BOURBON CO., KY SUIT NO. 733
PUGH HEIRS VS JOHN SHAWHAN
Transcription and Introduction by Robert E. Francis
Timeline by Ronald T. Shawhan
Introduction
In August, 1822, William Pugh entered a suit in chancery before the Bourbon Circuit Court, Bourbon County, Kentucky, against the heirs of Daniel Shawhan (1738-1791). Pugh listed the defendants as follows: "He (Pugh) therefore prays that, the said widow, the said John, Joseph, Daniel & Robert Shawhon, Isaac Williams & Nancy his wife, Wm Becket & Jane his wife may be defendants in this bill" Pugh named John Shawhan, Daniel's third son, as the primary defendant. The reader will note that the youngest daughter, Elizabeth, was not named as a defendant in the suit. The reason will become clear below.
The case is very complicated and requires some detailed examination of the points made by William Pugh in his suit. He claimed that he had purchased a right to 1/7th of the original 130 acres of land belonging to the heirs of Daniel Shawhan dec'd. In 1789, Daniel had purchased land from Reubin Rankin who provided him with a written bond with the promise that a deed was forthcoming. However, Daniel died before the deed could be drawn up; and, since Daniel died intestate, no formal division of the land took place between the widow and the children. This was the heart of Pugh's argument and would become the basis for his claim to a portion of the land.
Pugh asserted that, since the land had never been legally divided amongst the heirs, no single co-heir could lay claim to the undivided property. Each child had a right to 1/7th of the remaining portion of the 130 acres after the widow's dower. Pugh had a vested interest in this argument because on July 13, 1822, he had purchased 1/7th portion of the land from Elizabeth (Shawhan) and Eli Robertson. Elizabeth was the youngest daughter of Daniel and Margaret (Bell) Shawhan. In late September 1822, Pugh amended this claim to include a second 1/7th portion of the 130 acres after purchasing said portion from the eldest Shawhan daughter, Nancy, and her husband Isaac Williams. Pugh subsequently removed Nancy and Isaac as defendants in the suit.
Pugh directed his argument specifically against John Shawhan, the third son of Daniel. He accused John of fraudulently obtaining a deed for the land in his own name from a William Miller (the patentee for the land) on June 24, 1800. Pugh argued that, since the land had never been legally divided amongst the heirs, Shawhan had no right to an exclusive claim to the land. He stated that "John Shawhon, without the knowledge or consent of any of his brothers or sisters, except probably Joseph Shawhon who not long thereafter removed from sd land, obtained from Wm Miller the patentee, a deed for said 130 acres of land, in his own name without including therein any of the sd heirs of Daniel Shawhon dec'd". Additionally, Pugh argued that, since the deed was obtained illegally, 50% of the profits that came from the use of the land was now owed to the co-heirs of the land in question retroactive to the date of the illegal deed. I am guessing that this remuneration may have been a part of the "deal" that Pugh made with Elizabeth and Nancy. Pugh further argued that John Shawhan should pay the co-heirs and Pugh their rightful portion of "rents & profits that he has enjoyed" since illegally owning the land.
John Shawhan provided two responses countering Pugh's claims. The first, submitted May 4, 1823, claimed that, because he had legally obtained a deed from William Miller for the 130 acres, neither Pugh nor any of his co-heirs had any legal claim to the land.. He argued that the co-heirs had verbally agreed upon the need of a legal deed and that he obtained the deed to protect the family against just such fraudulent claims as that put forth by William Pugh.
John's amended response, filed in November 1826, showed a much more sober and legally savvy answer to William Pugh's allegations. It seems that Pugh had called John on several points of his original testimony. John spent several pages of this 12 page deposition admitting that he had not clearly thought through the implications of his original deposition. He admitted to mistakes in judgement but denied having done anything wrong. He then painstakingly detailed the events leading up to the purchase of the deed from William Miller. The result of his testimony is an exceptional picture of life in the Shawhan family of Bourbon County, Kentucky, from the summer of 1789 until about 1810. John forcefully argued that he and his siblings had come to an agreement that he should purchase their interest in the land in order to keep the original 130 acres intact. He admitted that, while he and his siblings never entered into written agreements concerning the sale and transfer of their interests to John, everyone agreed to the arrangement. John considered these arrangements internal family affairs that, while informal, were nevertheless legally binding. Once these agreements were made, John then obtained a legal deed to the land in his name.
