M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1860-08-16
legal Notice.

Zalcsk Company incorpora The State ofOhio,
ted and doing business I'M Vinton County
der the laws OF Ohio, PIN, Court Of Common
VS. Pleas.
Timothy Nahnion and Mich
acl Ilealy, Defendant.
lTEHE defendants, Michael Iloaly, whose place of
L residence is Wheeling, in the State of Vir-
ginia, and Timothy MRunion, whose place Of res
ileHcy is unknown will take nO.icc that the plain
ths( the Zalusk Compuny,n company incorporat
cd and doing business, .nleg the law Of tho State
orOhio ID said Ninton County has this day filed
in The Court of Common Pleas within and for
said County Of NmtOn, its petition against them
the said defendants, which petition will be for
hearing ut tue next torn OF said Court, setting
up ind aveuing IN said petition that the raid de-
lendant, Timothy Mannion, on the Sth day Of
July, j. D. 1851, purchased Of the said plaintiff,
acting in their said corporate name, the real es
tate hereinafter described, and being six hundred
aud siXty-six and two-thirds square yards Of
land, in the town ofHaleski, County Of Vinton,
and State ofOhio, commencing 1Gs feet north of
the corner Of Commercial and Second stTeets;--
thence IN m Castcry direction with the line Of the
alley one hundred and fifty ttct;thencC north with
the Iiue Of said alley forty two feet; thence in q
westerly direction and in o line parallel With
said tirs. described line one hundred and fifty feet
to the line Of said Second street, and thence south
lLll llC VI Halu 7tNull lSSb
place Of beginning, and IN consideration of which
said sale 20 made as aforesaid, the said Timothy
ManniOn agreed to pay the sum of 500 cash in
hand, ($lOp) on the first Jay Of July, \. D. 1858,
and Sl2C on the first day ofJuly, A. D. 1859, de-
iorred payments bearing interest from said date
Of said contract That said Munaion subsequent
" purchased o strip Of land adjoining s.id first
described tract, being Of the same depth; 'front.'
ing on said Second street, and being two feet in
hot H., ,,.f
which said Mannion, on said first day Of July, a.
D. lSj0, was to pay the sum Of sixteen dollars in
addition to the amounts as sevcraly above stipu-
lated.
The said plaintiff further says that said plain
tih, still acting in said capacity and under said
corporate name Of Ialeski Company, bargained
sold and delivered to said defendant, Marnion, at
his own special instance and request, certain
building NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS., brick; lime, &c, CT
large amounts for the purpos6 Of building and
improving said premises. That said Mannion
made certain payments upon said indebtedness
until there remained, or about the first day Of
February, 4. D. 1860, (at which time there was
on amesble settlement by and between the par
ties Of all Of said several matters ofcontract and
and account), the sum of S40l or thereabouts,
for which said sum said defendant, Mannion, eX
ecuted his promissorT note to said plaintiff, and
then and there delivered said promissory note to
said plaintiff, who now hold and own said note
and are entitled to receive the amount due on the
same,
The said plaintiff in said petition further says
that afterwards, to-wit; on the 7th day of July,
A. d. 1853, said defendant, Timothy Maunion,
sold said real estate, hcreinbefore described, to
said Michael Healey, and by said sale transferred
all his interest in and to the same to said lIealy.
That said sale to said lIeaey was wholly without
consideration, and void. The same having been
made to prejudice the ein of said plaintiff for
said purchase money and building materials SO
by, said plaintiff furnished as aforesaid. and also
to prevent other creditors from collecting am'nts
due to them by selling said premises. The pain
tiff admits that on tho Slst day of January, A. D.
1860, said plaintiff conveyed said premises to said
Michael -Healy by deed upon certain representa-
tons ofthe parties, which it charges were false
and made with the intention of defrauding the
plaintiff out of its rights in the premises. The
plaintiff in said petition prays that said contract
between said Mannion and said Healey may be
declared iaud hold to be without consideration AID
void. That said deed of feopveyance SO made by
said plaintiff to said defendant Healey may be de-
clared void and held for nought. That said plain
tiff may have judgment against said defendant,
Timothy Mannion, for the amount so due from
him on said premises; and thatsaid premises may
| be declared TO be sold and the proceeds arising
from said sale applied to the payment OF said debt
and for all other necessary relief.
| r- ZALESKI COMPANY, Prff.
BY YAPLE s. MACKEY, Attorneys.
| August 16, 1S6o.--l'6w.