Family History
|
Family History |
|
|
|
| Back |
Mentioned in Ketchum v. Ryerss - 1799
|
Chancery Court of New Jersey Daniel Ketchum To his Excellency Richard Howell Esquire Governor Captain
General & Commander in Chief of the State of New Jersey, Chancellor and
Ordinary of the same The answer of Gozen Ryerss of Staten Island in the State of
New York to the Bill of Complaint of David Ketchum of the County of Monmouth and
State of New Jersey Complainant The said defendant saving and reserving to himself now and
at all times hereafter all and all manner of benefit and advantage of exception
to the many uncertainties and imperfections in the complainants said bill
contained, for answer thereunto so much thereof as materially concerns this
defendant (damaged - missing words) unto, he answereth and saith, that it may be true that sometime in the year of our Lord
one thousand seven hundred and (damaged - missing words) John T. Holmes
of the said County of Monmouth entered into an agreement with the complainant to
sell to the (damaged - missing words) Farm or plantation then belonging
to the said John T. Holmes in the said County of Monmouth for the price of five
thousand (damaged - missing words) that the complainant satisfied the
said John T. Holmes to about the sum of two thousand pounds. And that the said John T. Holmes was indebted to one John
Stites in about the sum of one thousand pounds for goods sent by the said John
Stites to the said John T. Holmes from New York in the late war between the
United States of America and Great Britain. And that it was agreed between the said Holmes, Stites
and the complainant, that the complainant should satisfy the said Stites
for seven hundred and sixty pounds on account of the said Holmes which was to be
allowed by the said Holmes in part payment of the said Farm or plantation. And that the said complainant not being able to pay the
said seven hundred and sixty pounds persuaded one Joseph Stilwell of the County
of Monmouth to be security for him and to join in a Bond to the said John
Stites for that sum, but as this defendant doth not know the same to be
true, he neither admits or denies the same but leaves the complainant to make
due proof thereof if the same is any way material or can be of any advantage to
the complainant. And this defendant admits it to be true that the said
complainant and Joseph Stillwell did duly execute to the said John Stites
a Bond in the final sum of one thousand five hundred and twenty pounds current
money of the State of New York to be paid to the said John Stites or his
assigns with a condition there under written? that if the said complainant and
the said Joseph Stillwell their heirs executors or administrators or any of them
should well and truly pay or cause to be paid unto the said John Stites
or to his certain attorney executors, administrators or assigns the just and
full sum of seven hundred and sixty pounds current money of the State of New
York on or before the seventh day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand
seven hundred and eighty four with interest at six per cent per annum and that
without fraud? or any other delay, then the said Obligation should be void or
else remain in full force and virtue, as by the said Bond or Obligation now in
this defendants custody, and ready to be produced as this Honorable Court may
direct may now fully and at large appear. And the defendant admits that the said John Stites
was indebted unto this defendant on the seventh day of December in the year one
thousand seven hundred and eighty three and not in the year one thousand seven
hundred and eighty four as is alleged in the complainant’s bill and by his
indorsement on the said obligation did in due form of law assign and transfer
unto this defendant the bond as aforesaid executed to the said John Stites
by the complainant and Joseph Stillwell, by which the said bond and all the
money due and that might become due thereon from the said complainant and the
said Joseph Stillwell became the property of and payable by them to this
defendant. And this defendant further answering says that he doth not
know or admit it to be true that the said John T. Holmes refused to compleat the
said contact of sale of the said plantation to the complainant and obliged
himself to refund and repay to the complainant all the payments and
satisfactions he had received thereon and gave bonds to the complainant therefor
and that amongst the rest to repay the contents of the bond given to the said John
Stites and assigned to this defendant as this defendant was not consulted by
the said parties or had any interest or concern in the same and this defendant
admits it to be true that the said John T. Holmes afterwards became much
embarrassed in his affairs and was unable to satisfy the demands against him. And this defendant further says he received a message from
the complainant and the said John T. Holmes requesting him to meet them at the
farm of the said Holmes in the County of Monmouth and that the defendant met
them accordingly and found at the same time the said complainant and several
other creditors of the said Holmes there assembled when the said Holmes
represented that he was at that time unable to pay and satisfy all his creditors
but that if they would not push him but give him time he made us doubt but he
should be able to pay them all honestly and that in the conversation it was
recommended and proposed that the creditors of the said John T. Holmes should
give him a letter of licence for six years, but whether this was first mentioned
by the said Holmes or this defendant or some other person this defendant does
not now recollect and is unable to tell. And the said Daniel Ketchum remarked that he would not sign
the said letter of licence for the said Holmes unless this defendant would agree
to give him the same indulgence in the payment of the said bond, to which this
defendant consented upon the promise of the said complainant that the interest
due on the said bond should be fully paid up in a short time and that the said
bond should draw seven per cent per annum from that time and should be
punctually paid off at the end of the time. And this defendant admits that after the time agreed upon
as aforesaid had expired he again called for his money due on the said bond
assigned to him as aforesaid and that the said John T. Holmes told him to have a
little patience and he would endeavor to pay him the money which he owed to the
complainant and this defendant in the most full p??? and unequivocal manner
denies that this defendant at any time whatever agreed to look to the said
