Betts et al. v. Betts

and several other small demands amounting to over the sum of the one thousand dollars which he was ot pay besides he has paid a considrable sum in compliance with his writing specified in said Deed and has in all things performed his contract: Respondent further answering denies that any such deed was made by him as that set forth in the 13th paragraph of said bill or for an such purpose as therein named. Denies that he has in any manner attempted to convey the remainder in said negroes ot his co-defendant Gunn: denies also that any deed made by respondent to Gunn has been concealed or withheld by him, and saith that at the time of the Execution of Said conveyance to respondent Gunn in the twelfth paragraph named, that he executed a deed in favor of complainant or for the benefit of Complainant of all the negores mentioned in complainant's bill conveying the same to her for life wiht remainder ot her Daughter the wife of said Solon Wellborn besides other personal property belonging to respondent of about the value of five hundred dollars in which he also secured to complainant a life time Estate in and to three hundred and twenty acres of land with good improvements where she now lives, which conveyance was through the intervention of a Trustee and which deed he handed to his co-defendant Gunn with express instructions not to be delivered or to take effect, unless complainant would relinquish dower in & to two Lots in Eufaula one improved & the other unimproved and are undivided interest in a Mill tract situated near Eufaula- that he is informed and believes the information true that said deed was tendered to her and the terms upon which the same was to become effectual - was made known to her in the County of Barbour in the spring of th year A.D. 1843 and that Complainant absolutely refused to accept of the same, after mature deliberation; that he is informed and believes that the portion of the Bill which denies that said deed was shown to complainant is untrue, that the same was know to be untrue by Complainant's Solicitor, that he is not mistaken in the fact, that another instrument was drawn by her solicitor Buford with some what different provisions and tendered to respondent for Execution by said Gunn to be substituted in place of the one before signed, that he is informed that said blank deed was drawn after full consultation with Complainant with

the Deed signed by respondent before him= He is further informed that Complainant refused to relinquish Dower and that said Defendant Gunn in persuance of the instructions given by respondent returned said deed last named in favor of Complainant to respondent and that respondent committed the same to the flames by casting the same behind the fire.

Denies most positively that he has at any time Executed any Deed securing any benefit to said Gunn other than the one annexed to Complainant's bill as Exhibit B.

Further answering answering saith that he refused to Execute the deed drawn out by said Buford because the same provided for a seperation between Complainant and respondent in the order of articles of seperation, which result respondent disired to avoid and believes the matter of seperation as named in said blank deed was at her solicitation.

In answer to the fourtheenth paragraph respondent saith that he is not informed as to co-defendant's knowledge of Complaints claim.

Admits that judgements have been recorded against respondent as named in the fifteenth, sixteenth & seventeenth paragraphs of said bill, but says he does not believe them to have been just recoveries, believing that said recoveries were more owing to respondents misfortunes than to the justice of the claims, saith that he does not know as to the interest of G L Pen & Co in said judgement but is informed that the same has been purchased by his co-defendant Gunn-

Denies that either of said judgements have been paid either directly or indirectly by his co defendant Gunn out of the effects of this Defendant- Denies so far as he knows and believes that either of said judgements have been paid- Denies that his co-defendant Gunn was under any obligation from his contract with respondent to pay either of them or any part thereof- Denies that his co-defendant Gunn either with or without consideration at any time agreed to or with respondent to pay an part of said judgemetns- that said demands formed no part of the contract between respondent and said Defendant Gunn- Saith that he has been informed and believes that co-defendant Gunn has purchased the judgements in favor of Jackson & G. L. Penn & Co and has in part purchased the judgement in favor of said Brown and saith that if said Gunn has made said purchases he is

informed and believes that he did so with his own money and that he has the right to control them of one thing he is confident that he did not make any paymen towards them with any money belonging to respondent- Admits that co-defendant Gunn assumes the right to control said judgements and that a levy has been made as charged in said bill upon the property named.

Further answering saith that the negro woman Ann is subject to the debts of respondent. that she is not Complainant's seperate property, that the negroes named are liable to said Executions; Denies that said Horse, mules and carriage were ever the property of complainant- Denies that he ever gave said Horse mules & carriage to complainant over three years ago. or at any other time for any purpose whatever- he denies that by the consent of respondent, that she has treated said property as her seperate property, does not know anything as to her manner of dealing, knows nothing of any sale of said cotton as charged.

Further answering denies most postitively that he has colluded together with his co-defendant Gunn to keep siad judgement open, says that he is in no way concerned in keeping the same open either for the purpose charged or for any other purpose, and says that the owners of said judgements are entitled to satisfactionthat he has before answered as to the conveyance in favour of Defendant Gunn- that he has no desire to place said property in the situation of the property sold to said defendant Gunn-

Admits that Alexander Walker and Isaiah Walker have both died- that said Isaiah never accepted said trust- that the said Alexander so far as he knows & believes never accepted said trust that he never before was informed as to his management of said property before complainant and respondent married, that he never heard that complainant had posession of either of said negroes until after his manager- that he at no time admitted the right of said Alexander to control said property, tha t he at no time heard said property claimed as the seperate property of Complainant until after the death of Moses Walker- that said Alexander admitted

to respondent that he had no right to control said property, that said instrument or deed was not sufficient to create any seperate Estate in that property, and says that the same is his own right and property, and has been ever since the delivery to him after the marriage. Says he believes it true that Augustus Reese is the Administrator of said Alexander Walker-

Further answering saith that said declaration of intention was fully understood by Complainant's Father to be inadequate to create a seperate Estate in Complainant of the property referred to that the said Moses Walker desired and intended the property named to be the property of respondent subject to the marital rights of respondent and subject to his control, which respondent believes will appear by reference to the last will of the said Moses Walker when the same shall be filed in Court whcih respondent makes a part of this his answer as Exhibit B. that said Moses Walker recovered his health after[begin crossed out] his health[end crossed out] said declaration was Executed by him and in full time to have secured property to said Complainant by will so as to have come under the provisions of said declaration of intention if he had so desired: That he has no personal Estate other than that in Complainant's posession which he has permitted to remain with complainant because of his desire to provide comfortably for her-

Respondent having fully answered, confessed, traversed, avoided or denied the several Statements charged and allegations in said bill material or necessary for him ot make answer unto insists that said bill is demurable, that the same is not sufficient in Law to compel an anwer- says that there is no Equity in said Bill- That the same is multifarious, that by said Bill seperate and distinct interests are presented which is in violation of the roles of practice in this Court- Respondent therefore insists that he may have the same benefit of demurrer to said Bill as though he had demurred without submitting to answer and assigns to the Court here the following causes of Demurree That by the case made by said bill the same is multifarious- That said bill presents seperate and distinct interests. in praying a divorce from respondent

removal of former Trustees and new appointment & Injunction as to judgments and decree of Alamony- 3d- That from the case made by the Bill Complainant is not Entitled to the relief prayed. 4th That there is no Equity in the Bill- because of which and for divers good causes of demurrer respondent prays that said bill may be dismissed and that respondent may be discharged with his resaonable costs in this behalf most wrongfully sustainedGunn & Willis Respondents Solicitors

Affidavit The State of Alabama Macon County Before me William Alexander a Justice of the Peace in and for said County in person came Elisha Betts the respondent, who after being sworn saith that the statements in the foregoing answer when made as of the knowledge of Respondent are true as the same stand stated & set forth- when as an information or belief he believes the same true as stated and set forthElisah Betts Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of May A.D. 1846- William Alexander J. P. Entry of Register Filed in Office June 2d 1846 C Rist. Register And that the answer of defendant. Gunn was filed in said cause as follows to wit. Answer of Geo. W. Gunn The Several answer of George W. Gunn ot the bill of complaint of Mariah Betts by her next friend John Wellborn complainant, against Elisha Betts et al. respondents in the 9th District Southern Chancery Division at Clayton-

This Defendant saving and reserving unto himself all right of Exception to the said bill of complaint, for answer thereunto or unto so much as such parts thereof as he is advised is or are material or necessary for him to answer unto, answering saith that he knows nothing touching or concerning the matters stated and set forth in the first. second & third and fourth sections of said Bill, that he was not informed anything in relation thereto until by said Bill of complaint that he believes that the purpose and intent of the writing if any executed by Complainant's Father has been wrongly stated by Complainant:- That he has no knowledge of the Execution of any paper as set forth in the fifth section that he never heard of the same so