It is interesting to note that after this response John Shawhan became quite adept at the legal maneuverings of the court. He actively pursued the process of obtaining depositions from each of the siblings verifying the informal agreements of transfer, as well as witnesses to the original bond, the subsequent deed for the land, and a rather telling piece of paper showing that Mr. Eli Robinson and wife had agreed to sell their interest in the land for a horse.
In a will dated December 15, 1823, William Pugh named his nephew William Chiles as the complainant in the suit against John Shawhan and defendants. The will itself reveals some very interesting details. It looks as if William Pugh had made a deal with Nancy and Elizabeth and their husbands promising a "payoff" if the case proved successful. Eli Robertson and wife were to receive $200 and the Williams $50 for their bargain with Pugh! I wonder how John and family received this piece of information?
In passing, I should say a word about William Chiles. Chiles was something of an expert in litigation, having already been instrumental in another suit brought against John Shawhan brought by the Hoy family in 1821("Hoy Heirs vs. John Shawhan," Bourbon Circuit Court Suit #515). In this suit, Chiles petitioned the Court to have Shawhan's property surveyed (see addendum). The Hoy's ultimately lost the case. Chiles was also currently embroiled as defendant with several other families (including my 3rd great grandfather Nicholas Smith) in a law suit. This suit "Thomas Boone Heirs vs. William Chiles and others" made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court and was finally settled (in Chiles' and my grandfather's favor) in 1835.
While I am sure that Bourbon Circuit Court Suit #733 is a fairly unremarkable representation of civil suits of the day, from the standpoint of Shawhan family research, it is one of the most remarkable documents to come to light on our Bourbon County branch of the family. Until this time, we had no idea about the early years of this family. This researcher had assumed that the family moved to Bourbon County, cleared the land, established the now-famous Shawhan distillery, and became one of the more influential families of Bourbon and Harrison counties. The truth of the matter was that, after Daniel's death and for several years following, the family barely eked out a living. John Shawhan assumed the role of the head of the household-and ex-facto father-figure-and determined to keep the family (and land) together against all odds. In the process, he may have succeeded in alienating some members of the family, especially Elizabeth, though this can only be conjectured.
The suit also clarifies some facts concerning the family that researchers have questioned for some time. Firstly, we now have definitive proof that Daniel and Margaret Shawhan had only seven children instead of the eight, as speculated in some quarters. The seven children are as follows: Robert, Daniel, Nancy, John, Jane, Elizabeth and Joseph. An eighth child, "Shawnson," mentioned in the Kentuckian-Citizen article "The Shawhans of Bourbon County," is now clearly ruled out. He is hereby relegated to the status of a "mystery" Shawhan.
Another little known family secret comes to light in this suit. Jane, the second daughter, had two children prior to marrying William Becket in 1802. The children's names were Polly (born circa 1796) and Luke Shawhan (1799-1877). Polly married a Josiah Thomas and Luke married Nancy McComb. Nothing else is known about these children.
A small detail that could easily be missed is the bond between Reubin Rankin and Daniel Shawhan. Daniel's signature is not on this bond. Why is this? Could it have been that Daniel was illiterate and another person, a "Daniel Mosby" signed for him? It's pure speculation, of course, but worthy of consideration.
A final addition to our knowledge about this family is that Margaret Shawhan lived much longer than originally expected. If she was born in 1742 as family tradition reports, at the very least Margaret lived to grand old age of eighty-eight!
I have included a one page addendum to this suit from the above mentioned "Hoy vs. John Shawhan" suit because it provides the clearest survey plat of Daniel Shawhan's property.
Robert E. Francis
May 10, 1999
Timeline
August 17, 1822 Bourbon County Court. File Box 733; suit filed by Pugh heirs vs. John Shawhan. (Amended May, 1823). Suit states that William Miller obtained 300 acres on Townsend (Creek), then sold them to Wm. Hoy. Hoy sold land to Reuben Rankin, Robert Bell, and Pugh; Rankin sold his 130 acres to Daniel Shawhan who occupied land and made improvements. Daniel Shawhan died in 1791, intestate and the land descended to his children, John, Joseph, Daniel, Robert, Nancy (m. Isaac Williams), Jane (m. Wm. Becket), Elizabeth (m. Eli Robinson); his wife Margaret was administrator. The widow and children continued to live upon said 130 acres, and John made considerable improvements, particularly by way of clearing and enclosing land. Daniel Shawhan did not obtain a deed from Rankin. About 1800, John Shawhan, without the knowledge of his brothers and sisters, paid Miller $19 for a deed in his name; John Shawhan demanded and obtained said sum from Rankin. On July 13, 1822, Pugh purchased from Eli Robinson and wife, Elizabeth, their undivided seventh part. On Sept. 4, 1822, Pugh obtained from Isaac Williams and Nancy, his wife, a deed for their undivided seventh part. The orator (Pugh) demands that John Shawhan answer how many acres of cleared and cultivated land there is, and that rents, profits, and land be allotted to him accordingly.
