ROBERT JOSEY def.
To the Honorable, the chancellor of said State, humbly complaining, shewith unto your honors, your Orator, NOAH SCARBOROUG, and your Oratrix, MARGARET SCARBOROUGH, formerly MARGARET JOSEY, his wife, that WILLIAM JOSEY, late, of district and State aforesaid dec’d, in his life time and at the time and at the time of his death was possessed of a considerable personal Estate consisting of three female slaves, five horses and a stock of cattle, hogs and sheep, some cash, household and kitchen furniture and various other articles – and being so possessed thereof, he the said WILLIAM JOSEY departed this life intestate, in the month of August, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty – two, leaving your oratrix MARGARET SCARBOROUGH, wife of your orator, NOAH SCARBOROUGH – JANE JOSEY widow of said intestate SARAH JOSEY widow of JOSHUA JOSEY dec’d, one of the sons of said WILLIAM JOSEY dec’d and HENRY JOSEY, MALACHI JOSEY, HULDAH KENT, formerly HULDAH JOSEY, EDITH HIGHNOTE, formerly EDITH JOSEY and WILSON JOSEY and HARRIET JOSEY, children of the said JOSHUA JOSEY dec’d – ROBERT JOSEY – JAMES JOSEY – MARTHA YATES, wife of WILLIS YATES, NANCY COTWELL, wife of GEORGE T. COTTWELL and WILLIS JOSEY his heirs at law and entitled to his Estate and that ROBERT JOSEY took out letters of administration upon all singular. The goods and chattels, rights and credits of the said WILLIAM JOSEY deceased and by virtue thereof took into his possession the whole Estate of the said deceased and under authority from the corrupt of ordinary exposed the whole or greater part of the property of the said Estate to sale – the proceeds of which sale have been collected – and after discharging all debts due from the instate and all demands against the Estate remain a considerable fund in the hands of the administrator which he ought to distribute.
And your orator and oratrix further show unto your honor that JANE JOSEY, widow of the late WILLIAM JOSEY dec’d, has already received from the hands of the administrator a portion of the intestated affects, equivalent to one third of the whole Estate of which he died, possessed leaving the remaining two thirds to be divided among those entitled by law to receive the same and your orator and oratrix further show unto your honor that the said WILLIAM JOSEY, in his lifetime made advancement to all his children very unequal and disproportionate in value – large advancements were bestowed upon all or nearly all of the children, except your oratrix – who received a portion from her father, very inferior in value to the proportions received by her brothers and sisters Viz. to the said JOSHUA JOSEY, now deceased the intestate in his lifetime advanced one tract of land and part of another, some cash and various other articles – to ROBERT JOSEY, Three Negroes, a tract of land of two hundred acres, one horse, bed, cow and calf and six dollars in cash. The whole may be valued at Eleven or Twelve Hundred Dollars. To JAMES JOSEY, Three Negroes, a tract of land containing Two Hundred acres, Two Hundred Dollars in cash, a horse, bed, cow and calf . To MARTHA YATES, wife of WILLIS YATES, Three Negroes, Four Hundred Dollars in cash, a horse, bed, cow and Thirty Dollars for rent of land. To NANCY COTWELL, wife of GEORGE T. COTWELL, a tract of land, Three Negroes, bed and cow, the whole may be valued at One Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Five Dollars. To WILLIS JOSEY, Three Negroes, a tract of land containing seven or eight hundred acres, a horse, bed, cow and calf, the whole estimated at Twenty Five Hundred Dollars. While your oratrix has received Three Negroes of no great value and a very inferior horse, bed, cow and calf, the whole not amounting to more than Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars and your orator and oratrix alleges that the above advances to the other children greatly exceeds what has been given to your oratrix and most of them equal to the balance now remaining in the hands of the administration. After the assignment of one third of the Estate to the widow of said intestate - which balance to be given them or distributed in such made – that they may receive an equal proportion of their fathers Estate with such of the other children, as may now claim any portion of the Estate now in the hands of the administrator. And your orator and oratrix knowing the debts if the intestate to be discharged have claimed from the administrator the distributive share which your orator is entitled. To this and therefore that the said administrator and other children of the intestate or their legal representatives may be required, full, true and perfect answer to make to all and