This is still corrected OCR, not a fully proofread diplomatic transcription. Check the linked page image before quoting.
Transcript sections
Front matter and printed index
I good book is the precious life - blood of a masterspirit embalmed and treasured up on purposee to a life beyond life. wilton. Vol. •Chadwick..1 Schanck. V. wayor of N.Y.. 1. Kline. V. queens Ins. Co. 1. Goetchens. V. MAthewson.est: 5. Vrooman. V. Turner. 6. Chapman. V. Porter..7 Pulver. V. WArtin. 8. Nat. Broadway Bank. V. Wiler. 9. P e o. e x. r e l. F o Kl. V. R S. of Police & Excisee 10. Wright..V Booth. 11. B 5. 0 of Excise. V. Curley. 12. Evans. V. City of Litica. 4. 1..9 1930. ROKINS CONSULTATION LERART 254.1878..V Fonner. 254 10851-10892 COURT OF APPEALS. JOHN CHADWICK, Respondent, AGAINST JOHN FONNER, ET AL. Appellants. CASE AND EXCEPTIONS. FARNELL & BRAZEE, Respondent's Attorneys. LEWIS &GURNEY, Appellant's Attorneys. BUFFALO: WILLIAMBOLAND, JR., PRINTER. Cor. Swan and Franian Sts. 1876. 10851 Bett's, Eliza A. Brazee, Andrew W Billing, John Brown, Elias B. Chadwick, John Carney James Darnfelt, Albert Driggs, Uriall Feltus, Elizabeth Gentz, John Haines, Jessie P. Johnson, John Johnson, Hannah Whitman Jacobs, Thomasa Keith, Keith, Sarah Molcent, Frederick McMerrick, Solomon S. Nugent. James Peters, James R. Shell, Giles Shell, Peter Sherman. David A. Sweeney, William James Simson. Sm one Wi l i am Simson, John Warren, James Warren, Franklin Wendt, William fols. 100- 104, 370, 371 fols. 311, 812 fols. 413- fois. 104. 109, 313 fols. 14- 131 87 fols. 315 -317 fols. 838-340, 371, 378 fols. 332 -334 fols. 406 fols. 841 -348 fols. 86- 89. 94 148, 303. 406, 13 5 fols. 385- -389, 397 399 fols. 390 -397 fols. 89- -93, 334 338 f ols, fols. 98, INDEX TO CASE. Fols. Summons, Complaint, Answer. Referee's Report, Opinion, Judgment, Order, substitution of plaintiff, Notice of Appeal, Judgment, Opinion, Notice of Appeall to Court of Appeals.
441 65 77 481- 491 492-500 501-504 PLAINTIFP'S WITNESSES. fols. 137- fols. 181 -137 fols. 112--114,317 fols. f ol s. T f 86 纵63 f 90 A8 F 路f 洲球概H0h淤那測h%出7說%孤 Bush, William T. Cramer, John W Collins, Thomas De Rapelyea, 19l1 Darnfeldt, William Eggert, Aaron W. Ernstein, Charles Ernstein, Rosina Fanning, Rufus Fisher, Casper Ponner, John No ose, Benjamin Houghton, Andrew P Hoyer, Frederick F. Jacobs, Daniel C J u d d, Garwood L. Kent, Charles Leste Salamin Hi Milliman. Edward A Pay ne, Eugene Payne, Louis S. Pickard, Sylvanus Ransom, Levant Ra nsom, Asa Ransom, Miriam Rand. Calvin G Rumpbold, Catherine Rumpbold, George Rumpbold, Jacob Swinger, William fol. 304 fol. 8 10 fols. 32 8,829 fols. 210- 218 fols. 287, 238 fols. 194 -810 fols. 170-1 17: fols. 214 247, 278 fols. 308 -310 fols. 161 -163 fols. 145- 161,200 -301 fols. -290 fols. 172-174 fols. 190-194 fol. 487 t ols.247-256,802- -375 fols. 353,38 4 fol. 306 fols. 305, 306 fol. 820 f o l s. 174- -190 DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES. fols. 217- -237. 822 -937, 487- -440.fols. 214 -217 f o l s, 256 —271 , 285--287 f o l s. 271- 273 fols. 273 - 277, 279- -285 fols. 302, 308, 307 fols. 241--244 f o l s. 238 —240 fols. 168-170 fols. 306, 807 SUPREME COURT, 1 COUNTY OF NIAGARA. JOHN JOHNSON, JOHN CHADWICK, AND DAVID A. SHERMAN, Plaintiffs, AGAINST J O in FONNER AND ELIZABHTE FONNER, MIS WIFE, PAMELLL P HOUGHTON AND ANDREW.J SUMMONS. HOLGHTON, HER HUSBAND, MIRIAM D. RANSOM AND LEVANT RAN- SOM, HER HUSBAND, MARY.A ROW- LAND AND WILLIAM ROWLAND, HER HUSBAND, AND JESSE F. LOCKE, Defendants. 2 To John Fonner and Elizabeth Fonner, his wife, Pamelia P. Houghton and Andrew J. Houghton, her husband, Miriam D. Ransom and Levant Ransom, her 3 husband, Mary A.
Summons and complaint
Rowland and Wiliam Rowland, her husband, and Jesse.F Locke, Defendants. You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint of John Johnson, John Chadwick and David.ASherman, Plaintiffs, which is filed in the office of the Clerk of Niagara county, ta the city of Lockport, in the State of New York, and to serve a copy of your answer on the sub-4 scribers at their office in said city of Lockport within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or the plaintiffs will apply to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint. PARVELL & BRAZEE, Plaintiffs' Att'ys, Lockport, N.Y.. 5SUPREME (OURT--OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Niagara County. JOHN JOHNSON, JOHN CHADWICK, AND DAVID A. SHERMAN. Plaintiff's, AGAINST JOHN FONNER AND Elizabeth FONNER, HIS WIFE, PAMELIA P. HOUGHTON AND ANDREW J. HOUGHTON, HER HUSBIND, MIRIAM 6 D. RANSOM AND LEVANT RAN. SOM, HER HUSBAND, MARY A, ROW. LAND AND WILLIAM ROWLAND, HER HUSZAND, AND JESSE F. LOCKE, Defendants. The above named plaintiffs complaining against the above named defendants, alege that heretofore on the thirteenth day of March, in the year 1847, the late Jessee F. Locke, Sr., was seized in fee simple of, and 7possessed of all that certain piece or parcel of land situate in the town of Wheatfield, in the county of Niagara, and State of New York, and being the northwest part of lot number ten, township number twelve and range eight of the Holland Purchase, so called, bounded and described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said lot number ten; thence running east along the north line of said lot ten chains;
thence south in aline parallel to the west line of said lot, and at the distance of ten chains east therefrom about twelve chains 8 and forty links to the present line fence; thence west along the line of said fence and parallel with the north line of said lot to the west line of said lot ten chains; thence north along the west line of said lot about twelve chains and forty links to the place of beginning, containing twelve acres, more or less, and being the same premises now and for many years next prior to the com- mencement of this action, possessed and occupied by the 9 plaintiff, John Johnson; that the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., being so seized and possessed, and being desirous to disposee of said premises and lands to the plaintiff, John Johnson, the said Jessee F, Locke, Sr., and the said John Johnson, bargained together of and concerning the same, whereby the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., in consideration of the agreement and payments by the plaintiff, John Johnson, hereinafter set forth, agreed to convey by a good and sufficient deed to the plaintiff, John Johnson, 10 the said lands and premises whenever the consideration price, hereinafier stated, should be paid by said John Johnson, as hereinafter stated, and said John Johnson upon his part and in consideration of such conveyance, agreed to pay for said land and premises the sum of twelve dollars per acre in money, work, labor and services of himself and teams, and in personall property as the said John Johnson should be able to pry from time to time thereafter.
It was further then and there mutually agreed between them that the said Jöhnson mi - 12 mediately from and after said agreement should enter upon and have and possess the said land and premises, and cultivate and improve the same for his own benefit under said agreement, and that said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., should procure the said agreement to be reduced to writing for the purposee of being executed by the parties thereto. In pursuance of said agreement the said John Johnson at the time of making the same, paid to the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., to apply upon the said purchasee 12 price of said land and premises the sum of ninety-six dollars in money, and took therefor the receipt in writing, signed by the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr. The plaintiffs further allege that immediately after making the verball agreement aforesaid, the said John Johnson entered upon, and took possession of the premises aforesaid, under the agreement aforesaid, and has ever since con- 13 tinued in and now is in the possession thereof, and at divers times between the making of said agreement in the year 1859, and in the last named year he paid in full to the said Jesse.F Locke, Sr., the consideration price so as aforesaid agreed to be paid for said land, which payments in the aggregate were received and accepted by the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., in full payment and satisfaction of said consideration price. The plaintiffs further aver that the said land and 14 premises had had the timber thereon mostly chopped down at the time said agreement was made, and were then covered by old logs, stumps and rubbish, and were wild and uncultivated;
that he, plaintiff Johnson, soon after entering upon said premises as aforesaid, and while possessed thereof, being mored by the inducements and request and with the knowledge and consent of said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., commenced improving said lands and premises, and to that end cleared and removed the 15 timber, stumps and rubbish therefrom, drained the said premises, reclaimed the same from a wild and uncultivated state, except about one acre and a half of land, by cultivating the same, and thereby rendered the land so cultivated and improved, fruitful and productive, which before were unproductive waste; he also fenced the said premises and built thereon a dwelling housee and outbuildings; he also planted thereon fruit trees, vines, berry bushes and shrubbery, which have matured so as to produce abundantly fruit of various kinds in their 16 season, and which ad greatly to the beauty and value of the premises, and he otherwisee during the same time greatly improved the said premises and increased their value, and during the same time made his home and residence upon the same, and now resides thereon, and by reason of having thus improved the said premises, and by reason of his having expended the best years of his life in improving and beautifying the same, and by reason of having made his home thereon for many years, 71 he has become greatly attached thereto, and by reason of the associations connected with said premises, the same have and possess a peculiar charm for and value to him in his present old age; that the said Jessee F.
