of Bourbon and State of Kentucky of the other part. Witnesseth, that the said Isaac Williams and Nancy his wife, for in consideration of the sum of seventy five dollars lawful money of the United States to them in hand paid, the receipt thereof is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents do grant bargain and sell, and convey unto the aforesaid William Pugh his heirs and assigns forever, all their right title interest and claim in and to that certain tract or parcel of land situate lying and being in the said county of Bourbon and State of Kentucky being the one equal undivided seventh part of a tract of one hundred and thirty acres upon which John Shawhan now resides, and on which Daniel Shawhan resided at before his death; which said tract of land descended to the children of said Daniel Shawhan of which the aforesaid Nancy is one. Together with all and singular the appertances and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining, together with the rents and profits, ways watercourses and yards. To have and to hold unto the said William Pugh, his heirs and assigns forever. In testimony whereof the said Isaac Williams and Nancy his wife have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above, mentioned.
Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of
Thomas Enoch Isaac Williams
Robert Christy Nancy Williams
Received on the day of the day and date of the above Indenture, of and from the above named William Pugh, the sum of seventy five dollars lawful money of the United States; being the (word illegible) money above mentioned in full
Daniel Williams Isaac Williams
City of Pittsburg, State of Pennsylvania
We Thomas Enoch and Robert Christy esquires two of the aldermen in and for the said city do hereby certify; That on the seventh day of September, A. D., 1822, personally appeared before us, Isaac Williams and Nancy his wife, known to us as the Grantor of the foregoing deed and severally acknowledged. That they executed the same as their (word illegible) and deed for the use and purposes therein expressed; and the said Nancy being by us examined separately and apart from her said husband, acknowledged that the executed and signed the same freely without any fear, threats or compulsion of her said husband, and that she did not wish to retreat it. She at the same relinquishing all her estate, right and title of dower, in and to the land within described and conveyed—Given under our hands and seals this seventh day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty two.
I James R. Butler (word illegible) of the Court of Common Pleas of Said County do certify that Thomas Enoch & Robert Christy Esquires before whom the foregoing acknowledgements was taken, are aldermen for the city of Pittsburgh & Justices of the Peace for the County aforesaid duly commisioned (sic) and sworn to all whose acts as due faith & credit are and of right ought to be given throughout the United States or elsewhere.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court at the City of Pittsburgh this 7th day of September, A.D. 1822
James R. Butler
I William Wilkins President Judge of the fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania composed of the counties of Allegheny, Beaver & Butler—do certify that James R. Butler Esquire who has given the foregoing certificate, which is in due form of land, was at the time of giving said certificate and now is Prothoustary of the Court of Common Plea of the Court of Allegheny aforesaid to all whose official acts due faith & credit are deed of right ought to be given.
Witness my hand and seal this 7th day of September A.D. 1822.
September 9, 1822
The Commonwealth of Kentucky to the Sheriff of Bourbon County Greeting: We command you to summon John Shawhan to appear before the judge of our Bourbon circuit court at the courthouse in Paris on the first day of our (word illegible) November Term to answer a bill in chancery exhibited against him by William Pugh And this he shall in no wise omit under the penalty of one hundred pounds. And have there then this witness Thomas Arnold clerk of our said court at the courthouse aforesaid this 9th day of September 1822. In the 30th year of our Commonwealth.
March 7, 1823
The Commonwealth of Kentucky to the Sheriff of Pendleton County Greeting: We again command you to summon Daniel Shawhan to appear before the judge of our Bourbon circuit court at the courthouse in Paris on the first day of our next May Term to answer a bill in chancery exhibited against him by William Pugh And this he shall in no wise omit under the penalty of one hundred pounds. And have there then this witness Thomas Arnold clerk of our said court at the courthouse aforesaid this 7th day of March 1823. In the 31st year of our Commonwealth.
May 12, 1823
The amendment of a bill in chancery exhibited by Wm Pugh in the Bourbon Circuit court against John Shawhon & other heirs of Daniel Shawhon dec’d. Your orator would represent that since filing (several words illegible) to wit, on the 7th Sept 1822, he obtained from Isaac Williams & Nancy his wife, two of the def’ts named in the original bill & he as therein stated being one of the heirs od Dan’l Shawhon dec’d; a deed for their undivided seventh part of the tract of 130 acres mentioned in said bill; all which is made a part of this & the original bill. That by virtue of said deed your orator is now intitled to two-sevenths of said 130 acres of land. He therefore prays the def’ts be compelled to answer this and the original bill. That on a final hearing a division be decreed giving your orator two sevenths of the rent due by the def’t John. He prays in every respect as in his original bill & prays that the prayer thus as to the one seventh be extended to the seventh which he has amendment set forth.
Filed May 12th 1823
May 24, 1823
The separate answer of John Shawhan to a bill in chancery filed by William Pugh vs. him & all in the Bourbon Circuit Court—This respondent saving & reserving the benefit of exception to the many untruths & misrepresentations in sd bill contained for answer thereto or so mush thereof as he is advised is material says that it is true that a certain William Miller at an early date obtained a patent for 330 acres of land situated on the waters of Townsend in the present county of Bourbon which is filed and refered to herewith—But he denies that said Miller ever made sale of sd 330 acres of land to William Hoy or any other person for his use—or that the sale alledged in the Compl’ts bill from Hoy to Pugh Rankin & Bell ever took place—He states that he has heard it said many years ago that there was a claim set up by sd Pugh Rankin & Bell for sd 330 a. of land and being interested in a part thereof he has made diligent search in many offices of record & a general enquiry for ant title papers that might exist to show that there was a conveyance from the patentee Miller to said Rankin—but that he has totally failed in finding any proof whatever (concerning?) to establish that fact—with regard to the division of sd land this respondant knows nothing and (two or three words illegible) that there was such a division as set forth in the bill this respondant is unwilling to admit that the mere partition of land amongst strangers or persons not entitled should divest the pattentee of his title & vest in themselves—This respondant admits that his father Dan’l Shawan did purchase of sd Rankin & he believes gave him the sum of $200-or 60 pounds—for his claim to the 130 a. the whole of which sum was paid off by this Respon. Father in his life time which this respondant now owns and occupies—that this purchase was made in the year 1789--&his father settled thereon immediately and continued to occupy it untill his death in 1791. At that early date the land was considered of very little value and this Respd’ts coheirs looked upon the land or their small portions as being a matter of scarcely any importance the more especially as it was very doubtfull whether the claim held by their father was of any validity—Some years after the death of his sd father his sisters becoming of age & getting married he thought it advisable to purchase of them their interests and accordingly did obtain an instrument of writing from Eli Robinson who married Elisabeth Shawan the sister of this Respd’t & sd Elisabeth transferred all hir right to sd land dated 22nd July 1799 which is herewith filed & made part of this Ans’r marked "A" He also obtained a bond from Dan’l Shawan his brother to convey his interest to sd land which is also filed mk’d "B." And this respd’t states that he would have purchased the interest of the other heirs but that some short time after making the purchase of sd Robinson sd William Miller came to this Respd’ts house and informed him that the land on which he lived belonged to him sd Miller and threatened to commence a suit vs. him immediately. Sd Miller exhibited his title papers and stated that he had never transferred or conveyed sd land and there was no claim that could be set up by any person except himself—That as to the claim of Rankin it was worth nothing—But in as much as this respd’t was in possession & he did not wish to incur the trouble of a suit he would take £19.10 for the land which this respd’t after taking full and ample time to inform himself upon the subject