Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
I compiled the below information over the past several months - when I was researching Edmondson - and found this John Edmondson and wanted to see if he connected to any of my known Edmondson's. I never dreamed what a "mess" that I had uncovered, that history had managed to cover up!
My question would be that since the Supreme Court chose to ignore Elizabeth Harrison's clear intent in the Deed of Trust/Post-Nuptial agreement and her Will - why did someone not bring in the children of William Rickman from his first marriage - as this land was from their father's Rev. War service would then have been as much theirs as anyone's - and more so than the Harrison siblings. The Supreme Court would then have had to ignore William Rickman's Will (as it did Elizabeth's) that left the certificates to 2nd wife Elizabeth - then all this land would have gone to the Rickman children from William's first marriage.
_____________________________________________________________________
Descendants of Benjamin (V) Harrison
Generation No. 1
1. BENJAMIN (V )1 H ARRISON He married E LIZABETH BASSETT .
Notes for B ENJAMIN ( V) H ARRISON:
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
__________________________________________
Children of B ENJAMIN H ARRISON and ELIZABETH B ASSETT are:
i. ELIZABETH "BETSY"2 HARRISON , b. 1751, Berkeley, Charles City County, Virginia; d. 1791; m. (1) DR. WILLIAM RICKMAN, Abt. 1775; b. Abt. 1715; d. Abt. 1781, Charles City County, Virginia; m. (2) J OHN EDMONDSON, Abt. 1789; b. Abt. 1751, Essex County, Virginia; d. Bet. 1802 - 1803, Augusta County, Virginia.
Notes for ELIZABETH "BETSY" H ARRISON:
The John Edmondson and Elizabeth Edmondson Waddell below are the children of Elizabeth Harrison Rickman Edmondson's second husband John Edmondson, by his second marriage to Lucy Cocke. Adam Bloomshire (Blumenshine) was a German immigrant who eventually bought some of the property in question. (the "others" it refers to are unknown at this time, but the information has been requested)
Link to the Case Preview: http://justia.us/us/74/306/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://justia.us/us/74/306/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
EDMONSON v. BLOOMSHIRE, 74 U.S. 306 (1868)
74 U.S. 306 (Wall.)
EDMONSON
v.
BLOOMSHIRE.
December Term, 1868
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio; the case being thus:
The Judiciary Act provides that final decrees in a circuit court may be re-examined, reversed, or affirmed here 'upon a writ of error whereto shall be annexed and returned therewith, at the day and place therein mentioned, an authenticated transcript of the record, and assignment of errors, and prayer for reversal, with a citation to the adverse party.'
If further enacts that 'writs of error shall not be brought but within five years after rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, or in case the person entitled to such writ of error be a feme covert &c., then within five years as aforesaid, exclusive of the time of such disability.'-
Page 74 U.S. 306, 307
By an amendatory act, appeals in cases of equity are allowed 'subject to the same rules, regulations, and restrictions as are prescribed in law in case of writs of error.'
With these provisions of law in force, John Edmonson, Littleton Waddell and Elizabeth, his wife, filed a bill in 1854 in the court below, against Bloomshire and others, to compel a release of title to certain lands, and on the 16th July, 1859, the bill was finally dismissed. On the 26th May 'an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was allowed,' and the appellants ordered to give bond in $1000. No further step was taken in the case till November 14, 1865, when a petition was filed in the Circuit Court, reciting the decree, and the allowance (May 26, 1860) of the appeal, and setting forth the death of the plaintiff Edmonson, intestate, on the 30th June, 1862, leaving a part of the petitioners his only heirs-at-law; and that, on the 20th June, 1864, the plaintiff Elizabeth Waddell also died intestate, leaving the other petitioners her only heirs-at-law, and that the interest of said intestates had descended to said petitioners as their respective heirs-at-law; and further setting forth, that no appeal-bond had been given under said order allowing the appeal. The prayer of the petition was that the petitioners be allowed 'to become parties to the appeal, and to perfect the same by now entering into bond for the appeal.'
Thereupon, on the same 14th November, 1865, this entry was made by the court:
'WADDELL, EDMONSON et al.,
v.
BLOOMSHIRE et al.
426.-Petition to perfect appeal.
'And now come the said petitioners, and the court being satisfied that the facts set forth in said petition are true, and that the prayer thereof ought to be granted, do order that said petitioners [naming the heirs of Edmonson], be admitted as parties plaintiff, in the place of said John Edmonson, deceased; and that the said [naming the heirs of Mrs. Waddell], be admitted as parties plaintiff in the place of the said Elizabeth Waddell, deceased; and that said petitioners have leave to perfect said
Page 74 U.S. 306, 308
appeal so allowed at the June Term, 1859, of this court, by giving bond in the sum of $1000, as therein provided.'
An appeal-bond was accordingly filed with, and approved by, the clerk, November 22, 1865. A citation (duly served) was issued on the 8th December, 1865, reciting the allowance of an appeal at the October Term, 1865, of the court, and citing the appellees to appear 'at the next term of the Supreme Court, to be holden on the first Monday of December next.' The transcript was filed here by the appellants for the first time on the 3d of January, 1866.
The case having been fully argued on the merits by Messrs. Stanbery and Baldwin, for the appellants, and by Mr. J. W. Robinson, by brief, contra, it was suggested from the bench that doubts were entertained by it as to the jurisdiction of the court over the case; the ground of the doubt, as the reporter understood it, being, that while the record showed that the only appeal asked for or allowed, was that of May 26th, 1860, the transcript was not filed during the term next succeeding the allowance of the appeal, nor till January, 1866; and thus that while the appeal had been taken in time the record had not been filed here in time to save it.