Locke, Sr., did not reduce or causee to be reduced to writing the said agreement as he had agreed as aforesaid, but in the contrary thereof, fraudulently neglected so to do, although often requested by, and frequently, from time to time, promising the said John Johnson that he would do 18 so, and he by his promises and otherwisee encouraged and induced the said John Johnson in the meantime to make the said improvements on said premises, and to pay the said consideration price for said premises; that after the said consideration price was fully paid, the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., from time to time, promised to convey the said premises to the said John Johnson by a good and sufficient deed, but did not do so; that the said John Johnson being unable to read or write, and being ignorant of the proper wya and manner of doing and 91 transacting business of this kind, and being ignorant of the alw in the premises, and relying in good faith upon the manifold promises of the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., to do as he had agreed to do, paid the said consideration price and made said improvements in good faith; that on the 12th day of March, in the year 1862, the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., died intestate, leaving heirs surviving, Mary A. Locke, his widow, now the defendant, Mary A. Rowland, she having since inter-married with, 20 and now being the wife of the defendant, William Rowland, her husband, and also leaving heirs surviving the defendants, Miriam D. Ransom, Pamelia Houghton and Jessee F. Locke, the children and sole heirs at law of him the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., deceased; that the defendant, Levant Ransom is the husband of the defendant Miriam D. Ransom, and the defendant Andrew 21 J.
Houghton, is the husband of the defendant Pimelia Houghton, and the said Elizabeth Fonner is the wife of the said John Fonner. That the said defendant John Fonner ns the grantee of the said widow and heirs at alw of the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., deceased, under deeds of conveyance thereof, executed by the said widow and heirs at alw in the year 1868, claims to be the owner of the said lands and premises. And the plaintiffs further allege that the said John Johnson, at the time of the 2 execution and delivery of the said deeds of conveyance from the said widow and heirs at law, to the said John Fonner, held the said lands and premises adversely to the said widow and heirs at law, claiming title thereto, as the said widow and heirs at law, and the said John Fonner well knew, and the said John Fonner and the said widow and heirs at law, then well knew of the rights and claims of the said John Johnson, in and to the premises, and had notice that the said John Johnson and was for many 23 Years prior thereto had ben in posesion of said lands and premises, claiming to be the owner thereof. That after the said deeds of conveyance had been executed and dolivered by the said widow and heirs ta law to the said John Fonner, the said plaintiff Johnson caused to be prepared a quit-claim deed of conveyance of the said land and premises from the said John Fonner, and Elizabeth Fonner his wife, to him said Johnson, and caused the same to be presented to him, said John Fonner and his said wife, ready to be signed and executed, and requested him.
24 said Fonner to execute and acknowledge the same, and to procure his said wife to execute and acknowledge the same, so as to entitle the same to be recorded, and offered to causee the same to be properly stamped, and to pay the expensee of such acknowledgment, but the said Fonner utterly refused to either execute and acknowledge the same, or to procure his said wife to execute and acknowledge the same, and still refuses so to do. And the plaintiffs further allege that on the 12th day 25 of April, 1869, the said John Fonner commenced action against the plaintiffs, that is to say against John Johnson separately, and also against the plaintiffs, John Chadwick and David.ASherman jointly, in acourt of Justice of the Peace, in and for said county, before A. Demfeld, a Justice of the Peace of the town of Wheatfield, to recover damages for trespasses alleged to have been committed against the rights of the said John Fonner, by the plaintiffs wrongfully entering upon the lands of the 26 said John Fonner. That the acts committed by the plaintiff respectively, which are mentioned and referred to in the complaints of the said John Fonner, as and for his causes of action against them respectively in said actions, were in fact committed on the said lands and premises so as aforesaid, in the possession of and claimed by the said John Johnson, and not elsewhere.
That the plaintiffs respectively appeared in the said actions of the said Fonner against them respectively, and respectively plead among other things the title of the said 27 John Johnson, and justified the acts complained of by the said John Fonner, under the title of the said John Johnson to the locus in quo, and said actions are pending in the Supreme Court, and have not ben tried, but are noticed for trial. That the said John Fonner claims that he has title to the premises in question under the said deeds of conveyance from the said widow and heirs which is paramount and superior to the possession and equita ble title of the plaintiff, John Johnson to the land and 28 premises herein particularly described and so as aforesaid possessed by the said John Johnson, under said agreement, and threatens to turn out and eject the said John Johnson from the same and from the possession thereof, and the said John Fonner, upon his supposed title under said deed, claims that the said plaintiffs are liable to him said John Fonner, as trespassers for acts done by them 29 on said premises, notwithstanding the possession thereof by the plaintiff Johnson and his equitable title thereto. That when the said defendant, Mary A,. inter-married with said late Jessee F. Locke, sr., the plaintiff, John Johnson was in fact seized and possessed of the said lands and premises under the said agreement, and had paid the whole or nearly the whole consideration theretor, and he has ever since such inter-marriage been so seized and possessed thereof. That the said Mary A. Rowland and said 30 children of said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., deceased, received a large amount of property and money from the estate of said deceased.
Wherefore, the plaintiffs demand judgment that the defendants and their heirs, agents, attorneys, assigns and representatives, and each and every of them be perpetually enjoined and restrained from interfering with, or in any manner disturbing or molesting the plaintiff John Johnson or his heirs or assigns, in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said land and prem- 31 isos; and that the said John Fonner, his agents, attorneys, representatives and assigns, and each and every of them be perpetually enjoined and restrained from further prosecuting said actions for alleged trespasses against thesee plaintiffs, and any actions against the plaintiff Johnson, his agents, heirs and assigns, or any of them for acts committed on the said lands and premises; and that the defendants, particularly the said John Fonner and Elizabeth Fonner his wife, be ordered, adjudged and decreed to execute and acknowledge, so as to entitle the same to be 32 recorded a good and sufficient deed of the said premises to the plaintiff John Johnson; and that the said Mary A., and the said children of the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., deceased, be decreed to make compensation to the plaintiff John Johnson, for any incumbrance, or right of dower in or charge upon said premises, caused by the act or neglect of the said Jessee F. Locke, S,.r deceased, in his lifetime, or by them or either of them as shall be equitable, and that the plaintiffs have such other further or different re- 3 lief in the premises as to the Court shall seem just and equitable, with costs of this action. FARNELL & BRAZEE, Plaintiffs' Attorneys, Lockport, N..Y STATE OF NEW YORK, SS. COUNTY oF NIAGARA. 34 John' Johnson, John Chadwick and David A.
Sherman, being each duly sworn, do each deposee and say, and each for himself says, that they are the plaintiffs mentioned in the foregoing complaint, that they have heard said complaint read, and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true of their knowledge except as to the matters alleged on information and belief, and as to thosee matters they believe it to be true, and the said John Johnson for himself says that all the materiall allegations in said complaint are true to his own knowledge, and that said John 35 Fonner in the suit against him mentioned in the complaint, claims judgment for twenty-five dollars and costs only; and the said John Chadwick, for himself says, that said Johnson has been in possession of and occupied the land described in the complaint for more than twenty-one years, claiming to own the same, that he knew Jesse.F Locke, Sr., and heard him say in his lifetime that Johnson had paid for that land, and he would give him adeed of it: and the said David A. Sherman, for himself says, 36 that he knows that said Johnson has been in possession of and occupied said land for more than ten years, claiming to own the same. And the said Chadwick and Sherman, each for himself says, that all the facts aleged in said complaint after the end of the first paragraph of folio 15 to the end of the first sentence in folio 19 of said complaint are true 37 to his own knowledge, and tliat said Fonner in his actions against them, mentioned in the complaint herein, claims judgment for only six cents damages and costs. JOHN JOHNSON, JOHN CHADWICK, D. A. SHERMAN. Sworn to before me, this 17th day of September, 1869. 38 D. MILLAR, Notary Public. 39 SUPREME COURT-COUNTY oF NIAGARA.
Defendants’ answer
JOHN JOHNSON, JOHN CHADWICK, AND DAVID A. SHERMAN, AGAINST JOHN FONNER AND Elizabeth FONNER, HIS WIFE, PAMELIA P. HOUGHTON AND ANDREW J. HOUGHTON, HER HUSBAND, MIRIAM D. RANSOM AND LEVANT RAN SOM, HER HUSBAND, MARY A. ROW- LAND AND WILLIAM ROWLAND, HER HUSBAND, AND JESSE F. LOCKE. The defendants, John Fonner and Elizabeth Fonner, his wife, answering to the plaintiffs' complaint, Admit that Jessee F. Locke, Sr., was the owner in fe during his life time of the land described in the complaint in this action; that the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., is now deceased; that he died on the 12th day of March, 40 1860; that he died intestate, and that he left him surviving the persons stated in said complaint; that the heirs of the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., deceased, have inter married with the persons in said complaint stated. Said defendants further admit the commencement and pendency of the said action by John Fonner as plaintiff against the plaintiffs in action as defendants as in said complaint stated; also that this defendant, John Fonner, purchased the said land of the heirs of said Jessee F. 41 Locke, Sr., and claims to be and is the owner thereof. Said defendants further answering, say that as to whether or not the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., made the verball agreement with said John Johnson mentioned and set forth in the plaintiffs' complaint for the purchasee of said land, or whether or not the said Johnson paid him to apply thereon the money, and performed the work and labor and services mentioned in said complaint, they have not sufficient knowledge or information to form a 42 belief, and therefore deny the same.
