Source: Kentucky Ancestors, Vol. 8, No. 2, Oct. 1972, pp. 66-71; Kentucky Ancestors, Vol. 8, No. 3, Jan. 1973, pp. 120-127

THOMAS BOONE’S HEIRS vs. WILLIAM CHILES & AL

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Compiled by Louis R. Boone, 1004 Locust St., Kansas City, Mo. 64106

[several words unrecognizable from copy of document] writes: “The enclosed case of Boone’s Heirs vs. Chiles et al is from the records of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the National Archives.”

The case contains over 40 names and lists over 100 individuals of early Kentucky. It shows how complex the Kentucky land titles could become. There were two or three owners before anyone received the grant to the land.

The record lists residents or records of Lincoln, Bourbon, Fayette, Franklin and Montgomery Counties and in Woodford lived Hezekiah and Isiah Boone, George Boone was of Shelby and Nicholas Smith* of Henry County. States listed are Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio, while Solomon Boone lived in Indiana and some of Hezekiah's children may have remained in Tennessee.

[*NOTE: The author incorrectly identifies Nicholas Smith of Henry County, Kentucky, as one of the defendants in this case. I have definitively proven that Nicholas Smith (1787-1834) of Bourbon County, Kentucky, husband of Nancy Shawhan (1799-1882), is the above-named defendant. Nicholas is, in fact, buried in the Smith Family Burial Ground, Shawhan, Bourbon County, Kentucky, and this property is a part of the land included in this suit. Anyone researching Nicholas Smith may contact me at darby@nemr.net for complete documentation of this proof.--Bob Francis]

It was most important to me as it proved my third great-grandfather was Hezekiah Boone on whom I had done intensive research in five states during the last five years. Hezekiah existed and that was about all I could prove.

The clue to the existence of the case was found in the volume, A Bibliography of John Marshall, compiled by James A. Servies Reference Librarian, College of William and Mary (Washington, D.C., 1956), A Publication of the United States Commission for the Celebration of the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the Birth of John Marshall. Each term of the Supreme Court usually listed one of two cases with the term heirs, administrator, or executor in the title, which may indicate records of genealogical value. The records of the Supreme Court of the United States are in the Legislative, Judicial and Fiscal Branch, Civil Archives Division, of the National Archives and Records Service, Washington, D. C. 20406.

The family of Captain William Hoy, of Hoy's Station, has several connections with Missouri. A son, Jones Hoy (May 1, 1773 - Jan. 8, 1845) lived in Platte County, Missouri (Annals of Platte County. Missouri by W. N. Paxton, 1897, page 66). Jones Hoy with his father's younger half-brother John Callaway (who lived his adult life in Henry County, Kentucky) were captured as Hoys by Indians with whom they lived for a few years. In neighboring Jackson County, Missouri the 1828 poll-book of the general election lists Jones H. Flournoy, Lawrence, and Solomon G. who were also early land-owners in the county as was their brother Rowland. (History of Jackson County, Missouri, 1881, page 107). These brothers were grandsons of William Hoy and nephews of Jones Hoy.

Fifty years of Boone genealogical research had not proven Hezekiah's family or what happened to him. He was in the Quaker records until 1764 in Pa. when he probably married, lived in Culpeper Co., Va. in 1780's as did his brother Josiah. Sr.; in 1790's in Carter Co., Term, tax lists; and in Woodford Co., Ky. tax lists from 1806 to 1818. Also had research done in Indiana where his son Solomon moved. These records were perhaps of one individual's but could not be certain of it. In 1808 a deed in Woodford Co., Ky. from Hezekiah to Isaiah Boone for 1,200 acres in Henry Co., which is not the land in the law suit. I checked the tax lists at Frankfort which show that Isaiah owned the land through 1820. My great-great-grandfather Isaiah Boone was married in 1815, and only one Isaiah Boone in Woodford Co. in this period. But was Hezekiah the father of Isaiah? I never expected to find the proof. If this law suit had not taken place, perhaps I could never have found the proof that Hezekiah Boone was my missing link.

Several of the words are underscored in the original and others are added to indicate some of the misspelled words. The typed strike-overs and inserted data are in the original. The apostrophes are not in the original in most cases.

The capital letters do not follow the original exactly-probably most could be typed with small letters, except when capital letters would be used today. The word or words at the end of some pages, which repeat the first of the next page, are in the original.

Kentucky C. C.

