Difference between revisions of ".MzU5OTM.MTI2MTIy"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
he should have to pay that debt, for said {illegible} he feared some difficulty - in being able to raise the last payment for said negro so early as 20th March 1848 - And your respondent told him in that event, he would not be harsh with him in enforcing the payment thereof - And this respondent further says that the first bond {payable?} March 1847 was paid by the said Henry Phillips about the time it fell due or soon thereafter. And that when the remaining bonds fell due, the said Henry Phillips told this respondent that he did not intend ever to pay them and that he might sue on them at once if he chose - Alleging as a reason that the negro Bill had died a month or two previous and that upon a post mortem examination he had reason to believe ( and was so informed by the Physician) that the said negro was unsound at the time of his purchase of him - And this was the first time this respondent, two years after the sale of said negro ever heard of the unsoundness - or the said Phillips himself ever thought of saying it: against the payment of said bonds - under these circumstances this respondent brought suit upon the said three bonds, in the name of Jacob Hemsburger adm'r of Andrew Newman dec'd against Henry Phillips for his use - on the law side of this court ( the said bonds having been assigned to him upon the settlement of his father's estate). And at the May term 1849 - recovered judgment thereon and execution issued. This respondent actually denies any knowledge whatever of the unsoundness of said negro at the time of sale but on the contrary believes that he was entirely sound. And that the said Henry Phillips was far better acquainted with the negro and his condition and had far better opportunity of said knowledge than this respondent could possibly have - that the said Phllips had
+
he should have to pay that debt, for said {illegible} he feared some difficulty - in being able to raise the last payment for said negro so early as 20th March 1848 - And your respondent told him in that event, he would not be harsh with him in enforcing the payment thereof - And this respondent further says that the first bond {payable?} March 1847 was paid by the said Henry Phillips about the time it fell due or soon thereafter. And that when the remaining bonds fell due, the said Henry Phillips told this respondent that he did not intend ever to pay them and that he might sue on them at once if he chose - Alleging as a reason that the negro Bill had died a month or two previous and that upon a post mortem examination he had reason to believe ( and was so informed by the Physician) that the said negro was unsound at the time of his purchase of him - And this was the first time this respondent, two years after the sale of said negro ever heard of the unsoundness - or the said Phillips himself ever thought of saying it: against the payment of said bonds - under these circumstances this respondent brought suit upon the said three bonds, in the name of Jacob Hemsburger adm'r of Andrew Newman dec'd against Henry Phillips for his use - on the law side of this court ( the said bonds having been assigned to him upon the settlement of his father's estate). And at the May term 1849 - recovered judgment thereon and execution issued. This respondent actually denies any knowledge whatever of the unsoundness of said negro at the time of sale but on the contrary believes that he was entirely sound. And that the said Henry Phillips was far better acquainted with the negro and his condition and had far better opportunity of said knowledge than this respondent could possibly have - that the said Phillips had  
 +
known said negro from his childhood and more particularly for the last ten or fifteen years during which time the said negro lived in his neighborhood and was continually seen by him, in passing and repassing - Whilst this respondent was residing in some of the western states for about three years out of the four or five years preceding the sale of said negro - And this respondent would further say that the said Henry Phillips repeatedly expressed himself perfectly satisfied with his purchase and did so express himself twelve months after at the payment of the bond due March 20th 1847 - with the exception that said negro had the bad habit of running about of the night of which he could not break him. And at the settlement above referred is at which said bonds were assessed to him the said Phillips was present and was so well satisfied with his purchase as to exhibit much uneasiness at what he apprehended might be a defect (not in the negro) but in the bill of sale for the same - fearing from what he supposed to be a defect he might be deprived of the benefit of his purchase - This settlement was subsequent to the payment of the bond due March 20th 1847 which was paid this respondent as agent of his father - thought the precise date is not now recollected - And this respondent utterly denies all fraud or combination - And prays that said bill may be dismissed - the Injunction dissolved and this respondent be permitted to go hence with his costs - &c &c
 +
Alexr Newway
 +
Gray & Williams for Respt

Revision as of 17:32, 15 January 2022

he should have to pay that debt, for said {illegible} he feared some difficulty - in being able to raise the last payment for said negro so early as 20th March 1848 - And your respondent told him in that event, he would not be harsh with him in enforcing the payment thereof - And this respondent further says that the first bond {payable?} March 1847 was paid by the said Henry Phillips about the time it fell due or soon thereafter. And that when the remaining bonds fell due, the said Henry Phillips told this respondent that he did not intend ever to pay them and that he might sue on them at once if he chose - Alleging as a reason that the negro Bill had died a month or two previous and that upon a post mortem examination he had reason to believe ( and was so informed by the Physician) that the said negro was unsound at the time of his purchase of him - And this was the first time this respondent, two years after the sale of said negro ever heard of the unsoundness - or the said Phillips himself ever thought of saying it: against the payment of said bonds - under these circumstances this respondent brought suit upon the said three bonds, in the name of Jacob Hemsburger adm'r of Andrew Newman dec'd against Henry Phillips for his use - on the law side of this court ( the said bonds having been assigned to him upon the settlement of his father's estate). And at the May term 1849 - recovered judgment thereon and execution issued. This respondent actually denies any knowledge whatever of the unsoundness of said negro at the time of sale but on the contrary believes that he was entirely sound. And that the said Henry Phillips was far better acquainted with the negro and his condition and had far better opportunity of said knowledge than this respondent could possibly have - that the said Phillips had known said negro from his childhood and more particularly for the last ten or fifteen years during which time the said negro lived in his neighborhood and was continually seen by him, in passing and repassing - Whilst this respondent was residing in some of the western states for about three years out of the four or five years preceding the sale of said negro - And this respondent would further say that the said Henry Phillips repeatedly expressed himself perfectly satisfied with his purchase and did so express himself twelve months after at the payment of the bond due March 20th 1847 - with the exception that said negro had the bad habit of running about of the night of which he could not break him. And at the settlement above referred is at which said bonds were assessed to him the said Phillips was present and was so well satisfied with his purchase as to exhibit much uneasiness at what he apprehended might be a defect (not in the negro) but in the bill of sale for the same - fearing from what he supposed to be a defect he might be deprived of the benefit of his purchase - This settlement was subsequent to the payment of the bond due March 20th 1847 which was paid this respondent as agent of his father - thought the precise date is not now recollected - And this respondent utterly denies all fraud or combination - And prays that said bill may be dismissed - the Injunction dissolved and this respondent be permitted to go hence with his costs - &c &c Alexr Newway Gray & Williams for Respt