Betts et al. v. Betts

the entire property of said Defendant Betts,- Denies that he knew that Defendant Betts was largely indebted at the time he accepted said deed- on the contrary, respondent saith. that the said Defendant Betts informed respondent before the Execution of said deed & before respondent entered into the contract to accept said deed that he believed the sum of one thousand Dollars would pay every debt which was then due by him or which he owed- That he had known and respected his Co-defendant fro many years as a high minded honorable man and which he now believes true and confided in the statements made by him fully & entered into said contract in full confidence of those statements that at the time he accepted said deed he did not know of any suit pending against him, but was informed by him that these were two, one for the use of Harrison the other for the use of Brannon in each of which said Betts informed respondents he believed he could defeat legally and justly. that he had & before the 10th March 1843 had no notice of other suits against said Betts but was informed there was a judgement against him in favor of one Solomon.

13. Denies that his co-defendant Betts about March AD 1843 or at any other time, so far as he knew and belived with any such intentions as stated in the 13th section of said Bill Executed another deed as stated in said bill that he has no knowledge or information of the Execution by his co-defendant of any deed for the benefit of his creditors unless the deed annexed to and made part of Complainant's bill as Exhibit B. and says that the only deed his co-defendent Executed to him or about the time of the Execution of Exhibit-B. was a deed to Respondent as Trustee for said Complainant comprising all the negroes named in said Bill with a considerable portion of other personal property by which deed a life Estate in three fourths of a section of land in Barbour County and the whole of said negroes named in said Bill, to wit,

Jacob, Ann & Beck, Jane, Dinah, Louisa, Ishmael, together with a considerable Estate of other personalty was secured to Complainant her life with remainder in said negroes and other personal property (not to this respondent as charged but to the daughter of complainant the wife of said Solon Wellborn, complainants assumed next friend, Says it is true that said deed has not been recorded but say it is not true that the same was not shewn to Complainant on the contrary respondent says that said deed was signed by Respondent Betts and was to take effect only upon condition that Complainant would relinquish dower in favor of this Resondent to town Lots in Eufaula, one wihtout improvements the other with some temporary log buildings besides an undivided interest or moiety in a Mill tract of Land of about four hundred acres upon which were some old Mills which soon after tumbled down- that respondent agreed with said Betts that he would not accept the Trust unless Complainant relinquished Dower and was positively instructed not to deliver the same or permit the same to be of any binding force or efficacy unless complainant relinquished Dower, that in pursuance of his instructions and in conformity with his agreements with said Betts this Respondent did nin March A.D. 1843 repair to the Count of Barbour and did shew said deed to Complainant, he read the same to her in the hearing of herself and friends and said complainant had said deed herself- and he belives she read the same or had the same sufficient time to read, that the same was handed to and read by one of Complainant's Solicitors who she sent for to Counsel with upon the subject- that the respondent made known to complainant the terms & conditions upon which said deed was to become effectual more than once and she answered respondent that she would not relinquish Dower, no not to save the life of respondent or of respondent Betts- This answer she gave in substance after she had had several hours for deliberation.

Respondent then informed complainant that he should return the deed to respondent Betts as he was by him instructed to do-

Further answering saith that after a full and free consultation between complainant and one of her solicitors, another instrument in the nature of Articles of seperation was drawn by said Solicitor of complainant with the request that this respondent should tender the same to his co-defendant Betts to be executed- that respondent did deliver to said Respondent Betts the said blank deed, accompanied with the request named- also the deed which respondent had shewn to complainant as last named

That his co-defendant Betts refused to execute said blank deed drawn by complainant's solicitor, because the same provided for a seperation betwen complainant and said Betts- that the deed he had before signed as before referred to in favor of respondent as Trustee for complainant was by said Betts, thrown upon or behind the fine and consumed by the flames

Respondent now says that Complainant did see said deed and she read the same as he believes and knows that she heard the same read and that the purposes of the same was fully made known to her and he does know that said Complainant did know that no Estate in remainder was secured to respondent in said slaves.