by examining & enquiry into the validity of the claim concluded to give; and accordingly paid that sum & received a deed for sd land in his own name—having previously ascertained as he believes & now alleges that the claim under Rankin was entirely deficient—sd deed is herewith filed mk’d "C" & refered to as part of this ans’r—This respondant states that all his coheirs except Robinson & wife & Robert Shawhan & Williams & wife were living at or near the house of this respd’t at the time of sd deed was procured from sd Miller at that not one of them (although they & all them were fully cognizant of the contract & execution & delivery of sd deed to this respd’t) either participated in said contract or or objected to this respd’t receiving sd deed in his own name—That they were fully advised of the whole business—of the insufficiency of the afores’d bond from Rankin to their ancestor and that this respd’t was purchasing in his own name & right—This respd’t states that after the execution of sd deed it was universally admitted by all his brothers & sisters & their husbands that he was entitled to the Land and that sd Robinson (word illegible): of whom he had previously purchased had taken his bond for payment of a part of the money he agreed to give them for their portion & it has never been presented or payment required upon it as it was clearly & distinctly understood that it was utterly void for the want of consideration—That the residue of the heirs at that time and at all times since have recognized & universally admitted that this respd’t was justly & fairlyentitled to sd land by virtue os sd purchase from sd Miller; untill the Compl’t with whom this respondent has unfortunately been at issue for some time, fraudulently intending to injure & harrass this def’t procured a conveyance by misrepresentation to sd Robinson & wife Williams & wife: for a paltry consideration—This respondent admits that some land was cleared after the death of his father & prior to the purchase afores’d from Miller, but that it was done by himself & his brothers for the purpose of making bread for the support of his sisters & his mother—This respd’t denies that he was reimbursed by Rankin or (word illegible) in sum of 19 pound, 10 shillings which he paid to sd Miller as a consideration for sd deed—it is trice he called upon sd Rankin for a recourse upon sd bond but he absolutely refused & failed to make any reimbursement upon sd bond—It is admitted that this respd’t has occupied (and he alledges peaceably honestly & uninterrupted) this sd 130 a. of land ever since the marriage & removal of his brothers & sisters therefrom—And that he would have purchased from the residue of sd heirs as well as from Robinson & wife & Dan’l Shawan their supposed interest to land under sd bond from Rankin but the claim held by sd tenure was considered be & worth nothing as heretofore alledged—With regard to the dower claim of this Resp’ts mother he can only say that it has never been required by her or any other person that said dower should be (word illegible) of as she always considered that she had no claim for (word illegible) but that this respondent was entitled to the land in his own right—This respondent further states that he did some years after making the sd purchase from sd Miller make a verbal sale to his co-def’t Joseph Shawan of about 50 a. of sd land and that he resided thereon for 12 to 15 years & made some improvements—the sd Joseph became anxious to remove & this respd’t then purchased his improvements and paid him (two words cut off) consideration therefor—This respondent relies upon the statute of limitation and the statute of frauds & (perjuries?) as well as the broad & manifest equity of his case to prevent the interruption of the long peaceable & uninterrupted possession of his land & prays hence to be dismissed with his costs (word illegible)
December 15, 1823
Know all men by these presents that I William Pugh will unto my nephew Will Chiles my claim of land in John Shawhan tract of one hundred and thirty acres which is now depending in a suit in the Bourbon Circuit Court for said land. Will Chiles Snr. Is to defray the expence of the suit and to lift my obligation for two hundred dollars that is against me payable to Eli Robertson for the said claim. And if the said Chiles succeeds in gaining the above land and all other claims on said land and settled the said Chiles is to pay Isaac Williams fifty dollars. I also will unto my mother my sorrel mare. I wish my brother John to sell my land in the State of Indiana and to give the money to my sister Polly I also will my sister Polly all the money that may be left after my debts are paid. I wish Sam’l Ewalt to sell my sorrel horse and to pay my debts with the money.
All witness my hand this 15th day of December 1823
Sam’l Ewalt Wm Pugh (seal)
Thomas P. Rule
Thereto is ordered to be recorded. And the same is pursuant to the order of said Court duly recorded in my office.
Att. Tho P. Smith
By A.C. Dickerson, DC
Bourbon County Court Clerk office Sct.
I Thomas P. Smith clerk of said court do certify that the foregoing will of William Pugh dec’d is truly copied from the record in my office. Witness my hand this 20th day of May 1826.
Tho. P. Smith C.B.C.
By A.C. Dickerson DC
Suit 733 #2: Undated but presumably 1826
To the judge of the Bourbon Circuit Court in Chancery sitting—Your orator William P. Chiles (who is an infant under the age of twenty one years and sues by his father and next friend William Chiles I would respectfully state that there was a (word illegible) defending in this Court by Bill in Chancery between William Pugh Complainant vs John Shawhan and others defendants—that said Pugh has died having the ___endency of said suit whereby it has abated & that said Pugh duly made and published his last will and testament whereby he devised to you (word illegible) the land in controversy in said suit which will be read in the words and figures following, towit: Know all men by these presents &c &c as by reference to an official copy thereof, herewith exhibited prayed to be taken as a part of the Bill will appear—Your orator prays that said suit may stand revived in his name and for such decree said defendants may in their corporal oaths true and perfect answer make to all the allegations of said bill as if again specially propounded—and that you or all may have such other and further (word illegible) as to equity may seem meet.
Amended answer to bill of William Pugh
The amended answer of John Shawhan to the original and amended bill of William Pugh exhibited against him in the Bourbon Circuit Court and also to the Bill of Revision therein—
This defendant prays that he be admitted to amend his original answer herein as follows—he states that the answer heretofore filed by him is in many respects deficient both as to statement of facts and the inferences drawn from them—he accounts for and apologizes for this deficiency by stating that having engaged an attorney to draw his answer and attend to his case for him, his attorney read over the bill to him and explained the purport and object of the whole and the different parts,--tho as your respondent now believes he was mistaken as to some of them--whereupon your respondent gave a detail of the facts relating to the subject asa far as he would then recollect them—and his attorney undertook from this detail to draw an answer(illegible word)such facts as he deemed material and giving them their proper hearing upon the subject—The answer was prepared and read over hastily to this respondent, who having stated the facts truly to his attorney (and who he then believed and now believes would not knowingly represent them), and not any error in the bill answer as it was read over, adopted it as his own, swore to & filed it, misapprehending as he now certainly knows several parts of it—Nor did this Respondent know or suppose that there was any error of fact in the answer until within a few weeks past—William Chiles the agent of the present Compl’t informed him that he was going to examine a witness to prove that this Respondent had received of or given a receipt to Reubin Rankin for £19.10—this Respondent said he did not deny it when Chiles replied that it was denied in the answer. This information led him to examine his answer, when he found that there were mistakes not only on this point but on others—and in fact as he now thinks this claim to the land in the bill mentioned, is not placed upon its true foundation, but upon one which is false in fact and which if he had fully understood he would never should have assented to this tho’ it might avail him in this suit ever so much—This Respondent attributes these mistakes to his imperfect understanding of the real point of several statements in the Bill to the bungling and confused manner in which (illegible word) used as he is to legal proceedings, & the setting forth of facts in such a nature, he made his statements to his attorney—Conscious as he is that there are errors in his answer, he prays in justice to his own character as well as to the rights of all of the contending parties, to be allowed to correct them which he proceeds to do by a full answer to the Compl’ts bill which he hopes will be received in lieu of as at least in addition to and as explaining his original answer.