singular the premises that the said administrator may set forth a full account of the Estate and his acting and doings therein, and having already assigned the widow, JANE JOSEY, her proportion of the intestate Estate is an equivalent thereto that the said administrator may deliver the balance of said Estate to orator and oratrix, excluding therefrom the other children of the intestate an account of the great advances made to them, as aforesaid, and if any of them now claim any share that they do account freely for all they have ever received from their Father, and be admitted to a distribution only in the event of their advancements being bought into _______ ? With the advancement of your oratrix and the Estate in the hands of the administrator and being willing to take a share of the aggregate amount equal to that received by your orator and oratrix and _____? And that your orator and oratrix may have such others and for their relief on their premise as the motive of their case may entitle them to receive. May it please your honor to grant them a writ of subpoena to be directed to them the said JANE, ROBERT, JAMES, WILLIS, MARTHA and her husband, GEORGE T. and SARAH JOSEY, administrator of JOSHUA JOSEY, deceased, JAMES, NANCY and WILSON & HARRIET, requiring them to be and appear before the Court of Equity at the Sumter Courthouse to answer their premises and further to do and perform such order and decree as your honor may see cause to make in the premised and your orator and oratrix will ever pray.
McCord & Hempill
Plaintiff Atty.
ROBERT JOSEY def.
ROBERT JOSEY Adm. et Al In Equity Noah Scarborough & Margaret, his wife
Bill of
Complaint of NOAH
My defendant saving and reserving to himself now and hereafter all manner of benefit of exceptions to the errors used in considering in the said Bill of Complaint contained for material for him to answer. Says that it is true the said WILLIAM JOSEY was sized in his lifetime and at the time of his death, of the property mentioned in Complaints Bill and died about the time therein stated, that the person named in the said bill we believe to be the legal heirs of the said WILLIAM JOSET, except SARAH JOSEY, the widow of JOSHUA JOSEY who this defendant is informed is not entitled to any part of the said Estate by reason of the death of her husband JOSHUA JOSEY IN THE LIFETIME OF THE SAID William Josey AND THAT THIS DEFENDANT PROCURED LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION UPON THE Estate and the proceeds of the sales have been collected by him, a credit having been given upon the sale until the first day of October next-by order of the Court of ordinary by whose permission the said sale were made.
This defendant further answering says that he has paid all of the demands against the said Estate that names were as yet rendered in to him and has in his hand a small balance of money which he has applied to the payment of a contract made by most of the heirs of the said WILLIAM JOSEY with JANNIE JOSEY, the said JANNIE JOSEY agreeing to relinquish all her interest in the said Estate before the payment of a certain sums of money therein specified, a copy of which said agreement is herewith filed marked Exhibit A. which this defendant prays may be taken as part of this his answer and referred to when necessary.
This defendant for further answers says that he believes and made comments consisting very nearly of the property mentioned in the said Bill, were made by the said WILLIAM JOSEY in his lifetime, but we cannot answer with any certainty as to their relative values to the Estate - next for himself he received about twelve years ago a Negro Girl about five years of age in December 1831, a Negro Boy about six years old. Since the death of the said WILLIAM JOSEY, he has taken MOSES, ? son of a Negro Man, twenty one or two years old, who with the two named were given him in a deed from his Father the said WILLIAM JOSEY – He also received a tract of land of Two Hundred acres, upon his marriage, a horse, cow and calf and a bull, all of which he avers is not equal to his share of the Estate, when the advancements to the other heirs are taken into consideration. This complainant is not sufficiently informed as to the precise property received by complainants, but is satisfied from what he knows until it exceeds greatly in value, What is stated in their said Bill of Complaint. He has filed a regular account of his actings and doings as administrator with the ordinary Sumter District and is ready and willing still further to account to this Court. This defendant, not the complainants have any cause of complaint against him, and prays to be dismissed, with his reasonable cost in his recovered.