No. 117

Thomas Booone's heirs

Complts

vs.

William Chiles & el

Filed Feby. 18, 1834

Certified affirmatively

on both points -

19th March, 1854

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 117

Thomas Boone's heirs

vs

William Chiles & al

Complainants

On certificate of division from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky.

INDEX

Adjourned questions 1

Original Bill 3

Bond & assignments - Security to Hoy 6

Plea in abatement 8

Bill of Revivor 10

Amended Bill 10

Answer of Wm. Chiles 12

Same 18

Amended Bill 19

Clerk's Certificate 21

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

7th CIRCUIT KENTUCKY DISTRICT )

November Term 1833

November 29th.

THOMAS BOOM HEIRS ) Complainants

against ) In Chancery

William Chilies & Others ) Defendants

On the 25th of January 1823, Thomas Boone filed his bill in Chancery in this court as followeth (here insert the Original Bill) the obligation of Searcy to Hoy, assigned to George Boone, and by them to the complainants mentioned in the bill reads and bears, the assignments following (here insert them). After the commencement of this suit a writ of error was prosecuted by the parties to the record of the Bourbon Circuit Court and the decree in favor of Chiles was reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals with leave to make other parties and for further proceedings.

The complainant died and the suit was revived in August 1830. The complainants amended their Bill shewing a reversal of the decree and making the heirs of Hoy defendants and praying a conveyance from than. The Complainants also filed an amended bill, making the Heirs of John South Defendants.

Nov. 16th 1830, the Deft. Chiles filed the following plea in abatement (here insert that marked C) which at the May term 1831 was overruled, an amended bill was filed against the heirs of Hezekiah Boone as followeth towit (here insert that marked D). On the 31st of July, 1832, an amended bill was filed against the heirs of George Boone in the words following (here insert E as before it was scored). The defendant Chiles filed an answer as followeth towit (here insert F). One of the resident Defendants who were made def. (2) as heirs of George Boone answered disclaiming any interest in the land, and there is no proof that they or either of them, are or are not the heirs of George Boone. The cause being prepared and heard upon the bills, answers, depositions & Exhibits and the Court suggesting that the last mentioned wended bill was defective the attorney of the Complainants asked leave and amended that bill as followeth (here insert it as it now stands).

1. The Court being then divided and the judges opposed in opinion as to the jurisdiction over the case and unable therefore to render a decree on the merits, they resolve to adjourn that question to the Supreme Court - towit, under all the circumstances appearing as above, can this Court entertain cognizance of the case

2. The Judges were also opposed in opinion on the point, whether the Complainants were entitled to a decree in the absence of any proof that the persons made defendants in the amended bill as heirs of George Boone, were in fact, his heirs, both of which points occurred and became material to the decision of this Case. Memo: In this case after the Court had heard the Cause on its merits and had intimated at a former day of the term, that - the Court had not Jurisdiction - by reason of the heirs of George Boone not appearing upon the Bill, to be within the Jurisdiction of the Court and today the Complainants moved the Court to amend their Bill and to allege the Citizenship of Boones heirs, which motion was granted by the Court, whereupon the Defendants counsel moved the Court to remand the case to the rules, and that Defendants have leave to file their answers or pleas to the amendment thus allowed, but the Court overruled the motion of the Defendant to remand the Cause to the rules and dividing [page] (3) in Opinion as to the Jurisdiction of this Court over the Cause after the amendment was made directed the question of Jurisdiction to be adjourned to the Supreme Court - to which Opinions of the Court, in permitting the amendment after the Cause was heard, and in not remanding the Cause to the rules for the defendants to answer as to said amendment and in adjourning the question upon the state of pleading in the case, the defendants by their attorney excepts and prays the Court to sign and seal this, their bill of exceptions.

JOHN BOYLE (Seal)

(Seal)

Boone )

Vs )

Orig: Bill )

Chiles &c )

The following are the papers referred to in the foregoing adjourned question, towit:

To the Honble the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky in Chancery sitting. Thomas Boone, a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania complaining sheweth - That a certain Reuben Searcy being entitled to a settlement of 400 acres of land on Stoner in the present County of Bourbon and a preemption of 1000 acres adjoining in due form of Law, obtained the certificate of the commissioner accordingly and engaged a certain John Martin to perfect the title for one-half the land that the said Searcy on the 24th day of Sept. 1781 for a valuable consideration sold seven hundred acres being his half of the settlement & preemption aforesaid to a certain William Hoy and executed his bond for a conveyance accordingly, and likewise assigned to Hoy the plat and certificate of Survey which enabled Hoy on the day of July 1785 to perfect the title to the whole tract in his own name. But Hoy had previously, towit, on the day of December 1781 assigned Searcy’s bond to a certain George Boone, who on (4) the day of April 1785, assigned it to (your) Orator. Thus (your) Orator became invested with a clear equity to one-half of the said settlement & preemption, and Martin and his alienees have long enjoyed in severalty their half which your Orator does not wish to invade, but is content to hold the parcels here after mentioned as decreed to the Def. Chiles - Your Orator would further that that has never in any shape divested himself of this Equity. It is true that on the 30th day of November 1802 he gave to a certain Hezekiah Boone a written assurance that your Orator would convey to him provided he should conclude to buy, and should within four yours from that date pay to your Orator Seven hundred pounds and a fund was mentioned out of which it was contemplated to pay the price. But Hezekiah Boone declined the purchase did not pay one cent of the price and devoted the contemplated funds to other purposes - Thus that arrangement long ceased to operate.

But a certain William Chiles, Hezekiah Boone, George Boone, Nicholas Smith Sr., Nicholas Smith Jr., Jacob Smeltzer, George W. Baylor, Jacob Smith, John Evalt & Joseph Comins, all of whom are Citizens of Kentucky and made defendants bill except the said George Boone who has since departed this life. Combining &c to defraud & injure your Orators in this behalf and deprive him of his title and detain from him the use of his land aforesaid the said Chiles and Boones on the day of 18 commenced their suit in Chancery in the Bourbon Circuit Court upon their Bill filed in the name of themselves and your Orator against the heirs of the said Hoy alledging the title from Searcy to your Orator as already set forth and charging that your Orator had sold to the said Hezekiah and [page] (5) and that he had sold to the said Chiles and that your Orator and the other complainants desired a title to be made to the said Chiles praying that the Heirs of Hoy should convey &c &c and thereupon such proceedings were had that at the Term of that Court a decree was accordingly pronounced and in pursuance of that decree and the order of the said Court a conveyance was made to the said Chiles by a commissioner appointed by the said Court of two parcels of the said Settlement and preemption the said Chiles having at the same time full knowledge of the purchase of your Orator and of the conditional character of his contract with Hezekiah and that those conditions & terms had never been fulfilled on the part of Hezekiah - the said Martin and his alienees holding the residue as their share - all which will more fully appear by reference to the Bill, exhibits, decree, & deed remaining of record in the said Court to a transcript of which your Orator refers as a part of this Bill. He would not however be understood to admit as genuine or correct an instrument on file in that cause perporting to be the agreement between your Orator and Hezekiah Boone on the contrary he believes the original in possession of Chiles and withheld for the purpose of imposition and in terms different -

Your Orator distinctly charges that the suit afsd. was fraudulently instituted and prosecuted without his knowledge or approbation that Chiles has no just claim, nor did your Orator ever assent to a decree or conveyance in his favor - and that he never did sell, or convey to any person, any portion of that land nor had either of the Boones authority from him on this subject, except that George [page] (6) was authorised by bin to obtain a title from Hoy to yr. Orator and the Deft. Chiles not only refuses to convey to your Orator altho perfectly apprised of his equity, but has even made some engagement to maintain the Defts. Smeltzer, Smiths, Evatt, Comins & Baylor, in detaining the possession and enjoying the profits for a long time past, still refusing to surrender.

All which actings & c are contrary to Equity &c. In tender consideration whereof &c, &c. To the end therefore that the Defts. may true & perfect answer make to all and singular the premises aforesaid as fully if again repeated &c more especially that the Deft. Chiles may produce the bond from Searcy to Hoy or say what has become of it, and why he destroyed it or lost it &c. Your Orator prays Your Honor by your decree to compel the Deft. Chiles or such of the Defte. as now hold the title to convey to him the tracts described by the deed under the decree to Chiles. That the Defendants or those who have received them may account for the rent and profits and that you grant such other and further relief as the case may require. May it please Your Honor to grant Yrs. Spa: &c, &c.

