1880 Lawsuit between Potter Family and Michael William Shanahan Court Document Number One | View Scans of Actual Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
[Page 1 (Cover Sheet)]
W. C. Potter et al
Vs | OB
M. W. Shannahan
et al
Filed & Process
Issued Dec 2nd 1880
D. C. Holland
Oglesby & Taylor Attys
[Page 2]
The State of Miss
Tate County
To the Chancery Court of Tate County Mississippi
J. M. Potter W. C. Potter M. E. Scott & Wm. Scott her husband H. C. All Citizens Boone & C. F. Boone of Tate County her husband M. R. Miss Potter and Y. D. Potter Complainants a minor who lives by his [next of kin?] M. R. Potter
[NOTE: beside each name listed above on the left in very small handwriting, someone wrote the counties they were from beside their names. Tate is written beside J. M. Potter and M. E. Scott; Poagville is written beside H. C. Boone and C. F. Boone. -klr ]
I.
M. W. Shannahan [note misspelling-klr] vs Williams and Citizens of Tate Co Draft;
Complainants J. M. Potter W. C. Potter, Y. D. Potter, M. E. Scott, H. C. Boone would respectfully state they are the children and heirs at Law of D. Potter deceased and that complainant M. R. Potter is the widow of said decedent William Scott and H. F. Boon [note misspelling of last name and incorrect first initial-klr] are the respective husbands of M. E. Scott and H. C. Boone and they join with their wives in bringing this suit; Complainants would now state that in the year 1867 D. Potter died intestate in DeSoto County leaving a small personal estate and some real estate in DeSoto & Pontotoc Counties Mississippi
[Page 3]
Soon after the death of the Daniel D. Potter Thos. H. Smith became the Administrator of said D. Potters estate but resigned and made the final settlement before fully administering the estate whereupon in March 1869 Deft. M. W. Shanahan qualified as Administrator De Bonis non of Said Estate.
During his administration of Said estate, from the sale of some real estate in Pontotoc county Mississippi and from deft. services the said administrator realized between twenty five Hundred and three thousand Dollars twenty two hundred & ten Dollars being realized by him from Sale of decedents lands in Pontotoc County made under a decree of the Pontotoc Court The estate of decedent Potter was entirely solvent and not in debt the only debt of any consequence being one due to A. L. Blackburn for $2900.00 for purchase of lands This debt however was paid by said A. L.
[Page 4]
Blackburn taking back the lands for which the sum was due and releasing the indebtedness. After paying all the debts of decedent the said M. W. Shanahan d??? as Administrator had in his hands about Twenty five Hundred Dollars belonging to the estate With Twelve Hundred Dollars of this sum he bought the following lands in Tate County Miss: NW Ό of Sec 22 T4 R7 making deed or causing it to be made to M. R. Potter members of the Several Complainants in this writ? At the time of this purchase after paying for said lands just before mentioned the said Shannahan [note misspelling-klr] had in his possession about one thousand Dollars belonging to decedents estate. The said above admitted to Complainants J. M., W. C. and M. R. Potter that he had Eight hundred Dollars in his hands after paying all debts of intestate. At this time all of Complainants except M. R. Potter were minors
[Page 5]
without Guardians and defendent was their brother in law having married their sister Sallie Potter. The said defendant advised that this money which he then had belonging to the heirs of D. Potter, who are the Complainants so this Bill, be invested in lands by him for them the heirs He represented to them that for Eight Hundred Dollars he could buy the SW Ό of Sec 15 T4 R7 in Tate County Miss, and that he would take the said monies in his hands as Administrator and belonging to the heirs and buy said lands & have the deed made to Complainants. Soon thereafter with said money he did buy the said quarter section of land and at the time of the purchase informed complainants that the had done so and that the deed to the lands had been made to them. They relied upon this statement and made no further enquiry in regard thereto.
[Page 6]
Until several years afterwards when upon inspection they found that the deed to said lands was not made to complainants as he had represented & as he had promised it should be but the deed to the land taken in his name not-with-standing they were purchased with and paid for by Trust fund in his hands as Administrator and belonging to the heirs of said D. Potter. Beside complainants would here state that in the Year 18 without the knowledge or consent of complainants or wishes of them, he encumbered these lands by giving trust deed to S. Williams for his benefit to secure his Shannahan [note misspelling-klr] individual indebtedness Complainants are informed and they believe that the said S. Williams knew that the lands were bought with the money of the heirs of said Potter and that Shannahan [note misspelling-klr] was not in equity? the owner of said lands.