This Respondent admits that a Patent for 330 acres of land(illegible word)to William Miller as in the Bill set forth, whether Miller sold to Hoy or some other this respondent is ignorant & when but he supposes without certainly knowing that Rankin, Bell, & Pugh claimed said 330 acres in some way under Miller—he admits without certainly knowing that there was a portion, between them by which 130 acres fell to Rankin he knows that his father Dan’l Shawhan decd held a bond on sd. Rankin for that quantity (illegible word) date in August 1789 the original of which is in this Respondent’s possession which he will exhibit if required by the Court be here with file, a copy (illegible word) G—the original has no assignment or mark upon it or appended to it—except the usual label designating its character—he believes his father paid sd. Rankin 60 pounds or $200 for sd. land. This Respondent admits that his father shortly after the purchase took possession of sd land--& built a house which he supposed to be upon it—but when the lines came to be drawn the buildings and some four or five acres of cleared land were found to be within Bell’s part and not in his father’s, the said Daniel Shawan’s (sic)—and as he believes and alleges there was not at the time of his father’s death in 1791 more than from six to ten acres of land cleared & no buildings—the result of his labor within the 130 acres or which he has been held by himself or brothers since his father’s death—but that Dan’l Shawan an elder brother of this Respondent who was married was settled by his father Dan’l Shawan dec’d on another part of the land built a cabbin and had commenced a clearing before the death of his father and continued to reside there for some years & increased his clearing & improvements—This Respondent admits that his father died without having made any valid will—and that his right in sd land under the Bond from Reubin Rankin descended among his seven children as named in Compl’t’s Bill—He admits that after his father’s death, his mother, himself, his two younger sisters Jane & Elizabeth, and his youngest brother Joseph, then about nine years old, remained for some years being together on the improvements of their father,--his eldest brother Robt. & eldest sister Nancy having never removed from Pennsylvania, and Daniel the second son having built a house for himself. This Respondent then about eighteen expended his labor for some years, and he was the only one capable of performing man’s labor, in support of his mother, sisters & young brother, and in extending as fast as he could the little clearing about their house—and whatever improvement was made during that period was principally if not entirely this Respondent—and he humbly conceives that this period of care and responsibility and for these improvements the fruit of his own toil, he is not now after an interval of thirty years, to be called on to pay money to those whom his industry then contributed to support—or what is worse, to one who has thrust himself into these family affairs, for the sole purpose (as is feared) of making mischief—This Respondent denies that any improvements were made on sd 130 acres after his father’s death except by Daniel where he had settled with the consent of his father, as aforesaid, and by himself with the aid of his brother Joseph where the family lived until after the two girls were married and went away and the land was divided between this respondent and his mother and Joseph as will hereafter mentioned--. This Respondent states that after residing together for some years, as above mentioned, he having the principal management of the land the whole being too small to divide between all the heirs, some already living at a distance, and others particularly the girls looking forward to removal, there became a general willingness and understanding that he, this Respondent, should acquire, and own the whole—He himself having acted in some measure as head of that part of the family which staid (sic) together, and having had control over greater part of the land, acknowledges that he felt desirous of becoming its owner, but disavows as he would have abhorred the idea of becoming so through any means unjust or injurious towards his coheirs, towards three of them he had for years stood in the place of a father, and they know that to the best of his abilities, he acted in a manner becoming his relation to them—As early as the year 1796—Daniel Shawan having increased his improvement considerably, perhaps to a clearing of between twelve and twenty acres, this respondent purchased his share of the land which was supposed of course to include his improvement, and paid him for his land and his labor the sum of $120—and received from him a writing for the conveyance of it—which was referred to in his former answer, and is again refered (sic) to and filed herewith marked "B" (my quotation marks)—which altho made to and for the benefit of this respondent does not contain his name an omission which may serve to shew (among other things) how ignorant he then was of the proper manner of receiving his rights—Your Respondent states that from the period of his purchase from Daniel, his acquiring the rights of the other heirs was the frequent subject of conversation among such of them as were residing together, and they were all willing—but he as well as they being very poor he had not for some time the means of actually effecting any further purchase until some time in the year 1799—On the 22d day of July in which year his sister Elizabeth who had previously intermarried with Eli Robertson, together with her husband executed a writing to him evidencing a sale of her right in the land, an as it is there expected in the bond of Rankin, to this Respondent—which writing was refered to in hisformer answer and is herewith filed marked "A" (my quotation marks)—And on the same day he paid said Robertson a horse on account of said sale at the price of forty five dollars and took his receipt therefore which is herewith marked "D" (my quotation marks)—This Respondant thinks that this forty five dollars formed but a part of the consideration of his sister Elizabeth’s share, and that he gave his note to sd Robertson for the residue amounting to something between thirty and six dollars, but the exact sum or when payable he does not recollect—this note if ever given, has never been presented for payment—so far as this respondent recollects or believes—He however does not sanction but denies the inference drawn from this fact or the reason of it as stated in his former answer vis: that the note was not presented because it was considered void for want of consideration—Indeed the insufficiency of writing aforesaid (if it is insufficient) to transfer Elizabeth’s interest in the land (word illegible) destroyed the consideration of the note—but the acquisition of the interest or satisfy her for it was then and is still deemed by this respondent a sufficient consideration for the note which he executed—and if secure in the enjoyment of that interest he is still willing, as he no doubt still bound to pay it. For this Respondent once for all disavows and disowns the character which he now understands to be given to this affair in his former answer, in which he seems to claimthe 130 acres solely by virtue of the deed from Miller, as an original purchase from him independently of his father’s bond on Rankin and the rights of his coheirs—which seem therein to be represented as entirely worthless—He now states that he has always considered the (word illegible) bond and the interest of his coheirs therein as the basis of his claim—He has paid from time to time towards satisfying his coheirs for their interests large sums of money amounting to $ (blank space) he commenced acquiring them as he has shown before he recived the deed—and it was before he even knew where the Legal title was—and he went on (word illegible) and paying for them after he obtained the deed—But to resume the detail which the Respondent feels bound as well by the peculiar circumstances under which this amendment is offered, as by the general scope of the bill and its interrogations to make as full as his memory will permit—he states that some short time after the date of the writings just mentioned from Robertson & wife, this Respondent was called upon by William Miller the Patentee of said land, who represented that he was to make the deed and that a part of theoriginal purchase money amounting to £19.10 was still due and that he had a demand on the land and never could convey until that demand was settled upon inquiry and becoming satisfied that he was the person from whom the title was to come and that the sd sum was really due—and that Rankin had no title, this respondent having acquired the equitable rights of some of his coheirs, & the consent of others, and expecting from conversations and an understanding to that effect already existing, to purchase the interest of the residue, and being desirous under these circumstances to secure the legal title, paid the sum of £19.10 to sd Miller and on the 24th day of June in the year 1800 obtained a deed from him, which is herewith filed marked "C" (my quotation marks)—He denies that this deed was procured without consent of his coheirs or without the immediate knowledge of such of them as were in the vicinity, but avers that it was with both—This Respondent so far from considering this deed as authorising him to disregard the rights of his coheirs, altho he knew it vested him with the title of the land, in the next year (1802) entered into a contract with his sister Jane for quieting and satisfying her interest which is evidenced by a writing signed by her transfering her sd interest & bearing date the 22d of April 1802—on the back of which is a receipt dated July 17th 1809 signed by sd Jane and her husband William Becket for forty dollars in property the full amount due for her interest—which transfer and receipt marked "E" (my quotation marks) are herewith filed—Shortly after or about the date of sd contract with Jane, she and Elizabeth having married & removed and Joseph being of age—Joseph and his mother determined to separate from this respondent and live together—they removed to the improvement before mentioned as being made by Daniel Shawan on the same tract—and a division was agreed on whereby Joseph took for himself and his mother, who joined with him on account of his being the youngest, fifty acres of the land including the improvement aforesaid, in full of all their right in said 130 acres—and this respondent reserved the residue—and thus they continued (except that their mother had left Joseph to reside among her daughters) until about or soon after the year 1814—when this respondent purchased from Joseph the said fifty acres with the improvements for which he gave him the sum of eight hundred dollars—In all which transactions he did not take any writing from sd Joseph their contracts nor has he any written evidence of receipt a short note to said Reubin Rankin dated June 3d 1803 written some time after the division aforesaid, and which is filed marked "F" (my quotation marks)—After having received the deed as aforesaid and paid the £19.10 this respondent saw said Reubin Rankin, and as he conceived he had a right to do, demanded repayment of said sum, and in the year 1803 said Rankin offered him a horse which appeared to be valuable and to be worth the sum, and which he said was so, as payment in full—And this respondent received him in full satisfaction, but he would farther state, as it was no doubt the ground on which the statement on this subject in his former answer was made, and is explanatory of that statement—that the horse upon being put to service proved to be valueless—and this respondent actually sold him shortly after for eleven dollars, less than the interest on sd £19.10 from the date of the deed—so that he has not in fact been reimbursed for his expenditure of sd sum—but this is immaterial except as explanation.
