Bedford County, TN Chancery Court Enrolling Docket (1848-1851)
MATTHEW MULLINS AND JANE his wife, AMOS SWEENEY and wife and others vs
~~~Original Bill~~~ ELIAS H. BRANDON, LEWIS WEATHERFORD, MARGARET
BRANDON and others. The fill of complaint of MATTHEW MULLINS and JANE his
wife, AMOS SWEENEY and HESTER his wife, ROBERTSON J. KING, CHARLES B.
KING, LEMUEL SNELLINGS AND SARAH his wife, THOMAS PANNELL and
POLLY his wife, JOHN NORVILLE JR. and AMERICA his wife and BOB C.
BRANDON by his next friend CHARLES B. KING. Files in the Chancery Court at
Shelbyville against ELIAS H. BRANDON, MARGARET BRANDON, LEWIS
WEATHERFORD and others. ~~~To the Honorable B. L. BIDLEY, Chancellor, VC.
Your orators, MATTHEW MULLINS AND JANE his wife, AMOS SWEENEY and
HESTER his wife, LEMUEL SNELLINGS, and SARAH his wife, citizens of Coffee
County, Tennessee humbly complaining would respectfully show unto your Honor that
CHARLES BRANDON late a citizen of said county of Bedford, departed this life
intestate in said county in the month of April 1838. Seized possessed in fee simple of the
following tract of land. Situated and lying in said county of Bedford on the waters of
Weakleys and Clems Creek’s beginning at a hickory and chinquapin oak. The south east
corner of an eighty acre survey in the name of ELIJAH RUTLEDGE running thence west
64 poles to a post oak thence 1 1/2 degrees west 57 poles to two elms said to be the north
east corner of a 40 acre survey and one of JOHN COOPER’S old corners. Thence south
87 degrees west passing one of an 18 acre survey 84 poles to an elm sapling south west
corner of JOHN COPPERS old survey now E. D. RUTLEDGE’S thence north 28 poles
to a dead mulberry and two walnuts thence west 47 poles to an ash and cedar the
northwest corner of said 18 acre survey in the east boundary line of a 60 acre survey in teh
name of said BRANDON thence north 67 poles to a stake in the south boundary line of a
tract of poles to a stake in the south boundary line of a tract of school land thence south
85 degrees west 72 poles to a mulberry the north east corner of a survey in the name of
WILLIAM CLARK thence south with the same one hundred and thirty two poles to a
black oak and elm thence east passing the corner of a 15 acre survey at 72 poles, in all
136 poles to a stake and dead post oak. One of THOMAS ALLISON’S north east
corners and south east corner of said 18 acre survey thence south 32 poles to a cedar, the
south west corner of the tract upon which RANSOME PRINCE lives thence south 89
degrees east 230 poles to 2 elms and a cedar. JOHN MOORE’S north east corner thence
south 36 poles to a walnut and cedar, thence south 85 degrees east 44 poles to a walnut
and cedar, thence south 85 degrees east 44 poles to a dead chinquapin ask in W. F.
SHORT’S west boundary line thence north with WALKERS AND BUCKERS line 200
poles to a stake thence west with GEORGE C. COOPER’S old line 140 poles to a stake
in the east boundary line of ELIJAH RUTHLEDGE’S survey thence south to the
beginning, containing upwards of 319 acres, and which said tract is composed of divers
small surveys and grants. Your orators would futher state that the said CHARLES
BRANDON at the time of his death was upwards of eighty years of age and for some time
before his decease was weak in body and imbecile in mind. In fact for several years
previous thereto he was deranged and wholly incapable from mental imbecility or insanity
of transacting the ordinary business of every day life. Your orators would also state to
your honor that they and the following named persons are the legitimate heirs and
distributarees of the said CHARLES BRANDON deceased and as such are entitle to the
above tract of land by descent from him. To wit ELIZABETH HENSLEY, JOHN KING,
CAROLINE, NANCY, ROBERT, SARAH AND ELIZABETH LEE the four last named
being minors. JAMES CHAMBERS AND NANCY his wife, AARON SHANNON AND
ELIZABETH his wife, ROBERT TURNER AND ELIZABETH his wife, RACHEL
FALKNER, ELIAS H. MCFADDIN, WILLIS MACFADDEN AND NANCY his wife,
JONATHAN SMITH AND MARY his wife, ANDREW MISE AND SALLIE his wife.
JOHN W. BRANDON, ANDREW L. BRANDON, - BUCHANAN AND CAROLINE
his wife, ELIAS BRANDON - SMITH AND CATHARINE his wife, ELIAS H.
