- 1 February 1908 Tazewell County :: Chancery Causes: Sarah E. Brooks VS. George Burress
To the Hon. W.J. Henson, Judge of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, Virginia:
Your complainants, Sarah E. Brooks, Mary E. Brooks and Hattie V. Brooks, would respectfully represent that their father, Jerome B. Yost, died in the year 1885, intestate, leaving to survive him as his heirs at law a widow, Rachael, L. Yost, and four children, to-wit, (1) your complainant, Sarah E. Brooks (nee Yost); (2) your complainant, Mary F. Brooks (nee Yost); (3) Robert L. Yost; and (4) your complainant, Hattie V. Brooks (nee Yost); that Sarah E. Brooks is now thirty (30) years of age; that Mary F. Brooks is now twenty-eight (28) years of age; that Robert L. Yost is now twenty-six (26) years of age; and that Hattie V. Brooks is now twenty-two (22) years of age, the youngest, Hattie V. Brooks, being only six months old when her father died; that Sarah E. intermarried with M.C. Brooks; that Mary F. intermarried with Joseph Brooks; that Hattie V. intermarried with James P. Brooks; and the said Rachael L. Yost, the mother of complainants, and the widow of Jerome B. Yost, deceased, after the death of the said Jerome B. Yost, intermarried with John R. Radford.
Your complainants further represent that just prior to the death of the said Jerome B. Yost he was negotiating with one Edward P. Moore for the purchase of one hundred (100 A) acres of land situated in Tazewell County, Virginia, on Little Stony Ridge and Big Stony Ridge, but that before the money was paid and the deed executed for said land the said Jerome B. Yost died, and after the death of the said Jerome B. Yost his widow, with her children, moved into the home of George Burress, who was the father of Rachael L., the widow of the said Jerome B. Yost, and the grandfather of complainants. Just after the death of the said Jerome B. Yost and after the said Rachel L., widow of Jerome B. Yost, with her children, had moved into the home of the said George Burress, the said Edward P. Moore came to the home of the said George Burress for the purpose of completing the sale for the said one hundred (100 A.) acres of land and executing a deed and receiving the purchase money for the same, and the said George Burress, acting for the said widow and children of the said Jerome B. Yost, deceased, purchased the said one hundred (100 A) acres of land from the said Edward P. Moore and paid for the same out of the money and property which Jerome B. Yost owned at the time he died, the said one hundred acres (100 A) of land being purchased for the sum of Three Hundred and fifty ($350.00) dollars.
Your complainants would further represent that although the said tract of land was purchased from the said Edward P. Moore by the said George Burress for the heirs at law of the said Jerome B. Yost, deceased, and with the funds furnished by the estate of the said Jerome B. Yost, the said George Burress had the land conveyed by the said Edward P. Moore and wife to himself, when it should have been conveyed to the heirs at law of the said Jerome B. Yost. The said deed from the said Edward P. Moore and wife to the said George Burress is dated the 21st. day of May, 1888 and is now of record in the office of the Clerk of Tazewell County, Virginia, in Deed Book 24, Page 228, a certified copy of which is herewith filed as a part of this bill, marked ?Exhibit A?.
Your complainants would further represent that the said George Burress, together with the widow and children of the said Jerome b. Yost, moved upon said one hundred (100 A) acres of land and began to cultivate the same and to get their maintenance and support from said land. The widow and all of the children of the said Jerome B. Yost worked upon said land and assisted in farming the same and raising the crops, from which they realized their support. At the time the said land was conveyed by the said Edward P. Moore and wife to the said George Burress, the said George Burress was in very poor circumstances, having no land and very little, if any, personal property, but after the date of the said deed they all lived and worked together until the daughters of the said Jerome B. Yost married and left the said land. During the whole of the time that the said widow and heirs of the said Jerome B. Yost lived upon the said land with the said George Burress, the widow and all the girls, with the others, assisted in all of the work on the said land, the girls working in the fields with the said George Burress.
Your complainants would further represent that at the time the said deed was made by the said Edward P. Moore and wife to the said George Burress they were small children, the oldest one being eight years of age, and that after the said deed was made their mother requested the said George Burress to execute a deed, conveying the said land to the heirs of the said Jerome B. Yost, deceased, and the said George Burress stated to their mother that he would hold the whole of said land for the said children of the said Jerome B. Yost, deceased, to which their mother consented, and during the whole time since the conveyance by the said Edward P. Moore and wife to the said George Burress he has lived upon the said land with all or part of the heirs at law of the said Jerome B. Yost, with the understanding that he was holding the said land for the said heirs at law of the said Jerome B. Yost.
Your complainants would further represent that the said George Burress is now over seventy years of age and has become dissatisfied and states that he is going to sell said land and dispose of the proceeds of the sale as he wishes, but that none of complainants are to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the said land.
Your complainants would further represent that until the last few months their brother, Robert L. Yost, was friendly with them and acknowledged that the said one hundred (100 A) acres of land was held by the said George Burress for the heirs at law of the said Jerome B. Yost, deceased, and that the said heirs at law were the real owners of said land, but recently he has become estranged from complainants and complainants believe and aver that the said Robert L. Yost has persuaded the said George Burress to convert the said land into money, believing when this is done that he will get from said George Burress the proceeds derived from the sale of said land.