Crittenden & Haggon

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

Searcy )

To (Bond &c] )

Hoy )

that I, Reuben Searcy of the County of Fayette am held and firmly bound unto William Hoy of the County of Lincoln and State of Virginia in the penal sum of fifty thousand pounds current money of Virginia to which payment well and truly to be made I bind myself my heirs Executors & admrs. unto the said William Hoy he his heirs or assigns this twenty fourth day of Sept. one thousand seven hundred and Eighty one [page] (7) The condition of the above is such that if the above bound Reuben Searcy shall well and truly make; or cause to be made as soon as deed a made, to land in this Country In general a good and sufficient deed for seven hundred acres of first rate land a lying in Fayette County on Licking Creek betwixt John Martin's Station and Ruddells Station it being part of a Settlement and preemption that John Martin cleared out on the half for said Reuben Searcy and the said Hoy takes his first choice of the land, then the above obligation to be void otherwise to remain and be in full force and virtue.

Signed Sealed and

Delivered in presence ) (Signed)

of us Jesse Cartwright)

Caleb Calloway ) Reuben Searcy (Seal)

A copy att. Jno. S. Bowling D. C. B. C. C.

Hoy’s )

Assignment )

To )

Geo. Boone )

The following are the endorsements on the foregoing bond, towit -

I William Hoy assign over the within bond unto George Boone his heirs or assigns and said Hoy obliges himself, his heirs executors and administrators as shourly to within bond, and if the within lands cannot be obtained by reason of a prior claim, then and in that case seven hundred acres equal in quality and convenience shall discharge the within bond.

Witness my hand this fifteenth day of December 1781 -

Test (Signed)

John Turner William Hoy

Nathe Hart

George Boone's )

Assignment )

To )

Thos. Boone )

I do hereby assign over all my right, title and claim of the within bond unto [page 8 1 Thomas Boone his heirs or assigns without recourse to the same, that is to say, that I, the said George Boone am no ways obligated if the said William Hoy or his heirs sufficient to make good the within bonds but if the said William Hoy or his heirs should not be able then I George Boone, do bind myself my heirs to make good the same unto the said Thomas Boone or his heirs or assigns. Witness my hand this 30th day of April 1783.

(Signed)

Test George Boone

William Hunter

Att. Jno. S. Bowline D. C. B. C. C.

Plea )

In )

Abatement )

The Special plea of William Chiles to a bill and amended bills in Chancery filed against him and others in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky by Lincoln Boone & others, calling themselves heirs of Thomas Boone, deceased.

This defendant saving end reserving & c and not confessing any of the matters stated in said amended bills - States that he is not bound further to answer to said suit or original or amended bills thereof, because he saith that this court bath not jurisdiction of the proper parties thereto, to render a decree herein assurting the rights of this defendant, and that on account of the following defect of parties for he said that in addition to the children & heirs of William Hoy there was another Daughter named Keziah Hoy who intermarried with a certain Hugh Brown by whom she had eight or nine children, and she has departed this life, and her children are still living and are residents & Citizens of the State of Ohio at the time of filing said amendment & yet are sued now and was at the time of the amendment and [page 9] and that said Jones Hoy named in said amended bill is a citizen and resident and resident of the State of Missouri. That said Theodosia Hoy named in said amended bill is dead, after her intermarriage with Lawrence Flournoy and that she has left the three sons named in the amended bill, and one other named Rowland Flournoy and the of them named, towit. Those named in the amended bill of the Complts. are citizens and residents of the state of Missouri and the heirs of said Elizabeth South heretofore made defendants, towit:

are citizens or residents of said State of Missouri and this defendant first her_ said that before the commencement of this suit a suit in Chancery was brought in the Bourbon Circuit Court for the State of Kentucky in the name of said Thomas Boone ancestor of present complainants & others against the heirs of said William Hoy in which a decree was renderd against the said heirs of William Hoy which decree was afterwards reversed in the Court of Appeals for the State of Kentucky and the cause remanded for further proceedings in the inferior Court wherein the heirs of said Thomas Boone have filed their bill of revivor and the cause is still pending in said Court, which has complete jurisdiction thereof and this defendant annexes to this plea as part thereof the first and additional record of the new proceedings therein so far as they have now progressed duly exemplified as part of this plea, and he avers that the equity and matters end things attempted to be litigated in this suit and the sate now in contest in the Bourbon Circuit Court and not other and [page 10] different wherefore he insists that for those causes the bill of the Complainants ought to be abated and dismissed - and as in duty bound &c.