Mr. Stanbery now spoke in support of the jurisdiction:
The objection to the regularity of the appeal, he contended, comes too late, and had not been made by counsel. The case had been pending in this court more than three years. It had been fully argued on the merits by both parties. No motion had at any time been made by the appellees to dismiss it for any irregularity. The practice he believed to have been uniform to require a motion to dismiss before the case proceeds to a hearing. [Footnote 1]
The appeal initiated in 1860 was not perfected until the order of November 14, 1865, when the bond was given. Till that last date there was, in fact, no appeal which required the transcript to be filed. When the appeal was allowed, all that remained to be done was to perfect the appeal so taken
Page 74 U.S. 306, 309
by giving bond and filing the transcript in this court, which might be done by order of court after expiration of five years. In The Dos Hermanos 2 it is said:
'It appears that the appeal was prayed for within the five years, and was actually allowed by the court within that period. It is true that the security required by law was not given until after the lapse of the five years, and under such circumstances the court might have disallowed the appeal and refused the security. But, as the court accepted it, it must be considered as a sufficient compliance with the order of the court, and that it had relation back to the time of the allowance of the appeal.'
This is our case.
If this is not so, a new appeal may be regarded as having been taken by the proceeding of November, 1865. The citation recites them as being the allowance of an appeal.
If any doubt was entertained by the court as to the efficiency of the appeal, because more than five years elapsed after the decree before the appeal-bond was given and transcript filed in this court, it is to be observed that Mrs. Waddell, the party entitled to an appeal, was under coverture at the date of the decree, and at the time of her death, June 20, 1864. The appeal was saved as to her heirs. Moreover, her interest was so connected with that of her co-plaintiff, Edmonson, that it is also saved as to him or his heirs. [Footnote 3]
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
In the cases of Villabolos v. United States, and United States v. Curry, decided at the December Term, 1847, and especially in the latter case, it was held, on full consideration, that whether a case was attempted to be brought to this court by writ of error, or appeal, the record must be filed before the end of the term next succeeding the issue of the writ or the allowance of the appeal, or the court had no jurisdiction of
Page 74 U.S. 306, 310
the case. This was repeated in the Steamer Virginia v. West,4 Mesa v. United States,5 and United States v. Gomez. [Footnote 6]
In Castro v. United States,7 the same question was raised. The importance of the case, together with other considerations, induced the court to consider the matter again at some length. Accordingly, the present Chief Justice delivered an opinion, in the course of which the former cases are considered and the ground of the rule distinctly stated.
Other cases followed that, and in Mussina v. Cavazos, decided at the last term, the whole doctrine is again reviewed, and the rule placed distinctly on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction of the case unless the transcript be filed during the term next succeeding the allowance of the appeal. The intelligible ground of this decision is, that the writ of error and the appeal are the foundations of our jurisdiction, without which we have no right to revise the action of the inferior court; that the writ of error, like all other common law writs, becomes functus officio unless some return is made to it during the term of court to which it is return able; that the act of 1803, which first allowed appeals to this court, declared that they should be subject to the same rules, regulations, and restrictions, as are prescribed in law, in writs of error. These principles have received the unanimous approval of this court, and have been acted upon in a large number of cases not reported, besides several reported cases not here mentioned. And the court has never hesitated to act on this rule whenever it has appeared from the record that the case came within it, although no motion to dismiss was made by either party. In fact, treating it as a matter involving the jurisdiction of the court, we cannot do otherwise.
In the case of United States v. Curry, Chief Justice Taney, answering the objection that the rule was extremely technical, replied, that nothing could be treated by this court as merely technical, and for that reason be disregarded, which
Page 74 U.S. 306, 311
was prescribed by Congress as the mode of exercising the court's appellate jurisdiction. We make the same observavation now, and add, that it is better, if the rule is deemed unwise or inconvenient, to resort to the legislature for its correction, than that the court should depart from its settled course of action for a quarter of a century.
We are of opinion that the present case falls within the principle of these decisions. The only appeal that this record shows to have been either asked for or allowed, was that of May 26, 1860. The transcript was not filed during the term next succeeding the allowance of this appeal, nor until January, 1866.
Two grounds are assigned as taking the case out of the rule we have stated.
1. It is said that the appeal of 1860 was not perfected until the bond was given under the order of November 14, 1865, and that until this was done there was in fact no appeal which required the transcript to be filed.
The answer to this is, that the prayer for the appeal, and the order allowing it, constituted a valid appeal. The bond was not essential to it. It could have been given here, and cases have been brought here where no bond was approved by the court below, and the court has permitted the appellant to give bond in this court. [Footnote 8] In the case of Seymour v. Freer,9 the Chief Justice says, that if, through mistake or accident, no bond or a defective bond had been filed, this court would not dismiss the appeal, but would permit a bond to be given here. And in all cases where the government is appellant, no bond is required. It is not, therefore, an indispensable part of an appeal that a bond should be filed; and the appeal in this case must be held as taken on the 26th day of May, 1860.
It is insisted that this view is in conflict with the case of The Dos Hermanos. [Footnote 10] We do not think so. While the argument of counsel on the merits in that case is fully reported,
Page 74 U.S. 306, 312
we have nothing from them on the motion to dismiss. The opinion of the court states that the question made was whether the appeal was in due time, and this is answered by saying, it was prayed and allowed within five years from the date of the decree. The appeal was, therefore, taken in due time. It is further said, that the fact that the bond was given after the expiration of the five years, did not vitiate the appeal. This is in full accord with what we have just stated. The bond may be given with effect at any time while the appeal is alive. There is no question made in the present case about the appeal being taken within time. It was taken in time. But the record was not filed in the court in time to save the appeal; and that question was not made or thought of in the Dos Hermanos case. It is perfectly consistent with all that we know of that case, and, indeed, probable, that, though the taking of the appeal was delayed until near the expiration of the five years, and filing the bond until after that period, the transcript was filed at the next term after the appeal was taken.