14. Respondent further answering says it is not true as stated in said Bill that this respondent, at the time he accepted said Deed referred to in said Bill as Exhibit B. know that complainant claimed said slaves as her seperate property- But says it is true that he heard that Complainant did claim said slaves named in said Bill as her seperate property- that the information he had upon the subject as well as he can now remember was in substance in the manner following- some nine or ten years since after as he was informed some controversy between Complainant and respondent Betts and after she had as he was informed abused him much and made some threats said Betts informed respondent that from information soon after the decease of Complainant's Father that Alexander Walker had asserted some claim to the negroes

named in said Bill as Trustee or had endeavoured to induce his wife the Complainant to believe that a certain deed or declaration of intention secured to Complainant the negroes that he Betts had procured a copy of Said writing corresponding in substance as he now believes with Exhibit A. annexed to said Bill- that he Betts had had an interview with said Walker who had admitted to him freely that he Walker was mistaken- that he Walker had no claim to said negroes as Trustee- that there was no seperate Estate in Complainant of said negroes, and that the same were the right and property of respondent Betts. That said Defendant Betts informed respondent that when Complainant was in her storms or out breaks that she claimed said negroes as her seperate property under the writing referred to as Exhibit A. a copy of which or that which purported to be a copy was then tendered by said Betts to this respondent- and the opinion of respondent asked as to the legal effect of said instrument upon those negroes after first informing respondent that said negroes were given to him by Complainant's father soon after his marriage with Complainant, without any condition, reservation or qualification. Respondent did then and does now believe that said instrument named as Exhibit A. does not in any manner secure to Complainant any seperate Estate in said negroes- That said Betts also informed Respondent that said instrument was Executed by Complainant's father, after the abandonment of Complainant by her former husband- and in order to prevent said Nelson from in any manner controlling any property which said Walker might give complainant by will as also that he had given to her while living with said Nelson- and that said Moses Walker before his intermarriage with Complainant said to him that the property he intended for Complainant should be unimcumbered and fully subject to his marital rights= Further answering respondent saith that about the time of the marriage between Complainant and respondent Betts, he either heard John Walker Complainants Uncle, or Moses Walker her Father or both speak of the marriage between Complainant and respondent Betts- And of the situation of Respondent as to property and of the property which respondent Betts would get

by Complainant- he believes that the statements were by said Moses Walker- who said that the property he should give Complainant would be without restriction or qualification fully subject to the marrital rights of respondent Betts. The conversation he belives to have been brought about by Mr. Walker himself by alluding to some questions asked by respondent Betts or by some conversation which had passed between said Moses and respondent Betts. and he believes that the declarations above alluded to were in a conversation between said Moses Walker and his brother John Walker. That from the time of said marriage until about 1836 or 1837 as here mentioned he never at any time heard of any claim by Complainant of any seperate property- That he at all times understood from said defendant Betts as well before as at the time of the Execution of the deed by Betts to this respondent and at all times subsequent that the negroes named in said Bill were his own right and property. but that he never desired to deprive Complainant of the use of them, not withstanding complainant as he believed had done every thing & in her power to destroy his peace-

15. 16 & 17. Further answering saith he believes it true that judgements were rendered against said Elisha Betts as stated in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth sections of said Bill- that the suit in favor of Jackson was instituted after the Execution of the said deed to respondent as he believes-

18. That in relation ot the interest of G. L. Penn & co. in and to said judgement in the sixteenth section of said Bill named as also the interest of the said Harrison in and to the judgement in the fifteenth section of said Bill. Respondent saith that heretofor about the day of April A. D. 1845 respondent made a contract for the purchase of said judgements, that he has as he believes made about full payment for the judgement in favour of G. L. Penn & Co. He paid the greater part for the judgement in favor of Harrison usee= that he has purchased and made payment and received the written control of the judgement in the seventeenth paragraph named= further he is unable to state as to the interests of the plaintiffs in said judgements-