William Chiles

Bill of )

Revivor )

D. )

To the Honble the Judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky in Chancery Sitting Sarah Boone & others Heirs at Law to Thomas Boone complaining shew. That their father Thomas Boone on the 25th day of January 1823 being a Citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, commenced his suit in Chancery in Your Honble Court against a certain Hezekiah Boone and others praying that the Defendants or such of them as held the legal title should convey to him two tracts of land, as more particularly described in the said Bill.

That the said Hezekiah in due form filed his answer to the said Bill, that their said ancestor Thomas departed this life and Your Complainants upon their bill filed revived the said suit, and the same being in progress the said Hezekiah also departed this life, leaving Solomon Boone, Hiram Boone, Mordecai Boone, Isaiah Boone, Hezekiah Boone, Abigail Smith, wife of Humphrey Smith, Sally )lcliyea, the wife of John McIlyea, Elizabeth Harris, the wife of Richard Harris, Deborah Cunningham, the wife of William Cunningham, his children and heirs at Law - Wherefore Your Complainants pray that the said children of the said Hezekiah and the Husbands of the said femes coverts be made Defts,. and their said Suit be revived against them and that Your Honors grant them such relief as previously prayed &c, &c.

Crittenden &c for Complts.

Am'd )

Bill E. )

To the Honble the Judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Seventh Circuit & District of Kentucky [page 11] Kentucky in Chancery, Richard Boone & Others heirs at law of Thomas Boone in addition to the allegation of their several bills on file against William Chiles & others Defendants would say that they are now informed (and have reason to believe their information is correct) that Newland & wife had not conveyed their intrust in the tract of land to the Defendant Chiles at the time of filing their bills in this cause or any or either of them and that the allegations of their bill in this respect is untrue. But the title of Cealia Newland as it descended from her father still abides with her - If however it shall be found that Newland & wife had conveyed, they charge that their deed was to a certain Green Clay and that the deed made by Clay to Chiles was predicated upon the assertion of Chiles, that he had right & authority under Thomas Boone to receive the same, and was procured by Chiles under the assumed & improper use of the name of the said Thomas and in virtue of assurances that he had acquired the right of the said Thomas, and not for a valuable or fair consideration actually paid or promised -

Your Orators would further state that the said Reuben Searcy has long since departed this life intestate without issue or inheritable blood known to then, at least they are very certain that he has no heirs within the limits of the State of Kentucky.

Your Orators would further state that George Boone, whose name is mentioned in the Original bill, has long since departed this life and that his next of kin and lawful heirs are Mariam Steele, the wife of Joseph Steele, his daughter and Greenup Simpson and Matilda and Eliza and America and Sarah and Erasmus & George and James and Alfred Simpson, his grandchildren [page 12] being the issue of his daughter, and if there be other heirs of the said G. Boone, Your Complainants are certain that they do not reside in Kentucky upon whom his interest if indeed he has any by law descended and who with the said Joseph and the said Newland & wife are made defendants to this Bill. But he is assured and so charges the fact that neither George Boone or any of his heirs have assurted or pretended any claim or interest in the land but expressly concede the claim of your Orators as set forth in the Original bill.

They pray as set forth in their former bills &c

Crittenden &c

Answer )

Of )

Wm. Chiles )

The Seperate answer of William Chiles to a bill in Chancery exhibited against him & others by Thomas Boone in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky for answer to said bill saith -

