Pages
Page 16
money thereof the amount paid the amount still due the suit brought and the judgement obtained for the residue as the same and respectfully set forth in said bill of Complaint this defendant believes the same to be true but this defendant does not know the same of his own knowledge and for greater certainty requires strict proof thereof & begs have to refer to the judgements executions notes accounts & other papers refered to when produced aproved. But this defendant denies that at the time of the execution of said deed of trust all of the debts mentioned in said bill were owing by said Meyer or that said deed of trust was executed with a view to secure to them all of their respective demands but overs that sundry of these debts were contracted afterwards as will appear in part by the Complainants cover showing & in part from other evidence and this defendant insists that the debts contracted by said Meyer before the execution of said instrument (among which is the sum of $2000, due this defendant before the execution of said instrument & intended to be secured by it) are first entitled to be paid out of said trust property. and this defendant pross said Complainants may be held to strict proof of their claims against said Meyer more especially as to the time when contracted
This defendant admits the date execution and content of said deed of trust are correctly set forth in the bill
This defendant admits that he received the deed of trust from said Meyer & has had it in his possession ever since but in no other way did he ever accept said trust - he never has had the property in said deed described in his possession nor has has he received any of the rents and profits of the same & he denies those charges contained in the bill - Respondent intended to have accepted & carried out & executed the trust but for the difficulty about the land which is mentioned in said bill the account of which is hereby admitted - the purchaser of said land promising to reconvey it but failed to do so - he denies that he received said trust property into his possession and denies that he has received the
Page 17
rents & profits or products of the labour & servicing of the same & converted or disposed of the same to his own use
He admits that he has not made sale of any of said trust proerty not has he paid any of the creditors of said Meyers out of the effects of said estate for the simple reason that none have come into his hands.
Respondant utterly denies that he has fraudulently or otherwise placed said Slaves on one of his own plantations or that he is working or fraudulently disposing of said Slaves amoung Slaves of his own or that he is fraudulently disposing and converting the labour of said Slaves to his own use & benefits. But to the contrary thereof respondent saith he has let the said Meyers have the use of One of his plantations where said Negroes are under the sole charge & control of said Meyer himself who received and is entitled to the proceeds of their labour & crops made over which this respondent & from which he has never received any benefit & all of which crops are lisable for his debts & contracts. Respondent denies that he ever said to the Complainants that if they behaved themselves well they might be paid in twenty years otherwise they would get nothing, this respondent on the contrary has never desired to prevent said trust property from being disposed of of otherwise thereto pay the just debts of said Meyer. he has never done any thing to prevent it & is now desirous and willing that the same should be sold and the proceeds append to the payment of the same. Respondent himself would have long since acted and sold the property for that purpose but for the difficulty in respect to the land above spoken of. Respondent believes that the property is sufficient to pay all said Meyers debts if the land is sold also but not without.
Respondent alleges that One of the debts due by said Meyer at the time of the execution of said deed & One which it was inteneded to secure was a debt for the sum of $2000 & upwards due respondent by various notes of hand of said Meyer for money advanced and executions paid by respondent & judgements assigned to him which are still due.
Also that since that time said, Meyer has became indebted to respondent to the amount of $500 or there abouts which is still due.
Respondent admits all that in said bill is alledged
Page 18
& contained respecting the buying of execution upon said land the sale & purchase of the same by said Sheriff & concerns in the prayer that said sale may be set aside.
Respondent denies that he knew of the judgment & execution which was levied upon said lands, he denies that previous to said sale of said lands or at anytime before of afterwards he had in his power & custody all the personal property of said Meyer under or by virtue of said deed of trust & overs that he knew nothing of the judgment execution or sale of said lands under the same until several months after the sale & conswquently could not have prevented it. This respondent is an aged and infirm old man & at the time of the sale of said lands for a long period before he was scarely able to get about from sickness & infirmity & could know nothing of any of these secret transactions of the Sheriff. Respondent utterly denies that he has combined or confederated with said Meyer or has aided or assisted him in delaying or hindering the Complainants from the recovery or collection of any part of their debts.
