Virginia statesman. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1828-1829, 1828-05-21
No. p.


warranty deeds. You are not acquainted nh lie
technical ncetIes ofthe law and put faith and cred.
IL in the honor and judgment ofy your counsel lou
settle on the land yourself and sell part of others;
after wears of labor and toll m which the land has
become ten times more valuable Your lawyer then
thinks he has discovered that the business was N
first wrong doue-goes to your former adversary
without apprsng you OF the facts and buys up tho
claim that he had once deleaed-comes back and
brings suit against You, and those TO whom You
had sold Would YOU think he was au honest
mani Or would YOU think he was a hi person 10
be President of these United Staiesl Such YOU
viii discover was the conduct OF General Jackson.
acknowledge that am not prepared 10 give
correct history of the first acts of tms C0nbiRa.
fon. but il will be sufficient 20 stale that IN the
wear 1913. they commenced some kind of suit for
the recovery ofthis land-and soon found 0ui that
they had taken wrong start; for in july lSl4,
they commenced the business dc r0ro 9id filed
bills in Equity IN the name of \. Jackson against
every known settler on the land Except one The
following extracts arc taken from one Of those
Bills TO wit;
"Your orator, Andrew jackson, of Davidson
county, IN said circmt respectfully represents 10
your honors, that on the 9th day Of June, 1888
$1,000 acres of land lying IN what was the Tern
tory South of the River OHIO, now State OF Ten
nessee on the three forks of Duck River, IN what
is now Bedford county, was granted by The state
of North Carolnato John Gray Blount and Thorn
ms Blount, by seventeen patents for 5000 acres
each bearing date ON The same dayand year, which
patents describe the respective traces rs follows.
Then is added a com lte description ofthe land
aflorward the orator proceeds: sand the said John
| Gray Blomt and Thomas Bl0unt afterwards, on
/ the 9th day of October 1904 sold and by lndcn-
/ iufe of bargain and sale, conveyed said co,ulu a.
ores ofland to David Allison. then oiihe CITY Of
! Phladelpha--your orator further shews thar said
| David Allison afterwards on lhe first dIy, 100,
! being indebted TO one Norton Pryor AZ The sud cl-
~ in the sum of 81 zoo "a h~ uote of that date.
| 10 SAID Pryor for the payment of sald sum- 90 days
after date, and the better 10 secure the payment OF
SAID sum, said David Allison by ndeu,ure of bar
gain and sale bearing date the same day and year.
! bargained, sold and conveyed 10 sad Pyol bis
heirs and assigns IN fee slid 5000 acre so grant
ed TO ]. c. Blomt and T. Blount We have al-
ready seen this orator engaged ~ torecosng he
equity ofredempton on The Above Mortgage Deed
for Norton Pyor-noW he is swearing ior hmm
self But the Bin also says--"i our orator further
represents that BY some agreement on ass lgnment
from said Norton Pryor 10 Joseph Anderson, Lsq.
/ Of Jefferson county, Tennessee, said Anderson -et
up clam 10 part of SAID $1,000 acres of land
included IN patents number 2le,22 22225 nd
/
| Finch" DC. And is Ii Cen Jackson who ut-
mates that the clam of Judge Anderson is % mys-
terry to hml How could tins man ever charge
bargain and corruption ON Dir. Clay, when he IS
so deeply involved hmselH
We will now attend 10 the answers of part OF
the defendants TO General Jlckson'e bills IA LQui-
~, and see what they say on this matter. Andrew
| Erwin, one Of the late firm of Patton and Erwin,
after stating al large The nature OF his title as de-
rived from Norton Pryor and Judge Anderson,
represents" that " bile the defendant, 4. Erv IN,
ras III Tennessee acting as the agent OF Norton
! Pryor, and before the said lands ere conveyed 10
these Defendants, Of SAID purchases made-hC
was informed and advised by Jenken Whiieside
! Esq. that he believed the ttle Of the said
! Norton Pryor a good title 90 the lmd acQurodas
aforesaid under said mortgage, decree and sale
! Md NJ or about the same time he wis lIio.
! by complainant A. Jackson, that he consid, CO. the
sud title M ~ Pryor as good tiile as lny tho
! state--said Jackson Informed hm a. ihaJ Ilmo
! that he had heard of John q. Bloun having some
equitable claim from the heirs OF I'd David hl-
son for the whole Of ihe SAID -5rUi acres, but
] that he claimed a part under % sunliar tile Go hat
of Pryor that be had sold aud made general ar-
| rintee deeds, and would continue tC scl thc bal
/ NICE which he owned m lhc slme I'D ua.ei-- and
| that said Jackson then informed him tal tle mott
gage had been absolute more tbu seven ycars,
which would bar an equity Of redemption, an rhlt
! the statute Of limitations wOnd bee bu hfl no
writ of error could be thch brought 10 rcscrse
/ the Decree--and that there was no danger OF Nor
ton Pryors title. And the sand jackson iheo
encouraged tins respondent 10 purchase iiie 10
/ lands from said Pryor, and after dld purchase
continued 10 assert hls confidence. Nheicupon
this respondent A. Erwin, for himself nd mes
Patton. contracted for the same above sci forth.
and obtained said deed therefor
The following is extracted from The answer
/ of STEPHEN Booth, one Of The defendants: "rOme
/ time in the year 1909 this Defendant eut 10 The
residence Of Compliment 100 Davidson county, 10
purchase from him part Of one Of The tracts Of
/ land which he had bought a. tle Alar.h1Is sale,
alluded 10 ia ihe answer of Patton nd Erwin.
/ That par; Complainant had PROMISED 20 convey
TO female relation who would not consent for q
10 be sold TO defendant on bis arrival there Com
/ planant seemed much irriated 10 her refusal 70
-ell, as be had before promised it 10 Defendant,
and promised to me llucr 10 lei bun hive Pan
Of the same tract where one Coiee iFca-De-
PENDANT said ne would hook az that land' Dui % was
! probable he would moi ike II; thai be bao been
offered some land which pleased hm very Wen ny
Alexander Outlaw, Ginning under Anderson Dut
that he had been afraid 10 purchase IL as ne had
| heard that Outlaw was insOlPeni, ana mere Wcf0
fears with some respecting ne iue' maj DC wish
ed ComplaiDant would inform BIN whether he
could be safe in buying thai land. Complainant
I answered thai he would be perfectly safe in pur-
chasing II; that Outlaw's or Anderson title was
Is qood as any in the state, that there was no
doubt Of the title. The expire ion, Or the same
In substance, was several tunes repeated and s,e07t
10 by Complainant. He sad that the bu.ine had
been conducted By hlm that be had the manage
ment Of the iereclosure o. The Equity Of kedenp-
ton. and lhat be knew Il was correctly done"
"He went home, endeayored 70 purchase from
Outlaw, and filling IN that, Afterwards puichased