2. It is next insisted that a new appeal was taken by the proceedings of the 14th November, 1865.
This, however, is in direct contradiction of the record. The petition of appellants, after reciting the former decree and the order allowing the appeal of May 26, 1860, and the death of some of the plaintiffs in the suit, and that no appeal-bond had been given, concludes as follows: 'Your petitioners now appear, and pray your honors to allow them to become parties to said appeal, and to perfect the same by now entering into a bond for the appeal.' And the order made is, 'that said petitioners have leave to perfect said appeal, so allowed at the June Term, 1859, of this court, by giving bond, &c.' The only appeal referred to in the petition, or the order of the court, is the appeal allowed May, 1860, and no language is used in either which refers to a new appeal, or which is consistent with such an idea.
It is true that the citation speaks of the allowance of the appeal as obtained at the October Term, 1865, but this recital does not prove that an appeal was then allowed, when it
Page 74 U.S. 306, 313
stands unsupported by the record. Still less can it be permitted to contradict what the record states to have been done on that subject, at that time.
In the case of United States v. Curry, the same facts almost precisely were relied on as constituting a second appeal, that exist in this case, including the misrecital in the citation. But the court says, 'that after very carefully considering the order, no just construction of its language will authorize us to regard it as a second appeal. The citation, which afterwards issued in August, 1847, calls this order an appeal, and speaks of it as an appeal granted on the day it bears date. But this description in the citation cannot change the meaning of the language used in the order.' That is precisely the case before us, and we think the ruling a sound one.
The appeal must, for these reasons, be DISMISSED. But, we may add, that for anything we have been able to discover in this record, the appellants have the same right now, whatever that may be, to take a new appeal, that they had in November, 1865, when the unsuccessful effort was made to revive the first one.
Footnotes
Footnote 1 Mandeville v. Riggs, 2 Peters, 490; Brooks v. Norris, 11 Howard, 204.
Footnote 2 10 Wheaton, 306.
Footnote 3 Owings v. Kincannon, 7 Peters, 399; Williams v. Bank of the United States, 11 Wheaton, 414; Meese v. Keefe, 10 Ohio, 862.
Footnote 4 19 Howard, 182.
Footnote 5 2 Black, 721.
Footnote 6 1 Wallace, 690.
Footnote 7 3 Wallace, 46.
Footnote 8 Ex parte Milwaukee Railroad Company, 5 Wallace, 188.
Footnote 9 5 Wallace, 822.
Footnote 10 Wheaton, 306.
____________________________________________________
Link to the Case Preview: http://justia.us/us/78/382/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://justia.us/us/78/382/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
EDMONDSON v. BLOOMSHIRE, 78 U.S. 382 (1870)
78 U.S. 382 (Wall.)
EDMONDSON
v.
BLOOMSHIRE.
December Term, 1870
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio, in which court John Edmondson and Littleton Waddell in right of his wife Elizabeth, sister of the said John, filed a bill against Adam Bloomshire and others, to compel a conveyance of certain lands in Ohio, alleged to be in the possession of the defendants. The court below dismissed the bill, and the complainants appealed.
Page 78 U.S. 382, 383
Both in the court below and here several interesting and difficult questions were raised; and fully and ably argued by Messrs. H. Stanberry and J. B. Baldwin, for the complainants, and Messrs. William Lawrence and J. W. Robinson, contra:1
But the case as passed on by the court avoided a decision on these, and placed the judgment on the meaning of a peculiar and badly expressed will, and certain facts which explained it. The case, therefore, presenting nothing of interest, the arguments of counsel upon the construction of the will and evidence are suppressed.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court.
Volunteer forces for the public service in the war of the Revolution were, in many instances, furnished by the States, and all such, as well as the regular forces, were paid for their services to a large extent in continental money, which so depreciated in a short time as to become almost valueless.
Troops for that service were raised by the State of Virginia, known as the Virginia line on continental establishment, and they also were paid for their services in that currency; and in order to afford relief for the loss which the troops sustained in that way, the legislature of the State, at the November session 1781, passed an act directing the auditor of public accounts to settle and adjust the pay and accounts of the officers and soldiers of that line, so as to make their claims for pay and subsistence equal to specie, such adjustment to cover the period from the first day of January, 1777, to the last day of December, 1781; and the directions to the auditor were that he should issue printed certificates to the respective applicants for the balance found due to them in such adjustment, payable on or before the first day of January, 1785, with interest at the rate of six per centum per annum. [Footnote 2]
Directions were also given to the auditor in the same act that he should in like manner settle and adjust the accounts
Page 78 U.S. 382, 384
of all officers and soldiers of the said line who have fallen or died in the service during that period, and the provision was that their representatives should be entitled to such certificates, and all other benefits and advantages therein granted to the officers and soldiers in the line at the date of the act. [Footnote 3]
None of these matters are the subject of controversy, and it is also alleged and admitted that William Rickman, of Charles City, Virginia, was a deputy director general in the Virginia line on continental establishment; that he served three years or more as such director, and that he thereby became entitled also to Virginia military bounty-lands.
On the seventh of August, 1778, William Rickman made and published his last will and testament, by which he gave and bequeathed to his wife, Elizabeth Rickman, all his estate, both real and personal, in fee simple, and appointed his wife, together with Benjamin Harrison, her father, and her brother, Benjamin Harrison, Jr., the executors of his will so made and published. Three years afterwards the testator died, leaving the said last will and testament unrevoked and in full force, and the same was subsequently duly proved and admitted to record.