Sworn to before me PRESTON POTTS
This
JOHN B. MILLER
ROBERT JOSEY def.
Answers of JAMES
JOSEY
The joint and several answer of JAMES JOSEY, WILLIS YATES and MARTHA, his wife to the Bill of Complaint of NOAH SCARBOROUGH and MARGARET his wife.
These defendants for answer to the said Bill of Complaint or so much as they are advised it is necessary or material for them to answer to, they answering say it is true that WILLIAM JOSEY late of the District in the State aforesaid departed this life possessed of a personal Estate, leaving the defendants, his heirs and distributees at law and that ROBERT JOSEY, obtained letters of administration upon his goods and effects as stated in Complaints Bill and the defendant JAMES JOSEY further answering says that WILLIAM JOSEY gave to him by way of advancement three Negroes worth Nine Hundred Dollars, one horse worth Seventy Dollars, one tract of land worth Three Hundred Dollars, one bed worth about Twenty Dollars, one cow and calf worth Ten Dollars, and nothing more, and the defendants WILLIS YATES and MARTHA, his wife further answering, say that the said WILLIAM JOSEY gave to them by way of advancement three Negroes worth about Nine Hundred Dollars, a tract of land which they sold for Four Hundred Dollars, one bed worth Twenty Dollars, one horse worth Thirty Dollars, one cow and calf worth Ten Dollars and nothing more – and the defendants further answering say that they have understood and believe that the said WILLIAM JOSEY gave by way of advancement and consent to NOAH SCARBOROUGH and MARGARET his wife three Negroes worth Seven Hundred Dollars, a horse worth Thirty Dollars, Eleven Dollars in money, to beds worth Forty Dollars, a cow and calf worth Ten Dollars and some household furniture and to his son JOSHUA JOSEY, now deceased, in his lifetime, a tract of land worth Six Hundred Dollars, a horse saddle and bridle worth One Hundred Dollars and about One Hundred and Thirty Dollars in money, two beds worth Forty Dollars and some other household furniture, a cow and calf worth Ten Dollars, two carts worth Twenty Dollars, and that he also gave to the other defendants ROBERT JOSEY, WILLIS JOSEY and G.T. COTWELL and wife by way of advancement, property equal and to some of them more than to these defendants, which his presence will be correctly stated in their answer to the Complaint and Bill and these defendants deny that complainants have any just cause of complaint against same and pray to be dissatisfied with their just proportion of said Estate which upon a fair accounting, they may be found entitled to and their reasonable costs incurred.
Sworn to before Wm & Margaret
This 14th Feb 1833 Deft. Solm ?
JOHN B MILLER Clk
ROBERT JOSEY def.
Answer of GEORGE T. COTWELL and wife NANCY
The answer of GEORGE T. COTWELL and NANCY , his wife to the Bill of Complaint of NOAH SCARBOROUGH with MARGARET his wife, These defendants for answer to the said Bill of Complaint, or so much thereof as they are advised it is necessary and material for them to answer, they answering say that it is true that WILLIAM JOSEY, late of the District and State aforesaid, departed this life, and was at the time of his death, possessed of a considerable personal Estate, leaving the defendants stated in the Complaint Bill, his distributes and heirs at law, and that ROBERT JOSET took out letters of administration upon his goods, chattels, rights and credits, as stated by complainants in their Bill, and these defendants further answering, say that the said WILLIAM JOSEY did give to them, by way of advancement, three Negroes worth about Nine Hundred Dollars, one bed worth Twenty Dollars, one cow worth Ten Dollars. These defendants further say that they have understood and believe that the said WILLIAM JOSEY gave by way of advancement to the complaints, NOAH SCARBOROUGH and MARGARET, his wife, three Negroes worth Seven or Eight Hundred Dollars, a horse worth Thirty Dollars, Eleven Dollars in money, two beds worth Forty Dollars, a cow and calf worth Ten Dollars, and some other household furniture, and to JOSHUA, now deceased, in his lifetime, a tract of land worth Six Hundred Dollars, a horse bridle and saddle worth One Hundred Dollars, and about One Hundred Thirty Dollars in money, two beds worth Forty Dollars and some other household furniture, a cow and calf worth Ten Dollars and two carts worth about Twenty Dollars, and that he also gave the other defendants, ROBERT JOSEY and WILLIS JOSEY, JAMES JOSEY and WILLIS YATES and MARTHA, his wife, property by way of advancements equal to some of them more than to these defendants, which these defendants presume they will state correctly in their answers to the Complaints Bill, and these defendants deny that complainants have any just cause of complaint against them, and they prey to be dismissed with their just portion of the Estate they may be found entitled to and their reasonable cost incurred.