Said defendants further answering, deny each and every other allegation in said complaint contained, not hereinbefore expressly admitted, or in regard to which said defendants say that they have not sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief. I. For a further and second answer said defendants, John Fonner and Elizabeth Fonner, his wife, say that in March, 1868, the said John Fonner purchased of the heirs of Jessee F. Locke, Sr., deceased, sixty-two acres 43 of land, of which the land mentioned in the complaint in this action forms a part; that he purchased the same in good faith, paid the full value thereof, and without any knowledge or information that the said John Johnson or any other persons except the heirs of Jessee F. Locke, Sr., had any interest therein, or claim thereon of any part thereof. III. For a third and further answer said defendants further say, that they are informed and believe that on 4 the 24th day of April, 1863, the said John Johnson and the administrator of the estate of Jessee F. Locke, Sr., deceased, accounted together of and concerning all matter, and deall and transactions between the said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., and said John Johnson, that all and every matter and things whatever between them was fully settled and discharged, and any and all claim upon said 45 land by virtue of any contract or agreement between the said Jesse.F Locke, Sr., and said John Johnson was settled and discharged; that said defendants received said information from Garwood I. Judd, who was present as he informed said defendants at said settlement, and from an inspection of the receipt given upon said setlement and accounting signed by the said John Johnson. IV.
For a fourth and further answer the said defendants say that they deny that the said John Johnson ever 64 lad possession of any part of the land described in the complaint in this action, except about one acre upon which there is a shanty in which the said Johnson resided. Said defendants further say upon information and belief, that on the 24th day of April, 1863, the administrator of the estate of Jesse.F Locke, Sr., deceased, or some one representing him, and who had power-and authority to bind the estate, and to act for and bind the heirs, and of said Jessee F. Locke, Sr., made a written leasee to said Johnson for one acre of 74 land, being part of the land described in the complaint in this action upon which is situate a shanty in which the said Johnson resides, for the term of about ten months; that said leasee was also signed and executed by said Johnson; that he went into possession of said acre of land under said lease, and has remained in possession of the same, under and by virtue of the same, until the present time; that he has not, according to defendants' knowledge, information or belief, any right or authority 48 to occupy any portion of said land, except the right derived from said lease. Wherefore the said defendants demand that the plaintiffs complaint herein be dismissed as to them with costs. LEWIS &GURNEY, Attorneys for Defendants, John Fonner and Elizabeth Fonner. BUT RUO X, CTIOY BORATO, John Fonner, being duly sworn, says that he is one of the defendants named in the foregoing entitled action; that he has heard read the foregoing answer therein, and knows the contents thereof:
Referee’s report and findings
that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated upon information and belief, and as to thosee matters he 49 believes it to be true. JOHN FONNER. 50 Sworn before me this 22d day of September, 1869. JOHN L. ROMER, Notary Public in and for Erie Co. STATE OF NEW YORK, N AI NIAGARA COUNTY CLERK'S ' office, S S S. I hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy, answer to complaint, Johnson, et al., against Fonner, et al., with an originall on file in this office, and find the same to be a true copy thereof, and of the whole of 51 said original. In witness whereof, I have hereuuto set my hand, and affixed the seall of said SEAL. County, at Lockport, this 20th day of March, 1875.H..A COOK, Deputy Clerk, SUPREME COURT. JOHN JOHNSON, AND OTHERS, AGAINST JOHN FONNER, AND OTHERS. To The Supreme Court: I, the undersigned, to whom the issues of fact in this action have been referred by an order of this court, do 52 53 hereby respectfully report that I have heard the proofs and allegations of the parties in this action, and thereupon find the following facts: That in the year 1849, one Jessee F. Locke was the owner in fee simple of the piece of land described in the complaint, consisting of about twelve acres; that on the fifteenth day of October, 1849, said Locke agreed to sel said land to the plaintiff John Johnson, for the sum of twelve dollars na aere; that it was agreed that a contract in writing should be 54 made; that the same was drawn up but not signed or delivered; that said Johnson at the same time paid to said Locke the sum of ninety-six dollars upon said contract;
that said Johnson entered upon the said premises the ensuing spring, put a fence around the same, built a housee and barn thereon, planted the same with fruit trees, and otherwisee cultivated and improved the same, and has ever since occupied and dwelt upon the same under a claim of title as owner thereof by virtue of said contract; that said Johnson paid to said Locke during 5 hsi life time the full purchasee price of said land, with the interest thereon, and ta the time of the death of said Locke, as hereinafter stated, was entitled to a deed therefor in pursuance of said contract, which deed the said Locke before his death promised to execute and deliver to said Johnson; that on the 12th day of March, 1862, the said Jessee F. Locke died intestate, leaving him surviving Mary A. Locke, his widow, now the defendant, Mary.A Rowland, she having since married 56 the defendant, Wiliam Rowland, and also leaving him surviving the defendants, Miriam D. Ransom, Pamelia Houghton and Jessee F. Locke, the children and sole heirs at alw of him, the said Jessee F. Locke, deceased; that the defendant, Levant Ransom, is the husband of the said defendant, Miriam D. Ransom; that the defendant, Andrew Houghton, is the husband of the defendant, Pamelia Houghton, and that the defendant, Elizabeth Fonner is the wife of the defendant, John Fonner; that 57 in the spring of 1868, the said widow and heirs at alw conveyed the said premises so occupied by the said Johnson to the defendant, John Fonner, who as well as said widow and heirs at law at the time of such conveyance to him had notice that said Johnson was in possession of said premises, claiming an interest therein;
that on the 24th day of August, 1869, and before the commencment of this action, the said Johnson, by his attorney, tendered to the defendant Fonner and Elizabeth, his wife, a quit 58 claim deed of said land to him said Johnson, and requested them to execute the same at the expensee of him, said Johnson, which deed said Fonner and wife refused to execute; that on the 12th day of April, 1869, the said defendant, John Fonner, commenced an action against the plaintiff Johnson, and another action against the plaintiffs, Chadwick and Sherman, in a court of justice of the peace of the County of Niagara, to recover damages for certain trespass upon certain lands including the land described in the complaint in this action, and 9 which alleged trespasses were in fact committed on the lands described in said complaint; that the plaintiffs in this action respectively appeared in said actions, and justified the alleged acts by reason that the title of said lands was in said Johnson, whereupon, in pursuance of the statute in such case, provided the said suits were discontinued and actions for the same cases commenced in the Supreme Court, and the same pleadings alleged, which suits are now pending in the said Supreme Court; 60 that at the time of the making of said contract with said Johnson, the said Jessee F. Locke, Senior, was married; that subsequently his wife died and he afterwards married the defendant, Mrs. Rowland; that at his death he left to his heirs other reall estate of much larger value than said twelve acres. From the foregoing facts I find as conclusions of law 6l First, That the complaint in this action should be dismissed as to plaintiffs, Chadwick and Sherman, without costs to either party.
Second, That the plaintiff, Johnson, is entitled to a judgment in this action: that the defendants, John Fonner and Elizabeth, his wife, exesute and deliver to said Johnson at his expensee a deed of the premises described in the complaint, with a covenant against all liens and incumbrances created by them, or either of 62them, and that the defendants Pamelia P. Houghton, Miriam D. Ransom, Mary A. Rowland and Wiliam Rowland, her husband, and John Fonner and his said wife, Jessee F. Locke, and all persons claiming under them since the commencement of this action, be forever barred and foreclosed of all interest and title in said lands described in the complaint as between them and the said John Johnson, his heirs and assigns. Third, That the plaintiff, John Johnson, recover his costs of this action against the defendants, John Fonner, 63 Elizabeth Fonner, Pamelia P. Houghton, Miriam D. 64 H. A. COOK, Deputy Clerk. Ransom and Jessee F. Locke. Dated September 2d, 1871. E. C. SPRAGUE, Referee, Received payment of fes September 2, 1871, $75, from FARNELL &BRAZE. E. C. SPRAGUE. (Copy.) SUPREME COURT,- NAIGARA COUNTY. JOHN JOHNSON, JOHN CHADWICK, AND DAVID A. SHERMAN, AGAINST JOHN FONNER AND Elizabeth FONNER, ME WIFE, PAMELIA P. HOUGHTON, MIRIAM D. RANSOM, MARY A. ROWLAND AND WILL- LIAM ROWLAND, HER HUSBAND, AND JESSE F. LOCKE. 66 This action having been referred to E. Carlton Sprague to hear, try and determine the same upon the issues of law and fact joined therein, and to report the facts and circumstances as to the defendants, Mary A.
Judgment, substitution, and appeal notices
Rowland and William Rowland, who have been duly served with the summons by publication thereof according to law, and due proof having ben made and filed of such service, and that no answer or demurrer or appearance in any way has been received by the plaintiffs' attorneys from or on behalf of the defendants, Mary.A Rowland and 67 William Rowland, or either of them, and the said Referee's report having been filed whereby among other things he finds: First, That the complaint in this action should be dismissed as to the plaintiffs, Chadwick and Sherman. Second, That the plaintiff Johnson is entitled to a judgment in this action: that the defendants, John Fonner and Elizabeth, his wife, execute and deliver to said Johnson, and at hsi expense, a deed of the premises de- 68 scribed in the complaint with a covenant against all liens created by them, or either of them, and that the defendants, Pamelia P. Houghton, Miriam D. Ransom, Mary A. Rowland and William Rowland, her husband, and John Fonner and his said wife, Jessee F. Locke, and all persons claiming under them, since the commencement of this action, be forever barred and foreclosed of all interest and 69 title in said lands described in the complaint as between them and the said John Johnson, his heirs and assigns. Third, That the plaintiff, John Johnson, recover his costs of this action against the defendants, John Fonner, Elizabeth Fonner, Pamelia P. Houghton, Miriam D. Ransom and Jessee F. Locke. Now on motion of Farnell & Brazee, plaintiffs' attorneys, it is adjudged and decreed: First, That the complaint in this action be dismissed 70 as to the plaintiffs, John Chadwick and David A. Sherman, without costs to either party.
