Pages
Page 41
39
Johnson et.al. v.s Culbreath et.al.
Ans. William Johnson to original & Amended bill by this defendant as this defendant is informed. This defendant has been informed & believes he will be able to prove upon the final hearing of this cause that the complainant has since the said division in a legal controversy between some one or more of the Culbreaths & some other person or persons wherein the complainant was a witness stated when testifying that he was above the age of twenty one years at the time of said division & satisfied with it as made. Whether the original demand, upon which said judgment was rendered was against both Elijah & Malcolm which this deponent believes to be true he is confident that the escecution issued upon that judgment & under which the said negro woman was sold issued against them jointly & both their interests were in said negro were sold. Tis true that said negro woman Mary has given birth to a child since defendant purchased her whose name is John, now in the possession of this defendant & claimed by him as his own. This defendant having now fully answered the complainants original & amended bill of complt. (he here calls for proof of all such things contained in said bill by him not answered or denyed) he now prays that this his answer may be taken as a demurer to complts bill and assigns the following as grounds of demurer. 1st There is no equity in the bill. 2nd The matters & things set forth in said bill doesnot entitle compt. to the relief prayed. 3rd The bill is multifarious 4th There is a mis-nomer of parties 5th There is a non-joinder of parties J. B. Martin Sol. & Atty.
Jurat
The State of Alabama| Benton County| Personally appeared before me R G Earle Register & Master in Chancery, for the 39th Chancery District of the northern Chancery Division of the state of Alabama, William Johnson who being duly sworn says that the matters & things set forth in the
Page 42
40
Johnson et.al.v.s. Culbreath et.al.
Jurat
foregoing answer when stated as of his own knowledge are true and when stated on information derived from others he believes them to be true Sworn to & subscribed Wm Johnson before me this fourth day of January AD 1848 R.G. Earle Filed in office 4th Jauary AD 1848 R.G. Earle Register &.c.
William Johnsons Ans. to Crop bill of LN. Cannon
In the Chancery Court for 39th Chancery Division District of the Northern Chancery Division of the State of Alabama. The separate answer of William Johnson to the Crop bill of Larkin N Cannon Administrator of Joel M Cannon deceased filed on the 15th of February 1848 against N.D.S. Culbreath, Elijah Culbreath, this Respondent et. al. and asked to be a part of & heard & determined at the same time with an original Bill filed in said Court on the 12th day of June 1847 by one of his co defendants in this crop bill the said Niven DS. Culbreath against this respondent Elijah Culbreath et.al. This Respondent saving & reserving to himself now & at all times all manner of escception to the many irregularities inperfections & misstatements therein contained for answer thereto or so much thereof as he is advised is material for him to answer unto says, that he here reiterates and restates his answer to the original bill filed by the said N.D.S. Culbreath & asks that the same may be taken & considered as a part & portion of his answer to this crop bill as fully & entire as though the same was here given repeated, and set forth. this Respondent further answering again says tbat he knows nothing of the death of Malcolm McPhail in the state of North Carolina, of his making a will, of its probate or that the paper refered to in compts crop bill is a copy thereof who was his children or grand children, nor how the negroes came from the State of North Carolina to this state, nor that Flora Culbreath was the daughter of the said McPhail or or that she is dead, esccept from compts bill and
Page 43
41
Johnson et.al.v.s. Culbreath et.al.
Ans. William Johnson to Crop Bill of LN Cannon
therefore he can neither admit or deny the same but demands strict proof of all & every such allegation, This respondent further answering answering says that by reference to the paper refered to in complainants bill & called a correct copy of said McPhails last will & testament he finds that his wife Mary McPhail & his son John McPhail are thereby appointed his escecutrisc & escecutor, of his last will & testament This Respondent has been informed & admits it to be true that there was a division of the negroes among the persons named in compts crop bill, but can not admit that it was upon the precise date set down by compt. But respondent denies that said division was unfair, partial, or intended to be temporary, but on the contrary he has been informed, believes & therefore states that the division was fair, equal & equitable according to the Nature value of the property-that- it was intend by all the parties thereto to be a full & fair division, & final in its character, that each took unto his or her possession the negroes assigned them by such such division.This respondent further states that said division as he has been informed & believes was procured by the said denominated children of Flora Culbreath, that they were satisfied with said division at the time it took place, and since that time. This respondent denies that N.D.S. Culbreath complt in the said original Bill was at the date of said division under the age of twenty one years, or that he was wronged in said division, but on the contrary he has been informed, believes & therefore states that he was at that time twenty one years of age, was present siding & assenting to said division, that he received a share equal in value to those received by the other children according to the value of the property, and in aid of this conclusion drawn from information, the said Niven escpressed himself satisfied with the result of said division at the time & at divers times since & after declaring that he was of full age at the time of said division & was satisfied with it as made and once under the sanction of an oath as a witness in a legal controversy where the title of one or more of said negroes was involved. This respondent believes it to be true from information that both Joel M Cannon & his wife Barbara Cannon are dead & he supposes that the
Page 44
42
Johnson et.al. v.s. Culbreath et al.