Your complainants are advised and believe that the heirs at law of the said Jerome B. Yost are the owners of said one hundred (100 A) acres of land and are entitled to have a conveyance from the said George Burress to them of the same, and that complainants are entitled to have their part of said land conveyed to each of them.
Your complainants further represent that they are advised and believe that they are entitled to recover from the said George Burress a reasonable amount for the rents, issues and profits of the said land, which he has converted to his own use.
At the time of the conveyance from Edward P. Moore and wife to the said George Burress, the said George Burress was married, his wife being ______ Burress, who is still living.
Being without remedy at law, your complainants come into a court of equity and pray that George Burress and _________ Burress, his wife, Rachael L. Radford and Robert L. Yost be made parties defendant to this bill, and be required to answer the same, but not on oath, oath being waived under the statute; that the said George Burress and _______ Burress, his wife, be required to convey to complainants the interest of complainants in the said one hundred (100 A) acres of land and that they recover from the said George Burress a reasonable amount for the rents, issues and profits derived from the use of said land, which the said George Burress has converted to his own use.
And the complainants pray for all such other, further and general relief as the nature of their case may require, or to equity shall seem meet. And they will ever pray, etc.
Signed Greever Gillespie
????????????????????????????????
To the Hon. W.J. Henson, Judge of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County.
The separate answer of Robert L. Yost to a bill in chancery exhibited against him in Court by Sarah E. Brooks and others, respectfully states that it is charged in said bill that until the last few months your respondent was friendly with the complainants and acknowledged that the One Hundred acres of land was held by his grandfather and co-defendant, George Burress, for the heirs at law of Jerome B. Yost, deceased, and that said heirs at law were real owners of said land, but that your respondent has recently become estranged from complainants and that complainants believe that your respondent has persuaded said George Burress to convert said land into money so as your respondent would finally get the proceeds thereof. This allegation must rest wholly in the imagination of the complainants, for there is not the slightest truth in it and your respondent denies it. Your respondent, since he has left the home of his grandfather, which was when he was about eighteen years old, has been working for himself and attending to his own business, and he is free to say that he believes the attempt to take said land from his grandfather by the complainants is one of ingratitude and very unjust and unfounded. It is true that your respondent was very young when his father died, and when his grandfather purchased said land and his father being very poor and diseased for several years before his death, your respondents mother and his sisters were taken to the home of their grandfather, some two or three years before he went upon the one hundred acres of land, and that respondents mother remained a short while with her father, then left all of the children, except Hattie, who she took away and carried from place to place for a while and then returned her to her grandfather, and his mother took away with her all of the household articles which belonged to his father.
Your respondents grandfather took good care of him and his sisters, clothed and fed them well, maintained them above want, and let them have education at the free schools in the neighborhood, by which, at least, your respondent has been able to go out into the world since he was eighteen years old and make a good living.
Your respondent knows the fact that his father left little or no personal property at his death, and respondent does not believe that he ever bought the land or negotiated to buy it from E.P. Moore, but he believes that his grandfather bought and paid for it.
Of this your respondent is certain, that this grandfather moved upon this tract of land while it was all in woods, built his dwelling-house and cut houses upon it, and cleared up one half of it with his own hands.
Wherefore your respondent prays hence to be dismissed, with his costs, etc.
Signed Henry & Graham, Counsel for Respondent.
??????????????????
To the Hon. W. J. Henson, Judge of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, Virginia
Sarah E. Brooks and others, having exhibited a bill in chancery in this court against George W. Burress and others, the said George W. Burress comes and says that the matters and things alleged in said bill are not sufficient in law or equity to maintain the same; wherefore, the said George W. Burress demurs to said bill and prays judgment of the court thereon. For special causes of demurrer the said George W. Burress says:
1. The bill is with equity to sustain it
2. It seeks to obtain the relief prayed for by attempting to show a constructive trust, but the allegations thereof are insufficient, both in law and equity, to establish such trust
3. The lapse of time and change of circumstances, as well as the change of the character of the land as disclosed by the bill, are sufficient to deprive the complainants of relief in a court of equity.
If the foregoing demurrer should be overruled and the said defendant, George W. Burress, be required to answer said bill then he answers and says: That he is the owner in fee-simple of the one hundred acres of land in the bill mentioned, and conveyed to him by Edward P. Moore and wife by the deed dated the 21st day of May, 1888, a copy of which is filed as part of said bill (exhibit A) that he purchased this land himself and for himself, directly from the said Edward P. Moore and paid therefor the said sum of $350.oo the consideration mentioned in the deed.