BRANDON AND MARGARET BRANDON, your orators and the individuals above
named being the children and grand children of the said Charles deceased, except the
husbands of the femes covert named your orators would also represent that after the
decease fo the said CHARLES BRANDON two of the defendants to wit ELIAS H. AND
MARGARET BRANDON pretended that their father the said CHARLES had some time
previous his death conveyed to them by metes and bounds portions fo the above described
tract of land and the said MARGARET BRANDON after his decease actually produced
and caused to be registered in the registers office of Bedford County on the 26th May
1838 in book HH a pretend deed from said Charles for sixty acres in the west end of said
tract of land and the said ELIAS H. BRANDON produced and caused to be registered in
said officed in said book on the 9th October 1838 a pretended deed for 150 acres in the
east end of said tract but which in fact by it calls covers upward of two hundred acres.
Your orators further represents that said pretended conveyance are or purport to be dated
19th December 1835 and cover all the aforesaid tract of land with the exception of about
53 acres lying between them as will be shown to your honor on the hearing. Your orators
has every reason to believe and so expressly charge that said two deed to the said
MARGARET AND ELIAS H. are forgeries never having in fact been executed by the said
CHARLES BRANDON dead. Your orators also charge that if said conveyance were
signed by him they were not delivered by him in his life time to said defendants and his
signature thereto was procured by an undue influence exercised over his mind by the said
ELIAS H. AND MARGARET BRANDON. And no consideration was ever paid by them
for said lands. Your orators further charge that before and at the time said pretended
deeds purport to have been executed as well as afterwards up to the time of the decease of
the said CHARLES BRANDON, he was insane and imbecile in mind and in consequence
thereof was wholly incapable of executing said conveyance or of doing any other binding
act of like character and if he did as pretended, sign or execute said deeds they are
consequently void and communicate no title whatever to said ELIAS H. AND
MARGARET. Your orators further charge that in January 1839 the said ELIAS H.
BRANDON sold and conveyed the said 150 acre tract or rather 200 acre tract so claimed
by him, to one LEWIS WEATHERFORD. The said WEATHERFORD at the time of his
purchase well knowing that when the pretended conveyance was executed from the said
CHARLES to the said ELIAS H. or purports to have been executed the said CHARLES
BRANDON was from insanity or mental imbecility wholly incapable of executing the
same. But your orators would further charge that whether said WEATHERFORD knew
this to be the fact or not is immaterial as the said ELIAS H. himself has no valid title to
said tract of land except an undivided interest of one ONE TENTH OR ONE
ELEVENTH part of the same which descended to him as one of the heirs of said
CHARLES deceased. Your orators would further represent that the above described
tract of land while descended to them and the other heirs and distributors of the said
CHARLES BRANDON deceased above named as already stated is so situated that a just
and fair division of the same cannot be made and they further state that it would be
manifestly for the advantage of the heirs that it should be sold. But your orators charge
that the afore said conveyance to the said ELIAS H. AND MARGARET BRANDON and
LEWIS WEATHERFORD are a claim upon the title of said land or the greater portion
thereof, which will greatly impede its sale unless removed. In under consideration of the
premises your orators pray your honor the same ELIAS H. BRANDON who is a citizen
of the state of MISSOURI. The said MARGARET BRANDON AND LEWIS
WEATHERFORD citizens of Bedford county, Tennessee. JOHN KING of Williamson
County, JONATHAN SMITH AND MARY his wife of Lincoln county, Tennessee and
CAROLINE, NANCY, ROBERT C. SARAH, ELIZABETH LEE, ELIZABETH
HENSLEY, JAMES CHAMBERS AND MARY his wife, AARON SHANNON, AND
ELIZABETH his wife, ROBERT TURNER AND NANCY his wife, RACHEL
FALKNER, WILLIS MCFADDIN AND NANCY his wife, ELIAS H. MCFADDIN,
ANDREW ;MISE AND SALLIE his wife who are not citizens of the state of Tennessee,
but reside in parts unknown to your orators, be made defendants to the bill that copies
herof and subpoenaas issued VC. as to those who are nonresident of this state and that
said defendants be compelled full true and perfect answers to make to the several
allegations herein contained as fully as if they were here again severally repeated. And
may it please your honor to compel the said defendants ELAIS H. AND MARGARET
BRANDON AND LEWIS WEATHERFORD to exhibit for further inspection of your
honor the said deeds above mentioned purporting to have been executed by the said
CHARLES BRANDON dead. And may it please your honor report the final hearing to
decree that the said deeds purporting to have been executed by the said CHARLES
BRANDON to the said ELIAS H. AND MARGARET BRANDON and by the said
ELIAS H. to the said WEATHERFORD be declared void and delivered up to be cancelled
and the possession of said land covered by said deeds restored to the possessions of your
orators. And the other heirs of said CAHRLES deceased or such other person as your
honor may appoint. And may it also please your honor at the final hearing to decree that
the said tract of 319 acres or upwards be sold on such terms as your honor may decree
proper and the proceeds divided between your orators and the other heirs of the said
CHARLES deceased according to their respective rights and such other and further relief
grant your orators the premises as they are entitled to inequity and jsutice and as in duty
bound they will ever pray. Misener and Whiteside sols. We acknowledge ourselves
indebted to LEWIS WEATHERFORD, MARGARET AND ELIAS H. BRANDON and
others in the sum of \$250.00 dollars to be void on condition that MATTHEW MULLINS
and others present with effect a suit this day commenced in the Chancery Court at
Shelbyville against the said LEWIS WEATHERFORD and others or pay all costs which
may be decreed to and against them in case of failure there of given under our hands and
seal this 8th day of February 1845. James Mullins. Thomas C. Whiteside.
