Difference between revisions of ".MzYwMTc.MTI2NjQ0"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
The answer of William Parramour Sr [late?] Sherriff of Accomack county and as such adm de bonis non with this will annexed of Charles Mason decd to this Bill exhibited against him and others by Hugh G. Seymour and other, Complainants.
 
The answer of William Parramour Sr [late?] Sherriff of Accomack county and as such adm de bonis non with this will annexed of Charles Mason decd to this Bill exhibited against him and others by Hugh G. Seymour and other, Complainants.
This Respondent saving &c for [answers?] to said bill, or to so [illegible] thereof as he is advised to answer, answering says-  That he admits the will of Charles Mason decd and the qualification of Wm P Custis as his executor, and of this respondent as his administrator de bonis non with the will annexed after the [removal?] of said Custis found the said executorship. this Respondent knows nothing of the claims communicated in said bill of Complaint, and he calls therefor for the fullest proof of each and every [illegible] of them. This Respondent says further, that he has fully administrated the [struck through] estate of the said [Mason?], so far as  the [illegible] has [illegible] to his hands, except that he has not [illegible] and answers which was anticipated by sd Mason in his will, as in the Bill alleged, and that he has now in his hands a [illegible] to said estate, and which arose from the [hires?] of said negroes. And this respondent insists that by a provision of the will of said Charles Mason, as well as by the law of the land and the principles of equity [llegible] by of said provision the lands of said Charles Mason, which was [illegible] by him to his children and liable for his debts before the negroes which  were emancipated by him in his will as aforesaid; and this respondent refers to the
+
This Respondent saving &c for [answers?] to said bill, or to so [illegible] thereof as he is advised to answer, answering says-  That he admits the will of Charles Mason decd and the qualification of Wm P Custis as his executor, and of this respondent as his administrator de bonis non with the will annexed after the [removal?] of said Custis found the said executorship. this Respondent knows nothing of the claims communicated in said bill of Complaint, and he calls therefor for the fullest proof of each and every [illegible] of them. This Respondent says further, that he has fully administrated the [struck through] estate of the said Mason, so far as  the [illegible] has [illegible] to his hands, except that he has not [illegible] and answers which was anticipated by sd Mason in his will, as in the Bill alleged, and that he has now in his hands a [illegible] to said estate, and which arose from the [hires?] of said negroes. And this respondent insists that by a provision of the will of said Charles Mason, as well as by the law of the land and the principles of equity [llegible] by of said provision the lands of said Charles Mason, which was [illegible] by him to his children and liable for his debts before the negroes which  were emancipated by him in his will as aforesaid; and this respondent refers to the

Revision as of 19:19, 10 November 2021

The answer of William Parramour Sr [late?] Sherriff of Accomack county and as such adm de bonis non with this will annexed of Charles Mason decd to this Bill exhibited against him and others by Hugh G. Seymour and other, Complainants. This Respondent saving &c for [answers?] to said bill, or to so [illegible] thereof as he is advised to answer, answering says- That he admits the will of Charles Mason decd and the qualification of Wm P Custis as his executor, and of this respondent as his administrator de bonis non with the will annexed after the [removal?] of said Custis found the said executorship. this Respondent knows nothing of the claims communicated in said bill of Complaint, and he calls therefor for the fullest proof of each and every [illegible] of them. This Respondent says further, that he has fully administrated the [struck through] estate of the said Mason, so far as the [illegible] has [illegible] to his hands, except that he has not [illegible] and answers which was anticipated by sd Mason in his will, as in the Bill alleged, and that he has now in his hands a [illegible] to said estate, and which arose from the [hires?] of said negroes. And this respondent insists that by a provision of the will of said Charles Mason, as well as by the law of the land and the principles of equity [llegible] by of said provision the lands of said Charles Mason, which was [illegible] by him to his children and liable for his debts before the negroes which were emancipated by him in his will as aforesaid; and this respondent refers to the