Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

-

(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. ]

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,

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 daughter of the said Andrew Achorn; and the plaintiff has cause to fear, and does fear, that most, if not all, of said defendants will hereafter bring their several actions to recover their pretended claim to said real estate under said will, unless restrained by a judgment of this court, deelaring said will to be void. And this plaintiff is further informed and believes, that the claim of right of each of the defendants arises from said will, and from no other

source.

The plaintiff therefore demands judgment, declaring the said will void as against this plaintiff, and his heirs and assigns' right and title to the premises aforesaid, and perpetually enjoining the defendants, and each of them, from asserting any claim under said will, with costs only as against such of the defendants as shall contest or deny the plaintiff's right to a judgment declaring said will void, as aforesaid.

HENRY R. MYGATT,

Plaintiff's Attorney.

(No. 31.)

Prayer of a complaint, by certain devisees in a will, to set

aside deeds (executed subsequently to making the will) of a portion of the premises devised, on the ground of the mental incapacity of the grantor, and fraud in obtaining such deeds; praying, also, an issue to try the mental capacity of the grantor.

That it may be declared that the said pretended conveyances, purporting to be signed and executed by said C. L. to the said A. R. and to the said D. R., are, and that each of said pretended conveyances is, void and of no effect, and that the lands and real estate, described in said conveyances, belonged to said C. L. at the time of his death, and was, and is, part and parcel of the real estate devised by the last will and testament of said C. L. ; and that the said D. R., and A. his wife, may be adjudged to deliver up the said pretended conveyances to be canceled; and that an issue or issues, if necessary, may be directed, to try whether the said C. L. was of sound mind and mentally capable of executing the said pretended conveyances, and whether the same were duly executed by him, and whether they are valid and effectual and operative conveyances, and that all proper directions may be given for that purpose ; and that the said D. R., and A. his wife, may be restrained and enjoined by the order and judgment of this court, from claiming any interest, right or title, under or by virtue of said pretended conveyances, or either of them ; and that said D. R. may account for the rents and profit of the lands in the county of Washington, since the decease of said C. L.; and that the plaintiffs may have such further relief, or may have such other relief, as the nature of their cases shall require and as shall be agreeable to equity.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »