Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1828-05-28

that IN the year 1918, they commenced som
: KIND OF suit, for the recovery of this land
and soon found out that they had taken
wrong start; for in July, 1914, they com
menced the business dc a,opo, and filed bill
IN Equity In the name of a. Jackson, aguins
every known settler OH the land (excep
onc.) The following extracts are tpkel
IRON one of those Bills, to wit.
"four orator, Andrew Jackson, of Da
wilson county, in said circuit, respectfully
represents to your honors, that OH the 27tl
day OF June, 1898, IS goo acres Of land w
ing IN what was the Territory South of the
hiyer Ohio, new state OF Tennessee. on tho
three forks of Duck River, in what is nov
bedford County, was granted by the state @
North Carolina 10 John Gray Blount ano
Thomas Biount, by seventeen patents tol
''ooo acres each, bearing date the same day
ana yer, which patents describe the respec-
tive tracts as follows" Then is added q
complete description CT the land-after-
wards the orator proceeds: ':And the same
John Gray Blount and Thomas Biount ai:
forwards, on the 9th day OF October, l79i.
SOLD aiid BY iident,Irc of bargain and sale,
conveyed said $4,000 acres Of land TO Da-
VId Nilsson, then of the city of Philadelphia
-your orator further shcws, that sad Da-
81 Y. I ..
BENG indebted to one Norton Pryor of the
slld city in the sum of So 800, gave his note
OF that date, to said Pryor for the payment
OF SAID sum, 90 days after date; and the bet
ter to secure the payment of said sum suid
David Allison by indenture of barguin and
sale, bearing date the same day and wear,
barSalncd, sold and conveyed 10 said Pryor,
his heirs and assigns, in fee, said $4,000 u
ores, so granted to said j. Ct. Blount and T.
biount." We have already seen this orator
engaged IN ioreclosing the Equity of re-
dcnpt!on on the above Mortgage deed, for
Norton Pryor-now he is swearing for HIM
self. But the Bill also says-''Your orator
further represents, that by some agreement
or assignment from said Norton Pryor TO Io-
seph Anderson, Esq. Of Jefferson County.
tennessee, said Anderson set up claim to
{ part ofsnid $4,000 acres of land included
IN patents number 91S, 222, go, und parts
OF SAID four tracts are now claimed by VIII
liam Finch" &c. And is i! General Jackson
who intimates that the claim OF judge An
dcrson Is mystery to him? How could this
man ever charge '.bargnin and corrupton''
on MIR. Clay, when he E SO deeply involved
himself?
We will now attend TO the answers OF
part of the defendants to Gcn. jackson 5
bills in Equity, and see what they say or ihis
matter. Andrew Erwin, one Of the late
firm of Patton and Erwin, after stating at
large the natarc of his title is derived from
Norton Pryor and Judge Anderson, repre-
SCENTS, "that while the defendant A. Erwin,
was n Tennessee acting as the agent OF
Norton Pryor, and before the said lands were
conveyed 10 these Defendants, or said pur-
chase made-ile was informed and advised
By Ienkin Whitside, Esq. that he believed
the title ofthe said Norton Pryor good Ii
tic to the land acquired as aforesaid uudcr
said mortgage, decree and sale. And ut or
about the same time he was informed by
compPt. a. Jackson, that he considered the
SAID title in n. Pryor as good title as any
! III the state-5aid Jackson informed him at
that time. that he had heard of John G.
Blount having some equitable claim from
the heirs Of said David Allison for the whole
OF said 5000 acres, but that he claimed q
part under a similar title to that Of Pryor:
that he had sold and made general wurran-
tee deeds, and would continue to sci! the ba-
lance which he owned in the same manner
And that said Jackson then informed him
that the mortgage had been obsolete for
more than seven years, which would bar an
equity Of rcdcmption and that the statute
oflimjtations would be bar, that 10 writ OF
error could be then brought to reverse the
Decrcc-and that there was no danger OF
Norton Pryor's title. And the said jackson
then encouraged this respondent TO pur-
chase the said lands from said Pryor, and al:
ter | did purchase con 'inucd 10 assert his
confidence. Whercupon this respondent
4. Erwin, for himself and Jas. Patton, con
tracted for the same as above set forth, and
obtained said deed therefor
/ The following is extracted from the an
swcr Of Stephen Booth, one Of the Defcn-
dants: Some time in the year 500 this
Defendant went to the residence OF Com
plalnant in Davidson county, to purchase
from him part of one Of the tracts OF land
which he had bought at the MarsiIall's sale,
alluded to i'll the answer of Patton and Err
win. That part Complainant had promised
to convey to female relation, who would
not consent for it to be sold TO Defendant
on his arrival there ComDjainant seemed