Harrison, Administrator, et al. v. Mock et als.

Recd in Office 6 July 1840. A Harrison Shff Recd the costs my Coms and six hundred and thirty Eight Dollars of the Plffs demand from the sale of two hundred forty acres of land sold under a younger execution in favor of Rugely Harrison & Blair from the County Court on the first Monday in August 1840 to Wm S May balance indulged by RB Harrison A Harrison Shff

Edwards Mock & Others vs Wm R Meyer Richard B, Harrison & Alfred Harrison] [Exceptions to the answer of Alfred Harrison The Compainants except to the answer of of Alfred Harrison One of the Defendants for insufficiency in the following particulars -lands described in the bill, was intrinsically worth between ten & twenty Dollars per acre, nor has he said what the said lands are worth: in his belief & opinion 2nd Because he has not answered the allegations in the bill, that the land was purchased either by himself, or by One of his deputies in this, that he has not answered whither may who he admits puchased the land was One of his deputies at the time of this purchase. 3rd he has not answered that part of the allegation in the bill that charges, 4th that Meyer was always a resident citizen in Lowndes County. 5th that he did not give to the said Meyer notice either in person or in writing of his levy on said land. 6th that he did not enter in his levy or return on said Execution the fact of such notice being given in person in writing or otherwise 7th Because he has not fully answered the interrogatory in the bill, which requires, him to answer, "whether or not their was any understanding compact or agreement between the said Alfred Harrison and the person so bidding off the said lands either directly or indirectly through the agents, friends or advisers or any other person or persons that the said Alfred Harrison should have any show or interest either directly or indirectly or otherwise in the sale and purchase of said land 8th Because he has not answered the interrogatory whither the person who bid off said lands paid to him the purchase money in whole or in part.

9th Because he has not answered on what particular day he executed titles for said land. 10th Because he has not answered whither or not he knew or heard previous to the sale of said Land, that Wm R Meyer had conveyed them to R B Harrison.

For the want of a sufficient answer in the above particulars Complainant excepts & prays, the judgment of the Court thereon & that defendant may be compelled to further amend, or that the bid be taken pro confesso against him [Williams Saffold & Williams Solrs for Complt

Mock & al vs Harrison & al] [Before the Register at office 8 June 1842. Exceptions, by Complainant, to the answer of Alfred Harrison, One of the Defendants.

Upon a hearing of the exceptions, by the Register, & argument thereon by the solicitors of both parties. It is Ordered by the Register, that the 1st and 4th 6th 8th 9th & 10th exception, to the defendants answer, be sustained, & that Defendant answer fully to the matter of said exceptions forthwith.

As to the 5th & 7th Exceptions, It appears, to the Register, that the answer of Defendant, as to said exceptions is sufficiently responsive, & the exceptions are discharged & overruled. G R Evans Register

The State of Alabama The amended answer of Alfred Harrison one of the Defts to the bill of Complaint of Edwards Mock and others in pursuance of the order and decree of the Honorable J L Martin chancellor of the Middle Division of said State, The Defendant further saving & reserving as aforesaid for further answer says - that he admits that said Wm S May was One of his Deputy Sheriff at the time he bought said land, as this defendant supposes he had a right to do, but this defendant did not authorize him to do so, nor was there any agreement between him and said man or any other person or persons that said land was to be bought for Deft within his knowledge or belief, neither was there any such thing thought of by any person within his knowledge or belief at the sale - admits that Meyer was a resident of Lowndes County during the time of the levy & sale admits that he did not specify notice given on the Execution on his return but this was not amitted from any fraudulent motive, supposes

Action by Register on Exceptions to A Harrisons answer [in margin] Amended answer of A Harrison [in margin]

that it was Omitted through neglect or accident. This Defendant does not believe that said lands are worth either ten or twenty Dollars per acre, he does not know what said lands are worth, but his belierf and best opinion is that they are not worth more than Six dollars, and he does not believe that they would bring that in cash . This Deft admits that he heard something about the transfer of the land from Meyer to R Harrison before the sale, and before his purchase from May, but whether it was from remorouly or from seeing a copy of said pretended deed on the clerks books or from both he is unable to say - he is certain that he had no personal knowledge of the matter, nor had he any express notice from Meyer R Harrison or any of the Complainant