Robert Shawan and Nancy Williams the eldest brother & sister of this Respondent having named and been settled before their father’s removal from Pennsylvania & never having removed to Kentucky—were not frequently heard from or communicated with—it was supposed indeed that having already received something from their father in Pennsylvania, they would not claim any part of the land in this state, which was all their father had here, except a very scanty stocked household furniture—This respondent cannot state positively that said Robert and Nancy were appraised of his wish to become sole proprietor of the land previous to his obtaining the deed, they knew however of their father’s death verysoon after it happened, and that the children here were living on the land with their mother and using it as their own (illegible—several words marked out) intention or wish on their part to claim any part of it. This acquiescence was not however considered as destroying their right but merely as evidencing a disposition on their part not to interrupt or disturb the younger children in the enjoyment or management of the land—and even to give it up to them—In relation to Robert who came to Kentucky on a visit within a few years after the deed was obtained, this inference was entirely true & being they apprised of the deed & other circumstances—he said he was satisfied with what he had already received--& would never disturb this Respondent with any claim for land or money & that when he considered the difficulties which he had encountered in supporting the family he thought this respondent was entitled to have the land—And this respondent altho he has no written evidence of the relinquishment of Robert’s claim, relies implicitly upon this verbal assurance—that he will never claim anything for his interest. Nancy Williams also came to Kentucky on a visit within one, two or three years after the deed was obtained—and was made acquainted with the whole matter—She was perfectly willing & satisfied that this Respondent should obtain the land, indeed she wanted no part of it—but she wanted something from this respondent as a compensation or satisfaction for her interest—and without entering into any particular investigation of what she had received or what upon comparison with the other children she was entitled to from her father’s estate—an arrangement was made by which the balance (sic) due upon a certain bond in Pennsylvania & as he thinks in the hands of their brother Robert from Plummer to their father for his land then should be received by her, and that this respondent would settle up with the other coheirs here for their interest in said balance (word illegible) called on—And this arrangement was perfectly satisfactory to her—Indeed to satisfy his coheirs was the uniform object and wish of this respondent in the whole of the transactions relative to the land—The exact amount of the ballance which was due or supposed to be due on sd bond this respondent cannot now state—there was no writing entered into between him and his sister—he had perfect reliance on the arrangement made on her entire acquiescence and willingness that he should have the land—nor was her husband present—but the arrangement being satisfactory to her and this respondent having already the legal title—no fears were entertained of any future interruption or disturbance on her accounts.
This respondent cannot state certainly how much has been received by his sister Nancy on account of the said bond—it is true that a short time after her return to Pennsylvania he received a letter from her which there seemed to be some difficulty about it—but having heard nothing of it since, he has long (word illegible) satisfied that she had received entire satisfaction for her interest in the land—but if this matter is to be brought forward for inquiry—he prays that his sd sister (word illegible) may give an account of what they received on sd bond from Plummer—as all these things were then thought of tho not nicely scanned—This Respondent conceives that in the above statement of facts, tedious as it may be, he has shown that there was nothing improper in his getting the Deed to sd land either as to the manner of obtaining it or the view & intent with which it was obtained—He took the deed it is true to himself—for himself and for his own benefit under circumstances which he believed and still believes authorised him to do so; recognising however the interest which his father had held in the land and determining according to previous understanding to satisfy his coheirs for that interest upon such terms as would be agreeable to each respectively—And however informal may be the evidence of his said agreements with his coheirs respectively, and altho they may beinsufficient to authorise a count of Equity to coerce from them the legal title if they were invested with it—Apt he relies upon them to show that (crossed out in original document) being himself invested with the legal title, he relies upon them as shewing that he is really and justly entitled to enjoy the land—and as sufficient to rebut the claims of his coheirs themselves, should they assert them any part of the land—much more to rebut the claim of the compl’t whose testator (the original Compl’t) as this respondent believes and alleges cannot but have had some knowledge of these matters—and calculating upon the advantages to be made from the informality of family transactions has gone or sent to Pennsylvania to Indiana & to Pennsylvania to rake up these scraps of claims to harass this respondent—That he could not have induced the sisters & brothers-in-law of this Respondent to have reviewed their long (word illegible) claims & assign them to him otherwise thereby fraudulent misrepresentations is verily believed—and accordingly alleged—and also that the assignments or grants were obtained for a paltry (if any) consideration, with an agreement perhaps that the grantors should share in the intimately aims, if any of this iniquitous transaction—so that it is believed and alleged that the Compl’t is without even the merit of being a bonifide person chosen for valuable consideration. This Respondent has been informed that sd Pugh (Compl’t’s ancestor) paid Robertson & wife only two or three dollars for the deed obtained from them—promising some part of the product of the suit—and he doubts not that the other deed was obtained in the same way—It is also a fact that one of the transfers to this respondent above exhibited is witnessed by Nancy Pugh—the mother of the present Compl’t & sister of his testator Wm Pugh dec’d, and that Wm Pugh lived many years adjoining this Respondent’s land--This respondent that this disposition to (crossed out in original document) it is also a fact that the sd Wm Pugh dec’d made application to this Respondent’s brother Daniel to purchase his interest in the land—These transactions all took place after a law suit between said William’s (word illegible) this Respondent in which a good deal of feeling was exhibited--& some bitterness engendered. This Respondent cannot believe that this disposition to pry into the affairs, and disturb the harmony of families—the attempt to discover and take advantage of informalities in family divisions & transfers of property, the result of that confidence & affection which should subsist in all families—is conformable to the policy of the laws or diservings of the countenance of the Chancellor—he cannot believe that in a Court of Equity it will be rewarded.
This Respondent would state that, ignorant as he then was of legal forms of requisitions—it is still more probable that he might have obtained more formal evidences of the transactions with his coheirs, had he not looked upon the deed as sufficient to clothe him with the entire title to the land—and that nothing more was necessary for him to do—but to make an arrangement or satisfaction in fact for the interest of his coheirs, which he did—And on those arrangements as on all other contracts, where they were not fully executed discharged on his part, he remained liable—not for land—but for the renumeration agreed on—he alleges however that all these liabilities (word illegible) as he believes long ago discharged—except the note (word illegible) to son Robert. As to the Dower of this Respondent’s mother—she does not claim it, nor does she (illegible) to a stranger the right to claim it for her he will however state that he supposes the 50 acres were allotted to Joseph Shawhan in the division above mentioned, partly on account of his mother’s going to live with him, as well as on account of his own interest & his labor on the land—that when their mother moved away she probably considered as giving up her share to Joseph—that she lives among his children on the land when she choses when she demands her dower for her own use and enjoyment this respondent will not be scrupulous as to his rights nor does he (word illegible) up anything herein has of them—As to improvements there are now between 70 & 100 acres cleared—but it was all done, or paid for as this respondent contends by himself.