Holmes for the payment of the said bond and to discharge the said complainant. And this defendant admits that having frequently called
upon the complainant and the said Joseph Stillwell for payment of the said bond
without success, put the said bond into the hands of Samuel McHoutey??? Esq. to
prosecute sued out a writ of Copius ad respondendum against the said complainant
returnable before the Judges of the Inferior Court of Common Pleas at Freehold
in the County of Monmouth in the term of July in the year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and ninety four as he supposes. And this defendant also fully and positively
denies that in the said term of July or at any other time whatever that
he entered into an agreement with the complainant and the said John T. Holmes
that if on a settlement between the said complainant and the said John T. Holmes
there should be as much money due to the complainant from the said Holmes as
should amount to the sum on the bond aforesaid, that in such case this defendant
would look to the said Holmes and discharge the complainant or any other
agreement to that purpose or effect. And this defendant admits that in the beginning of the year
one thousand seven hundred and ninety six the principal sum of the said bond and
a large arrear of interest thereon remaining unpaid and being of opinion that he
should recover his money more speedily and with less trouble by prosecuting both
the complainant and the said Joseph Stillwell in the Supreme Court, this
defendant gave directions to the said Samuel M Rontrey?? to discontinue the suit
aforesaid in the said Court of Common Pleas and sued out of the Supreme Court of
the State of New Jersey a writ of Copius ad respondendum on the same bond in the
name of the said John Stites against the said complainant and the said
Joseph Stillwell returnable to the term of April in the year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and ninety six, which was served on both defendants by
the Sheriff of the said County. And that soon afterwards the said John T. Holmes applied to
this defendant and did propose and offer to sell him a certain tract of land
which he owned in the County of Monmouth at a low price (as he said) and that he
would accept the bond before mentioned as payment as he was indebted to the said
complainant and this complainant told him as he was not acquainted with the said
land, he the said Holmes must get him some judicious and reputable men to value
it and that then this defendant would go and see it and if they should agree,
that this defendant would take a deed for it and give him the said bond in
payment and that the said John T. Holmes soon afterwards without obtaining any
valuation of the said Farm, that came to the knowledge of this defendant
departed this life. And this defendant denies that he made any agreement with
the said John T. Holmes for the price of the said land and to take a deed for
the said land in satisfaction of the said bond, or that this defendant was to
attend at Freehold for the purpose of receiving the deed and taking possession
of the said land in pursuance of the said agreement as is untruly charges in the
said complainant’s bill. And this defendant in answering further says in the month
of October one thousand seven hundred and ninety six the said complainant did
apply to him which was after the death of the said John T. Holmes and did
entreat this defendant to take an assignment of two certain bonds which he had
against the said John T. Holmes and endeavor to obtain the money due on the said
bonds from the administrators of the estate of the said John T. Holmes who was
alleged had left property enough to pay his debts and if the defendant should
recover the money due on the said bonds he this defendant might apply it in
discharge of the said bond of the complainant and Joseph Stillwell and in the
mean time to delay all further proceedings on the said bonds And that this
defendant at the entreaty of the said complainant and merely to oblige him and
the said Joseph Stillwell did take an assignment of the said bonds of the said
Holmes upon the terms before mentioned and did agree to delay all further
proceedings against the said complainant and the said Joseph Stillwell until it
should be known whether the said money could be obtained out of the estate of
the said deceased and this defendant gave the said complainant a receipt
accordingly and that a short time afterwards it appearing that the estate of the
said John T. Holmes was insufficient to pay his debts this defendant returned
the said bonds of the said Holmes to the said complainant and his receipt
therefore was delivered also to him by the said complainant. And this complainant soon afterwards proceeded in his suit
in the Supreme Court and the said complainant and the said Joseph Stillwell
having filed their plea, the said cause was noticed for trial at the Circuit
Court held at New Brunswick in and for the County of Middlesex in the month of
June in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight when
the trial thereof was put off on the affidavit of the said Joseph Stillwell. And the said cause being again noticed for trial in the
month of June last the said complainant caused to be served on the attorney of
this defendant a writ of injunction issuing out of and under the seal of this
Honorable Court having filed his bill of complaint. And this defendant further says that a certain bond
executed by one Robert Imock?? to the complainant for the sum of one thousand
three hundred pounds or thereabouts was deposited by the complainant in the
hands of the said Joseph Stillwell on or about the month of July in the year one
thousand seven hundred and ninety six for the more effectual securing and
indemnifying this defendant and the said Joseph Stillwell on account of the said
bond assigned to this defendant as aforesaid by the said John Stites in
order to induce this defendant to give a further delay and time for payment of
the said bond. And this defendant denies all manner of combination and confederacy wherewith
he stands charged in and by the said bill of complaint without that that there
is any other matter or thing for this defendant to make answer unto and not
herein and truly well and sufficiently answered unto confessed or avoided,
traversed or denied is true all which matter and things this defendant is ready
to aver and prove as this Honorable Court shall direct and award and humbly
prays he may be hence dismissed with his (damaged - missing word/s) costs
and charges in this behalf most wrongly ordained Filed Nov 15th 1799 Acknowledgments to the New Jersey State Archives :- |