W C MAYRAUT
Deft Lalro
ROBERT JOSEY def.
Answer of GEORGE T. COTWELL and NANCY, his wife
Personally appearing before me GEORGE T COTWELL and NANCY, his wife, who being duly sworn deposeth that the facts stated in the written answer to the Boll of Complaint of NOAH SCARBOROUGH and wife, so far as the same are stated upon them – own knowledge are and what they have heard they believe to be true.
Sworn to before one GEORGE T COTWELL
ALLEN A COTWELL
Mark
ROBERT JOSEY def.
Exceptions
Defendant: JAMES JOSEY excepting to the report of the Commission.
1st Because this commission has charged this defendant as an advancement, the sum of Two Hundred Dollars paid by the intestate for defendant on a judgment and it does not appear to have been intended as an advancement. Because the commission reports a balance by this defendant in account of advancement which he is not liable to refund. Because the commissioners in estimating the amount of advancement to the defendant ought to him deduct One Hundred Dollars, the value of a house built by defendant on the land of intestate which he received the benefit of. The defendants YATES and wife, COTWELL and wife, JAMES JOSEY, excepts to the commission report.
2nd. Because the commissioner ought from the testate money to have reported that all the parties complaints & defendants have been equally advanced by the intestate in his lifetime and to have reported an equal distribution of the intestates Estate.
3rd.
Because the commissions have reported the same sum of Seven Hundred Ninety Two
Dollars $792.52 as due MARGARET
W. H. MAYRAUT
DEFENDANT Lab.
ROBERT JOSEY def.
Bill for Acct Relief
ALFRED SCARBOROUGH comes before me and makes oath that SARAH JOSEY, widow of JOSHUA JOSEY dec’d, HENRY JOSEY, MALACHI JOSEY, HULDAH KENT formerly HULDAH JOSEY, NANCY JOSEY, EDITH HIGHNOTE formerly EDITH JOSEY, JAMES JOSEY and HARRIET JOSEY, and WILSON JOSEY defendants in the above stated case reside in the State of Georgia on or about, from and beyond the limits of this State.
Sworn before me ALFRED SCARBOROUGH
JOHN HEMPHILL
ROBERT JOSEY def.
Report
Amount brought up $ 1949.33
Due to JOSHUA JOSEY 821.68
M.
R JOSEY due him 212.32
M YATES due her 133.69
_______
1969.63
JAMES JOSEY due by 20.34
I have been
attended by the parties and their Solicitant, except those who reside out of
State – I have examined the accounts of the administrator. The Widow has
received her full share and also, all the distributives, except six who claim a
distributive share – I have ascertained the value of the advancement made by
the intestate to his children claiming at his death
The amount in the Estate in the administrators hands to be distributed and the amount of each advancement and also the amount due to each distributee, are set forth in the forgoing statement. JAMES JOSEY had been advanced over his distributive share $20.34 as well appears by said statement. All which is respectfully submitted
Sumterville JOHN B. MILLER
ROBERT JOSEY def.