As to Rents, he denies utterly any claim to them on the part of the Compl’t & denies his right to call him to account on this subject.
This Respondent in answer (word illegible) in lieu of the whole claim set up in Compl’t’s Bill, relies upon his deed, the long acquiescence of his coheirs, & his long uninterrupted & peacable possession of sd land under sd deed for more than 20 years before the commencement of this suit (word illegible) as not only confirming his title to the land, but as evidence of satisfactory according to those arrangements as to the note aforesaid—He contends that the demands of the Compl’ts assigners or grantors if they have any at all are merely (word illegible)--and do not affect the land—but even these he contends have long been satisfied except as to the note (word illegible).
So far as pertains to the deeds from Robertson & wife & from Williams & wife—He prays that this answer may be taken as a (word illegible) bill (word illegible) the Compl’ts—and also against Co-defendents except his mother all of whom together with sd Eli Robertson and Elizabeth his wife and made Def’ts hereto—And he prays that they may answer hereto (crossed out in original document) and that he may answer in what manner they were obtained, for what consideration do_____
And this respondent having fully answered prays to hence dismiss with his costs.
Bourbon Circuit Nov. Term 1826
Sworn to in open court Illegible signature
November 9, 1826
Mr. John Shawhan,
Take notice that I shall attend at the house of Elizabeth Pugh Bourbon County precisely at nine o’clock in the morning of Thursday next it being the 16th Inst and at the same hour of Friday at the house of Joshua Hall in said County and shall then and there take the deposition of John Tucker and others to be read and used as evidence upon the trial of the suit in Chancery now depending in the Bourbon Circuit Court wherein William P. Chiles is now complainant and you and others are Defendants and shall adjourn from day to day until the business is completed where you may attend if you please.
November 9th 1826
Wm P. Chiles by
William Chiles his father & next friend
Bourbon County Sct. State of Kentucky
November 16, 1826
Walter Chiles came personally before me William Hutchison a Justice of the Peace in and for said county and made oath that he delivered a true copy of the within notice to the within named John Shawhan on the 15th Instant given under my hand and this 16th of Nov. 1826
William Hutchison, Jr.
The deposition of (word illegible) Elizabeth Pugh taken at her own house agreeable to notice (Nov. 16th 1826) to be read and used as evidence upon the trial of the chancery suit now (word illegible) in the Bourbon Circuit Court Wherein William P. Chiles is now complainant and John Shawhan and others are Defendants who being of lawful age and first sworn deposeth and saith that Daniel Shawhan the father of John Shawhan (the defendant) settled upon the plantation where the said John Shawhan now resides about the year 1789, under a contract with Reubin Rankin for 130 acres of land which said 130 acres was laid off by said Rankin my husband Joseph Pugh & Robert Bell under a contract between them, and Maj’r William Hoy, and the balance (sic) of the tract was divided between my husband & sd Bell—that the sd Daniel Shawhan continued in the possession of the sd 130 acres under the contract with Rankin unto his death which happened some (word illegible) years after and his wife and children resided still upon said place a number of years after, perhaps 10 or twelve and the place has never been out of the possession of one or more of the said family.
Question by complainant—Were you acquainted with the children of said Daniel Shawhan either by reputation or from your own acquaintance with the family if you please to name them?
Ans’r—I was, Robert was the oldest, Daniel, John, Nancy, who intermarried with Isaac Williams, Jane who intermarried with William Becket, Betsey (or Elizabeth) who intermarried with Eli Robbinson and Joseph Shawhan.
By same—are you or not confident that Betsey was married before she was twenty one years of age?
Ans’r—I believe she was not as old as twenty one at the time of her marriage.
By same—Do you or not know anything about a horse which Reubin Rankin paid to the Def’t John Shawhan as a renumeration for the £19.10 paid by said John Shawhan for his father’s proportion of the original purchase money which may be due to William Miller the (word illegible) of said land from Maj’r William Hoy?
Ans’r—Some time after the settlement was made with William Miller by my husband John Shawhan and others, Reubin Rankin came to this house, and in conversation about said settlements he reflected upon my husband for not letting him know of it, as he would have paid up Shawhan’s share of £19.10—that in consequence of his not being present he had been compel’d to pay John Shawhan a horse (which he could have sold for one hundred dollars) to discharge £19.10.
Question by the same—How long has it been since the death of Reubin Rankin as spoken of above by you?
Ans’r—He is dead by how many years I cannot recollect.
And further the deponent saith not
Also the deposition of John Tucker taken at same time and place and for the same purpose who being of lawful age and duly sworn deposeth and saith—
Question by complainant—do you or not know anything about a contract between Reubin Rankin, Joseph Pugh and Robert Bell, with Maj’r William Hoy, for 330 acres of land, and the taking possession of the same—if you do state all you know about it.
Ans’r—I do recollect the contract and the possession was taken by Pugh and Bell and Daniel Shawhan about the years 1788 or 1789. Shawhan took possession of the part which was laid off for Rankin—and Pugh and Bell their parts.
By same—did or did not said Daniel Shawhan reside there until his death?
Ans’r—I think he did.
By same—did or did not his wife and children continue to occupy the same for a number of years after his death?
Ans’r—Yes they did.
By same—Was not John Shawhan a member of the family at the death of his father and has he or has he not continued in possession ever since?
Ans’r—Yes he was, and is still in possession.
By same—do you or not know anything about a horse which was paid by Reubin Rankin, to John Shawhan for part of the original purchase money which was due from Maj’r William Hoy to William Miller the pattentee of said land?
Ans’r—I have understood that Reubin Rankin paid him a horse.
By same—did you or not understand that said horse was paid to Shawhan by way of renumeration for the money advanced by him to Miller upon the said old contract?
Ans’r—I did understand it in that way.
Question by defendant—do you know of this contract between Pugh, Bell & Rankin with Hoy of your own knowledge or from the information of others?
Ans’r—I do not know of my own knowledge, but from information.
Question by same—Do you know of your own knowledge under who Daniel Shawhan took possession?
Ans’r—I do not as my personal knowledge.
Question by the same—have you any knowledge from whom you received information relative to the horse being paid in renumeration of the money advanced to Miller?
Ans’r—I do not recollect from whom I received the first information and further the deponant saith not.
State of Ky., Bourbon County to wit
The foregoing depositions of Elizabeth Pugh and John Tucker was this day taken subscribed and sworn to by them before the undersigned a Justice of the Peace for said county at the same time and place, and for the purpose stated in the caption thereof. Given under my hand this 16th day of Nov. 1826 Justice’s fee $1.00 pd by Compl’t
J. Tucker attendance, 50 cents pd by Compl’t
William Hutchison, Jr., J.P.
Pugh H. vs defs Shawhan
Filed Nov. 22d 1826
November 17, 1826
The deposition of Joshua Hall taken agreeable to notice at his own house (this 17th day of November 1826) to be read and used as evidence upon the trial of the chancery suit now depending in the Bourbon circuit court wherein William P. Chiles is now complainant and John Shawhan & others are defendants, who being of lawfull age and first dult sworn deposeth and saith—that he has now before him the original receipt which was given by John Shawhan one of the defendants, to Reubin Rankin, which (two words illegible) and acknowledged by said John Shawhan at the house of (word illegible) Rankins, in my presents and I subscribed my name to the same as a witness—Said receipt was dated upon the first day of July 1803—and is now in my (word illegible) marked the "A". Upon the back and a true copy is hereunto annexed viz—Received of Reubin Rankin one horse of £19.10 value in consideration of the sum I paid William Miller in regard of the land I now live on
Teste John Shawhan
Joshua Hall July 1st 1803
Further this deponant saith not---Joshua Hall
Bourbon County Sct
This is to certify that Joshua Hall did at the time and place mentioned in the caption deliver & subscribe his name to the foregoing deposition and made oath to the truth of the facts therein contained in the presence of the subscriber a Justice of the Peace in & for the County of Bourbon. Given under my hand as a Justice of the Peace this 17th day of Nov. 1826 Wm A. Menzus
November 22, 1826
I Joel R. Lyle, editor of the Western Citizen, an authorised Newspaper printed in Paris, Ky., do certify that the annexed Chancery Order was inserted in said paper two months successively, commencing the 9th day of Sept. 1826 and continuing till the 11th of Nov. 1826. Given under my hand at Paris this 22d day of Nov. 1826. Joel R. Lyle
Newspaper clipping photocopied along with above statement:
Pugh’s Devisee complainants against John Shawhan &c. defendants In chancery
The defendants Robert Shawhon, Isaac Williams, William Becket, and Jane, his wife, late Jane Shawhon, and Margaret Shawhon not living entered their appearance herein agreed to the act of assembly and rules of this court and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that they are not inhabitants of this commonwealth on motion of the complainants by the counsel, it is ordered that the said defendants do appear here on or before the first day of the next November Term and answer the said complainants bill, and that a copy of this order be published in the Western Citizen two months successively; a copy att. Geo. W. Miller
May 12, 1827
I Joel R. Lyle, editor of the Western Citizen, an authorized Newspaper printed in Paris, Kentucky., do certify that the (word illegible) Chancery order was inserted in said paper two months successively Commencing the 13th day of Jan. 1827, and continuing till the 17th of March 1827. Given under my hand this 12th of May 1827.
Joel R. Lyle
Cost of purchasing the above in W. Citizen 2 months Received payment $3.00 Joel R. Lyle
Bourbon Cicuit Court Sct.
November Term 1826
Pughs heirs Against John Shawhan &c. in Chancery
The defendant Daniel Shawhon not having entered his appearance herein agreeably to the act of assembly and rules of this court: and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court he is not an inhabitant of this commonwealth; on motion to the complainants by their counsel; It is ordered that said defendant do appear here on or before the first day of our May Term, and answer said complainants bill, and that a copy of this order be published in the Western Citizen two months successively.
A copy att. Geo. W. Miller
Before September 25, 1827
Mr. Wm Chiles
Take notice I shall attend at my own house in Bourbon County Ky on the 25th (word illegible) & shall then proceed to take the deposition of Joseph Shawhon and others to be read as evidence in a suit in chancery now pending in the Bourbon Circuit wherein Pugh’s heirs are compl’ts & John Shawhon is deft where you may attend if you please & Sept 26th 1827 If the above depositions are not completed. I shall adjourn from day to day until they are completed.
October 25, 1827
The deposition of Joseph Shawhan taken at the house of John Shawhan in the County of Bourbon and State of Kentucky on the 25th day of October 1827. Agreeably to the notice hereto annexed to be read as evidence on the part of the Defendant in a suit in chancery now depending in the Circuit Court for the County of Bourbon Wherein Pugh’s heirs and Complainants and John Shawhan Defendant, The deponent being of lawful age and first duly sworn deposeth and saith—
Question by defendant--Do you know whether John Shawhan purchased Eli Robertson and his wife, interest in a certain tract of land containing 130 acres, which was purchased by Daniel Shawhan of Reubin Rankin?
Answer: I don’t recollect being present at the contract, but I recollect of being called on by the two parties both present, to witness a piece of writing signed by Eli, and Elisabeth Robertson assigning their interest in the land purchased by my father to John Shawhan, which assignment, I have seen today in the Bourbon Circuit Court Clerks office attached and sealed to the depositions of Jane Becket and Margaret Shawhan.
Question by same—Did I not at the same time make payment of a horse to said Eli Robertson valued at forty five dollars in consideration of his, and his wifes assignment to John Shawhan the defendant?
Answer—I recollect of Eli Robertson getting a horse of John Shawhan at that time, and was called on by the parties to witness a receipt for the said horse, and the said receipt stated that it was in payment of their interest in the said land which receipt is in Bourbon Circuit Court Clerks office attached and sealed to the depositions of Jane Beckett and Margaret Shawhan—and further this deponant saith not
Bourbon County Sct. Joseph Shawhan
The foregoing deposition of Joseph Shawhan was this day taken subscribed and sworn to before the undersigned and a Justice of the Peace for said county at the time and place, and for the purpose stated in the caption thereof. Given under my hand this 25th day of October 1827
William Hutchison, Jr.
October 1, 1827
The Commonwealth of Kentucky To Walter Wheatly & James Morrsion—Gentlemen Justices of the Peace in and for the county of Clark and State of Indiana. Know ye that we trusting to your fidelity and provident circumspection in dilligently examining William Beckett, Margaret Shawhan, Jane Beckett, Eli Robinson, Elizabeth Robinson, Daniel Shawhan and others in a certain suit in chancery now depending in our Bourbon Circuit Court wherein Pugh’s Heirs are complainants and said John Shawhan and others are defendants. Command you or any two or more of you that at such certain times and places as you shall appoint you assemble yourselves together and the witnesses aforesaid before you call and cause to come and them dilligently examine on oath touching the premises, and their examination into our said court distinctly and plainly without (word illegible) under your hands and seals you send and certify as thereof enclosed sending also then there this wit: Witness Thomas Arnold clerk of our said court this 1st day of October 1827. In the 30th year of our Commonwealth.
October 9, 1827
State of Indiana
The deposition of Jane Becket taken at the Court House in Charleston in the said County of Clark on the ninth day of October 1827 between the hours of twelve o’clock & 6 o’clock PM of that day to be read as evidence in the trial of a certain suit in chancery now depending in the Bourbon Circuit Court Kentucky wherein Pugh’s heirs are complainants and John Shawhan and others are defendants by virtues of the (word illegible) notice (two words illegible).
The deponent of lawful age & being first duly sworn deposeth & saith she was present in the year 1799 at the purchase made by John Shawhan from Eli Robertson of a tract of land situate in Bourbon County Kentucky on which the said Shawhan the (two words illegible) resides which was purchased by Daniel Shawhan from Reubin Rankin being a seventh part of said tract & being the right which said Eli Robertson & wife claimed in said tracts & that said John Shawhan then paid the said Eli Robertson for said interest in said land a certain gray horse valued at forty five dollars, and further saith not
Also the deposition of Margaret Shawhan taken at the second time & place & to be read as evidence on the (word illegible) of said (word illegible) The deponent of lawful age and first duly sworn deposeth & saith that she is a subscribing witness to two instruments in writing each bearing date the 22d day of July 1799 the one marked on the back with the letter "A". It subscribed with the names Eli Robertson & Elizabeth Robertson & certified by the deponent and Joseph Shawhan—The other marked with the letter "D" on the back & subscribed by Eli Robertson alone & certified by said Joseph Shawhan & this (word illegible) That she saw the said Eli Robertson & Elizabeth Robertson sign and deliver said instruments marked "A" & saw the said Eli Robertson sign & deliver the said instrument marked "D", both of which are hereunto attached and made part of this deposition & that she knows that said Eli Robertson rec’d from said John Shawhan at the time the gray horse mentioned in the instrument marked "D"—and further saith not
Margaret x Shawhan
State of Indiana
We Walter Wheatly & James Morrison Justices of the Peace in & for said county & state do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition of Jane Becket & Margaret Shawhan were taken & subscribed before us on the 9th day of October 1827, at the court house in (word illegible) in said county pursuant to the (word illegible) & notice herein inscripted as (word illegible) in the caption of the deposition of said Jane Becket.
Given under our hands & (word illegible) this 9th October 1827.
Justices of taking deposition (the rest is mostly illegible. It looks as if they are describing costs for services rendered).
Rec’d pay’t from Jno. Shawhan
July 16, 1829
The Commonwealth of Kentucky To Walter Wheatly and John L. Limonson Gentlemen Justices of the Peace in and for the County of Clark & State of Indiana Greeting: Know ye that we trusting to you fidelity and provident circumspection in diligently examining William Becket and Jane his wife and Margaret Shawhan Witnesses for Daniel Shawhan in a certain suit in chancery depending in our Bourbon circuit court between Pughs heirs complainants and said Shawhan and other (original) defendants, command you or any two or more of you that at such certain times and places as you shall appoint or assemble yourselves together, and the witnesses aforesaid before you You call and cause to come and then diligently examine on oath touching the premises and their examination into our said court distinctly and plainly without delay under your hands and seals you send and certify as thereof enclosed, sending also them there this wit: Witness Thomas Arnold clerk of our said court this 16th day of July 1829. In the 38th year of our Commonwealth.
July 16, 1829
The Commonwealth of Kentucky To (name illegible) and Joseph Carson Gentlemen Justices of the Peace in and for the County of Rush and State of Indiana Greeting: Know ye that we trusting to you fidelity and provident circumspection in diligently examining Daniel Shawhan and Mary his wife Witnesses for John Shawhan in a suit in chancery depending in our Bourbon circuit court wherin Pughs heirs complainants and said Shawhan defendant, command you or any two or more of you that at such certain times and places as you shall appoint or assemble yourselves together, and the witnesses aforesaid before you You call and cause to come and then diligently examine on oath touching the premises and their examination into our said court distinctly and plainly without delay under your hands and seals you send and certify as thereof enclosed, sending also them there this wit: Witness Thomas Arnold clerk of our said court this 16th day of July 1829. In the 38th year of our Commonwealth.
July 17, 1829
William Chiles take notice that I shall attain on the first day of August next at the house of Daniel Shawhan in the State of Indiana Rush County then and then to take the depositions of Daniel Shawhan and Mary Shawhan his wife to be read as evidence in a suit in Chancery in the Bourbon Circuit Court Wherein Pughs heirs is Complainants and I am defendant If not completed on that day shall adjourn from time to time and place to place till completed when you may attend (word illegible) you please.
July 17th 1829 John Shawhan
July 25, 1829
State of Indiana
Deposition of Jane Becket taken pursuant to the enclosed notice and by authority of the Dedirncy before John S. Simonson and Walter Wheatly Justices of the Peace in & for said County at the Court House in Charleston and county aforesaid on the 25th day of July 1829, between the hours of 6 o’clock A.M. and 6 o’clock P.M. of said day to be read as evidence in a suit in Chancery in the Bourbon Circuit Court wherein Pugh’s heirs are complainants and John Shawhan is defendant—The Deponent of lawful age and being first duly sworn deposeth and saith—that Daniel Shawhan deponent’s father bought one hundred & thirty acres of land of Reubin Rankin, and held Rankin’s bond for the title—the land was not surveyed by Rankin to him—My father settled on the land but not knowing were the line would rich (sic), built his cabin on a corner of Robert Bill land adjoining tract as it appeared when the survey was made—here however he remained until his death shortly after that—deponents Brother John Shawhan was at the time of my father’s death about twenty years of age and acted as the sole head of the family he cleared ground and raised crops for their support—as he and the rest of the family advanced in years, the conclusion of all we(blotch on paper) that the land was too small to divide and my brother John then commenced purchasing the interest of the other heirs—he purchased my brother Daniel Shawhan’s interest a few years after my father’s death and in a short time after he purchased the interest of my sister Elizabeth from herself and her husband Eli Robertson—Something like eight or nine years after my father had made the purchase of Rankin a certain William Miller came and set up a claim to the land and threatened to bring suit for the land—We became alarmed and John being the acting head of our family was directed to affect a compromise with Miller and to take a deed from Miller in his own name in as much as he was interested in four shares out of seven—I have heard from my mother frequently that my brother Robert neither looked for nor wished any share in the property—provided the family were supported while we lived together—Sometime after John obtained the deed from Miller he purchased my interest in the land on the same terms he bought of the other heirs previous to obtaining the deed from Miller—One year after I sold to John, or thereabout, my sister Agnes, sometimes called Nancy, who had been married in Pennsylvania to a man by the name of Isaac Williams, came to Kentucky (probably two or three years after my brother John Shawhan obtained the deed from Miller)—And I have heard my mother and others of the family state that John & my sister Williams had made arrangements for the share of the land also, but what these arrangements were I do not know but by information from others—but I do know that my sister was in Kentucky Something like two or three years after Miller had made the deed to my brother John and I always understood that she was satisfied as well as myself, until I heard of this Suit in which I am now testifying—Some years after my brother John sold to my brother Joseph that part which he had bought of my brother Daniel, and afterwards probably twelve or fifteen years since John bought it back from Joseph as I have understood—and in all these purchases & transactions I do not know of any deed or deeds having executed or passing from one to the other as we all were of opinion that the deed from Miller was sufficient to secure John from all outstanding claims.
Deposition of William Becket taken at the same time & place as set forth in the caption of the foregoing deposition of Jane Becket—The deponent of lawful age and being frist duly sworn deposeth and saith That about twenty seven years ago he was married to his present wife then Jane Shawhan and a short time previous to my marriage my wife sold her interest in the land bought by her father of one Rankin to her brother John, but did not receive the pay untill after our marriage—when it was paid by John to this deponent—The sale by my wife to John was made after John had compromised and obtained a deed in his own name from a certain Miller and we never executed a deed to John for our part, believing that the deed from Miller to him was sufficient against any title we had at the time—This deponent further states that he resided on the land sometimes and was acquainted & intimate with the heirs of Daniel Shawhan the father of John and never heard any of them express anything but satisfaction with the manner in which John Shawhan had compromised with Miller and also with his taking the title to the land from Miller in his own name.
