Betts et al. v. Betts

our said Court of Chancery which has the matters And things in controversy between said Parties under its consideration.

Witness Colin Rist, Register of said Court of Chancery, at Office, at Clayton. this the 6th day of April Anno Domini Eighteen hundred and forty six & of American Indpendence the seventieth- C Rist. Register

Issued the 6th day of April A.D. 1846.

I accept service of a copy of the within suit of injunction this the 6th day of April A.D.1846 E. G. Hodges Shff. B.C.

Service accepted

And that a subpoena issued as follows to wit. The State of Alabama- Barbur Cunty. In Chancery Southern Division-

Subpoena

To any Sheriff of the State of Alabama - Greeting - You are hereby commanded without delay, to summon Elisha Betts, Genge W. Gunn, Samuel N. Brown, Samuel Harrison. Thomas A Brannon. Frances S. Jackson & Augustus Reese, Administrator of Alexandra Walker deceasedpersonaly to be and appear before the Honorable the Chanceller for the Southern Division of said State, at a Court to be holden for the ninth District of said Division, on the third Monday in October next at the Town of Clayton in said County, then and there to answer to a bill of complaint filed by Maria Betts by her next friend Solon Wellborn against the said Betts, Gunn, Brown Harrison Brannon and Reese administrator as aforesaid -(a copy of which is hereunto attached) and have you then, and there this suit with your endorsement thereon.

Witness, Colin Rist, Register of said Court at Office at Clayton this seventh day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand Eight hundred and forty six and of American Independence the seventieth year. C Rist. Register.

Issued 7th day of April 1846

"Defts Betts & Gunn acknowledge service June 2d. 1845. & F. S. Jackson." "I accept service hereof and waive copy August 28th 1846. S. N. Brown"- "I acknowledge service of the within Bill and had copy sent me some time in June or July last. this 23d Octr. 1846. F. S. Jackson"- "Buford is to answer for Jackson that he transferred to deft Gunn

& has no interest & no costs are to asked against deft Jackson. Buford"_ Order of Publication And that the following order was had in said cause. Maria Betts, by her next friend, Solon Wellborn vs. } In chancery in vacation 9th District & Southern Division Elisha Betts, George W. Gunn, Samuel N. Brown Samuel Harrison, Thomas A. Brannon, Francis S. Jackson & Augustus Reese Admr of Alex. Walker decd of the State of Alabama. In appearing by complainants Bill which is sworn to. that the defendants Samuel Harrison, Thomas A. Brannon & Augustus Reese, Admr of Alex Walker decd are now residents & over the age of twenty-one years- that the address of said Harrison & Brannon is unknown to complainant & that said Reese resides near Madison Post office in the State of Georgia- On motion, it is ordered that said Harrison, Brannon & Reese appear and answer or demur to complainants Bill in sixty days from the date of the publication of this order, or said Bill will be taken as confessed as to said defendants; and that a copy of this order together with a brief of said Bill be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in the Eufaula Democrat a newspaper published at Eufaula in said District. At office at Clayton March 29, 1816 C. Rist. Register And that the answer of deft. Betts was filed in said cause as follows to wit. Answer of Betts The several answer of Elisha Betts to the Bill of complaint of Mariah Betts by her next friend Solon Wellborn, complainant, against George W. Gunn et al. respondants, in the ninth District, Southern Chancery division at Clayton. This defendant reserving to himself all right of Exception to the said Bill of Complaint for answer thereto saith that he knows nothing of his own knowledge of the statement in the first, second, third & fourth paragraphs of said Bill of complaint. That he never heard of any declarations of the intention of Moses Walker, complainants father in any manner attempting to create any seperate estate in complainant untill

a short time before the marriage between Respondent and Complainant and there in the manner and under the circumstances hereinafter named, to wit, after the agreement and before the marriage, respondent and complainant had some conversation as to their future prospects and life; The subject of property having come up- and complainant having been informed that Respondent had a considerable Esate real and personal unincumbered as hereinafter more particularly named, complainant remarked to respondent in substance that during her coverture with her former husband and before she was divorced from him, her father the said Moses Walker had made or Executed some writing, for the purpose of securing to her some property or of preventing her former husband from controlling the property she had: but she did not know whether or not the same was of any force and at the same advised Respondent to apply to her Father for information on the subject- upon which Respondent sought out and obtaned an interview with her said Father and communicated to him the information he had received from his Daughter as above- upon which the said Moses Walker answered Respondent in substance that he had executed an instrument but that the same was then of no force or no account- that the Trustees never had accepted the Trust & further that he had been informed and believed that said deed (as he then called it) was incomplete or that there was a mistake in the same and further remarked that he was glad it was worth nothing that he was willing said mistake should continue as circumstanes then were: he stated to Respondent at the same time that the property he gave Complainant should be unincumbered subject to Respondents control and disposal in whos solvency and good managment the said Moses seemed to manifest much confidence, whcih information he believed true that he did then and does now believe that said Walker was an honest man and that he would not have dissembled to respondent, under which information the rites of Matrimony were solemmised between respondent and complainant, not at the place of her

residence as stated in said Bill but at the House of her uncle John Walker of Morgan CountyGeo. at which place herself and father were then on a visit. That at neither of the interviews between complainant and this Respondent and respondent & said Walker were the particular circumstances under which said intstrument was executed or the particular features of the same or the fact of any record made known to respondent. Respondent further answering saith the intention of the said Moses Walker as gathered from him was not as charged in said Bill: on the contrary Respondent saith, that his understanding as gathered from complainant and said Moses Walker in executing said declaration was to prevent Ambrose Nelson former husband of complainant from controlling or disposing of the property he had given her, at a time when said Walker was sick. that he has been frequently informed by complainant and other near relatives that the marriage between complainant and Nelson was much to the disatisfaction of her father and that the same was effected by her elopement inthe absence of her father. that he said Walker did not become sufficiently reconciled to speak to said Nelson until some months after their marriage which union was as Respondent was further informed an unhappy one so much so that the said Nelson abandoned said Complainant and his infant child then only about three months old which abandonement was about February A.D. 1825Further answering saith that he was informed by Complainant and other near relatives of hers that said declaration was made by said Moses Walker after the abandonment of siad Complainant by said Nelson And before Complainant was divorced from him, she not being divorced until the year 1829 (by bill undefended by Nelson for the sole purpose of preventing the said Nelson from controlling or in any manner interfering with the property he had given complainant. That Respondent never has seen the said original Instrument, that he at no time saw a copy thereof until after the decease of Moses Walker to wit, some time in 1836 he saw what he supposed to be a copy he is not able at this time to state whether or not the said Exhibit fully corresponds

with what Respondent was informed was a copy and can not admit or deny as to the sameRespondent further answering denies that said Moses Walker immediately preceeding or at any time subsequent to the marriage between complainant and respondent understood or believed that the same would in any manner effect the rights of Respondent or his power to control or dispose of any of the property referred to in said bill, or now claimed under the same. Complainant further answering saith that Complainants Father was a farmer, a plain man, but of good sence and sound judgement does not know as to his understanding of legal technicalities or of his abilities to analise them but belives that he was as well qualified to understand said instrument as most intelligent farmers are, or any except those who have made the science of Law their study; denies his beleiving at the time of respondents marriage or at any time subsequent thereto, that the same would embrace, protect or secure property to complainant as charged either that which she had at the Execution of Said declaration or that he might afterward give to her or come to her by descent- That he does not know what the intentions of said Walker were at the time said instrument was Executed by him but believes as befoer stated that his intentiones were to keep the then husband of complainant from controling or disposing of any of the property complainant had.

Further answering saith that said Walker knew before the marriage between complainant & Respondent that said declaration of intention would not secure any property to Complainanat, that the same was of no force but void and incomplete that so he informed respondent before his marriage.

Respondent denies that either of the negroes or property named in the sixth paragraph of said Bill were given to said Complainant under or in consideration of the provisions of Said declaration, or that the same was understood by said Walker in that manner, Respondent on the contrary saith that before his marriage with Complainant said