Application in behalf of Elizabeth Rickman, as the widow and executrix of her deceased husband, was afterwards made to the auditor of public accounts to settle and adjust the pay and subsistence accounts of the testator as an officer in the Virginia line on continental establishment, and on the twenty-eighth of February, 1784, the requested adjustment was made. By that adjustment the auditor of public accounts found that there was a balance due to the deceased, or to his legal representatives, of one thousand seven hundred and twenty-two pounds nineteen shillings and two pence, and the record shows that the evidence of the indebtedness of the State to the deceased for that amount was delivered to B. Harrison on the same day the adjustment was made.
Page 78 U.S. 382, 385
Prior to that adjustment, to wit, on the twenty-ninth of November, 1783, the House of Delegates of Virginia passed two resolutions which it becomes important to notice.
1. That the petition of Elizabeth Rickman praying that the auditor of public accounts should settle and adjust the pay and accounts of her late husband was reasonable, showing satisfactorily that the adjustment was largely influenced by the legislature.
2. That Elizabeth Rickman, widow of William Rickman, be allowed such a portion of land as the rank and service of the deceased merit.
Pursuant to the second resolution the governor of the State, Benjamin Harrison, on the twelfth of January, 1784, executed a certificate that Elizabeth Rickman, widow and executrix of William Rickman, director general, is entitled to the proportion of land allowed a colonel in the continental line who has served three years, and on the following day a warrant for six thousand six hundred and sixty-six and two-thirds acres was issued to her, signed by the register of the State land office.
Five years later she intermarried with John Edmondson, and they afterwards, during the succeeding year, united in executing a deed of trust or post-nuptial agreement to her brother, Carter B. Harrison, of all her estate, real and personal, or to which she was entitled under the will of her former husband, for her separate use and advantage, her heirs, executors, and administrators, the husband stipulating therein that she might dispose of the same by her last will and testament as she should see fit to do.
On the third of May, 1790, Elizabeth Edmondson made her last will and testament, which was olographic, and on the first day of January, 1791, she died, leaving her will in full force, and on the twentieth of the same month the will was proved and admitted to record in the county where she resided at her decease.
Absolute title to the lands embraced in the warrant signed by the land register is claimed by the complainants, upon the ground that the same were devised in fee simple by Elizabeth
Page 78 U.S. 382, 386
Edmondson to her husband, John Edmondson, by her last will and testament, but the respondents deny that her will when properly construed contains any such devise, and insist that the will, if it made any disposition of those lands, only devised to the husband a life estate in the same, and that the fee simple title to the same, inasmuch as the testatrix died without issue, descended to her brothers and sisters, under whom they claim, as alleged in the answer.
Unless the course of descent was broken by the will of the testatrix, it is clear that her brothers and sisters became the owners of the lands embraced in that warrant, as it is conceded that she died without issue.
Afterwards, in the year 1795, the said John Edmondson married again, and the record shows that he had three children by the second wife, one of whom died before the father without issue, leaving John and Elizabeth, the latter having since intermarried with Littleton Waddell, the other complainant and appellant in the case before the court.
Before his decease, John Edmondson, the father of the two appellants, John and Elizabeth, also made a will and devised all his property to his three children, one of whom, as before stated, died during the lifetime of the father. His will bears date on the third of October, 1802, and the pleadings show that he died on the first day of December following, leaving the two children before named as his principal devisees and sole heirs-at-law. They, together with the husband of Elizabeth, claim the lands in controversy upon the ground that the same were devised to the father of John and Elizabeth by the will of his first wife.
Defences of various kinds are set up in the answer, but in the view taken of the case it is not necessary to enter into those details, as the court is of the opinion that the decision of the case must turn upon the construction of the will of Elizabeth Edmondson, deceased, it being conceded that she held the title to the lands in controversy under the warrant granted to her for the same by the State.
Proofs were introduced by both parties, but the Circuit Court was of the opinion that the complainants were not
Page 78 U.S. 382, 387
entitled to recover, and entered a decree dismissing the bill of complaint. Whereupon the complainants appealed to this court, but the appeal was dismissed, it appearing on the face of the record that the transcript was not filed in this court during the term next succeeding the allowance of the appeal. [Footnote 4]
Since that time a new appeal has been allowed to the complainants and they have removed the cause into this court, seeking to reverse the same decree from which the first appeal was taken. Pending the present appeal a motion to dismiss was filed by the respondents, which was heard at the same time with the merits, but the questions involved in the motion will not be decided, as the court is of the opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill of complaint for the want of equity is correct.
Motions of the kind are usually determined before proceeding to examine the merits of the controversy, but the court deems it proper to adopt a different course on the present occasion for the following reasons, among others which might be mentioned: (1.) Because differences of opinion exist in the court as to the proper disposition to be made of the motion, irrespective of the fact that the case has been twice heard upon the merits. (2.) Because the respondents, when the case was here before, went to final hearing without making any objections to the regularity of the appeal.
Affirmative relief, it is true, could not be granted to the complainants without first disposing of some of the questions involved in the motion, but inasmuch as an affirmance of the decree of the Circuit Court will effect substantially the same result as a dismissal of the appeal, the court is not inclined to decide the preliminary questions.
Letters of administration on the estate of Elizabeth Edmondson were granted to John Edmondson, the husband of the deceased, as no executor was named in the will. Several bequests to the husband were made by the testatrix in
Page 78 U.S. 382, 388
the will which need not be noticed, as they furnish no aid in the solution of the question presented for decision. Those clauses relate to certain articles of personal property which she gave to her husband forever, and to certain slaves which she gave to him 'to dispose of as he may think proper.' Preceding the clause disposing of the articles of personal property the will contains the following devise: 'I give to my dear husband, John Edmondson, all the land I possess, during his life,' but the will contains no residuary clause of a general nature. Enough appears to show that the testatrix owned real estate, as she devised the house and land where they lived, at the death of her husband, to one of her brothers, and to another brother she gave, at the decease of her husband, a certain other tract described in the will as having been purchased by her first husband, but the will does not in terms make any ultimate disposition of the lands devised to her husband during his life except those two parcels, and the complainants do not controvert the proposition that the lands in question, if they were devised to the husband under that clause of the will, descended at his decease to the brothers and sisters of the testatrix, as contended by the respondents. They deny, however, that the lands in controversy, or any portion of the same, were devised to him by that clause. On the contrary, they rely upon another clause in the will as the foundation of their claim, which follows the bequests before mentioned to her husband and certain other bequests of like kind to her brothers and sisters and other relatives, specifying in each of the several bequests the name of the legatee.