And this respondent proceeding to answer the interrogatory part of said bill saith that he does not fully know who are creditors of said Meyer other than those mentioned in said bill except this respondent himself to whom said Meyer is indebted in the sum of $2500 or thereabouts as above forth. But respondent is informed & believes that Walker Mundy, Dr Hall & the brothersin law of said Meyer (whose name respondent cannot recount) are creditors of said Meyers but as to the amounts respondent has no knowledge information or belief.
Respondent states that at the time of the execution of said Deed there were sundry executions in the hands of the Sheriff against said Maeyer by virtue of which there of the negroes mentioned in said deed of trust were men sold by the Sheriff. Two other (men) were sold under a mortgage to one Grun Riviz executed before the deed of trust.
This respondent demuring to so much of said bill
Page 19
as seeks to make him liable out of his own estate to the creditors of said Meyer. And this defendant denies all and all manner of unlwful combination & confederacy. Without this that there is any other matter or thing in said complainants said bill of complaint contained material or necessary for this Defendant to make answer unto & not herein or herby well & sufficiently answered confessed traversed or avoided or denied, is true to the knowledge & belief of Deft. All which matters and things this defendant is read & willing to over maintain & prove as this Honorable Court shall direct & humbly prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs & charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained. Edwards Lapsley Hunter Sols. for Deft Harrison
The State of Alabama] [Personally appeared before Dallas County] [me William E Fambro an acting justice of the Peace in & for said County Richard B Harrison the said Respondent who being duly sworn an Oath says that the foregoing & annexed answer so far & so much as is stated as of his own knowledge is true and so far & so much thereof as is stated therein to be an information or belief he believing to be true.
Sworn to & subscribed before me this 24th August A D 1841 W W Fambro J.P. DC] [Richard B Harrison
The State of Alabama][M Chancery Dallas County][the seperate answer of William R Meyer to the Original bill of Complaint of Zachariah Edwards, Benjamin Mock jr This Defendant saving and reserving unto himself all benefit & advantage of exception which can or may be taken to the many errors uncertainties and insufficiencies in the said Complainants bill of complaint Contained for answer thereunto or so much therof and such parts as this Defendant is advised is or an material or necessary for him to make answer unto this Defendant answering saith.
That as to the bebts alledged by them to be due respectively to the Complaints
Page 20
from this Respondent the judgements obtained the amounts cost and interest the execution issued the return made by the Sheriff the grounds & considerations of said debts and judgments - the purchase the purchse of land by this Respondent from George Williams, the security ship of said Drane for the purchase money, thereof, the amount paid, the amount still due, the suit brought and the judgement obtained for the residue as the same are respectively set forth in said Bill of Complaint, this Respondent believes the same to be true but for grater certainty begs leave to refer to the judgements executions notes accounts and other papers refered to when produced and proved.
As to the claim of the said Drane this Respondent claims a credit for the sum of Eighty Eight 81/1/2/100 dollars paid by this respondent to said Drane as will appear from his receipt hereto attached marked (Exhibit A) & prayed to be taken as part of this answer.
And this Defendant submits whether the debts contracted by this Respondent before the execution of said instrument (among which is the sum of $2000 due to the Defendant Richard B Harrison before the execution of said instrument and intended to be secured by it) ought not first to be paid out of said trust property, and this Respondent prays that the said Complainants may, with a view to that matter, be held to strict proof of their claims, and more especially as to the time when the same were contracted.
This Respondent admits the date execution and contents of said deed of trust are correctly set forth in the Bill.
This Respondent admits that he delivered the said deed of trust to the defendant Richard B Harrison and believes that he has ever since had the same in his possession, but in no other way did he ever accept said Trust that said Harrison has never had any of said property in his possession nor hs he ever received any of the rents & profits of the same and those allegations in which the same are alledged he denies. Respondent believes that the said Harrison would have accepted said