This Deft is now unable to say at what time the Sheriffs deed was delivered to said May, but believes it was sometime after the sale, and as to the payment of the money by said May for said land he can only make this statement, that said May was One of his deputies and knew that he could get titles whenever he chose to apply for them, & from that time he continued to be his deputy - This defendant had the fullest confidence in said May and his best knowledge & recollection is that the proper entries of said Sale were made upon the executions, & that the amount was duly credited upon the execution of Roper Ruse & Co all which are refered to in the Original answer, according to the returns endorsed upon said Executions copies of which excecutions of this answer as Exhibit (D) by leave of this Court and said Executions were duly returned and filed in the Clerks Offices to which they belonged - with the said endorsements thereon - This deft does not know that said money was paid into the Office before said returns were made but believes that the settlement for the lands was permitted to be over with the understanding that said May was to hold the money or stand in readiness to satisfy the answer or plaintiffs in execution when the same was called for, or the execution returned - This Deft says that said executions were returned as aforesaid with the said endorsements long before he had any idea, thought, or intention of buying said lands, or any interest in the same, and before said May had any notion or thought of selling them to this deft within his knowledge or belief. The said May was faithful in the discharge of his duties as Deputy Sheriff and was in the constant habit of collecting holding and

paying into the Office Money & large amounts of money, and this deft, would as soon have permitted the amount of Sales to have remained in the hands of said May until called for by the Owner or until settlement at the return term of the executions as in his own hands or in the hands of any where else, and this deft was charge for the amount and the same would have been paid to the owner at any oment on demand - and the amount was in fact considered as in the Sheriffs Office. This Defendant expressly says that this indulgence if it may be so termed, was no part of the terms of sale, that said May bid off the lands upon the footing of all other persons, and without any favor or partiality known to this Deftneither has he the remotest suspicion or belief that it was a purchase then intended for him by any person whatever. This deft further says, that said May could have taken titles at any time out of the Sheriffs Office after the sale, before he did obtain them - that there was no postponement of titles to said May in pursuance of any agreement or understanding whatever, but by the neglect or will of said May, onersly, This deft cannot say at what particular time title was delivered to said May but it was done when he called for it some time after his purchase, & said May settled for the same - and this defendant expressly says that there was no delay of this matter with any view intention or thought either of withholding the money from the owner or avoiding the sale, or on any manner to accomplish promote, or influence the sale of said lands by said May to this defendant so far as he knows or believes - and having answered the matters according to said Order & decree said deft prays to be discharged with his costs Cook & Evans for Deft A. Harrison

The State of Alabama Lowndes County] [Before the undersigned acting Justice of the Peace in and for said County personally appeared within named Alfred Harrison and being sworn on his Oath says that the foregoing amended answer and matters and things therein setforth as upon his own knowledge are just and true: and the matters and things as stated upon his belief and

Aff of A Harrison [in margin]

information he believes to be true, To the best of of his knowledge and belief Sworn to and subscribed before me 1st August 1842 Geo M Eldridge J.P.] [Alfred Harrison

Transcript of the Entries Orders & Decrees made in the case of Benjamin Mock v.s. William R Meyer Richard B. Harrison & Alfred Harrison, In the chancery Court at Cahawba Benja Mock Et al 199 v.s. William R Meyer & Richard B Harrison & Alfred Harrison] [July Term 1841 This day come the Complainant by his Solicitor and on motion this cause is Continued

Benja Mock Et al 199 v.s. Wm R Meyer Richard B Harrison & Alfred Harrison] July Term 1842 In this case it is ordered that alias Subpoenas issue to such of the defendants as have not been served with proofs

Benja Mock Et al v.s. William R Meyers Richard B Harrison & Alfred Harrison] [June Term 1842 This day same the Complainants by their Solicitors and it appearing that William R Meyer has filed his answer It is therefore Ordered that the Judgment pro confesso taken before the Registar against the said Meyer be now set aside, and it appearing to the Court that Alfred Harrison One of the Defendants accepted service of the Subpoena at the time mentioned in the Order of the Register and that said Alfred Harrison having then and now failed to answer or dermur to the Complainants bill It is therefore Ordered the Order of the Register taking the said Bill as confessed as against the said Alfred Harrison be now confirmed Benjn Mock Et al V.S. William R Meyer Richard B harrison & Alfred Harrison] [June Term 1842 Exceptions to the answers of Alfred Harrison Before the Register The Complainants Except to the answer of Alfred Harrison One of the Defendants for insufficiencies in the following particulars, 1st He has not answered the allegations in the Bill that the land described in the Bill, was intrinsically worth between ten and twenty dollars per acre