V – Decree
ROBERT JOSEY
The commissioner has reported in this case, and exceptions have been filed by several of the defendants. The 1st and 3rd exceptions of JAMES JOSEY are overruled by the commissioner and I confer with him. The second exception of JAMES JOSEY is also overruled by the commissioner. It does not appear to me that a child advanced by the parent beyond the amount of his distributive share is bound to refund. This exception is therefore sustained. The commissioner will deduct the sum of $ 20.00 from his report, and the sum remaining will be for distribution. Several defendants joint in two exceptions. The first is, that the commissioner ought from the testimony to have reported that all had been equally advanced by the intestate in his lifetime – and to have reported an equal distribution of the intestates Estate – The commissioner overruled the exception on the ground that the testimony supports his report. He states the advanced proved to have been made to the six distributees and it appears that the advances were very unequal, none of them having received double the advances to others. This exception is therefore overruled . The 2nd exception is because the commissioners reports the sum of $799.52 as due to MARGARET SCARBOROUGH, when from the testimony it appears that she had received the intestate in her lifetime certain property upon the express condition that she should never claim anything more of his Estate. The commissioners overruled this exception because Mrs. SCARBOROUGH was a married woman and that there was no testimony that she signed or ordered the papers signed. A paper was produced purporting to be such a recommendation as is stated in the exception. But it seams there was no proof of its exception by her, though it has a mark. The exception must be ordered. The report must be confirmed except as above stated.
HENRY Wm. SANBOURNE
ROBERT JOSEY def.
I do hereby acknowledge that for and in consideration of the gift and delivery of three Negroes, to me this day, CHARLES, ROSE and JULIA, that the same is in full of all my Father’s Estate named and hereby acknowledged that I am perfectly satisfied with my share of his Estate and that I will not after his death, call or demand either in law or equity for any more of his property personal without he should of his own free will give me or my children any more property.
her
Witness my hand & seal this PEGGY x
WILLIS YATES
ROBERT JOSEY def.
ROBERT JOSEY Administrator of WILLIAM JOSEY, dec’d. JAMES JOSEY, WILLIS JOSEY, WILLIS YATER and MARTHA, his wife, GEORGE T. COTWELL and NANCY, his wife and ROBERT JOSEY, Adm. Of JOSHUA JOSEY dec’d. and JANE JOSEY, widow of said dec’d. Greeting:
For certain
causes offered before the Judge of the Court of Equity of the said State, in
the Court of Equity at Sumter Court House, in and for the Equity district of
Sumter, in a certain Bill of Complaint, there exhibited against you by
NOAH
Complaint: You are commanded and strictly enjoined, that you appear in the said Court of Equity ay Sumter Court House, aforesaid, in ten days after the service hereof, to answer to the said Bill of Complaint, and further to do and receive what the said Court of Equity shall consider in the premises; and that you do file with the commissioner of the said Court, at Sumter Courthouse aforesaid, your plea answer or demurrer to the said Bill of Complaint, written thirty days next after the day appointed for your appearance as aforesaid, and in default, thereof, an order will be granted, that the said Bill of Complaint be taken as confessed, and an attachment may be issued against you, and have then and there this writ.
Witness: JOHN B. MILLER, Esquire, Commissioner of the said Court at Sumter Court House, is and for the District aforesaid the 23rd day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, eight hundred thirty three and in the fifty seventh year of the Sovereignty and Independence of the United States of America.
Mc LORD and HEMPHILL,
ROBERT JOSSEY Def.
It is agreed between JANE JOSSEY, widow of WILLIAM JOSSEY, late of the said District on the one part and ROBERT JOSSEY of Sumter District on the part and behalf of the heirs of said WILLIAM JOSSEY, deceased – that the said JANE JOSSEY is to have instead and lieu of Dower from her late husband’s Estate all the crop of every description on her own Plantation and the hands belonging to the Estate to house it, all for her and to be furnished a stable that is now begun on her Plantation. She is also to have all the cattle and hogs that were originally hers or the offspring of the stock – and to have restored to her all the money of hers that the said WILLIAM JOSSEY made use of during the time of his being husband of the said JANE JOSSEY.
Whereupon the said JANE JOSSEY hereby agrees to relinquish her claim of Dower of the said Estate, and I the said ROBERT JOSSEY on the part of myself and on the others of my Father’s heirs agree that my Step Mother JANE JOSSEY shall have all the property and crops above named for the consideration aforesaid.
her
Witness our hands JANE x JOSSEY mark
ROBERT JOSSEY