[Page 7]
but that he only held the legal title in Trust for the use and benefit of complainants and therefore his claim thereupon is sub ??? to the equitus of complainants. Any way complainants would state that the land S. Williams has a deed of trust upon is their land & property of deft. was sufficient to secure him or repay the said indebtedness if sold and that he should be required and compelled to exhaust this property before being allowed to enforce his Trust in Claim against the lands in contingency. The said defendant Shannahan has never made any settlement as administrator or rendered an accounting.
The [?] [?] complainants pray that M. W. Shannahan & S. Williams be made party defendants to this Bill and that proper process issue for them returnable according to Law to have them answer this Bill. That defendant M. W. Shannahan be required to answer fully how much money he secured as Administrator of D. Potters estate
[Page 8]
and fully ???? and particularly what disposition he made of the same. That he be required to answer fully how he paid for the lands before set out in this Bill what funds and money he used to pay for it and from what source he got said money. That defendant S. Williams be required to answer fully and particularly as to what notes or information he had prior to taking the said Trust deed as to the manner in which the lands were purchased and of complainants equitus. That on final hearing your Honor will decree that defendant M. W. Shannahan holds the legal title to said lands as Trustee for the use and benefit of complainants and that the title be divested of him and be invested in complainants in such a way as your Honor may direct. That defendant Shanahan also be made to account for all debts and profits he has obtained from said land and that account thereof be taken.
[Page 9]
That S. Williams be impounded from enforcing his deed of Trust against the said land perpetually. But if complainants be not entitled to this remedy against defendant Williams that he be required to exhaust all other property by sale thereupon which he has a Trust Deed before being permitted to enforce it against the land in contingency. And for such other and different relief as is equitable and proper.
????? bond for
Oglesby & Taylor
Sue for Complainants
Court Document Number Two | View Scans of Actual Pages: 1, 2
[Page 1 (Cover Sheet)]
W. C. Potter et al
vs
M. W. Shanahan et al
-------------------------
Motion & Order Pro?
Confesso?
Filed March 7
1881
D. G. Holland
Clerk
Entered
C M 2
91
[Page 1 (Cover Sheet) lower half]
State of Miss
County of Tate
W. C. Potter et al In Chancery Court vs To May Term 1881 M. W. Shanahan et al
In this cause complainants by solicitors move the court for pro confesso against deft. M. W. Shanahan upon process properly issued, executed & returned.
Oglesby & Taylor -
Complainants Solictors
[Page 2]
State of Miss In Chancery Court Tate County To May Term 1881
W. C. Potter et al
vs
M. W. Shanahan
In this cause it appearing to the satisfactioin of the court that deft. M. W. Shanahan has been duly served with process to answer this bill at a formal rule day of this court & that he has failed to do so.
It is therefore orderd by the courts on motion of complainant's solicitors that the several allegations of complainants bill be taken as confessed by said deft. M. W. Shanahan ordered at Rules this March 7, 1881.D. C. Holland
Clerk
Court Document Number Three | View Scans of Actual Pages: 1, 2, 3
[Page 1]
State of Miss In Chancery Court Tate County To May Term 1881
To the Chancery Court of Tate County, elin.
The Supplemental Bill of complaint of J. M. Potter - W. C. Potter, M. E. Scott & Wm Scott her husband - H. C. Boone & C. F. Boone her husband - M. R. Potter & Y. D. Potter who sues by her next of kin M. R. Potter - vs S. Williams & M. W. Shanahan
Complainants would respectfully state to your honorable court that since the filing of the original bill in this cause on Dec 2, 1880 against the parties who appear herein as defendants they have discovered that deft. S. Williams had notice of the existence of your complainants claim as set forth in their original Bill on the land involved in said original suit at the time he created his deed of trust against the same. That he knew that the land belonged in fact to said complainants & not to said Shanahan but that he Shanahan held the same in Trust for complainants in the manner stated in their original Bill.
Complainants would also state to your honor that since the institution of suit on said bill by said complainants said deft. Williams in the person of his trustee M. P. Moore has advertised said land for sale and that unless the same is injoined by your honors
[Page 2]
will be sold on Friday March 25, 1881. The previous considered complainants pray your honor to grant an injunction against the said Stephen Williams & his said trustee M. P. Moore enjoining and restraining him from selling that portion of land included in said Trust Deed that embraces the land claimed by said complainants. Upon their executing bond as may be required by your honor that said injunction be made perpetual on the final hearing of this case & process be directed to be issued as directed by law in such cases.As in duty bound etc. Oglesby & Taylor
State of Miss
Complainants Solicitors
Tate County
This day personally appeared before the undersigned Clerk of the Chancery Court in & for said cause - W. C. Potter one of complainants in the forgoing ? gile vs Stephen Williams et al who being duly sworn deposes & says that the facts set forth in the foregoing and annexed supplemental Bill are correct & are as stated. Sworn to and subscribed before me this March 1881.