Matthew Mullins and others. VS Elias H. Brandon others Bill and amended bill This cause is remanded to the rules and complainants dismiss their amended bill as far as it makes John A. Moore a defendant. Matthew Mullins and wife and others VS Lewis Weatherford | Decree | Upon the application of defendants this cause is continued until the next term of this court and remanded to the rules upon their paying one fourth of costs which have accrued in said cause in making the said Weatherford and Margaret Brandon parties therein. It is also ordered by the court that complainants have leave to retake the deposition of Berry Smith at their own costs and defendants to take rebutting proof without cost insluding the depositions of F. C. C. Miller and Elizabeth Louden.
Matthew Mullins et al VS Elias H. Brandon et al Interlocutory degree Be it remembered that this cause came on for further hearing and was heard this 27 day of February 1849 before the Honorable Bromfield, L. Bidley Chancellor VC. Upon complainants bill defendants answer pro confess order replications and proofs and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court from the proofs that Charles Brandon at the time of the execution of the deeds to Elias H. Brandon and Margaret Brandon was of sound mind and disposing memory on the 19th day of December 1835 and that said deeds were made by him at that time in pursuance of a previously formed and often expressed opinion and with a full knowledge of what he was doing. It is therefore ordered adjudged and decreed by the court, that so much of complainants bill as seeks to set aside said deeds executed by Charles Brandon to Margaret Brandon and Elias H. Brandon be dismissed and that complainants pay all of the costs which have accrued in this cause from the attempts to set aside said deeds and which have not as yet been decreed by the court to be paid. But it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that there is one portion of the land belonging to the heirs of Charles Brandon about which there is no controversy and which the court is satisfiedthat it is manifestly for the advantage of the parties entitled to the same that it should be sold. The court therefore doth order adjudge and decree that the clerk and master proceed upon the premises to sell all the land belonging to the heirs of Charles Brandon not included within the calls of the deeds to Margaret Brandon and Elias H. Brandon upon a credit on one and two years first giving twenty days notice of the time and place of sale at three or more public places in Bedford County, except the sum of fifty dollars in cash to pay costs and that he report his proceedings to the next term of this court until which time all matters not herein disposed of are reserved.
The undersigned would beg leave further to report. $97.00 that from the evidence of Allen Wallis and Michael Fisher the charges made for the time by Matthew Mullins for himself and his horse and his traveling expenses are very low or to use the words of witness very reasonable. Therefore in compliance with the interlocutory report that Matthew Mullins should be allowed the above amount for his trouble and expenses and as cash paid out of his own funds to the attorneys in Missouri and Kentucky for attending to taking depositions. The clerk and master would further beg leave to state that in this case his execution docket shows that Matthew Mullins and his son James Mullins have already paid costs in this cause at different times amounting to the sum of $216.45 all of which is respectfully submitted August 25th 1851.
Elais H. Brandon and others
Matthew Mullins et al
Matthew Mullins and others
Which not being excepted to in all things confirmed byt he fourt and it is ordered by the court that the clerk and master pay to said Misener the sum of fifty dollars out of the first money that comes into his hands arising from the sale of the land in this case after paying the costs
incident to the sale of the land and that he in like manner pay to thomas C. Whiteside Esq. the sum of one hundred dollars.
Matthew Mullins and others
To the
bill of Complain of MATTHEW MULLINS and others against them filed in Chancery
Court at Shelbyville. These respondents saving and reserving for answer to so much of
said bill as they are advised it is material for them to answer unto ~~ answer and say that
they admit that CHARLES BRANDON Senr. late of Bedford county departed this life
intestate in April 1838. They admit that before the execution of the deeds here to fore
mentioned from said CHARLES to respondent MARGARET and to ELIAS H.
BRANDON. He was seized and possessed in fee simple of the tract of land described in
complaintants bill, respondent MARGARET admits that said CHARLES BRANDON ~
her father was upwards of 80 years old at the time of his death, but she states that until
three months before his death he possessed unusual vigor both of body and mind for that
age and but for the loss of his eyesight could even have performed labor that there was no
decay of his mental faculties except such as are incident to old age until the period afore
said of 3 months before his death when he was attached by disease resembling fits which
weakened and in a great manner destroyed both body and mind. But respondent avers
that until that attack some three months before his death he retained all of his mental
faculties in an unusual degree and knew as well as what he was doing as at any time during
life. Respondent positively and unequivocally denies the charges of forgery and
imposition contained in said bill. She answers that her father executed the conveyance to
her freely and voluntary without any improprity on her part in pursuance of a design and
determination which he had formed and expressed many years before not only to
respondent but to many others. She would further state her said father had been TWICE
MARRIED: The others: {except HESTER SWEENEY were the issue of his first
marriage, all of whom had for many years been married and portioned off and had left him.
That respondent and ELIAS H. BRANDON and complaintant HESTER SWEENEY were
the only children he had by his last wife. That HESTER SWEENEY married twenty five
or thirty years ago and left him. That respondent was next child to HESTER SWEENEY
and her father told her many years ago that if she continued to live with him and keep
house for him that he would give her a part of his tract of land. That she did live with him
and kept house until his death. That ELIAS H. BRANDON who was his youngest child
also lived with him until he grew up. When he removed to Illinois and remained there 3
years and then at the earnest solicitation of his father returned to Tennessee some seven
years before the death of said CHARLES and lived with him and assisted in taking care of
his affairs until his death since which time he has removed to Missouri where he now
resides. That for many years before his death the said CHARLES had repeatedly declared
his intention to give the said ELIAS H. a part of his land and respondent repeats that she
has already said that the conveyance already described in complaintants bill were signed
and delievered to her and her said brother ELIAS, at the time they were dated freely and
voluntarily without persuasion or importunity on her part and as far as she knows and
believes on the part of her said brother that the deeds were written by her brother by the
direction of his father and at his request were read over and fully understood by him and
assented by him and his mark made by him and the deeds delivered to the parties entitled
thereto respectively. Respondent MARGARET admits that she never paid any
consideration for said land except as above set forth. Respondent further answers that the
heirs of her father are described in said bill with some few exception. She knows no such
person as ELIZABETH HENSLEY, ROBERT TURNER’S wife is named NANCY and
not ELIZABETH and there is or was a MARY BRANDON a daughter of said CHARLES
by his first wife of whom no mention is made of in said bill either as complaintant or
defendant. Respondent WESTHERFORD answers that he was not acquainted with
CHARLES BRANDON deceased. That he removed to this country in 1839 after the death
of said CHARLES, in search of a place to settle and he was recommended by complainant
AMOS SWEENEY to purchase from ELIAS H. BRANDON. The said SWEENEY
assuring the said respondent that the title was as good as any title and respondent did
purchase from ELIAS H. BRANDON the tract of land in dispute for the sum of \$1500.00
and took a deed from said ELIAS H. dated January the 18th 1839. And have ever since
held possission thereof. Respondent had no doubt that when he purchased he was
purchasing a good ttitle and he purchased for a full and fair consideration with out notice
of any defect in said title and he therefore claims all of the rights and privileges which
attach to a bonafide purchase without notice. Respondents both answer they both took
possession of their several tracts of land shortly after the death of said CHARLES and that
complainant MULLINS took possession for himself and the other heirs, of the remainder
of the said tract and that they have not been interrupted in their possession until the filing
of this bill a space of between 6 and 7 years affording of itself a strong presumption that
complainants have heretofore looked upon their claim as a very doubtful one. Repondent
suppose that the lands of said CHARLES cannot be divided to advantage among so many
heirs whether the court may think the claims of respondent valid or invalid repsondent
having fully answered pray to be hence discharged with their reasonable costs. Frierson &
Cooper. State of Tennessee Bedford County This day appeared personally LEWIS
WEATHERFORD and MARGARET BRANDON before me and made oath that the facts
stated in the fore going by them respectively as of their own knowledge are true and those
stated on the information of others they believe to be true. Sworn and subscribed before
me 2nd February 1845. LEWIS WEATHERFORD MARGARET BRANDON
Degree orders VC.
Mathew Mullins et al VS Decree
Elias H. Brandon et al
Be it remembered that this cause came on for further hearing and was heard before the honorable, Bromfiled L. Bidley Chancellor VC upon the ofllowing report of the clerk of the Chancery court to wit: The under signed clerk and master of the Chancery court at Shelbyville in pursuance of an interlocutory decree pronounced in this cause at the February term tereof 1851 to hear proof and report to the august term 1851 what expenses and costs the complainants have been at in prosecuting this suit in pursuance of said decree the undersigned begs leave to make the followin g report: Matthew Mullins presented his account which the undersigned has filed with the papers in this cause and which appears as follows. Brandon heirs: To Matthew Mullins for 2 trips to Missouri to take depositions 15 days expenses per day $2.00. for self and hoss________$30.00. 15 DAUS 2ND TRIP AND EXPENSES _______$5.00. i TRIP TO kENTUCKY 5 DAYS AND EXPENSES_____$5.00. TWO TRIPS TO hICKMAN COUNTY, tENNESSEE TO TAKE DEPOSITION AND EXPENSES INCURRED_________$17.00.
M. J. Whitehouse
C.T.Mr.
Which not being excepted to is in all things confirmed by the court and it is further ordered by the court that all the right title claim and interest of complainants and defendants in and to the said tract of land of 53 & 100/160 be divested of them and vested in Kimbro S. Allison his heirs and assigns forever subject to a lien for the purchase money.
Matthew Mullins and wife and others
VS
order
upon the affidavit of
Matthew Mullins one of complainants thsi cause is continued and remanded to the rules and leave is granted complainants to take the depositions of William Cooper and wife and others at their own costs.
VS
Elias H. Brandon and others
order
upon suggestion of William H. Misener and it appearing to the court that there are femes covert and minors interested in the proceeds fo the sale of the said tract of land in this case. This case is referred to the clerk and master of this court to take proof and report what the services of said Misener for complainants in the supreme court in this case are worth and report (mslanter.) (Later?)
VS
Elias H. Brandon et al
Decree and repe of C & M
upon motion of Matthew Mullins
this cause is referred to the clerk and master to take proof and report what expenses and costs any of complainants have been at or paid in prosecuting this suit and report to the next term of this court.
VS
Elias H. Brandon
This cause came on to be heard report
the following report of the clerk and master in this case to wit: the undersigned report from the affidavit of Ed Cooper Exsq. that William H. Misener services as solicitor for complainants in the supreme court in the case of Matthew Mullins and wife and others against Elias H. Brandon are worth fifty dollars and the services of thomas C. Whitside for the same parties in this court are worth one hundred dollars, all of which is respectfully submitted February 27th 1851.
W. F. Mnitthom C & M
VS
Lewis Weatherford and others
Decree bill for sale of land VC. Be it remembered that this cause for hearing again before the Hon. B. L. Bidley this 2nd day of August 1851 upon the report of the clerk and master made to the present term of this court and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that Matthew Mullins one of the complainants has incurred expenses to the amount of $97.00 in prosecuting this suit and has paid cost in the same to the amount of $216.45 both amountng int he aggregate to the sum of $313.45 which ought to be paid out of the purchase money of the land heretofore sold by the clerk and master. It is therefore ordered adjudged and decreed by the court that the clerk and master pay to said complainant the sum of $313.45 out of the purchase money of said land when collected. It is further ordered adjudged and decreed by the court that the clerk after paying, deducting all the costs and expenses aforesaid suit heretofore decreed to be paid out of said fund pay the balance of said purchase money to those of complainants and defendants who are the heirs and distributees of said Charles Brandon deceased according to their respective interest except defendnats Elias H. and Margaret Brandon who are not entitled to any portion of said purchase money they having been fully advanced by said Charles Brandon. It is further ordered and decreed by the court that said clerk and master pay and deliver over to complainant Matthew Mullins the portion of shares of all the non-resident portions heirs and distributees of the said Charles Brandon as aforesaid in purchase money upon his executing bond with sufficient securtiy to be approved by the said clerk for the payment and distribution of the smae by the said Mullins to those entitled thereto.
Back to Charles Brandon
Arline's Ancestors
© 1998 to present All rights reserved.