Having devised all the land she possessed to her husband during his life, and made those bequests, the testatrix provides as follows: 'My certificates that are in the hands of my brother Ben, I desire may be given to my husband to dispose of as he may think proper.' Founded on that clause in the will, the theory of the complainants is that the warrant signed by the land agent for the six thousand six hundred and sixty-six and two-thirds acres of bounty-lands was devised to their father, and that at the decease of the testatrix
Page 78 U.S. 382, 389
he became the owner in fee simple of the lands surveyed and located under that warrant, and that they, as the devisees in his will and his sole heirs-at-law, are the lawful owners of the lands in controversy.
Support to that theory is attempted to be drawn from the fact that the governor, before the warrant was signed, granted a certificate in which he certified that the widow and executrix of the deceased claimant was entitled to the proportion of land allowed to a colonel of the continental line who had served three years, but the decisive answer to any such attempt is that the certificate of the governor was, on the following day, deposited in the proper office as the legal foundation of the land warrant, where it has ever since remained.
Most of the introductory allegations of the bill of complaint are admitted by the respondents. They also admit that Elizabeth Rickman, before her marriage with John Edmondson, obtained the certificates for the balance due her first husband for pay and subsistence as director general in the continental line, and also for the interest due on the same, and that she also obtained the warrant for the lands in controversy, but they utterly deny that the word certificates as used in the clause of the will under which the complainants claim means or intends the warrant in question or the lands described in the pleadings.
Persons having claims to bounty lands were required at that time, by the laws of that State, to exhibit their vouchers to the executive, and if found to be correct and the claim was allowed, it was the duty of the governor to issue a certificate to that effect to the register of the land office, and the register, upon the filing of that certificate, was required to grant the warrant. [Footnote 5]
More than six years before the testatrix made her last will and testament in which she uses the phrase 'my certificates that are in the hands of my brother Ben,' the certificate
Page 78 U.S. 382, 390
as to the bounty lands had been surrendered to the register of the land office, and the land warrant in question had been issued in its place, and there is no evidence that the land warrant or the certificate which preceded it was ever in the hands of any one of the brothers of the testatrix.
Undoubtedly the certificate for the balance due for pay and the subsistence accounts arising from the depreciation of the currency in which the original claimant was paid and the certificates for the interest on the same did pass by that clause in the will to the husband of the testatrix, and the proofs are satisfactory that those certificates were in the hands of her brother Benjamin at the date of the will. Those certificates bear date on the twenty-eighth of February, 1784, and they were immediately delivered to the brother named in the will as having them in his hands, where they remained to the date of the will of the testatrix and to the time of her death.
Certified copies of the certificate signed by the governor as the foundation for the land warrant are exhibited in the record as given by the register of the land office, which shows that it could not have been in the hands of her brother at the date of the will, as it had been in the register's office more than six years before the will was executed. Suppose, however, that it appeared that the land warrant had been in the possession of her brother, from its date to the time when the testatrix died, still it would be difficult, if not impossible, to hold that the signification of the word certificates, as used in the will, is sufficiently comprehensive to include that instrument, as the word certificate seems to have an appropriate and direct reference to the instruments of evidence issued to the testatrix for the back pay and subsistence accounts of her former husband, as before explained.
Attempt is made in argument to show that the words certificate and warrant are sometimes used in the statutes of the State as words of equivalent import, but the examples put do not relate to the same subject, and if they did it would not be difficult to show that the words are there used
Page 78 U.S. 382, 391
rather as conferring an alternative authority than as words of synonymous signification. Be that as it may, still it is evident that the word certificates was used by the testatrix as referring directly to the instruments in the hands of her brother, which were given in the adjustment of her claim for the balance due to her former husband to make his pay as director-general equal to what it would have been if he had been paid in specie.
Strong confirmation of that view is derived from the course pursued in the settlement of her estate and the long acquiescence of the complainants in the pretensions of the respondents and those under whom they claim. Evidence, however, of the most satisfactory character was introduced by the respondents showing that the land warrant never was in the hands of her brother prior to the date of the will, or at any other time, but it is not deemed necessary to enter into those details, as we are all of the opinion that the land warrant, if it passed to the husband by the will, passed under the devise which gave him during his life all the land which the testatrix possessed, that it did not pass to him by the other devise, and that the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill of complaint is correct.
DECREE AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
Footnote 1 See Appendix.
Footnote 2 10 Hening's Statutes of Virginia, 462.
Footnote 3 10 Hening's Statutes of Virginia, 463.
Footnote 4 Edmondson v. Bloomshire, 7 Wallace, 306.
Footnote 5 11 Hening's Statutes of Virginia, 83; Swan's Land Laws, 118.
______________________________________
The land patents below which say Patentee: Elizabeth Rickman show "Lucy Singleton, David Coupland, Ann Coupland, Sally Minge, Benjamin Harrison, Jr., William Harrison and Carter Harrison the legal Representatives of Elizabeth Rickman, widow and devised of the said William Rickman deceased" They were not her legal heirs. She signed a deed of trust or post nuptial agreement after her marriage to John Edmondson giving her legal right to her property from her previous husband and the right to dispose of it in her Will as she saw fit. She made a Will which stated : 'My certificates that are in the hands of my brother Ben, I desire may be given to my husband to dispose of as he may think proper.' (John Edmondson was the husband) After having a retired judge take a look at these documents in 2006, the judge said that this was a miscarriage of justice, that Elizabeth's intent was clear by the steps she had taken. Note that the Harrison siblings seem to have waited approximately seven years after John's death before jumping in to claim what was left to John Edmondson by wife Elizabeth Harrison Rickman Edmondson.
Patentee: ELIZABETH RICKMAN
Warrantee: WILLIAM RICKMAN
State: OHIO
Acres: 1080
Survey Date: 5/31/1802
Metes/Bounds: Yes
Issue Date: 6/19/1809
Land Office: Ohio
Cancelled: No
U.S. Reservations: No
Mineral Reservations: No
Authority: August 10, 1790: Scrip Warrant Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 82)
Document Nr.: 2245
Accession/Serial Nr.: OH2090__.018
BLM Serial Nr.: OH NO S/N
_______________________________________________
Patentee: ELIZABETH RICKMAN
Warrantee: WILLIAM RICKMAN
State: OHIO
Acres: 1120
Survey Date: 10/24/1801
Metes/Bounds: Yes
Issue Date: 6/19/1809
Land Office: Ohio
Cancelled: No
U.S. Reservations: No
Mineral Reservations: No
Authority: August 10, 1790: Scrip Warrant Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 82)
Document Nr.: 2245
Accession/Serial Nr.: OH2090__.019
BLM Serial Nr.: OH NO S/N
_____________________________________________
Patentee: ELIZABETH RICKMAN
Warrantee: WILLIAM RICKMAN
State: OHIO
Acres: 666.67
Survey Date: 10/29/1801
Metes/Bounds: Yes
Issue Date: 6/19/1809
Land Office: Ohio
Cancelled: No
U.S. Reservations: No
Mineral Reservations: No
Authority: August 10, 1790: Scrip Warrant Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 82)
Document Nr.: 2245
Accession/Serial Nr.: OH2090__.020
BLM Serial Nr.: OH NO S/N
_________________________________________
Patentee: ELIZABETH RICKMAN
Warrantee: WILLIAM RICKMAN
State: OHIO
Acres: 1000
Survey Date: 10/24/1801
Metes/Bounds: Yes
Issue Date: 6/19/1809
Land Office: Ohio
Cancelled: No
U.S. Reservations: No
Mineral Reservations: No
Authority: August 10, 1790: Scrip Warrant Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 82)
Document Nr.: 2245
Accession/Serial Nr.: OH2090__.021
BLM Serial Nr.: OH NO S/N
__________________________________________
Patentee: ELIZABETH RICKMAN
Warrantee: WILLIAM RICKMAN
State: OHIO
Acres: 600
Survey Date: 5/31/1802
Metes/Bounds: Yes
Issue Date: 6/19/1809
Land Office: Ohio
Cancelled: No
U.S. Reservations: No
Mineral Reservations: No
Authority: August 10, 1790: Scrip Warrant Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 82)
Document Nr.: 2245
Accession/Serial Nr.: OH2090__.022
BLM Serial Nr.: OH NO S/N
_________________________________________
Patentee: HENRY MASSIE
Warrantee: WILLIAM RICKMAN
State: OHIO
Acres: 1120
Survey Date: 3/31/1807
Metes/Bounds: Yes
Issue Date: 10/8/1808
Land Office: Ohio
Cancelled: No
U.S. Reservations: No
Mineral Reservations: No
Authority: August 10, 1790: Scrip Warrant Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 82)
Document Nr.: 2245
Accession/Serial Nr.: OH2090__.014
BLM Serial Nr.: OH NO S/N
______________________________________
Patentee: HENRY MASSIE
Warrantee: WILLIAM RICKMAN
State: OHIO
Acres: 1080
Survey Date: 3/28/1807
Metes/Bounds: Yes
Issue Date: 10/8/1808
Land Office: Ohio
Cancelled: No
U.S. Reservations: No
Mineral Reservations: No
Authority: August 10, 1790: Scrip Warrant Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 82)
Document Nr.: 2245
Accession/Serial Nr.: OH2090__.015
BLM Serial Nr.: OH NO S/N
______________________________________
Some of the above land was found to be in Union County, Ohio
Darby Township, Union County, Ohio
SURVEYS.
Darby Township contains a greater number of surveys than most townships in the county. Many of them are for small quantities of land. Only a few are for 1,000 acres or more, and a large proportion are for 100 acres or less. Those located north of Big Darby are generally larger and were mostly surveyed earlier than those south. Darby Plains, which included most of the township south of the creek, was not deemed desirable land and consequently not entered as long as better was still not located. The following is a list of the original proprietors of the surveys, their numbers, areas, surveyors and dates of survey:
Elizabeth Rickman, No. 4,067, 1,120 acres, Joseph Kerr, October 24, 1801.
______________________________________
HISTORY OF UNION COUNTY
CHAPTER II.
UNION TOWNSHIP.
The territory composing this township was, prior to the organization of Union County, embraced in the counties of Delaware and Madison. the northern portion in the former and the southern portion in the latter. The township, as originally formed by the County Commissioners of Delaware County, included the northern portion of its present territory, and a large scope of the western portion of the present territory of Union County, extending northward to the northern boundary line of the county. After the erection of Union County, in 1820, on the 12th day of March, 1821, at a meeting of the Commissioners of Union County, "agreed, that. the County of Union be divided into townships as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Union County, running east five and one-half miles; thence north six miles; thence north to the north boundary of Union County, all west to be Union Township." Subsequently, in June, 1822, Liberty Township was erected, embracing all the northern portion to the northern boundary of the county. In 1827, Allen Township was formed, which again curtailed the boundaries of Union. It is now bounded north by Allen and Paris Townships, east by Paris and Darby, south by Madison County and west by Champaign County. The surveys of Union, begun in 1799. were as follows: ........., for Elizabeth Rickman, widow of Dr. William Rickman, 1,080 acres, Survey No. 4,071.
