Difference between revisions of ".MjkwNjQ.MTAyMTUw"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Protected ".MjkwNjQ.MTAyMTUw" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
5 [centered at top of page]
+
5.
 
+
respondent denies the allegation in the Bill that the said $500 was given "without consideration & was designed to hinder delay and defraud creditors but in truth and in fact that the provision made in the Deed of Trust to secure the payment of the said $300 - was paid for by this respondent by giving to said Ruckers the sum of $300 in Cash, and so $500 was the consideration and a full and fair consideration for Ruckers Bond to this respondent bearing date the 1* day of January 1842. This respondent further answers and says that the said last payment aforesaid, was made as aforesaid before any Supa. was served upon this respondent and indeed long before the filing of this complainants Bill.
respondent denies the alligations in this bill that the said $500 was given without "consideration, & was designed to hinder, delay and defraud Creditors" but in truth and in fact that the provision made in the Deed of Trust to secure the payment of the said $500 - was paid for by this respondent by giving said Rucker the sum of $500 in cash. and so $500 was the consideration and a full and fair consideration for Ruckers Bond to this respondent bearing date the 1st day of January 1842; This respondent further answers and says that the said last payment aforesaid, was made as aforesaid before any Supb was served upon this respondent - and indeed long before the filing of the complainants Bill.
+
This respondent avers that at the time of making the Deed of Trust for this respondents benefit by George A Rucker said Rucker had sufficient other property (not included in said Deed of Trust) to have paid off the debt owed to Mr Carpenter to which the complainants are securities.
 
+
It is true as alleged in the Bill that this respondent directed the Trustee to proceed to sell the property conveyed in the Deed but denies that it was done for any purpose of defeating the just claims of any one else - But on the contrary this respondent avers that he had the property sold for the purpose of making the money due him, out of the property conveyed if it could be done - This respondent attended the sale and run up the property so as [to] make it cover the
This respondent avers that the time of making the Deed of Trust for this respondents benefit by George A. Rucker said Rucker had sufficient other property (not included in said Deed of Trust) to have paid off the debt due to Mr. Carpenter to which the Complainants are securities. It is true as alledged in the Bill that this respondent directed the Trustee to proceed to sell the property conveyed in the Deed but denies that it was done for any purpose of defeating the first claims of any one else - But on the contrary this respondent avers that he had the property sold for the purpose of making the money due him, out of the property conveyed if it could be done - This respondent attendid the sale and ran up the property so as make it cover the
 

Latest revision as of 15:58, 18 June 2021

5. respondent denies the allegation in the Bill that the said $500 was given "without consideration & was designed to hinder delay and defraud creditors but in truth and in fact that the provision made in the Deed of Trust to secure the payment of the said $300 - was paid for by this respondent by giving to said Ruckers the sum of $300 in Cash, and so $500 was the consideration and a full and fair consideration for Ruckers Bond to this respondent bearing date the 1* day of January 1842. This respondent further answers and says that the said last payment aforesaid, was made as aforesaid before any Supa. was served upon this respondent and indeed long before the filing of this complainants Bill. This respondent avers that at the time of making the Deed of Trust for this respondents benefit by George A Rucker said Rucker had sufficient other property (not included in said Deed of Trust) to have paid off the debt owed to Mr Carpenter to which the complainants are securities. It is true as alleged in the Bill that this respondent directed the Trustee to proceed to sell the property conveyed in the Deed but denies that it was done for any purpose of defeating the just claims of any one else - But on the contrary this respondent avers that he had the property sold for the purpose of making the money due him, out of the property conveyed if it could be done - This respondent attended the sale and run up the property so as [to] make it cover the