Difference between revisions of ".MzgxNzU.MTMxNDk1"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Mr Edward")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Mr Edward
+
Mr Edward [illegible], Pleasant Preston & Samuel McCorkle having in possession of an article of submission in writing signed by Wm [L?]. [illegible] as the admr of Martha Watts dcd & Fleming Saunders bearing date on the 19th day of January 1855 thereto annexed, heard & examined all the testimony [added?] before us by each of said parties touching the matter in [illegible] of said article contained including the report of [George?] Wm Dabney & the [illegible] thereto & the depositions of [illegible]  & exhibits filed in the suit in said article of submission  [struck through] mentioned together with their testimony, ( the said Fleming Saunders being present by counsel and the said Wm L.[illegible } in person & by counsel.) and having [illegible] considered the same, an of the opinion upon the whole case submitted, that the accounts between the said parties [struck through] touching the said matter of controversy an [illegible], and that neither party is entitled therefore to [recover?] of the other any thing. And [sends word?] that the bill of Fleming Saunders refused [illegible] the said article of submission be dismissed & that each party pay his [illegible] costs in said suit expended.
 +
Given under our hand this the 20th day of January
 +
Edward [C. Burks?] Pleasant Preston Samuel McCorkle

Revision as of 18:52, 31 December 2021

Mr Edward [illegible], Pleasant Preston & Samuel McCorkle having in possession of an article of submission in writing signed by Wm [L?]. [illegible] as the admr of Martha Watts dcd & Fleming Saunders bearing date on the 19th day of January 1855 thereto annexed, heard & examined all the testimony [added?] before us by each of said parties touching the matter in [illegible] of said article contained including the report of [George?] Wm Dabney & the [illegible] thereto & the depositions of [illegible] & exhibits filed in the suit in said article of submission [struck through] mentioned together with their testimony, ( the said Fleming Saunders being present by counsel and the said Wm L.[illegible } in person & by counsel.) and having [illegible] considered the same, an of the opinion upon the whole case submitted, that the accounts between the said parties [struck through] touching the said matter of controversy an [illegible], and that neither party is entitled therefore to [recover?] of the other any thing. And [sends word?] that the bill of Fleming Saunders refused [illegible] the said article of submission be dismissed & that each party pay his [illegible] costs in said suit expended. Given under our hand this the 20th day of January Edward [C. Burks?] Pleasant Preston Samuel McCorkle