Your respondent further represents and avers that the allegations of said bill, that Jerome B. Yost in his lifetime negotiated with the said Edward P. Moore for the purchase of said land, or that after the death of the said Jerome B. Yost, your respondent acting for the widow and children of the said Jerome B. Yost, purchased the said one hundred acres of land for the said wife and children of the said Jerome B. Yost, and paid for the same out of the money and property which the said Jerome B. Yost owned at the time of his death, are wholly unfounded and untrue, and your respondent further avers that each and all of the allegations of said bill, which are contrary to the statements hereinabove made by your respondent, namely, that he himself and for himself purchased said land from the said Moore and paid for same, are equally unfounded and untrue.
It is stated in said bill that the said Jerome B. Yost died in the year 1885, intestate, and that just prior to his death he was negotiation with Moore for said land; when the truth is that said Moore died not at that time own said land, and really acquired it by purchase at a judicial sale on the 20th of October, 1886, from J.W. Chapman, Commissioner, acting under decrees of a chancery cause then pending in the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, Virginia, which said sale was confirmed by decree on the 17th day of November, 1886, and the land conveyed by said Commissioner, Chapman, to the said Edward P. Moore, on the 23rd day of April 1888, by deed of that date, a copy of which said deed is filed as part of the answer, marked ?Moore.?
Your respondent further avers and represents that E.P. Moore, being the owner of a debt for which this land was sold at the judicial sale, wanted your respondent to purchase same at said judicial sale (Moore really paying $175.85 for said land) but your respondent would not do so, but in a very few days after Moore got a conveyance for said land he agreed to purchase the same from Moore, and on the 21st day of May, 1888, less than a month after Moore obtained his deed from the Commissioner, your respondent obtained his conveyance from Moore.
It is true, as stated in the bill, that your respondent is now over Seventy years of age and when he was much younger, by about twenty years, when he went upon this tract of land which was in an isolated place and all a heavy forest of timber, and your respondent at once after his purchase, took possession of this land, erected a little cabin on it, went to work clearing it up and has now cleared on it about fifty acres, and has erected thereon a better dwelling house of four rooms, a good frame barn, twenty feet square, well shedded around, corn cribs, meat house, good spring house, and planted out a good orchard, which has had time to grow up, and is now well bearing fruit ? so improving his said land, almost by his own individual labor, as to now make it worth not less than $2000.00 The said Jerome B. Yost was a son-in-law of your respondent and for many years before his death was in feeble health, afflicted with consumption and incurable, and for a few years before his death was unable to support himself and family, and having neither land and but little or no personal property, your respondent supported him and his family until he died; and after his death, paid some of his remaining debts, and his wife and children, three of whom are now complaints in this suit, came to your respondent?s house, when they were very small, complainants Sarah and Hattie remained with your respondent until they were married and Mary remained there 8 or 10 years, and the defendant, Robert L. Yost, stayed with your respondent until he was 17 or 18 years old. During that time your respondent had them to attend the free schools and clothed and fed them, and now he is being repaid, as in many times the case, with their ingratitude by attempting to drive out your respondent in his old age and render him homeless and helpless. His daughter, the wife of Jerome B. Yost, remained with your respondent until she unfortunately, behaved badly, and left your respondent?s home and married again, and never returned, abandoning at once all her children except the youngest, which she carried from place to place for a while, and finally returned her to your respondent. When she left, she took with her all the household articles which were left by her husband at his death. All this occurred before respondent moved on the said one hundred acres of land.
Your respondent further represents and avers, that Jerome B. Yost left no property at his death out of which to pay for said land. True, your respondent was what might be called a poor man when he purchased the land from Moore, but he had ample means to pay for same, which he did promptly. It is not true that the widow of Jerome B. Yost and the children worked the land. The widow was not there and the children were of tender years, and if any work they did, it was light and of no consequence. The allegations of the bill that your respondent stated to the widow of Jerome B. Yost that he would hold the whole of said land for the children of Jerome B. Yost, is wholly false and unfounded. It is also untrue that his co-defendant, Robert L. Yost, has persuaded your respondent to convert said land into money, with a view to himself finally getting it. This charge is reckless and unfounded. As evidence of the fact that our respondent has been always dealing with said land as his own and as he pleased and had a right to do several years ago, ten or more, he sold off a boundary thereof, probably eighteen or twenty acres, for two hundred ($200.00) and conveyed same which is now the property of one Charles Bowman.
Your respondent denies any and all allegations of the bill, inconsistent with the statements of this answer. Your respondent has denied the allegations of the bill and has shown that they cannot be true, but is advised by his counsel, as a question of law, that if the allegations of the bill were true (and they are not) that the lapse of time since your respondent purchased said land and took possession thereof, and the changes which have taken place, as shown on the face of said bill, and the want of legal or equitable facts set forth in said bill, and the insufficiency generally of said bill, should cause the court to dismiss same without annoying and harassing your respondent with making further defenses in this cause, not to mention the fact of the changes which your respondent has made by his labor and expenditures upon said land, and the great expense, trouble and care imposed upon him in rearing and maintaining the plaintiffs. And having fully answered, prays hence to be dismissed with his costs, etc.
Signed Henry and Graham, Counsel for Respondent.
|
1837 - 1916 (79 years)
Census 1850
: Address
: Location
: City/Town
: County/Shire
: State/Province
: Country
: Not Set
