Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

said machinery should be foreclosed, and the property sold and bid in by the said Smith, and that the deficiency, then existing between the amount of the mortgage and the price bid, should be paid to the said Smith by the defendant, O'Hara; and that, as the plaintiffs are informed and believe, the defendants, Smith, O'Hara and Morrell, further arranged and agreed, that all the property in the said store and factory should be transferred and delivered to the defendant, O'Hara, at the nominal price of $8,000, or thereabouts, which the said O'Hara should pay in notes, and Morrell should use in effecting favorable compromises with his creditors; that, as the plaintiffs are informed and believe, it was further arranged and agreed between the defendants, that the defendant, O'Hara, should go on in his own name with the business previously conducted by Morrell, and should employ Morrell as managing agent at a nominal salary of $1,000 a year-that the business should be thus continued for two years, to give Morrell an opportunity to buy up, at a low rate, the claims against him, held by his creditors, and at the end of that time O'Hara should pay over and redeliver to Morrell all the residue of said property and effects, and the proceeds and profits thereof, after deducting $4,000 a year for his own compensation, and the amount of the notes given by him as aforesaid; and it was further arranged and agreed, that if the defendant, Morrell, could procure a purchaser of said property, at a fair price, the said O'Hara should sell the same to said purchaser in his own name, and, after making the deductions above mentioned, should pay over the balance to the said Morrell.

Sixth. That, as the plaintiffs are informed and believe, in pursuance of this arrangement, the defendant, Augustine Smith, foreclosed the mortgage and bought in the property at $4,000, and immediately transferred the same to O'Hara, who paid him $5,500 therefor, that being the amount of

said mortgage, which amount the said Smith received for, and paid over to, the said firm of John Campbell & Co.

Seventh. That, as the plaintiffs are informed and believe, also in pursuance of said arrangement, the other property of Morrell in the factory, and that in the store, was transferred by Morrell to O'Hara, for the said sum of $8,000, paid in notes as aforesaid, who continued in the business, employing Morrell as managing agent; and the said O'Hara has made a large profit thereon, and at least $5,000 a year, and that the said O'Hara still continues in said business, and in possession of the said goods and property, or the proceeds and profits thereof.

Wherefore the plaintiffs demand judgment, that the transfer of his property, by the defendant Morrell to the defendant O'Hara, may be adjudged fraudulent and void, as against the plaintiffs; and that the said defendant, O'Hara, be enjoined and restrained from selling, assigning, or in any way disposing of the machinery and stock in said blank book manufactory, transferred to him by said Morrell, or said Smith, and the goods and stock in the store transferred to him by said Morrell, or the proceeds and profits thereof; that a receiver may be appointed to take possession of the said property, and the proceeds and profits thereof; that the said O'Hara may be compelled to account to said receiver for the profits of said store and manufactory, since the said transfer; that the said John Campbell and Augustine Smith may be compelled to pay over to said receiver $1,500, being the sum received by them over and above the amount that the mortgaged machinery brought at the sale, and that the property taken possession of by said receiver, or collected by him, may be sold and appropriated to the payment of the judgments held by the plaintiffs.

FIELD & SLUYTER,
Plaintiffs' Attorneys.

(No. 30.)

To restrain defendants, claiming under a will alleged to be fraudulent and void, from asserting claims thereunder against the plaintiff, the grantee of the heirs at law," in possession, and to declare such will null and void.

SUPREME COURT-COUNTY OF CHENANGO.

Derick H. Wells
agt.

Van Der Lyn Palmer, John Davey and Elizabeth Davey his wife, William Benschoter and Jane Benschoter his wife, [ and various other defendants, naming them.]1

The complaint of the said plaintiff respectfully shows to this court, that on or before the 1st day of April, 1854, this plaintiff became seized, in fee simple, for a full consideration, of the following described real estate: [Here set forth description.]

That the aforesaid real estate, as the plaintiff is informed and believes, has been in the possession of those claiming title, derived from the daughters of Andrew Achorn, deceased, hereinafter mentioned, since some time in 1831; the said premises being part of that certain farm of land, now in the town of Oxford, of the residue of which the said Andrew Achorn died seized, described as follows: [Describing the premises.]

That the said plaintiff has been in the possession of the said real estate, first above described, which is, in value,

1 The defendants are the devisees named in the will, which plaintiff claims to be void; he, the plaintiff, claiming title, by grant, through the heirs at law.

several thousand dollars, since the 1st day of April, 1854, and has cultivated and improved the same, and that the conveyances, thereof, to this plaintiff, are by warrantee deeds.

That this plaintiff, before he purchased said real estate, was informed by the grantors thereof to him, the said plaintiff, that the title to said real estate was perfect, and that if the plaintiff became the purchaser thereof, he would obtain an absolute title, in fee simple, free from any cloud or incumbrance thereon; and this plaintiff, not knowing to the contrary, became the purchaser thereof.

That this plaintiff has, since he became the purchaser of said real estate, been informed, and he believes and charges to be true, that one Andrew Achorn, on or about the 12th day of March, 1825, was seized, in fee simple, of said real estate; and that it is pretended by the defendants in this action, or some of them, that the said Andrew Achorn, on said 12th day of March, 1825, made his last will and testament, a copy of which said last will and testament is hereunto annexed, marked Schedule A, and which forms a part of this complaint.

That soon after the date of said will, the said Andrew Achorn died; and that, on or about the 8th day of August, 1825, the said will was admitted to probate, by the then surrogate of the county of Chenango.

That Jemima Achorn, therein mentioned, the widow of said Andrew Achorn, has since died; and that the three daughters of the said Andrew Achorn, in said will mentioned, are Amy Palmer, Mary D. Mill and Anna Prentice, all of whom are now living, and each of them is over 60 years of age.

That the said Amy Palmer, Mary D. Mill and Anna Prentice were, and are, the only heirs at law of the said Andrew Achorn, deceased, and have, with their husbands,

since the death of said Andrew Achorn, duly conveyed all their title in and to the real estate aforesaid; and this plaintiff claims, and has derived, title thereto through their grantees.

That the children of the said Amy Palmer, now living, are the defendants [naming them], all of whom are nonresidents of the State of New-York, and are over 21 years of age, except said Van Buren Palmer, who is under 21 years of age.

That the children of the said Mary D. Mill, now living, are the defendants. [mentioning them.]

That the children of the said Anna Prentice, now living, are the defendants. [mentioning them.]

That plaintiff is informed and believes that the execution of said will was obtained by fraud and undue influence, and that at a time when the said Andrew Achorn, deceased, was incapable of transacting business; and also, that the said Andrew Achorn had been, and was for some time previous to, and up to, and at the date and time of, the execution of said will, addicted to the habit of drinking to intoxication, and, in consequence thereof, was liable to be imposed upon, and that some person or persons, unknown to this plaintiff, took advantage of such weakness and infirmity of the said Andrew Achorn to cause him to execute the said will; and this plaintiff is informed and believes, that the said will was not executed by the said Andrew Achorn, at a time when he was sober and capable of transacting business, and that, at the time of the execution thereof, the said Andrew Achorn had not, on his part, a full knowledge of its nature and contents.

That the plaintiff is informed and believes, that several of the said defendants, relying on said will for their title, threaten to bring actions to recover the real estate aforesaid, now in plaintiff's possession, on the death of said

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »