Plea for Injunction in Holliday v Lauck, 6 November 1801

ReadAboutContentsHelp

Pages

1
Indexed

1

To the Honourable the Judge of the High Court of Chancery

Humbly complaining Sheweth unto your Honour, Your [Gratar?] William Holliday that sometimes in the year eighteen hundred. Your [Grator?] purchased in fee Simple of a [certain?] James Welsh one of the defendants herein after named a Fract of Land near the Town of Winchester in the County of frederick, containing one hundred and six acres, for which your [Grator?] agreed to give three thousand five hundred dollars- that in [?] of this agreement your [Grator?] conveyed in fee simple to the said Welsh a House and [?] in the said [Four?] of Winchester valued by then said Welsh at the sum of seven hundred pounds that he also paid to the said Welsh the farther sum of one hundred pounds in Cash, and [?] to him three several Bonds, two of which for one hundred pounds each, and the other for the Sum of fifty pounds and your [Grator?] furthur sheweth that the said Welsh on his part at the same time made to your Grator a Conveyance in fee Simple for the Fract of Said abovementioned, having first [a?] your [Grator?] that his F the was clear and indisputable, and that theres no Mortgage or any [?] [?brance] what was upon that said Sand; and in order to confirm his assurances thus made as aforesaid, he then said Welsh exhibited a Letter written by a [?] Thomas [?] another [?] [?] hereto (the four? answer of the said Land) to a certain Edward Smith [?] who was an agent of said Rootes, stating that he the sad Rootes had sold the said Land to the said Welsh, and desiring the said Smith to give & [?] to the said Welsh, or if he then said Smith should have [?] the said Land, that the [?] should pay the [?] to him then said Welsh_ and as a further confirmation to his assurances the said Welsh did moreover exhibit to your Grator- feed from the said Rootes to himself in fee simple containing a ground Warranty and also sundry Tithe & [?] [?] to the said Land which Letter, & end, and Tithe papers were [?] by the said Welsh to your Grator.

And your Grator further sheweth, that in [?] as the said seed from the said Rootes to the said Welsh had not been recorded, and that the Wife of the said Rootes had not been a party to the said seed. Your Grator some time afterwards requested the said Edward Smith to write to the said Rootes for the purpose of maining a new Seed in which Mrs Rootes shou'd become a party, who accordingly did write to the said Rootes and received for answer that he the said Rootes had a [?] upon the said Land to the amount of twelve hundred and fifty pounds which was a widened by a Mortgage from the said Welsh to the said Rootes hearing even date with the Seed from the said Rootes to the said Welsh, which informants when communicated to your Grator [?] his astonishment and [?] and your

Last edit about 6 years ago by UVA Law Library
2
Indexed

2

Orator further sheweth that during the Interval between his purchase made of the said Land from the said Welsh as aforesaid, and the time when your Orator made the discovery of the Fraud and Deception practiced upon him by the said Welsh which has been above stated, the said Welsh who had previously contract ed an account with a certain Peter Lanck as Your Orator has been informed and believes assigned to the said Lauck, your Orators Bond for fifty Pounds being one of those abovementioned to have been given by your Orator to the said Welsh in part of the Consideration for the Tract of Land aforesaid. And Your Orator further Sheweth that immediately after receiving Information from the said Edward Smith of the said Rootes having a Mortgage from the said Welsh upon the said Tract of Land, which Information Your Orator believes to be true, Your Orator called upon the said Peter Lauck, informed him of the Fraud which had been practiced upon your Orator by the said Welsh, and apprized the said Peter Lauck whom your Orator prays may also be made a Defendant to this his Bill of Complain of the acquitable Defence which Your Orator shoud rely up on in order to extricate himself from the Payment of the said Bond, and at the same time admonished the said Lack that he has better endeavour to obtain satisfaction from the said Welsh; which Your Orator well hoped the said Lauch woud have done - But now So it is, May it please Your Honour, that the said Peter Lauck (coulining and confederating with the said Thomas Rootes, and James Welsh and with divers persons unknown to your Orator whose Names when discovered Your Orator prays may be inserted herein with apt words to charge them as parties) hath actually brought Suit in the County Court of frederick upon the said Bond and having obtained a Judg ment thereon hath issued as Executor thereon, altho Your Orator is apprehen sive from the prior Mortgage of the said Rootes, and from the desperate Circ cumstances of the said Welsh that no Compensation can ever be recovered for the Injury which Your Orator hath already sustained, All which Actings and Doings of the said Lauck and his Confederates are contrary to Equity and goo Conscience -- in tender Consideration where of and for as much as Your Orator is without Remedy in the premisas at the Common Law, and is proper to be relieved before your Honour in a Court of Equity where frauds and Impositions are set aside and Evidences unduly detained an directed to be delivered up, and Matters of this Nature are properly cognizable -- To the End therefore that the said Peter Lauck, James Welsh and Thomas Rootes, and their Confederates when discovered, may full, true and perfect Answers make to all and singular the premisas, as if the same were here again repated and interrogated -- And especially that the said Thomas Rootes may upon his corporal Oath declare whether the Mortgage afore said from the said Welsh to him the said Rootes was really executed at the time

Last edit about 6 years ago by UVA Law Library
3
Indexed

3

when it purports to hear date, and if so whether the Sum specified therein to be due from the said Welsh to him to the said Rootes does really and bonafide remain due? Whether the said Mortgage was recorded at the time of the Sale made by the said Welsh to your Orator? Whether he the said Rootes did not write the Letter first abovementioned to the said Edward Smith and of the Purport beforementioned? and Whether at the Time the sd Rootes communicated to the said Smith any Information of his having a Mortage from the sd Welsh of the said tract of Land? And that the said James Welsh may upon his cor poral Oath declare whether when he sold the said Tract of Land to your Orator he did not assure your Orator that he the said Welsh had a clear and indis putable Title thereto and that there was no Mortgage or other Incumbrance there on? Whether at the same time he the said Welsh did not exhibit to your Orator a Deed from the said Rootes to him the said Welsh, and also the Letter first above mentioned from the said Rootes to the said Edward Smith, and sundry Title Papers relative to the said Land, and whether the sd Deed, Letter adn Title papers were not at the time of the Purchase made by your Orator as aforesaid, delivered up to your Orator? Whether the Mortgage was alledged by the said Rootes to have been executed by the sd Welsh to the said Rootes was naturally executed at the time when it purports to hear date? Whether the Sum therein menionted to be due is really and bonafide due and was due when the said Mortgage was excu ted? Whether Your Orator confiding in the Assurances of the sd Welsh did not convey a House and Lott in Winchester to the sd Welsh valued at seven hundred pounds, pay him the sum of hone hundred pounds in Cash, and give him the Bonds above mentioned as the Consideration for the Purchase of the sd Land? Whether he the said Welsh did not assign one of those Bonds to the Defendant Peter Lauck to wit the one for the Sum of fifty pounds, and Whether it was not in Consideration of a debt, in whole or in part previously due from him the said Welsh to the said Lauck?-- And that the said Lauck may declare upon his corporal Oath Whether Your Orator did not immediately after he was informed of the Deception prac ticed upon him by the said Welsh inform the sd Lauck there of and at the [torn] apprize him the sd Lauck that Your Orator woud contest the Payment of the sd Bond Whether the sd Welsh had not contracted an Account with him the said Lauck previous to his taking an assignment of the said Bond? What was the Amount of the sd Account? and Whether the said Bond was not assigned wholly or in part to discharge the said Account? And that Your Orator may either be quieted in in the possession of the said Tract of Land purchased as aforesaid from the said Welsh notwithstanding the Mortgage claimed by the said Rootes, upon the Ground that the Conduct of the said Rootes, is concealing this Claim facilitated the Decep tion practiced by the said Welsh upon your Orator, and if so that the said Morgage be cancelled: Or if not, that the said Welsh may be decreed to give up to your Orator the Conveyance made by your Orator for the House and Lott in Winchester as aforesaid, to refund the hundred pounds Cash which Your Orator paid him at

Last edit about 6 years ago by UVA Law Library
4
Indexed

4

the time of the purchase of the said tract of Land with Interest thereon from that period and may deliver up Your Orators Bonds to be cancelled, And that the Judg ment aforesaid obtained by the said Launch may be injoined until the Matter here of be heard in a Court of Equity, Or that such other decree may be made in the Premises, as may be consistent with Equity and good Conscience

May it please Your Honour to grant to your Orator the Commonwealth Writs of Subficena and Injunction restraining the said Peter Lauck his Attornies or Agents from all further Proceedings upon Judgment &c &c

Corporation of Winchester to wit

William Holliday the abovenamed Complainant, this day appeared before me a Justice of the Peace in and for the sd Corporation, and made Oath that the Allegations herein contained, so far as he hath spoken of his own Know ledge are true, and so far as he hath spoken from the Information of others he believes them to be true.

Given under my hand this 6th day of November 1801.

Josh. Gamble

The injunction is awarded on the usual terms, 14 of november, 1801,

G. Wythe.

Page 8 pg.

Holliday

vs. } Bill

Lauck et al

November 14th 1801, Skea & Junction issued returnable to March term 1802, appearance for defendant = Holmes -and so the cause remained until the first day of Feby. 1802

W Tansley

$1.93 Cts

November 14tth 1801

Last edit about 6 years ago by UVA Law Library
Displaying all 4 pages