That it is true Reuben Searcy was entitled to a settlement & preemption & engaged a John Martin to perfect the title for one half and did in September 1781 sell and give bond for half thereof to William Hoy that Hoy obtained the patent in his own name and assigned Searcys bond by Special assignment to George Boone who assigned it to the Complainant as stated in the bill. But is not true that Martin & his alienees even enjoyed any part thereof unless Hoy was his alienee which he believes to be the fact as he is informed & believes that Hoy purchased of Martin his half and thus obtained the patent but this defendant denies that all the fourteen hundred acres ever was possessed by any person holding under Hoys title on the contrary a great proportion is possessed under the claim of George Ruddle, John Ruddle, the former an elder patent, and both have held possession for thirty Years adversely to [page 13] to Hoy 's title, also part is held under the Claim of Flournoy John Hingston and a claim in the name of Flournoy, so that in fact there is not one half, the possession of which is held under Hoy and which now can be the subject of controversy. This defendant does not admit true, that the Complainant never stripped himself of his title, but at the time stated in the bill he did sell it to Hezekiah Boone and gave the instrument of writing to that effect which is herewith filed & refered to as part of this answer and it is not true as this defendant believes that the Complainant did recover nothing as will hereafter be shown. This Deft, denies any Combination with his co-defendants Nicholas Smith, Jacob Smeltzer, George V. Baylor, Jacob Smith, John Evalt & Joseph Cummins or either of then in his purchase nor had any of them anything to do with his purchase till after it was made. For this defendant on the 30th day of _____ 1817 purchased of said Hezekiah Boone as is witnessed by their written Contract as part of this answer. This defendant fully admits that he and the Boones, towit, Thomas Boone the now Complainant, George Boone & Hezekiah Boone did bring their suit in Chancery in the Bourbon Circuit Court against Hoy's heirs setting forth the equity derived from Hoy and did obtain a decree for the title to be made to this defendant which title is accordingly & this defendant refers to said record & Conveyance as part of his answer and avers that the Bourbon Circuit Court had proper & Complete Jurisdiction of the case and he pleads and relies on the record as a complete bar to all claim set up by the Complainant and for the land whatever his claims may be to any part of the purchase money. This defendant admits full knowledge of the Complainant's former interest coupled with a knowledge of h1s having parted [page 14] with it, for through him this defendant derived title and the sale to this defendant was ratified by the Complainant's agent for the purpose of giving his assent thereto, as will be seen by a copy of the letter of attorney filed by the Complt. himself and the signature of his agent to the Contract to all which reference is made as part of this answer. But this defendant denies that he then knew or knows Yet, that the terms of the Complainant's sale to Hezekiah Boone has never been complyed with and insists that the Complainant has no right to the land if they never have - This defendant in reply to the charge that the suit aforesaid was fraudulently instituted denies it, and in answer to its being done without Complainant's knowledge and approbation, and lack of his assent to the decree and to the want of authority from him replies his letter of attorney his contract in writing with H Boone the contract between said Hezekiah &c with this defendant and also the record - which he pleads as an estoppel to the Complainant & a bar to all such assertions which assertions he denies. This defendant admits that he has made a contract with Nicholas Smith, Peter Smith & Jacob Smelzer had an interest in which he understands John Smelzer had an interest for pert of the land and this defendant avers that they and others have long lived upon the land long before and since the purchase of this defendant having originally claimed it under a purchase from a certain John South who pretended to sell Hoy s title but had no right thereto this Defendant further states that he has purchased out and holds the interest of Hoy's Heirs as he can show by title & contract regularly made and if the Complainants should per possibility be entitled [page 15] to any land (which is denied) it cannot be to more than a moiety of what is saved, as the rest is held under other claims, and settled upon long before his purchase - as this defendant will show and prove. But as this defendant is advised the complainant can have no right to any land as by length of time & total dereliction of his claim for so many years he has laid by, until this defendant was likely to realize something by investigation and then attempts to set up a stale demand - This defendant further avers that Hezekiah Boone is the uncle of the complainant and that the Complainant has never made any demand of him for payment for about or near twenty years notwithstanding his usual intercourse with him and this defendant relies on this as a presumption of payment and full discharge. He further states and he is informed & believes that the father of the Complainant (William Boone) was executor or administrator of Hezekiah Boone' s father & that on the death of the father of the Complainant, the Complainant became his executor and that neither the father of the Complainant or Complainant himself ever distributed or paid to Hezekiah Boone any part of his father's estate, altho he was entitled to a considerable sum equal perhaps to the purchase money for the land which was understood to go in payment - and that the lands belonging to Hezekiah Boone was sold by said Thomas Boone the Complainant on the payment thereof was to come and did came to his hands, and this was a payment for the contract, which this defendant avers the said Hezekiah never did abandon. But if it should turn out that there is any balance due the Complainant and it should be decided that he is entitled thereto on a settlement of accounts between bin and the defendant, Hezekiah Boone [page 16] This defendant as he owes money to said Hezekiah for the same land is willing it should be decreed to the Complainant or so much thereof as will be sufficient to discharge such balance, but insists firmly that the Complt. has no good claim to the land itself the legal title to which is held by this defendant and which he insists he has a right to retain on doing equity to the Complainant if it should be found not to have been done already.

This defendant having fully (as he conceives) answered the Complainant's bill he prays that the same may be dismissed with costs -

Wm. Chiles

Franklin County ) Sct

William Chiles personally appeared before the subscriber a Justice of the peace, for said County and made oath that the statements in the foregoing answer are true to the best of his knowledge & belief.