Second, That the defendants, John Fonner and Elizabeth Fonner, his wife, execute and deliver to the plaintiff, John Johuson, ta his expense, a deed of the premises described in the complaint, as folows: Al that certain piece or parcel of land situate in the town of Wheatfield, in the county of Niagara, and State of New York, and being the northwest part of lot number ten, township number twelve, and range eight of the 17 Holand Purchasee (so called), bounded and described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said lot number ten; thence running east along the north line of said lot ten chains; thence south on a line parallel to the west line of said lot and at the distance of ten chains east therefrom about twelve chains and forty links to the present line fence; thence west along the line of said fence, and parallel with the north line of said lot to the west line of said lot ten chains; thence north along 72 the west line of said lot about twelve chains and forty links to the place of beginning, containing twelve acres, more or less, and being the same premises now and for many years next prior to the commencement of this action, possessed and occupied by the plaintiff, John Johnson, which said deed shall contain a covenant that the said premises are free, clear and unincumbered of and from all former and other grants, titles, charges, estates, judgments, assignments and incumbrances of what na- 73 ture or kind soever created by them, or either of them, the said John Fonner and Elizabeth Fonner, and it is further adjudged that the defendants, Pamelia P. Houghton, Miriam D. Ransom, Mary A. Rowland and William Rowland, her husband, and John Fonner and Elizabeth Fonner, his wife, and" Jessee F.
Locke, and all persons claiming under them, or either of them, since the commencement of this action, be forever barred and foreclosed of all interest and title in said lands as between 74 them and the said John Johnson, his heirs and assigns, respectively. Third, And it is further adjudged that the plaintiff, John Johnson, recover his costs of this action against the defendants, John Fonner, Elizabeth Fonner, Pamelia P. Houghton, Miriam D. Ransom and Jessee F. Locke to • be adjusted, and the costs of the plaintiff, John Johnson, having been duly adjusted by the clerk at the sum of two hundred and eighty-four dollars and twenty-three 75 cents; it is further adjudged that the plaintiff, John Johnson, recover of the defendants, John Fonner, Elizabeth Fonner, Pamelia P. Houghton, Miriam D. Ransom, and Jessee F. Locke, the sum of two hundred and eightyfour dollars and twenty-three cents, being the amount of costs so adjusted. And the demurrer of the defendants, Andrew J. Houghton and Levant Ransom, to the complaint having been sustained, it is further adjudged that the complaint be dismissed as to them, and that they recover against 76 the plaintif their costs on demurrer in this action to be adjusted. At an adjourned Speciall Term of the Supreme Court, held ta the Law Chambers of Hon. George D. Lamont, Justice, in the city of Lockport, in and for the County of Niagara, on the 29th day of June, 1874. Present Hon. GEORGE: D. LAMONT, Justico. In the matter of the Petition of JOHN CHADWICK, To be substituted as Plaintiff in an aetion between 78 JOHN JOHNSON, Plaintif, AGAINST JOHN FONNER, and Elizabeth KONNER, his wife, PAMELIA P. HOUGHTON, MIRIAM D. RANSOM, MARY A. ROWLAND and WILLIAM ROWIND, her husband, and JESSE F. LOCKE, D fendante.
On reading and filing the petition of John Chadwick, 79 and the pleadings and Judgment Rol in this action, and on motion of D. Millar, of Counsel for the said John Chadwick assignee of the plaintiff, who is now deceased, and on reading and filing admission of due service of said petition on the defendant's attorneys, and affidavit of due service of the same on Hannah Johnson, administratrix, with notice of this motion. No one appearing to oppose; ordered that the above entitled action be continued by John Chadwick, as plaintiff herein, in the place of John Johnson, the plaintiff above named, as successor 80 in interest to said Johnson, plaintiff in the judgment herein. (Signed) H. A. COOK, Dep. Clerk. SUPREME COURT,- NIAGARA COUNTY. JOHN JOHNSON, JOHN CHADWICK, AND DAVID A. SHERMAN, Respondents. vs. JOHN FONNER, Elizabeth FON- NER, his wife, PAMELIA P. HOUGH. TON, MIRIAM D. RANSOM, MARY A. ROWLAND AND WILLIAM ROW- LAND HER HUSBAND, AND JESSE F. 81 LOCKK, GENTLEMEN: Appellants. 82 Take notice that the defendant John Fonner, Elizabeth Fonner, Pamelia P. Houghton, and Miriam D. Ransom, hereby appeall from the judgment entered in this action, in the office of the clerk of Niagara county, on the 9th day of July, 1873 in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for $284.23 costs and disbursements, and directing the defendants, John Fonner and wife, to execute aconveyance of certain lands therein de- 83 scribed to the plaintiff Johnson, and from every part thereof to the Generall Term of the Supreme Court. Dated August 22d, 1873. Yours, &c., LEWIS &GURNEY, Attorneys for Appellants. To FARNELL &BRAZEE, 84 Att'ys for Plaintiffs, and PETER D. WALTER, EsQ., Clerk of Niagara County. 85 SUPREME COURT.
Trial testimony — plaintiff witnesses
JOHN CHADWICK, AGAINST JOHN FONNER, AND Elizabeth FONNER, PAMELIA P. HOUGH- TON, MIRIAM D. RANSOM, MARY A. ROWLAND, AND WILLIAM ROWLAND, HER HUSBAND, AND JESSE F. LOCKE, Defendants. 86 The issues joined in this action having been duly referred to E. C. Sprague, Esq., as sole referee to hear and determine the same, came on for triall on the 30th day of June, 1870. The plaintiff to maintain the issues, called as a witness, Jessee P. Haines, being duly sworn, testified as follows; I reside in Lockport, have resided there nearly fiftytwo years; have been a Surveyor and Engineer about fifty years; knew Jessee F. Locke in his lifetime—he 87 lived in Tonawanda; I surveyed the whole of lot 10 in November, 1848-divided it into three parcels 121 acres out of the northwest corner, 10 chains wide on the rorth line, 12 chains 40 links long north and south. Next south of that 29 / acres, 10 chains wide east and west, and 29 chains 85 links long north and south. The balance of the lot 9410% acres. Jessee F. Locke was present at survey. He was present when the 12 acres were surveyed, and I think a colored man, who lived on the 8 12 acres, but I am not quite certain; I understood the Doctor to say that he had sold that 12 acres, my recollection is that there was a fence on the south line of the 12 acres; can't say whether there was on the east line or not; fenced part way through on the west side, think it extended all the way through; there was a fence on the north line; there was a smalll building upon it; I have the originall minutes of the survey with me; this diagram is a correct statement of the survey. Diagram 89 read in evidence. marked "EXHIBIT A " and herets
Cross Examination: What I say about fences I speak from recollection; I made no minutes of it or of what Locke said.
Plaintiff called,
Thomas J. Kieth, sworn for plaintiff, says: I have resided in Tonawanda, since 1831; I knew Dr. Locke; have known Johnson since 1845; I remember 90 Johnson and Locke coming to my place at Wheatfield, Ningara county, in 1847 or 1848; they stated that Johnson had bought 12 acres of land of Locke, on the back end of his lot, and that he had a certain amount of money with him (Johnson) that he wanted to pay on the purchase, he had it in a bag in specie; he produced it and poured it out on my table, saying, that he wanted to pay it on the purchase; he wanted me to count it; I did so, and found ninety-six dollars; he wunted me to 91 draw a receipt for it and I did so; this is the paper dated Oct. 15th, 1849, the body of the receipt is in my hand writing. Receipt read in evidence. Masked "exhilst p and herto attached. allached, I saw Locke sign it; Locke gave the receipt to Johnson and took the money; they told me to draw up a contract to show the purchase, and to endorsee this on it, I did so afterwards and gave it to Mr. Locke. The price was stated to be twelve dollars na acre and was put into the contract. They said that Johnson was to pay the 92 balance as he could in work, produce or anything of that kind; I don't think anything was said about a deed; Johnson lived on this piece of land then; he had lived there ever since; it was here conceded by the parties that Dr. Locke died March 12th, 1861, and that the defendant Fonner commenced a suit against Johnson to test the title to this land, April 12th, 1869. 93
Cross Examination: I had a talk with Levant, Ransom after I got back from Lockport; I think I didn't tell him that the price of this land was to be thirty dollars an acre; I don't remember saying to him that the money paid was eighty dolars; I didn't tel Fonner in Tonawanda that the price was thirty dollars an aere; I never told Houghton in Tonawanda that the price was thirty dollars an aere; I went to Lockport and made a statement of the facts to 94 Mr. Brazee.
Mr. Haines recalled. I gave Dr. Locke a copy of my minutes of survey; John Shell was there part of the time during the survey; can't identify Johnson; I have John Shell's name down; he was there when we were running the line between lots eight and ten.
Cross Examination: I only have the names of Locke and Shell; other persons were there; can't remember who the other persons 95 were, who were there. James Nugent. I regide in Tonawanda, and have for 22 years; am shoemaker; knew Locke, know the 12 acres in dispute; know of Johnson living there from 16 ct 18 years; have had a talk with Dr. Locke about Johnson's having purchased the 12 neres.