___________________________________
Notes for DR. WILLIAM RICKMAN:
Captain of the 94th Regiment of the British Army on the 23rd day of Feb. 1760 and came to the colonies serving in the French/Indian War.
May 18,1776 was appointed "Director and Chief Physician of the Hospital in Virginia in the service of the Continent" by the Continental Congress. Served as Rank of Colonel in the Continental Line. Resigned in Oct. 21, 1780
_____________________________________
Kittiewan
Kittiewan is a typical colonial-period medium-size plantation house. The house sits above the Kittiewan Creek at its confluence with the James River, on part of the tract of land acquired by Governor George Yeardley in 1618. The date of the dwelling's construction is unknown. The center hall plan and five bay fa�ade are characteristic of substantial frame residences built throughout the Virginia Tidewater, however, the finely-crafted, full-length paneling is typical of woodwork found in much larger homes of the 18th century. The first known owner of the house was Dr. William Rickman during the late 18th century. In 1776 Dr. Rickman was appointed by the Continental Congress to oversee the Virginia hospitals during the Revolutionary War. Dr. Rickman died at Kittiewan in 1783.
During the Civil War the property, along with adjacent North Bend, was occupied by Union troops under General Philip Sheridan as the Army of the Potomac prepared to cross the James River to join the Seige of Petersburg on the pontoon bridge that led to Flowerdew Hundred. During the early 20th century the paneled interior was identified as a potential acquisition for the Metropolitan Museum of Arts' American Wing, although the owners did not entertain the thought of removing this significant feature of the house.
Kittiewan is located on Weyanoke Rd. (County Rte. 619) one mile south of Virginia Rte. 5. It is open daily for tours by appointment. There is an admission fee. Please call 804-829-2900 for further information.
More About DR. WILLIAM RICKMAN:
Burial: Kittawan Family Cemetery, Charles City County, Virginia
More About DR. RICKMAN and ELIZABETH HARRISON:
Marriage: Abt. 1775
Notes for JOHN EDMONDSON
From Chalkey's Chronicles
Page 295.--3d October, 1802. John Edmondson's will--To wife, Lucy,
the carriage and pair of horses, and 3 children, house servants; son, John,
to be educated in the Upper Country under direction of friend John Coalter;
to brother, James, owns property in Staunton; to niece, Sally Cooke; to
sister, Elizabeth; brothers, William, Benjamin, George. Executors, wife
Lucy, brother James, John Coalter. Teste: George G. Mclntosh, Jno.
Monroe, Edward B. Smith. Proved, 26th April, 1803, by Mclntosh, and
25th July, 1803, by John Monroe. James Edmondson qualifies.
____________________________________________
Name: John Edmondson
Date: Oct 3, 1802
Location: Augusta Co., VA
Notes: This probate record was originally published in "Chronicles of the Scotch-Irish Settlement in Virginia, 1745-1800. Extracted from the Original Court Records of Augusta County" by Lyman Chalkley.
Remarks: John Edmondsons will-To wife, Lucy, the carriaige and pair of horses, and 3 children, house servants; son, John, to be educated in the Upper Country under direction of friend John Coalter; to brother, James, owns property in Staunton; to niece, Sall ..........
Description: Decedent
Book date: WB9-295
Prove date: Apr 26, 1803
_____________________________________________
More About JOHN EDMONDSON and ELIZABETH HARRISON:
Marriage: Abt. 1789
ii. ANN HARRISON , b. 1753; m. DAVID O. COUPLAND.
iii. BENJAMIN (VI) HARRISON , b. 1755; m. (1) ANNA MERCER; m. (2) SUSANNAH RANDOLPH.*
iv. LUCY HARRISON , b. Bet. 1756 - 1757; m. (1) PEYTON RANDOLPH ; m. (2) ANTHONY SINGLETON. *
v. CARTER BASSETT HARRISON, b. 1758; d. 1808.
vi. SARAH "SALLIE" HARRISON , b. 1770; m. JOHN MINGE.
vii. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON, b. 1773; d. 1841; m. ANNA SYMMES.
* If there is no date available, the marriages may not be numbered in the correct order.
For notes on John Edmondson Generation 1 - see above under Elizabeth Harrison (i)
Descendants of John Edmondson
Generation No. 1
1. JOHN 6 EDMONDSON (THOMAS JR. 5, THOMAS4 , JAMES3 , THOMAS 2, UNKNOWN 1) was born Abt. 1751 in Essex County, Virginia, and died Bet. 1802 - 1803 in Augusta County, Virginia. He married (1) ELIZABETH "BETSY" HARRISON Abt. 1789, daughter of BENJAMIN HARRISON and ELIZABETH BASSETT. She was born 1751 in Berkeley, Charles City County, Virginia, and died 1791. He married (2) LUCY C OCKE Abt. 1795, daughter of THOMAS COCKE and SUSANNA ACRILL. She was born in Surry County, Virginia, and died 20 Nov 1833 in Staunton, Augusta County, Virginia.