Oct. 8, 1823

J. Swigert, J. P.

Answer )

Of )

Wm. Chiles )

The answer of William Chiles to the amended bill of Lincoln Boone and others styling themselves heirs of Thomas Boons, filed against him and others in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Seventh Circuit & District of Kentucky - This defendant saying and reserving &c for answer to so much of said amended bill as he is advised to be material says that he admits it to be true, that the decree of the Bourbon Circuit Court obtained by bin has been reversed by the Appellate Court for writ of proper parties to the bill and the cause is sent back for further proceedings and this defendant amended his bill in the Bourbon Circuit Court making proper parties and the present Complainmants also amended said bill [page 17] Bill, making Hoy's heirs therein parties and involving and setting up the same equity, which they have done in the present amended bill. This defendant avers that before the present amended bill as appears by this record, there was no controversy pending here between the Complainants and Hoy' a heirs, and this defendant claiming by any of his conveyances under than, and the controversy as to them began here at the filing this amended bill, for the first time. But as appears by the record of the Bourbon Circuit Court herewith filed by an amended bill, then the Complainants filed had set up the same equity and same matters of Controversy and this defendant insists on that matter as an abatement here or at least that the Court here shall put said Complainants to their election as to which they will pursue and prays that they be compelled to dismission at costs. He admits that William Hoy has long since departed this life having previously made his last will and testament, as by a copy thereof will appear, and he devised his estate to his children, Jones Hoy, Rowland Hoy, Elizabeth South, then wife of John South, Parthinia now the wife of John Sappington, Theodosia, the wife of Lawrence Flournoy, Celia now the wife of John Newland, Fanny Hoy an idiot still living and another not mentioned by the Complainant towit, Kezia since the wife of Hugh Brown. That Rowland died many years since, unmarried, childless and intestate but of full age, whereby as your orator is advised his share passed to his mother, brothers and sisters, and his mother is still living as far as this defendant is informed and married to a certain Edward Brown, and she is not made a party. That said Kezia Brown has since died and left the following children - towit, John [page 18] Brown, Eliza Brown, Henry Brown, Edward Brown, Margaret Brown, and Sarah Brown none of whom are made parties. That Mrs. Flournoy is also dead and left the following children, Hoy B. Flournoy, Jones Flournoy, Solomon Flournoy and two others not named or made parties in the amended Bill, towit, Lawrence Flournoy and Rowland Flournoy. This defendant admits that for a valuable consideration he has bought and paid for and obtained the title of William Hoy - He further admits that a certain Green Clay bought and received the title of John Newland & wife and discovering this to be the fact, he causes the said Green Clay to be made a party to the Bill in the Bourbon Circuit Court charging bin with being a guilty purchaser knowing of the equity arising from the bond of Hoy. But said Clay put in his answer denying notice and this defendant not knowing evidence to prove notice, bought of him his share and paid him therefor and received his conveyance - This defendant refers to the answer of Clay in the Record of the Bourbon Circuit Court as part of this answers and this defendant insists that Clay was an innocent purchaser, for a valuable consideration without notice, till his purchase was complete, and as to that part - This defendant in the worst event is entitled to protection. He admits that he has received a conveyance for a valuable consideration paid from John Sappington & wife. He insists that this court has not Jurisdiction to try and determine the matters in controversy in this suit. He denies that he fraudulently obtained the titles which he holds either equitable or legal, but insists on his superior Claim and relies on the acquiescence in his claim, and the lapse of time & the staleness of the claim of his adversary - He denies all [page 19] fraud or combination with which he is charged and prays to be hence dismissed with his costs in this behalf unjustly expended. He also relies on the previous exercise of the Jurisdiction of the Bourbon Circuit Court a competent tribunal over the subject.

Montgomery County, towit:

William Chiles maketh oath and saith that the foregoing answer is true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Sworn to before me a Justice of the peace of said County this 8th day of August 1831.