Question. -State the conversation; objected to by the defendants and hy ench of them on the grounds: Ist. That the declarations of Dr. Locke are not admissible as against them. 2d. That the declarations of Dr. Locke as to his having sold the land to Johnson are not admissible as against the defendants, John Fonner and wife.' 3rd. That the declaration of Dr. Locke concerning said land. are not admissible while he was out of possession of said land, as against defendant Fonner and wife. 96 Objections overruled, and the defendants each and all 97 of them excepted. Answer. About 16 or 18 years ago, I asked Dr. Locke if Johnson had bought the land of him. He said he had. I said, do you expect he will ever be able to pay for it. He said yes, he has it mostly paid for now. I told him at the opening of the conversation that. Johnson claimed to have bought the land where he lived. He lived then where he lives now.
Cross-examination: 98 This talk was in Tonawanda; no one there but he and I; met him on the front street along the canal; have talked a number of times about this; 1commenced talking about this before any trouble came up.
Solomon S. McMerrick, sworn for the plaintiff says: I reside in the village of North Tonawanda; have for 42 years; knew Dr. Locke in his life time; I have known Johnson since 1835; 1remember about Johnson's voting; it was in 1849 or 1849; I think Dr. Locke brought Johnson to the pols to vote; Johnson was 9 challenged; witness says Dr. Locke said he was a good voter; I asked him what his property was; he said he owned land, cattle and cows; he said he had a farm, that he sold him the farm himself; Johnson has lived there ever since; have heard Locke call this the nigger's farm; Locke offered to make an affidavit that Johnson had property qualifications.
Eliza A. Betts, sworn for plaintiff, says: She resides in town of Tonawanda about 20 years; 100 wis married to Mr., Sturgis in 1847; went to keeping housee about two miles from where I am now; I knew the twelve acres in controversy; about a mile from where I live; I know Johnson and wife; I was married in February, 1847; it was about that time I first knew of their living on the land; he has lived in that housee ever since; it was then swamp, water, bushes, logs and 101 stumps; have seen him at work there clearing the land; he had it pretty much cleaned up before I went there— a great deal; he cultivated it some, set out fruit trees, got them of Mr. Sturgis, who died in 1864; Johnson was in the habit of coming to Mr. Sturgis to look over his accounts; Locke met him at my housee agreat many times; they were talking about Johnson's working for. Locke on Locke's premises; account books were produced by Johnson, and Sturgis would draw them off; 102 Dr. Locke took the accounts from the old book. I remember before Dr. Locke died he and I and Johnson were there together; Locke said, well, Jack, you have paid for your land, and I'm going to give you adeed for it, come down most any time and I will be ready; I think that was two or three years before Dr. Locke's death, might not be more than a year; have heard him say at least twenty times that Johnson had paid for the land and should have a deed for it.
Cross-examination: 103 I think Johnson went for a deed a dozen times I presume; I didn't see him, don't know that Dr. Locke had any aecount against Jack; they figured two or three tines a year, and, perhaps otener, some times Locke would be there half a day, some times an hour figuring; along towards the last the doctor said he paid for the land; I have known Chadwick thirty-five years; he lives near us; I told him what I knew about this; I think Johnson didn't live there when 1 married Sturgis; 104 think he moved the next spring or the spring following that to this place.
Elias P. Brown, sworn for plaintiff, says: I have resided in Tonawanda ten years; I knew Dr. Locke and Johnson. In spring of 1861, F'built line fence between the farm of Vandervort estate and the Locke farm; doctor went with me to show me the line; he had built his half of the fence before I came here according to his calculation; we started from where he 105 had built and went north; this was on the west side of the Locke farm; we went up to what he called Jack's corners; he then called for Jack to show him where I should build the fence; I think there was a pair of bars in the corner of Jack's lot; he said that was the corner of Jack's lot; then he said to Jack, Mr. Brown is going to build a line between me and the Vandervorts and above here, you and he must decide it yourselves; Jack and I didn't make any division; the Vandervort farm 106 extends the whole length along Jack's line on the west side oi Jack; I asked Locke if Jack owned the palce— he said he did-that he bought it of him; he said that Johnson had paid for his place, and that he (Locke) was owi ng. him two or three hundred lollars; this was in the month of February, and the doctor died in the following March; there was a fence running east and west from what Dr. Locke called Jack's corners; it was south of the housee where Jack lived; that would be Jack's south fence; couldn't see how far east the fence ran; I 107. knew Chadwick's land east of Locke's, and of Jack's twelve acres; didn't notice whether the fence ran to that or not; I furnished Jack rails to repair his west fence, and he repaired it.
Cross-Examination: Doctor said he owed him nearly enough to build him a new shanty; he said he owed it to him for labor; that he had had wood of him and things from the farm; saw Jack at the shanty when I had talk with doctor; I think 108 Pickard or Rapelyea was on the main farm at this time; they occupied to the fence, whether beyond I do not know; have had deall with Chadwick-have worked for him; think I owe him a little; the corner some ten rods from the house.
Redirect Examination: The doctor claimed that he should build half way up to Jack's fence, and not half way the whole distance.
Wiliam Simson, being sworn for plaintiff, says: I reside in Tonawanda; carpenter and joiner; knew Dr. Locke in his life time; I know Johnson; seen Johnson's housee and land; I have known of Johnson's living there since 1856; I asked Dr. Locke, how much land he owned there; this was in 1856, in his barn; he told me 1 10 about so much, that he had sold No ok a part and darkey Johnson a part; I asked him how much Johnson owned, he told me he owned twelve acres and had it paid for.
Cross-Examination: I told Chadwick what Locke told me some time last fall.
Giles Shell, being sworn for plaintiff, says: I have resided at Wheatfield, two miles from Tonawanda, for 47 years; knew Dr. Locke; have known 1l Johnson since 1848; think he has lived where he now lives since 1848; 1 knew the twelve acres-seen it frequently; it was a new place when he went on; some of it was cleared up I think—part of it wet; think the housee was built where he lives; think Johnson had possession and cultivated it during Locke's life time; don't know of any one elsee cultivating it.
Cross-Examination: It is cleared where the building is; I bought adjoin- 12 ing lot in May, 1848, and if my thoughts are right, Johnson was there then; we got possession in the fall of 1848, but I think he was there in May when we got the place next east.
Franklin Warren, being sworn for plaintiff, says: I have been a resident of Tonawanda thirty years— farmer; knew Dr. Locke in his life time; knew Johnson thirty years; know where he lives; I judge he has 109 lived there twenty years or more to my knowledge; 113 remember conversation with Locke about Johnson; I was drawing hay for Locke three or four years before he died; was drawing it from the field into the barn south of the twelve acre lot; Johnson was at work; I asked Locke how Johnson got along paying for his land, Locke said he thought he would pay what was due on it without trouble; that he should give him all the chance he wanted to pay for it; I heard Johnson claim that he owned this land before 1868; I think it was in 1857 or 14 1858, that I was drawing in hay for Locke.
John Chadwick, being sworn for plaintiff, says: Am one of the parties and have resided north of the village of Tonawanda 35 or 36 years; knew Dr. Locke from 1841 or 1842, at Tonawanda; lived with his family from 14th of March, 1843; first knew Johnson in 1840; knew Haines; I carried chain for him when he made the survey to which he testified-John Rogue and myself; I know the twelve acre tract; helped survey that on that occasion; Johnson was living there at the time 15 of the survey; he went on in the spring of 1848; at that time there was a barn and housee on the twelve acres. The land had been chopped of excepting about two acres of wood in the northeast corner; the lot was laid over with logs— not cleared up—in its wild state after taking of the cord wood; it was wet—not ditched - a large swamp on the northwest corner; it was all in a wild state except, perhaps, a very little just around the housee and barn; Johnson put up the housee and 16 barn; John Johnson occupied from that time down; he put up the housee and barn in the spring of 1848; Hall and Murray did the work; frame housee with braces and posts; have seen him raisee wheat; seen him cutting corn; have seen him cultivating the land from year to year ever since down to about the time of Locke's death; since then have seen his horsee in the pasture and woods 117 ever since until last winter; have seen him get his wood out of the two acres—fire wood, every winter down to the present; the twelve acres was fenced of in 1848; John Johnson built the fence on the south side after the survey; he and Jacob Hook; Hook occupied the premises next south then; the south fence and the outside fences generally were built on the lines that Haines surveyed; they were indicated by posts on the corner and a spotted tree;
the east, west and north fences were 18 built in the fall of 1848; the east fence Johnson cut the rails-Johnson built all of thesee fences; the fences have stood there ever since, excepting the south fence; that fence was moved north towards the woods in spring of 1861, up to the woods-moved up about twenty rods; Rapelyea moved it up; he was working the Locke place; it was moved back the next spring; can't say whether it was moved back the same spring that it was moved up, or the next spring; it has remained on the south line where it was first built ever since; lived in Locke's 19 family from 1843 to 1853; worked on lot ten for Locke, farming and fixing fences; Johnson also worked for Dr. Locke, ditching, sowing, plowing, mowing, cradling, cutting cord wood, repairing fence; he continued working up to within about a year of Dr. Locke's death.
Question. What did Locke tell you at the time of the survey, in relation to surveying of the twelve acre tract ? Mr. Lewis, on behalf of defendant Fonner and wife, 120 objected to the question on the grounds that the declarations of Dr. Locke are not admissible as against Fonner and wife. 2d. That the declarations of Dr. Locke that he had received his pay in full for the land are not admissible as against Fonner and wife. Objections overruled, and defendant's duly excepted. He told me that he had sold Johnson the twelve acres at $12 an acre; he said he had got a pretty good price 121 for it after cutting the wood off. Question. What, if any, declarations did you hear Johnson make between 1848 and the spring of 1868, regarding the character of his possession? Objected to hy Mr. Lewis, for the defendants Fonner and wife, on the ground that Johnson being living the declarations are not admissible. Objection overruled and defendants duly excepted. Heard him say that he had bought the land of Locke; 12 heard him say that he owned it; heard him say so on severall occasions; was present at Keith's office when the $96 was paid; I afterwards saw a paper in Dr. Locke's office in Keith's writing; Johnson let Locke have forty bushels of oats in the fall of 1849; they were worth forty cents a bushel; he let him have wood in the fall of 1848, or winter of 1849, either twelve or fifteen cords, won't be sure which, worth from 10 to 12 shillings a cord. In the fall of 1850, Johnson came there and paid Locke $15, and told him to apply it no the land, 123 Locke said he would; Locke told me that this property and work was to apply on the twelve acres of land; that Johnson was to pay what money he could, and pay the rest in work and property.
This was in 1848, 1849 and 1850. in the fall of 1860, Johnson was atwork for me, fixing and threshing barley in the barn; Locke came there; it was about 9 o'clock in the morning, and says he, you've got Jackey to work, I says yes; he says, Jackey, I'm going to give you a deed in a few days; I've 124 promised it to you for a long time. I asked Locke if Johnson had paid for his land; he said, yes. There are some fruit trees on the twelve acres; Johnson planted them; they have been planted 15 or 16 years, twenty apple trees, one pear tree, four cherry trees, one or two plum trees, and about nineteen bushes of currants, two peach trees, good fruit trees. He has cleared up the 125 land, excepting the two acres, and drained it; it is good land; have known John Fonner twenty-five years; known him to work on Carr's lot and for me, within thirty-five rods of the shanty; think that was in 1863, 1864 or 1865. In the winter of 1867 and 1868, I sold Fonner all my hay; got on a load of it in Tonawanda; as we got opposite the Locke farm, I said to Fonner, there will be nice piece of land for sale here by and by; he asked me, who is the owner now, I told him it be- 126 longed to the Locke heirs; told him who they were; I told him that John Johnson owned twelve acres in the rear of the farm, he said, I knew that. There were no roads to this land; Johnson sometimes crossed Vandervorts, and sometimes my land; the creek road is 100 rods from the land; that is nearest road, no other within two miles.
Cross Examination: I am forty five years old; have had a good many law suits; not averaged more than two or three a year, 127 never have been impeached; I tried to buy the farm, made an ofer for thirty acres of the farm; didn't ofer fifty dolars an acre for this farm to Levant Ransom; I made an ofer for a part of it; didn't say that I would buy the dower interest and then pay fifty dollars an acre for the farm; didn't tell him that the widow owed me, and that I was going to buy her dower interest; did'nt ofer Levant Ransom sixty-two dollars an acre for the farm, together with a watch; knew Asa Ransom,Senior; 128 told him I wanted the farm, and asked him if the writings were drawn; did'nt tel him that I didn't want the writings drawn; I did not tell him that I would give him sixty-two an acre for the entire farm; I didn't tell Asa Ransom at any time, that the negro had no interest in that property, that he had given it back; I did not tell Levant Ransom on the bridge in Tonawanda, that the negro had no interest in the farm; did not tel him that the negro had a contract, but was unable to pay for 129 the land, and had given it up; didn't tell him that the negro owed Locke, but that Benjamin Sturges had trumped up an account, but that there was nothing of it; didn't tel Houghton after Fonner bought, that the colored man had no interest there, and that I wanted to buy the farm; didn't tell Houghton about a year ago that I would give seventy dollars for the farm, and give his wile a gold watch besides; there was a fence on the south side of the twelve acres in the fall of the year of 130 the survey, or the year after, am not positive which; it was not there when the survey was made; the survey was made sometime in the fall of 1848; am sure the housee and barn were there when the survey was made; tried to get Whitman Jacobs to buy this farm; I own farm lying east of this part of same lot 62 or 63 acres; did not tell Fonner that he had better let me have the farm, if he didn't I would not let him have any peace; đni himhi thatrtacoldemnadbionintererniro132 it and had given it up to Dr. Locke.
Redirect Examination: When you asked Jacobs to purchasee farm, what farm did you refer to? I referred to the piece Levant Ransom bought and the front of the remainder. Did not intend to ever have the twelve acres.
David A. Sherman being sworn fcr plaintiff says: I have been a resident of Wheatfield for three years the last time; came here first in 1859; knew Dr. Locke 132 and Johnson; became acquainted with Johnson in 1859; have been on the land in question, was on it in 1859; in 1857 saw Johnson cultivating the land, also his wife Hannah Johnson; Hannah has always done my washing, usually took it to the housee and usually they brought it home; have seen him at work in different parts of the farm on thesee occasions; have seen him fix the outside 133 west fence, and the south fence and the east fence; the majority of the south fence is pretty old; it is across there now; it is in substantially the same place as when I first saw the premises; have heard Johnson say that it was his land at different times; heard him say so before 1868 a number of times. Once near Warren's Grocery, heard Locke say, in spring of '60, that he had sold the twelve acres to Johnson; I asked him if Johnson could pay for it; he said, Oyes, but I don't know 134 when he will get through; he said this with a sort of smile; think when I was there first there was a fence on the east side near the house, but none on the north side; I speak of the yard around the house; I helped Johnson ditch on the twelve acres outside of the little yard to drain of the water; it was five or six days before the difficulty; think it was the fifth of April.
Cross Examination: 1 dug a ditch east of Johnson's housee four or five rods from it to get water from east of his house; the water 135 was not inside of his yards; the first time Johnson said the land was his was in 1859; the next time was in 1867, probably in October; there was a low fence around the house-never boarded there with Johnson.
Redirect Examination. —Couldn't say' whether the fence went completely around the house, my impression was that it was gone where the ditch was, and that it was only one or two rails high where we stepped over it.
Chadwick recalled.-On the Sunday of the fracas the 136 fence did not entirely suround the house; there were two or three rails on the north side.
Cross Examination: There was a fence on the east side fenced and cut; it ended in the field a few rails on the north were not any I remember a corversation between Johnson and Fonner, at my barn in the winter of 1867 and '68; Fonner asked Johnson if he was living on his place yet, and he 137 said yes; he asked him how much he owned there; he said twelve acres.
Cross Examination: • I first thought of this, this afternoon, never thought to speak about it to Brazee.
John Johnson being sworn for plaintiff, says: I am one of the parties; I know the 12 acres; I heard Haines' testimony; I was present at the survey; I moved on the twelve acres the 13th of March, 1848; Locke 138 gave me possession.
Objected to by Mr. Lewis, on the ground that witness is not competent to testify to any personall transaction with Dr. Locke, for the reason that Dr. Locke is now deceased-objection overruled and defendants' duly excepted. Objected to by Mr. Lewis, on behalf of all the defendant's he appears for, except Fonner and wife, on the ground that Dr. Locke being deceased, Johnson is not competent to testify to any personall transaction with 139 him. Objection overruled and the defendant's Pamelia P. Houghton and Miriam D. Ransom duly excepted to the rulings of the referee. I built the housee and barn at my own expense; I commenced building right after March 13, 1848. The twelve acres were swamp on east and west side; there was underbrush, logs and big trees scattered around, plenty of stumps and big trees where it had been 140 chopped; no part of it had been cultivated; there was about two acres on the north side wood land; I built the east side fence next to Chadwick's after the survey, then built the south line between me and Hook, exactly on the line that Haines surveyed; this was built right away after the survey; there was a temporary fence on the west side when I went there; I heiped fix it; I kept 141 repairing that; not much of a fence on the north side; Cuf and I built that in a few days after the survey; I have been on that twelve acres ever since; I have kept up the fences around the twelve acres every year; have raised crops on the land; have pastured it every year after the crops are of; I set out twenty-one apple trees, five cherry trees, two peach trees; I know John Fonner; first knew him by sight when he was at work there, three or four years ago, two years before the occurrence 142 on Sunday;
remember helping load hay at Chadwick's barn in the winter of 1868; Fonner asked me how much land I had back there, I said twelve acres. The south line fence was moved in 1862, the spring that Payne went to the war, the fence was put tack; I did not put it back till the next season; have cut my fire wood on this land ever since I went into possession; first saw Fonner cutting grass along the line a hundred rods from the twelve acres; saw him there two seasons cut- 143 ting grass for Carr, I was helping Carr; worked there one or two days with him; saw him cutting grass for Chadwick about same distance from my land; I was to work on my land during thesee times; I saw Fonner when he was cutting wood and digging ditches on my land before the Sunday when the skirmish was; I did not order him of. Question. Why didn't you order him of? don't know why I didn't order him off; I hadn't any counsel and didn't know what to do; didn't know what 14 my rights were; am nearly sixty two years old.
Cross-Examination: Was not working on my own land when Fonner was working for Carr, nor when he was working for Chadwick; I moved out of housee on to the land, from housee right north of this land about forty rods off; Mr. Austin moved into the housee that I moved out of; he moved in a few days after I moved out; I took all my things out; did not have an old trunk there. This wood land 145 on the twelve acres was all the wood land on the entire farm when I moved there; I have cut the dried timber and the dried wood. It was a beautiful piece of woods until Mr. Rowland ruined it by cutting it in 1861; I relaid the east fence; built the north fence a week after survey, and also the south fence within a week or two. There was a south fence of logs and rails and tires; it was a good way out of line and I straightened it; I had the talk with Fonner before he bought the place; he 146 bought it the same season. This was in January or February, and he bought it in the spring; Chadwick not there when we had the talk; only had one talk with him in the barn; think I told Brazee about it when he drew my affidavit. No I did not at that time; told him about it this summer at my house. I signed this signature to na affidavit attached to receipt dated April 24th, 1863- affidavit August 5th, 1872.
Johnson recalled, says: I paid the taxes on this land up to 1859-I paid all the taxes up to the time that 147 Locke died.
Cross-Examination: I think he died in 1862, in March; I paid taxes in 1861, to the collector; have forgotten his name; at my house; it was in January in 1861, I think; it was right in war time, and the tax was high; took a receipt for tax of 1861, but have lost it; I sent Dr. Locke to pay Darufelt; can't tell the name of any collector that I ever paid taxes to. I paid school taxes to Warren along 148 when I first had the land. Paid school taxes often— James Warren; didn't take a receipt.
The plaintiff here rested his case.
John Fonner sworn for defendant: Own farm in town of Wheatfield, Niagara county; is in Tonawanda and runs back north.
Q. When did you bargain for this farm? 149 Objection. Overruled. Exception..A In March, 1868. Thesee are the deeds I finally got for it. Deeds offered in evidence-read. 1. From Miriam D. Ransom, wife of Levant Ransom, to John Fonner, dated April, 1868, acknowledged May 1, 1868, recorded May 23, 1868, Liber 115, at page 298, purports to contain and convey 62 acres including land in dispute. 2. From Amelia P. Houghton and Jessie F. Locke, 150 infants, by speciall guardian, Chas. F. Hil, dated May 1, 1860, acknowedged by Chas. L. Hil in 1868, recorded May 23, 1868, Liber 12, page 257, conveys two-thirds interest of premises. 3, From Mary A. Rowland, dated March 25, 1868, acknowledged March 27, 1868, recorded April 6, 1868, in Liber 108, page 262, conveys by same description as last deed. I went into possession under thesee deeds. I took possession of the lot I got of Mrs. Ransom April 1st, 151 1868, of the center part of the lot; went into a housee situated north of the highway running through the farm. I took possession of twenty-nine acres lying right in the center of the farm. The housee was leased to a tenant, John Gentz; I worked that part of the farm; remember where colored man was living then. The twenty-nine acres that I took possession of at that time went up to Johnson's house-not past it. Gentz occupied all the rest of it except about one acre. He paid 152 his rent after 1st of April to me for all that he occupied, all but the twenty-nine acres which I occupied. Gentz lived there and continued to occupy farm till April Ist, 1869. I then went into possession of what he had. I then had possession of entire farm;
Johnson then lived on the north part of the farm, on the west side, 30 or 40 rode south of north line and, perhaps, ten or twelve rods from the west line. He then had a fence around the place he lived on, enclosing about one acrealittle less. 153 He had on it a little shanty when I went into possession 1st of April, 1869. I went onto the twelve acres in question to cut some wood; went there on the eighth day of April in the morning; cut about a cord and a half; Casper Fisher was with me; did not draw it off; saw Johnson; passed time of day with him; he saw me cutting the wood; he was at his shanty; went there next morning; Casper Fisher went with me; we dug ditches that day on the twelve acre lot near the woods; 154 went over the whole of it except the one acre; Johnson saw me work all day; this was the 9th day of April; this was Saturday; Sunday morning walked to see if it wanted any more ditching; went where ditching w—as no one with me; John Chadwick and Shertan came over the fence from the shanty; ordered off; said I had no business there; I told them I wouldn't go; Chadwick told Johnson to take hold of me and to strike me if I wouldn't go. The north line of the land I occupied 155 in 1868, went up to the south line of the twelve acres to within about two or three rods of Johnson's house; there was a fence there running clear across the lot.
Cross Examination: I was born in Tonawanda, two miles west of village; I am thirty-nine years old, have lived closee by since, until I moved onto this farm; have known the sixty-two acre lot seven years; worked around there in haying and harvesting some six years ago—next to the 62 acres, worked there two or three summers, five or six years 156 ago; worked there two years before I purchased for John Carr, on the west side of the sixty-two acres, about opposite the centre of the farm-worked one day for Chadwick, about the same day on Chadwick's farm, on the east side of the sixty-two acres; Carr drew in some hay while I was working for him; I saw Johnson when I worked for Carr-three or four years before purchase; 157 he worked for Carr a couple of days while I was mowing there; had seen him before, but did not know who he was or where he belonged; understood from Carr that he lived where he lives now; was on the twelve acres for the first time March 28th, 1868; Gentz was with me; told Gentz I had bought the land, and asked him if he didn't want to go with me and see how the premises looked; stopped in shanty and found Johnson-at that time there had been a writing in relation to the land; 158 was present when Mrs. Rowland's deed was acknowledged; it was acknowledged in Buffalo; Mrs, Rowland and I went to office together; I think deed was drawn there at that time; I mean it had been drawn a couple of days before at her house; Mrs. Rowland, Dr. Houghton and I were there; Houghton drew the deed; I went to Buffalo with Dr. Houghton that day; Mrs. Rowland produced the deed; she got it at her house, I took it when drawn but took it back; she said when I paid her 159 the balance she would acknowledge the deed;
I paid her some 25th day of March, and balance a day or two after, in all $500; Houghton was not there the day it was acknowledged; I fix the day by the deed and receipt for money; got receipt March 25th, day deed was drawn; the 29 acres I worked in 1868 does not embrace the 12 acres in controversy; saw Gentz farming on the 12 acres in 1868; he planted, sowed and harvested acrop of oats, saw a leasee to him in Martinsville, Chadwick or Gentz had it; I have told all I did on the twelve acres before 160 suit; there was then a ferce around Johnson's land, saw it—am sure it went clear around the acre; there was a fence at that time along the south line of twelve acres; the oak tree that Johnson cut was partly dead; it was thirty inches or so across the stump, tall, slim treeexamined the tree, it was sound at the time it was cut down; it was cut down in March, 1869; I had a stick in my hand when I went into the 12 acres to get out some weeds with, about 3feet long and1⁄21 inches through, 161 a green stick; never touched one of them; they didn't get me of the twelve acres; two boys were with them, William and Alonzo Sturges.
Trial testimony — defendant witnesses
Casper Fisher being sworn for defendants says: I am Fonner's father-in-law; went onto the farm with Fonner in Spring of 1869, when he moved on, the 4th or 5th of April; he and I went onto the twelve acres and chopped wood after he moved on, a few days after; went up next day and made ditches, saw Johnson thesee 162 both days; he was around the shanty; he saw us at work, we dug ditches about two rods from the woods; we dug ditches to within about two rods of the shanty; he saw us digging ditches; he didn' gay anything to us.
Cross-Examination: Fonner moved into the housee near the road on h is farm, a good way from the twelve acres; we moved there 4th or 5th of April; can't say how long after he moved there that we went up to chop wood; I saw Johnson and 163 I guess he saw us; I saw him when we were digging ditches, he was about a couple of rods of when I saw him; ditches from one to two and a half feet deep; ditches ran to the west; didn't take the wood away that we cut; it was some dead wood, but mostly sound.
Jacob Rumbold called and sworn for defendant's, says: I reside in Wheatfield, one hundred rods from this 12 acres about north; I moved there in Sept. 1849; have lived there ever since; I am on lot 19: I am about fifty; in September 1849, Johnson was living on lot 19, subdi- 161 vision 6, in a log house; in March 1850, he was oa lot 19; between March 1850 and that summer, he moved on to this twelve acres; Chas. Evastine moved into the housee that he left; I crossed the 12 acres in moving into my housu in Sept. 1819; no one was living on the twelve acres; there was no building there at that time; there was a lumber road that I drove throigh the twelve acre 165 lot on; that was the lot that Johnson moved onto; after Johnson moved on he told me he had bought it; he told me he was to pay thirty dollars an acre; that was soon after 1850. 166
Cross Examination: Before September, 1849, I had lived with Wm. Zmi - merman, two miles from Tonawanda: Chadwick sued me before S. S. MeMerrick, a justice of the peace in Wheatfield, in 1868.
Question. Did you there swear that you did not know where John Chadwick's land was, and that you were not acquainted with the different owners of land near Chadwick's? I swore that I did not know whether Chadwick owned the land or not, for I had never seen the title: didn't try to buy Jack of the last year: didn't offer him one hundred dollars to go offf: was sent there once to see what he would take to go off, but he wouldn't give me an answer: Lewis S. Payne sent me: can't say when: think it was within two years: had the deed of my land 167 when I moved on: the deed is recorded: got the deed about the time I moved on, either just before or after: got it from Joseph F. Hill, agent for Joseph Fellows: bought out Wm. HI. Barton's article: it was assigned to me in December, 1848, I think; lived with Zimmerman when the assignment was made: paid Barton $100 when assignment was made: got the $100 of Zimmerman: he went to Buffalo with me: after the contract was assigned to me I lived with Zimmerman: can't say how long: 168 went onto the land soon after: it might have been a week, or it might have been a year: bought the article in December, 1848: it was assigned to me during the winter: it was in September, 1849, that I moved on: I have no writing as to when I moved on: no writing as to when Barton assigned to me: Barton then lived in Tonawanda: can't say at what house: don't know but what he kept the tavern: went to see land before article was assigned to me with Zimmerman and Barton in the 169 winter season: there was a shanty on my land and a little building for a stable-both log: 1 didn't build anything the first season: put up a barn within two or three years: I got 46 acres: that's the only piece conveyed to me by Fellows:
Johnson said he owned the place where he was then livirg: he said he had half of lot 6-23 acres; Ernstein owns the land now: he is here: Francis Winter-owned it before Ernstein: my recollection is that Ernstein was there first: Johnson said he had bought 170 the twelve acres: made no memorandum of conversation with Johnson: he said he sold the other lot for between eleven and twelve dollars an acre: told him he was foolish selling at such a price, and paying so much more right beside him: he said it was Hook's fault: think it was in 1850 or 1851: no means of fixing it.
