.MjkyMTE.MTA1ODE3

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

does also allege that in a suit in Chancery, in the Circuit Superior Court of Law & Chancery for the City of Norfolk, to which the said William N. Ivey was party, being the suit in which the partnership of Sanford Ivey & Allmand was settled the said Ivey was allowed by the decree for the said slaves the time herein above stated. And your Complainant by way of further amendment to said Bill does also allege that he said William N. Ivy received for the hire of said slaves, for the time before alleged a large sum, to wit, at the rate of $23.26/100 per month for each slave & for the time set forth, an aggregate of $1619.47/100. And your Complainant does also allege that in the suit in Chancery aforesaid of Sanford, Ivey & Allmand, to which the said Ivy was party, the said William N. Ivy did obtain a credit for the amount of money above stated viz the sum of $1619.47. Your Complainant refers to the statement of the Clerk of the said Circuit Superior Court of Law & Chancery for the city of Norfolk filed with the depositions of the defendant William N. Ivy in this cause, shewing that the said Ivy in the decree of the Court in said suit, was allowed for the time stated & at the rates stated, making the aggregate of $1619.47 before mentioned. And your Complt by way of further amendment to said bill, alleges that since the institution of this suit an action at Law in the Circuit Superior Court of Law & Chancery for the City of Norfolk, brought by John S. Millson trustee, as in the original bill set forth, for the said Wm N. Ivy a verdict & judgment has been recovered against a certain Jesse R. Fentress for a slave named Bill, being one of the negroes mentioned in the deed of trust form your Complt. to said Millson trustee, in the original bill referred to - which said judgment either is or will be satisfied by payment of the amount of the sum of $220 & interest. And your complainant is advised that in the settlement with said William N. Ivy, your complainant is entitled to a credit for this amount, as well as for his 1/2 of the sum of $1619.47 before referred to. An office copy of said verdict & judgment is herewith filed, marked Exhibit X. And here your complainant further alleges, that he now again repeats all & singular the allegations of his original bill, as fully as if herein set forth particularly, in especial that the sale under the deed of trust mentioned ought not to have been made and ought to be rescinded, & that the said William N. Ivy is in debt to your Complainant &c. In tender consideration whereof & as your Complt is without relief except by the aid of a Court of Equity, to the end therefore that the said William N. Ivy, John S. Millson, Miles Portlock, Catharine B. Baylor admrx. of Richard G. Baylor, Anna Maria Baylor, Alexina Baylor, Thomas Gregory Baylor, Elizabeth Baylor, Robert William Baylor, & Richardetta Baylor, the last six named infant orphans of Richard G. Baylor decd. by a guardian to be assigned to defend them in this suit - Samuel Watts & Ann L. Watts his wife, Francis Brock, David M. Walke & Sarah M Shepherd Executrix of Smith Shepherd decd. may be made parties respondent to this amended bill, & may answer the same (as well as the original on oath & say if the allegations thereof be true & if not in that [what] particular they are false & what the truth in that particular really is, not contenting themselves with bare negations. That all proper accounts be settled; the relief prayed for in the original bill accorded, as also the amount found due to your Complainant from said Ivy repaid. And that your Complainant may