Ans.Willaim Johnson to Crop Bill of L.N. Cannon
complainant in this crop bill is the administrator of the former, & his co-defendant William J. Willis is the administrator with the will annesced of the latter. This respondent has no personal knowledge of the date of their respective deaths & can not therefore admit that they are correctly set forth in complts crop bill esccept that he is informed & believes & therefore states as is alledged by complainant, the said Joel M Cannon died some considerable length of time before the death of his wife the said Barbara. This respondent further answering from information & belief denies that said negroes, Leah & her children were delivered up to the said Joel M Cannon & Elijah Culbreath upon or at the marriage of the said Joel with the said Barbara, by the escecutor named in said will or that they or any of them ever went into his the said Joel's possession as his property by virtue of this intermarriage with said Barbara. But on the contrary said negro woman Leah & her childen remained in the possession & under the controll of the said John McPhail, & was by him hired out or otherwised disposed of for the use, benefit & support of the said children of Flora Culbreath, and so continued until the youngest child viz. the said N.D. S Culbreath complainant in said original bill arrived to the age of twenty one years, which was as respondent is informed & believes on or about the 1st day of January 1846 & before the said division mentioned in complainants bill. Respondent answers that the said McPhails controll & possession of said negroes continued from the time they were brought by him from the state of North Carolina to this state up to the time of said division either by himself personally or by his agents who managed & disposed of said negroes from time to time by his order and directions and that if the said Joel M Cannon ever had said negroes or any of them in his possession, or the said Elijah Culbreath previous to said division, they held & managed them as the agents of the said McPhail and not as their own property. This Respondent answering from information & belief states that if any of said negroes were at the house or in the apparent possession of said Cannon that it was because some of the said children of the said Flora
Page 45
43
Johnson et.al.v.s. Culbreath et.al
Ans. William Johnson, to Crop Bill of L.N. Cannon
were residing with their sister the said Barbara wife of the said Joel M Cannon and the negro or negroes were labouring to pay the board of the said children, & not by virtue of his intermarriage with the said Barbara. Respondent denies that the marital right of the said Joel ever attached to said negroes or any of them, he never having reduced them to possessions, as the property of his wife or as his own by virtue of his marriage Respondent admits that it may be true as stated in complts crop bill that Malcolm Culbreath puchased from Elijah his interest in the said woman Leah & her children. Respondent says that it is true as stated in said crop bill that he did purchase a negro woman Mary at a sale under an escecution against both Elijah & Malcolm Culbreath, and that it is also true that he claims said negro woman Mary as his own property having purchased her in good faith at a fair sale, paid a valuable & bona fide consideration for her, without notice and that neither the complt in this or said original bill or any of the said children of the said Flora Culbreath as set out by this bill made any objection to said sale, or attempted in any manner to correct the same, & this Respondent would submit to your Honor whether the premises considered his claim to said negro is not superior both in law & equity to the claims of either the complt. in the said original bill or crop bill. It is also true that said negro woman Mary has since her purchase by this respondent as aforesaid given birth to a child as set forth in his answer to the original bill, by the said N.D. S Culbreath where the name &.c of said child is correctly stated, which said child this respondent claims is his own insists that it should be upheld in your Honors Court. This respondent can not admit that all the sales mentioned in said crop bill are the increase of the said woman Leah, or that the girl Mary purchased by Respondent is one of her children not being cognizant of the fact & therefore calls for proof. As to the various allegations & statements in said crop bill contained not escpressly admitted by Respondent in this his answer as will as those denied he requires proof. And now having fully answered he prays that this his