D. C. Holland W. C. Potter Clerk[Written in the margin of this Page:]
Complainants would state to your honor the further facts to show that said sale should be enjoined. The foregoing Deft. Williams' deed of trust covers 80 acres of land not claimed by complainants with very nearly 3/4 of the debt due William + 80 acres of the 160 claimed by complainants would bring the remainder if it were sold with no clouds upon the title to it which existing litigation causes. Complainants submit that it is in the interests of all concerned that the title should be settled before sale.
[Page 3]
The State of Mississippi
Tate County
To the clerk of the Chancery court of Tate County;
Let ????? of Injunction issue as prayed for on complainants' entering into bond in the sum of two hundred dollars payable to defendant Williams with two or more sufficient sureties to approved by you & ? as provided in Section 1906 of the code this March 19, 1881.J. B. Morgan
Chancellor
Court Document Number Four | View Scans of Actual Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
[Page 1]
The State of Mississippi Chancery Court County of Tate Answer of S. Williams to the bill of complaint filed herein against him and M. W. Shanahan by W. C. Potter et al.
Respondent S. Williams ?ing to himself the benefit of the usual exceptions & for answer to said bill and such remarks? thereof? that he is advidsed that it is necessary and proper for him to make answer unto, answering
Says,
That it is true? as stated in the said bill that his co-defendant M. W. Shanahan on the 8th day of Nov. 1878 made and executed to him a deed in trust on the following lands to wit, S W 1/4 of R?16 T4. Range 7, and W? 1/2 of S. W. 1/4 of Sec. 22 T4 Range 7, of said County, which deed in trust is of record in the office of the Clerk of the Chancery Court of Tate County, a copy of which is herewith filed marked Exhibit No 1, to secure him in the payment of one thousand and ninety & 50/100 dollars, which money respondent charges the ? was borrowed by his co-defendant to pay for said land as he was all the time informed by the said M. W. Shanahan his co-defendant.
[Page 2]
Respondent denies as wholely untrue that he had any knowlege whatever of any money that came into the hands of the said M. W. Shanahan as administrator de bonis non of D. Potter deceased, or in what way or in what manner if any he ever acquired any funds money or property aforesaid out of the estate of the said D. Potter deceased.
Respondent further answering says that if the said Shanahan purchased the S W 1/4 of Sec 22, T4 R9 with property money he received as administrator of D. Potter deceased he had no knowledge of the same and that the allegation in complainant's bill charging that he knew that the money received by the said Shanahan as administrator of D. Potter deceased went to pay for said land is wholly and entirely false and untrue. He denies having any such knowledge.
Respondent further answering says that the deeds to said land was of record in the name of the said M. W. Shanahan and to all intentions and purpose so far as he knew and the record showed was the peroperty of the said Shanahan and that this respondent belieiving said land
[Page 3]
to be the property of the said Shanahan he in good faith advanced the sum of One thousand and ninety 50/100 dollars as set forth in said deed and trust before mentioned and filed as Ex 1.
Respondent further answering says that he does not believe the ? property to wit S W 1/4 of Sec 22 T4 R7 is sufficient to pay his debt and that it will take all of the property embraced in his deed in trust to pay his debt but that if the said complainants are willing ? to ?, and believe that siad land is sufficient if they will come forward and pay said indebtedness owed him according to the terms and ? thereof, he will willingly assign to them said trust deed.
Respondent cannot say whether or not, the said complainants are the heirs at law of D. Potter deceased but requests strict proof thereof. And moreover? having fully answered he prays that he may be dismissed with his ? ? in this ? so wrongfully sustained G. S. M----?
Sol. for
S. Williams
[Page 4]
The State of Mississippi
Tate County
Before me Clerk of the Chancery Court this day came S. Williams who makes out that the allegations in said bill contained ? as ? ?.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3 day S. Williams of Dec 1880 D. C. Holland Clerk
[Page 4 lower half]
M? 460?
W. C. Potter, Et Al
vs Answer of S. Williams
M. W. Shanahan
Filed Dec 3rd
1880
D. C. Holland
Clerk
Transcribed 23 Oct 2007 by K. Rhodes from a photocopy of the original court case. Some of my comments interspersed throughout enclosed in brackets [ ] and initialed.
Newspaper articles can now be found in the Historical Background Section