William A. Becket
State of Indiana
We John S. Simonson and Walter Wheatly do hereby certify that the foregoing depositions of Jane Becket and William A. Becket were taken, sworn to & subscribed before us pursuant to the Dedirncy and notice enclosed, as set forth in the Caption of the said Jane’s deposition—given under our hands & seals the 25th day of July 1829
John S. Simonson (seal)
Walter Wheatly (seal)
August 1, 1829
By virtue of a (word illegible) to us directed (two words illegible) proceeded this first day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty nine to take the depositions of Daniel Shawhan and Mary his wife at the house of Daniel Shawhan in the County of Rush and State of Indiana to be Red (sic) in evidence in the Bourbon Circuit Court. Wherein Pugh’s heirs and complainants and John Shawhan defendant these deponents being of lawful age and duly sworn deposition of Daniel Shawhan. He saith in the year of our Lord eight hundred and twenty-two or twenty-three that William Pugh came to his house and proposed to purchase from him the said Daniel Shawhan his interest in a certain tract of land which his father Daniel Shawhan had purchased of Reubin Rankin on whitch (sic) John Shawhan was then living on. I Daniel Shawhan told William Pugh that I had already sold my interest to my brother John Shawhan and I would not sell it to him or any other man he William Pugh told me he would go on and purchase from my sisters Jain & Elizabeth I told him he needed not go to them fir they hav already sold to John and that Ely Roberson and his wife had received of John a gray horse in payment for said land for I had owned the horse myself formaley and John got him from me. For my own part I thought the thing had been long settled in the familey that John was to have the land alluded two The sales to John by Jane Elizabeth Joseph and myself was all maid in sd kind of sd luse way for no deeds past to John from any of us as I know. I made no deed but considered the land just as much (his) as if I had maid him the deed. As for my brother Robert and sister Williams they lived in Pennsylvania and I did not know—particular with regards to them but I have thought for sd long time that the hole matter was intierey settled and John was Equitably possesing the land without aney further Disturbence further the said Daniel Shawhan states that the deed Executed from William Miller to his brother John to be just and right and without aney fraud on him or aney other person the deponent further state that he lived on said land from the years seventeen hundred and eighty nine to ninety six and from that untwil eighteen hundred and twenty five not more then sd days ride at aney time from said primises And further the deponent saith not-------------------Daniel Shawhan
Sworn two and subscribed before us two acting Justices of the Peace for the County and State aforesaid
The deposition of Mary Shawhan taken at the same time and place Deposeth and saith that in the years eighteen hundred and twenty three or twenty two that William Pugh came to their house to purchase their interest of the foresaid land mentioned in the above deposit of Daniel Shawhan And further states that she heard hir (sic) husband state that she heard hir husband refuse to sel to the said Pugh stating that he had alredy sold to his brother John Then Pugh stated that he would go on and purcas from his sister Jain and Elizabeth and she further states that she heard her husband tell the sd Pugh that they also sold to the said John Shawhan and that he knew of his own knowledg that Ely Roberson and Elisabeth his wife had Resived a gray horse in payment for the same And further the deponent saith not
Sworn two and subscribed before us Two acting Justices of the Peace for the County of Rush and State
March 30, 1830
Mr. William Chiles Take notice I shall attend at the house of Wm. A. Becket in the State of Indiana Clark County on the twenty-second of April to Retake the deposition Margret Shawhan. To be Red as evidence in a suit in Bourbon Circuit Court whearin Pughs heirs is complainant and I am defendant If not completed on that day I shall go from day to day and place to place Till it is completed where you may attend if you choose.
March the 30--1830
April 22, 1830
State of Indiana Clark County
Pughs Heirs plaintive vs. John Shawhan defendant
The deposition of Margrit Shawhan
The deposition of Margrit Shawhan to be read as evadence (sic) in the Bourbon Circuit Court in the case whair in Pughs heirs is complainent and John Shawhan is defendant being of lawful age and duly sworn deposeth as follows:
My husband Daniel Shawhan moved to the State of Kentucky in May 1789. That summer he purchased one hundred and thirty acres of land from Reubin Rankin and moved to it in the month of October or November following and there he departed this life on May 1791. Sum six or seven years after his death my daughter Nancy Williams came to Kentucky and was thair Several weeks when she returned home I went home with her to Pennsylvania on our way thair the conversation came on with (word illegible) the Estate of her father’s (word illegible) Nancy Williams told me that her brother John was to have her part of the said one hundred and thirty acres of land by certain arrangements they had made between them selves and that they had closed thair contract but very shortly before she had left Kentucky but as to the particulars how it was as what she got or was to git I do not now recollect
Further the deponant saith not—
Taken sworn before us this 22nd of April 1830
(Illegible signature) Justice of the Peace
William Bullard April 16, 1834
State of Kentucky Sct.
Court of Appeals 16th April 1834
Wm P. Chiles Heirs &c. by Wm Chiles his nesct friend Plff
Against John Shawhan &al Defts.
Upon a W.E. to a decree of the Bourbon circuit court
The Court being sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises, it seems to them that there is no error in the Decree.
It is therefore, ordered and Decreed that the decree of the Circuit Court be affirmed; which is ordered to be certified to said court.
A Copy attest:
On October 24, 1793 John married Margaret "Peggy" McCUNE, daughter of William McCUNE (1750-December 6, 1830) & Elizabeth McCLINTOCK (?) (circa 1738-circa 1812), in Bourbon County, Kentucky. Margaret "Peggy" was born in Squirrel Hill, Pennsylvania, on May 20, 1775.18 Margaret "Peggy" died in Harrison County, Kentucky, on March 24, 1857; she was 81. Margaret "Peggy" was buried in John Shawhan Family Cemetery, Bourbon County, Kentucky.7
Margaret (McCune) Shawhan died March 24, 1857; her will dated March 29, 1855 and probated April 6, 185719 (W.B. P. 638). Among others she mentions her daughter Margaret Reading (the spelling is given in error as "Redding"). Both Margaret and John are buried on the farm of Tom Hollandon.20
Margaret Shawhan Will19
In the name of God Amen. I Margaret Shawhan of the County of Bourbon and State of Kentucky, do hereby make and Constitute this my last Will and Testament.
Item 1st. When life is no more with me I wish my body to be decently buried and all my funeral expenses paid and also all my just debts if any there be, to be punctually paid which I know at this time is very few and none of magnitude.
Item 2nd. Whereas my husband John Shawhan deceased, did by will leave and give to me the use and benefit the whole of his land and negroes during my lifetime or so long as I remained his widow to have the whole benefit of the said land and negroes and all his personal Estate, and as I have managed so as I think there will be something left to which I have made off of the place and negroes since the death of my husband, which consists of cash notes and personal property--and I do hereby dispose of the whole of my Estate in the following manner, to wit: I give and bequeth to my Grandson John Shawhan who is the son of my son Jos. Shawhan deceased fifty dollars. And the balance of my Estate whatever it may be equally divided amongst my Children and Grand Children as here named. Daniel Shawhan, Wm. M. Shawhan, John L. Shawhan and Elizabeth Smith, Margaret Redding (sic), Nancy Rush, and whereas my Daughter Susan Allison has three daughters, and whereas I believe my daughter Susan has disposed of her property by will or deed of conveyance and cut off her two oldest daughters with a very small portion of her estate, as I have been informed, therefore I give and bequeth unto my daughter Susan ten dollars. The balance of the one seventh part of my Estate I give to my two Grand daughters, namely, Amanda Smith and Margaret Hinkson who is the daughters of Susan Allison, to be equally divided between the above named Amanda Smith and Margaret Hinkson. That is they are to have one seventh part of my Estate after the ten dollars which I have given daughter Susan is taken from the seventh part of whatever it may be, the remainder I give to my two above named grand daughters--And furthermore I appoint my friend and brother-in-law Jos Shawhan my Executor of this my last Will and Testament.
Given under my hand and seal this 29th day of March 1855,
Jno. L. Shawhan
Margaret (her mark) Shawhan (seal)
Bourbon County Court April Term, April 6th 1857.
This last Will and Testament of Margaret Shawhan dec’d was this day produced and proved in open court by the oath of John L. Shawhan and Henry C. Ewalt. Attesting witnesses thereto having been sworn by Jos. Shawhan the Executor therein named is ordered to record. Witness H.J. Brown Clerk of said Court the date above. H.J. Brown Clerk
They had the following children:
i. Betsey. Betsey was born in Bourbon County, Kentucky, on March 2, 1795. Betsey died in Louisiana, Missouri, on June 30, 1855; she was 60.
See D.A.R. Magazine, Volume 47, August 1915, p. 93 Betsey's children are mentioned in Vol. 47.21
SMITH, Elizabeth, near Louisiana, Missouri, June 30, 1855, consort of James C. Smith, oldest daughter of Mr. John Shawhan, decd., who was one of the first settlers of this county , having migrated here in 1787. Mrs. Smith was born March 2, 1795, and was married in 1811, and in 1821, she and her husband removed to the state of Missouri. August 10, 1855.22
On January 30, 1812 Betsey married James C. SMITH.