Sept. 20, 1822 Allegheny Co., PA deed filed that Isaac and Nancy Williams received $75.00 and conveyed their interest in 1/7th of the 130 acres where John Shawhan resides to Wm. Pugh and his heirs.
May 24, 1823 Bourbon Co. Court. John Shawhan response to bill filed by William Pugh. Stated that the original bond of said Rankin to his father Daniel Shawhan, was dated Aug. 1789; that his father built a house on the land and his brother Daniel, who was married, built on another part of the land. Stated that William Miller obtained patent "on the waters of Townsend" for 330 acres, but denies that said Miller ever sold said land to Wm. Hoy or anyone else, though he had heard of a claim filed by Pugh, Rankin, and Bell for 330 acres. Stated that he (John) had made diligent search in offices of record for evidence showing sale of land from Miller to Rankin; admits that his father Daniel did purchase 130 acres of land from Rankin for the sum of $200 in 1789 and settled thereon. Some years later, as sisters were coming of age and getting married, and the land was too small to divide among all seven children, over the years, John made arrangements to obtain the land interests of his brothers and sisters, through their general willingness and consent. This included payment, on July 22, 1799, of a horse and additional dollars to Eli Robinson and his wife Elizabeth. for their interest, executed in writing. In July 1809 he contracted with his sister Jane. Other agreements were made with his brothers Daniel and Joseph. His brother Robert, and sister Nancy Williams, had stayed in Pennsylvania; and had already received land from their father Daniel. During this time, Wm. Miller informed John that the land on which he lived belonged to him (Miller), and threatened a suit; Miller exhibited title papers and said that he had never conveyed the land to any person that Rankin's claim was worthless. Miller asked for 19 pounds, 10 shillings for the land. John took time to examine the validity of Miller's claim before concluding to pay the requested sum to Miller, with the knowledge of John's coheirs, on June 24, 1800. Stated that Pugh had thrust himself into the family's affairs for the sole purpose of making mischief.
Dec. 15, 1823 Will signed by Wm. Pugh grants his claim against John Shawhan to his nephew, Will Chiles; filed with Bourbon Co., Court, July 1824.
Nov. 1826 Bourbon Co., KY Court -- Amended Response of John Shawhan, John showed a much more legal response to William Pugh's allegations. He spent several pages admitting that he had not clearly thought through the implications of his original response. He admitted to mistakes in judgement but denied having done anything wrong. He detailed the events leading up to the purchase of the deed from William Miller. John argued that he and his siblings had come to an agreement that he should purchase their interest in the land in order to keep the original 130 acres intact. He admitted that, while he and his siblings never entered into written agreements concerning the sale and transfer of their interests to John, everyone agreed to the arrangement, including his sister Nancy Williams in Pennsylvania. John considered these arrangements internal family affairs that, while informal, were nevertheless legally binding. Once these agreements were made, John then obtained a legal deed to the land in his name.
Nov. 16, 1826 Deposition of Elizabeth Pugh, Bourbon Co., KY. Elizabeth was wife of Joseph Pugh. Stated that Daniel Shawhan had contracted to purchase 130 acres of land from Reuben Rankin, land which had formerly been "laid off by said Rankin, (my husband) Joseph Pugh, and Robert Bell" under a contract between them and Major Wm. Hoy. Also stated that her husband, John Shawhan, and others had settled with Wm. Miller.
Nov. 16, 1826 Deposition of John Tucker, Bourbon Co., KY. Stated that he recalled a contract between Reuben Rankin, Joseph Pugh, and Robert Bell for 330 acres with Major Wm. Hoy; that Daniel Shawhan took possession of Rankin's part. Also stated that Rankin had given a horse to John Shawhan as remuneration for the money that John had paid Miller.
Nov. 17, 1826 Deposition of Joshua Hall, Bourbon Co., KY. Stated that he had seen the original receipt, dated July 1, 1803, that John Shawhan made out for receiving a horse valued at 19 pounds, 10 shillings, from Reuben Rankin.