L. Y. Millspaugh J.P.M.C.

Ans’d )

Bill )

To the Honorable the Circuit Court of the United States for the Seventh Circuit & District of Kentucky in Chancery Richard Boone & others heirs at Law of Thomas Boone in addition to the allegations of their several bills on file against William Chiles & others Defts. would say, that they an now informed (and have reason to believe the information is correct) that Newland and wife had not conveyed their interest in the tract of land to the defendant Chiles at the time of filing their bills in this cause or any or either of them, and that the allegations of their bill in this respect is untrue. But the title of Celia Newland as it descended from her father still abides with her. If however it should be found that Newland and wife had conveyed, they charge that their deed was to a certain Green Clay and that the deed made by Clay to Chiles was predicated upon the assurtion of Chiles that he had right and authority under Thomas Boons to receive the same and was procured by Chiles under the assumed and improper use of the name of the said Thomas and in virtue of assurances that he had acquired the right of the said [page 20] Thomas, and not for a valuable or fair consideration actually paid or prcmised -

Your Orators would further state that the said Reuben Searcy has long since departed this life intestate without issue or inheritable blood known to then at least they are very certain that he has no heirs within the limits of the State of Kentucky.

Your Orators would further state that George Boone whose name is mentioned in the Original bill has long since departed this life and that his next of kin and lawful heirs are Marian Steele, the wife of Joseph Steele his daughter, and Greenup Simpson, and. Matilda and Eliza and America and Sarah and Erasmus & George and James and Alfred Simpson, his grandchildren, being the issue of his daughter and if there be other heirs of the said G, Boone, your complainants are certain that they do not reside in Kentucky. Grand children of the said George Boone being the children of Simpson deceased who was a daughter of the said George and died before him, and all of whom are citizens and residents of Kentucky except the said Greenup, Matilda & Eliza and Simpson who are citizens and residents of the State of Illinois, and It. Boone a son who is a citizen and resident of Missouri upon whom his title if he had any descended as his heirs at Law. Indeed your Orator has reason to believe the said George left other heirs, residents in Missouri and Illinois but their names he cannot ascertain of this however he is certain that the said George deceased has left no other heirs residents or citizens of Kentucky nor any who he can make Defts. to this suit. He prays that the said Steele & wife and [page 21] and the said Simpsons resident as aforesaid in Kentucky be made defendants upon whom his interest if he indeed he had any by Law descended, and who with the said Joseph and the said Newland & wife are made defendants to this Bill. But he is assured and so charges the fact that neither George Boone or any of his heirs, have asserted or pretended any claim or interest in the land, but expressly concede the claims of your Orators as set forth in the Original Bill.

They pray as set forth in their former bills &c.

Crittenden &c

United States of America

7th Circuit District of Kentucky

I, John H. Hanna, clerk of the Seventh Circuit Court of the United States of America in and for the District of Kentucky - Do Certify that the foregoing adjourned questions and exhibits therein refered to are truly copied.

In Testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said Court this 23rd day of December and in the 58th year of our Independence.

Jno H Hanna

No 87

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES of

JANUARY TERM 1835

William Chiles, Jacob Smeltzer, Nicholas Smith, Jacob Smith, America Cummins, Caroline Cummins Joseph Steele, Mariam Steele, Jones Hoy, Fanny Hoy, John Newland, and Celia his wife, late Celia Hoy, Hugh Brown, John Evault, Joseph Henry Bledsoe and Mary Jane Bledsoe his wife, late Mary Jane Baylor, George Ann Baylor, Walker R. Baylor, and Sophia Baylor, the said George Ann, Walker R. and Sophia by William M. Baylor, their guardian, John South, Thomas D. South, Margaret South, Elgiva South, David Hudson, Amos Baker, Moses Davidson, James Easin, Adam Rogers, Josiah Boone and Hezekiah Boone - Appellants.

vs

Sarah Boone, Lincoln Boone, Richard Boone, Rebecca Boone, Jeremiah Boone, Daniel Boone, Mary Ann Boone, William Boone and Thomas Boone, heirs of Thomas Boone, dec'd

On appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky -

M. Clay of counsel for the appellees having stated that this was a cross appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky in the case No. 87 on the Calendar of this court as appears from the record of said cause now here produced and read in open court, and that the appellants had failed to have their said appeal placed upon the Calendar of this court according to the rules thereof, moved the court to have said appeal docketed and dismissed.

On consideration whereof it is now here ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court that this appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky be and the sane is hereby docketed and dismissed - Feb. 19. ____

I, William Thomas Carroll, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the judgment and order of said Supreme Court made in said cause at January Term Eighteen hundred and thirty five - Extracted from the minutes of said Supreme Court. In Testimony whereof, I hereunto subscribe my name and affix the seal of said Supreme Court this day of in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty five -

Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States