More About JOHN EDMONDSON and ELIZABETH HARRISON:
Marriage: Abt. 1789
Notes for LUCY COCKE:
Date of death from Gordon-Coleman Bible in the Library of Virginia. (scans online) pg 9
Marriage Notes for JOHN EDMONDSON and LUCY COCKE:
Per Supreme Court Case - alternate date 01-05-1792
More About JOHN EDMONDSON and LUCY COCKE:
Marriage: Abt. 1795
Children of JOHN EDMONDSON and LUCY COCKE are:
2. i. ELIZABETH7 EDMONDSON, b. 1796; d. 20 Jun 1864, Staunton, Augusta County, Virginia.
ii. JOHN EDMONDSON , b. Bet. 1792 - 1802; d. 30 Jun 1862.
iii. WILLIAM EDMONDSON, b. Bet. 1792 - 1802; d. Bef. 1802.
Generation No. 2
2. ELIZABETH 7 EDMONDSON (JOHN 6, THOMAS J R.5, THOMAS4 , JAMES3 , THOMAS 2, UNKNOWN 1) was born 1796, and died 20 Jun 1864 in Staunton, Augusta County, Virginia. She married LYTTLETON WADDELL Apr 1814. He was born 10 Oct 1790, and died 11 Mar 1869 in Churchville, Augusta County, Virginia.
Notes for ELIZABETH EDMONDSON:
Date of death from Gordon-Coleman Bible in the Library of Virginia. (scans online) pg 9
Notes for LYTTLETON WADDELL:
Lyttelton Waddell, (P) Teacher, Staunton, VA; b 10th Oct 1790 md Elizabeth Edmondson. d. 11 Mar 1869
__________________________________________
Call Number 26147
URL (Click on link) http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/Bible/26147/index.html Bible Record Image
Title Gordon-Coleman family Bible record, 1742-1909.
Material 9 leaves.
Summary Area covered is New Kent County, Virginia. Bible printed in 1847. Other surnames mentioned: Anderson, Bartenstein, Beale, Bell, Blair, Bragg, Brooke, Burwell, Christian, Churchill, Coalter, Cochrane(?), Cole, Conway, Cooke, Edmondson, Edrington, Ellis, Fitzhugh, Gill, Glasgow(?), Harrison, Hill, Howison, Jones, Lacy, Lee, Lindsay, McGhee, Montgomery, Payne, Pleasants, Rennie, Smith, Spark, Staples, Storrs, Waddell, Williamson, Wood and Woolfolk.
Format Photocopies.
Subject - Personal Anderson family
Bartenstein family
Beale family
Bell family
Blair family
Bragg family
Brooke family
Burwell family
Christian family
Churchill family
Coalter family
Cochrane family
Cole family
Coleman family
Conway family
Cooke family
Edmondson family
Edrington family
Ellis family
Fitzhugh family
Gill family
Glasgow family
Gordon family
Harrison family
Hill family
Howison family
Jones family
Lacy family
Lee family
Lindsay family
McGhee family
Montgomery family
Payne family
Pleasants family
Rennie family
Smith family.
Sparks family.
Staples family
Storrs family.
Waddell family
Williamson family
Wood family
Woolfolk family
Genre/Form Bible records -- Virginia -- New Kent County.
Series Bible records collection; 26147
holdings (1) All items
System Number 000488914
Marriage Notes for ELIZABETH EDMONDSON and LYTTLETON WADDELL :
April 1814 per the Gordon-Coleman family Bible record, 1742-1909. at the Library of Virginia (scans online)
More About L YTTLETON WADDELL and ELIZABETH EDMONDSON:
Marriage: Apr 1814
Children of ELIZABETH EDMONDSON and LYTTLETON WADDELL are:
i. LUCY ANN 8 WADDELL , b. 12 Jul 1815; m. WILLIAM DEWEY COOKE .
ii. JAMES ADDISON WADDELL, b. 26 Nov 1817; m. SUSANNA COLEMAN GORDON , 07 Aug 1844.
More About JAMES WADDELL and SUSANNA GORDON:
Marriage: 07 Aug 1844
iii. JOHN SYDNEY WADDELL, b. 22 May 1820; d. 01 Jul 1841.
Notes for JOHN SYDNEY WADDELL:
Date of death from Gordon-Coleman Bible in the Library of Virginia. (scans online) pg 9
iv. MARY ELIZABETH WADDELL, b. 04 May 1823; d. 20 Apr 1837.
Notes for MARY ELIZABETH WADDELL:
Date of death from Gordon-Coleman Bible in the Library of Virginia. (scans online) pg 9
v. JANETTA SARAH WADDELL, b. 19 Dec 1826; d. 24 Dec 1840.
Notes for JANETTA SARAH WADDELL:
Date of death from Gordon-Coleman Bible in the Library of Virginia. (scans online) pg 9
vi. LYTTLETON J R. WADDELL, b. 24 Jan 1829; d. 01 May 1886, Charlottesville, Virginia; m. N ANNIE E. H. MONTGOMERY, 14 Nov 1850, Popular Grove, Augusta County, Virginia.
More About L YTTLETON W ADDELL and NANNIE M ONTGOMERY:
Marriage: 14 Nov 1850, Popular Grove, Augusta County, Virginia
vii. VIRGINIA WADDELL, b. 29 Dec 1831.
viii. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON WADDELL, b. 16 Jan 1835; m. MAGGIE A. BURWELL , 28 Jul 1859, Lewisburg, Virginia.
More About WILLIAM WADDELL and MAGGIE BURWELL:
Marriage: 28 Jul 1859, Lewisburg, Virginia
ix. CHARLES EDWARD WADDELL, b. 21 Feb 1837; d. 17 Dec 1839.
Notes for CHARLES EDWARD WADDELL:
Date of death from Gordon-Coleman Bible in the Library of Virginia. (scans online) pg 9
x. ELIZABETH EDMONDSON WADDELL, b. 19 Sep 1840; d. 06 Aug 1841.
Notes for ELIZABETH EDMONDSON WADDELL:
Date of death from Gordon-Coleman Bible in the Library of Virginia. (scans online) pg 9
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/rickman/messages/724.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|