Oct. 9, 1827 -- Deposition of Jane Shawhan Becket and Margaret Shawhan, Clark Co., IN. Jane was present in 1799 when Eli Robertson sold his share of the land to John Shawhan. Margaret attested that she witnessed Eli and Elizabeth (Shawhan) Robertson sign the July 22, 1799 release of their share to John Shawhan.
Oct. 25, 1827 Deposition of Joseph Shawhan, Bourbon Co., KY. Stated that John Shawhan purchased the interest of Eli Robertson and wife by giving them a horse. Joseph witnessed seeing the receipt for said horse.
July 25, 1829 Deposition of Jane Becket, Clark Co., IN. Stated that Daniel Shawhan bought 130 acres of land from Reuben Rankin and had Rankin's bond for the title; the land was not surveyed. Daniel built a cabin adjoining corner of Robert Bell's land. Her brother John became head of family. Land was too small to divide among heirs, so John commenced buying interests of other heirs. In the 1790s Wm. Miller made a claim on the land. The coheirs became alarmed and directed John to offer a compromise with Miller and to take a deed from Miller in his (John's) own name. Stated further that John had purchased her interests and had also sold her brother Daniel's share to Joseph and some 12 15 years later bought it back from Joseph; there were no deeds exchanged for these transactions.
July 25, 1829 Deposition of William Becket, Clark Co., IN. His wife Jane sold her share of the land to John Shawhan shortly before their marriage, and received payment after their marriage. The transaction occurred after John had obtained deed from Wm. Miller.
Aug. 1, 1829 Deposition of Daniel Shawhan and wife Mary, Rush Co., IN. Wm. Pugh came to Daniel's house in 1822 or 1823 to purchase his interest in the land that his father Daniel had purchased from Reuben Rankin. Daniel told Pugh that John Shawhan had already purchased the land from him as well as from the other children -i.e. Jane, Elizabeth, Joseph, Robert, etc. Daniel also stated that the deed from Wm. Miller to John Shawhan was "right and just". He further stated that he, Daniel, lived on the land from 1789 1796 and, until 1825, was "not more than a day's ride away".
April 22, 1830 Deposition of Margaret Shawhan, in Clark Co., IN. Her husband, Daniel Shawhan, moved to KY in May 1789. That summer he purchased 130 acres from Reubin Rankin the family moved to the property in October or November of 1789. Daniel died May 1791. Six or seven years later, her daughter Nancy (Shawhan) Williams visited from PA and Margaret returned to PA with her. Nancy told Margaret that she and John had arranged for John to have her share of the 130 acres.
May 1830 Bourbon Co. Circuit Court. Sustained John Shawhan objection to filing of deeds by Isaac William and wife, and by Eli Robertson and wife, as having non-legal authentication.
April 16, 1834 Kentucky Court of Appeals. Affirmed Circuit Court decree.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS/EXHIBITS
Aug. 13, 1789 Bond by Reuben Rankin for sale of 130 acres to Daniel Shawhan for 250 pounds that part of purchase made by Rankin, Robt. Bell, and Joseph Pugh.
June 24, 1800 (?) -- Deed for sale of land by Wm. Miller to John Shawhan
April 22, 1802 Agreement between John Shawhan and Jane Shawhan for John to acquire Jane's land interest; he will pay Polly and Luke Shawhan Becket when they arrive at age.
June 30, 1803 Note from Joseph Shawhan to Mr. Rankin, stating that John Shawhan had satisfactorily divided the land.
July 1, 1803 -- Receipt by John Shawhan for horse from Reuben Rankin regarding the sum paid Wm. Miller for land, of 19pds, 10s.
Transcription
August 13, 1789
Know all men by these presents that I Rubin Rankins of the county of Bourbon and State of Virginia and held firmly bound unto Daniel Shawhorn of the said county & state above mentioned in the just & full sum of two hundred and fifty pounds current money of Virginia to which payment well and truly to be made I bind myself my heirs Executors, Administrators & Assigns firmly by these presents witness, my hand and seal this 13th day of August 1789. The condition of the above obligation is such, that as the above bound Rubin Rankins has bargained & sold to the said Daniel Shawhorn a certain tract of land containing one hundred and thirty acres lying & being in the county of Bourbon on the waters of Townsends Run it being a part of a purchase made by the said Rubin Rankins Robert Bell & Joseph Pugh in partnership and if the said Rubin Rankins or his Heirs shall make a good and lawful deed with a general warrantee unto the said Daniel Shawhon his Heirs or Assigns-the Deed to be made as soon as opportunity will admit then the above obligation to be void or else remain in full force and virtue in law.
In presents of Reubin Rankins (seal)
Robert Wilmott Daniel Mosby (seal)
Anthy Livstad
Robert Bell
July 22, 1799
Then received of John Shawhan a gray hors at 45 dolar in payment of my wife Elisebeths part of the land that said John Shawhan now lives on Received by me
Witness present Eli Robertson
Joseph Shawhan
Her
Margrit Shawhan
mark
This is to certify that I Eli Robertson and my wife Elizabeth do asign over to John Shawhan our full right of (word illegible) Heirship of a bond from Reubin Rankin to Daniel Shawhan having date 18th of August 1789.
Witness before sind Eli Robertson
Joseph Shawhan her
her Elizabeth Robertson
Margrit Shawhan mark
mark
In Witness whereof the Parties first named in this Indenture have hereunto set their hands and seals the year and day above written.
Wm Miller (seal)
John Tucker
William McCune
Alexander Tucker
Joseph Pugh
Bourbon County August 19th 1800
I do testify that this deed of bargain and sale from William Miller to John Shawhan was proved before me by the oath of John Tucker, William McCune and Joseph Pugh, witness thereto and ordained to be recorded
Tho. Arnold, clk.
Wm. Miller to Jno. Shawhan deed
Record Bk. I, pa. 370-end
April 22, 1802
Article of an agreement between John Shawhan and Jean Shawhan of the County and State aforesaid this is to certify that sd John and Jean Shawhan have made and agreed on this that the sd John Shawhan is to give Polly and Luke Shawhan her son and daughter forty dollars in good property when they arrive at the age sufficient to do for themselves in and by way of satisfying her in full for any right or claim-or her heirs after her might have of a certain tract of land being the land that Daniel bought of Reubin Rankin in placing such confidence in the said John to preform (sic) the said agreement. I do (sic) now sign over any right or claim that might fall to me by heirship in the said piece or tract of land he now lives on being the same tract of land purchased of the above mentioned Reubin Rankin by my father Daniel Shawhan. Whereunto
I do set my hand and seel (sic) this 22d day of April 1802.
Her
Jean Shawhan
Mark
Test
Alexander Taylor
Nancy Pugh
Joseph Shawhan
Joseph Shawhan
Test John Shawhan
Joshua Hall July 1st 1803
William Becket
Jane Becket
Joseph Shawhan
Sary Shawhan
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
In presence of Eli Robertson (seal)
P. Morrison her
Elizabeth Robinson
Mark
State of Indiana
Clark County
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)
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.
Martin p_q-
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
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
Attest
Daniel Williams Isaac Williams
Nancy 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.
Thomas Enoch
Robt Christy
Pennsylvania
Allegheny County
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
Rothy
Pennsylvania
Allegheny County
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.
Wm Wilkins
Thos. Arnold
Thos. Arnold
Filed May 12th 1823
All witness my hand this 15th day of December 1823
Attest
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
Illegible signature
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 9th 1826
Wm P. Chiles by
William Chiles his father & next friend
Bourbon County Sct. State of Kentucky
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
Elizabeth Pugh
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.
John Tucker
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
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
August Term
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
Joel R. Lyle
Cost of purchasing the above in W. Citizen 2 months Received payment $3.00 Joel R. Lyle
Newspaper clipping:
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
John Shawhon
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.
Her
Jane Becket
Mark
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
Her
Margaret x Shawhan
Mark
State of Indiana
Clark County
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.
Walter Wheatly
J. Morrison
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
J. Morrison
Walter Wheatly
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
Her
Jane Becket
Mark
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.
His
William A. Becket
Mark
State of Indiana
Clark County
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)
Sworn two and subscribed before us two acting Justices of the Peace for the County and State aforesaid
William Ambed
Joseph Carson
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
Hir
Mary Shawhan
Mark
Sworn two and subscribed before us Two acting Justices of the Peace for the County of Rush and State
William Amber
Joseph Carson
John Shawhan
March the 30--1830
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-
her
Margrit Shawhan
Mark
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:
Illegible signature
Addendum: Original land plat for Daniel Shawhan (1738-1789), Bourbon County, Kentucky (Source: "Hoy Heirs vs. John Shawhan" Bourbon County, Kentucky, Circuit Court Suit #515)