Redirect Examination:
I have the deed of my lot. Charles Ernstein, called and sworn for defendants, says: I live on lot 19, subdivision 6, about a quarter of a mile from shanty on twelve acres; I moved into the 171 housee that Johnson moved out of: Johnson was living in the housee about a week before I moved in: it was twenty years ago last month: I moved in May 14th, 1850: he moved onto the place where he lives now: I have lived there ever since: after that three or four weeks after I moved there: I had a talk with Johnson: he told me he had to pay thirty dollars an acre: he told my father-inlaw so too, Mr. Winter: he is dead.
Cross Examination: 172 Couldn't talk much English then: could understand him: I knew the difference between 13 and 30: my father-in-law bought of Johnson and Hook: he got a deed or contract: my land was better than Johnson's acres.
Andrew P. Houghton, called and sworn for defendants, says: 173 I live in Hamilton, Ohio; I married a daughter of Dr. Locke: knew Johnson; knew the twelve acres; I came here in the fall of 1862, after Dr. Locke's death: was over on the farm, I think it was in 1866: there was a tenant there at that time by the name of Gentz: was on the twelve acres: didn't go off the road: don't know who occupied the twelve acres: saw Johnson at his housee or on the: road: if at the house, Mrs. Levant Ransom was with me, if on the road I was alone: am not positive 174 at which time the conversation was: he said to me that Mrs. Rowland had had some wood cut in the wood lot on the twelve acres: that the Dr. was very particular about it and did not want any timber cut; I told Johnson that we, the heirs, did not want any out: I promised to pay him for his trouble if he would let us know if any more was cut. That is the amount of the conversation; I was then married to Dr. Locke's daughter.
Eugene Payne, called and sworn for defendants, says: I reside in Williamsport, Pa.: keep books for a lumber 175 firm: have resided there about three years, formerly resided at Tonawanda: I am son of Lewis S. Payne; I am nearly twenty-six years old: knew Johnson: my father went away to the army in 1862, I think, might have been 1861: he was assuming to act as administrator of Locke's estate: when he went away he left the business in my hands: he was gone a little more than three years: I know the Locke farm: was on the farm both before and after my father went away; was on the twelve acres 176 where the shanty was built; I think Rapelyea had been tenant when I took charge: but there was another man when I took charge, whosee name I do not remember: I had a talk with Johnson in relation to a settlement of his claims with the estate: think it was somewhere in the street in Tonawanda that I met him: I think it was in 1863, in the spring: Johnson said that he had an account against the estate, and he wanted to settle it: I told him if he had an account, if he would bring it down, 17 we would try and settle it: he said he would, and would come down in the afternoon: we fixed the place at Mr. Judd's office: he came there; he was there when I came there; he was there with lawyer Eggert: he presented a bill: this is the bill marked by Referee "B." Lawyer Eggert was there; Peltiah Hill, G. L. Judd, Johnson and myself; Johnson presented the bill; it was sworn to then as it now appears; he said he thought he ought to have the amount of the bill allowed him; no 178 also laid a claim to some land which he said he had bought of the Doctor. He either wanted the land allowed him or this bill: that was the substance of what he wanted:
he said he had not paid for the land and he didn't know whether he could get it. Mr. Eggert and I then went to figuring on the amount that he said he was to pay: I don't remember exactly the amount he was to pay, but he gave it and we calculated the interest upon it, and the interest was a great deall more than his account and interest; we allowed him interest on some 179 money that he said he had paid: we also figured with him, charging him a certain amount for rent for the land per acre for the number of years he said he had had it, and that was a great deall more than his accounts with interest: Johnson wanted to know if it was all right, and calculated correct: he asked this of Eggert: Eggert said he believed it was: he signed a receipt upon the bill which was written by Judd: think I paid him something, presume I gave him ten dollars, as he was disappointed, 180 to settle it up: he wanted to know if he would have to get off from the premises: I told him I thought he would have to: he said he didn't know where to go: that he wasn't prepared to go just then—that he had a friend up south of Buffalo, with whom he presumed he might live, but he didn't want to go there just then, and he wanted to know if he might stay there a little longer: we con- 181 sented that he might stay up a year, drew up a lease, think Judd did the writing: it was a leasee of an acre of land and a shanty: he signed it and Mrs. Rowland the widow of the Dr. signed it: it was for one year from the time the settlement was made: I think the leasee was left with Judd in the office: we separated: I think he said the place was sold to him for thirty dollars an acre; that is my impression;
he said he had bought it, and that what money he had a receipt for, was all the money he 182had paid on the land; he said he thought if the Dr. had lived, he could have fixed it up with him in some different shape; don't remember his saying anything about the Dr.'s having taken the land back: we had then a smalll account of the Dr.'s against Johnson; I can't say what has become of them, a part were charges on book, and some were on a memorandum book; we did not bring them into settlement, but the amount we had already figured exceeded his claim, and therefore we did not present it; I left thosee books with my fathers papers; 183 the $96 receipt was attached to the account when Johnson brought it; Eggert and Johnson were there when I got there: Judd advised some in the matter; I did not employ him: Eggert helped me make the figures that we made; he asked me, what offset I had against Johnson's bill; I told him we should charge either with the rent of the land for the time he had been there, or if he insisted that he had purchased the land, then we should charge him with the purchasee price, and the interest 184 upon it; don't remember whether he said it was right or wrong then; after we had made the calculations he said he thought it was all right: Eggert and Johnson got up and went out of the room once or twice during the settlement: Eggert also told him it was all right and to sign the receipt, and Johnson then signed it: we then separated, I bringing away the papers receipted: he had spoken to me once or twice before this to get together and settle this up: I had charge of the estate till my 185 father came back: can't say what I did: tried to collect some accounts: didn't pay out any money that I can remember:
had some bills presented to me which I didn't pay: I went to Mrs. Rowland, told her what we had done, and she signed the lease: Johnson did not go with me.
Cross Examination: At this time I was twenty years old-lacked three months of it; my father left in September, 1862; had 186 no written authority from him in reference to Locke's estate; had done no business on account of Locke estate up to the time of his leaving home; lived with my father; had letters from ny father in reference to the estate; don't know where they are; can't say where I put them; couldn't say that I received any money for the Locke estate; the only books and papers that I had were what my father left in his office in town; can't remember paying any person a dollar; can't mention the name of any 187 person to whom I presented any account; there were bills presented to me; I never said to any party that I had nothing to do with the Locke estate and shouldn't pay any bills. A week or two before the settlement we spoke about settling. I did tell him that I wanted him to come to Judd's office: there was that arrangement; this was not at Johnson's but on the street; it was the last interview before the settlement; I saw him on the farm before this; drove out to his shanty not a great while before the settlement; can't remember what 188 was said; something about a settlement was said, but I can't remember what; don't remember telling him I was authorized to settle, and that I wanted him to come to Tonawanda to settle; I advised with Pattiah Hil mostly about the Locke estate; may have consulted with Judd: was acquainted with Eggert; never sent Hill after Johnson; I think 1hadn't seen Judd with reference to having 189 him there; don't think Hill was with me when I made arrangement to meet at Judd's office; after I had seen Johnson I saw Hill and told him we were going to have a settlement and to come down;
didn't tell him to bring Johnson; had no conversation about treating Johnson; Hil went with me; Ihad met him in the street; Ilived three quarters of a mile from Judd's; Hill didn't tel me he had got Johnson at Judd's office; Hill and I talked the matter over home before ew got to the office, never 190 saw the bill til that day at the office; couldn't swear who produced it; I figured the bill—-made agenerall average of the interest not very accurately, but as near as we could for the short time that we had computed interest on balance after deducting the $96.
Frederick F. Hoyer, called and sworn for defendants, says: Have lived in Tonawanda since May 9th, 1849; knew Dr. Locke before I came here; went into partnership 191 with him July 1st, 1850; was present when receipt of October 15th, 1849, was drawn, I think; think it was in Dr. Locke's office, near the brick house; I think Justice Keith, Johnson, Locke and I were present; Chadwick was not there, if he was, I did not see him; Locke gave Johnson a receipt for some land he (Johnson) had bought; Keith drew up receipt; Johnson paid 500 five frank pieces. The substance of what was said was that Johnson had bought twelve acres of land, and was to give thirty dollars an acre for it. This was in fall of 192 1849. Good deall of excitement as to reall estate. The Coml. Co. had purchased land here, and the reall estate was as high in Tonawanda as to-day.
Cross Examination: I told Ransom of this when this suit was commenced;
my attention was called to it a year or a year and a half ago; ben in various business; can't say what time money was paid; think it was in forenoon; had been at home that day; nobody there when I went to the office; 193 then Locke and Johnson came in; Keith might have ben with them; can't tel what Johnson said —yna particular words; can swear to some words Locke used in Johnson's presence; might not get the words correctly; I had known Johnson two or three months; had seen him before this; can't tel where Commerciall Company was building elevator when I came here; didn't know when it was organized; didn't know the value of this land; was forty-eight years odl last May: was Lockos' 194 partner five or six years.
Aaron W. Eggert, called and sworn for defendants, says: I am a lawyer at Williamsville; was admitted in 1855; was present when account "B" was presented by Johnson; Johnson came to me and wanted me to go to Judd's office He told me that Mr. Payne and Hill were going to meet him there, and he wanted me to go with him—I went with him; I staid till the thing was through; Pet- 195 tiah Hill, Eugene Payne and Johnson and I, and I think Judd was there; Judd got there before we got through; Johnson and Payne wanted to settle up; Hill and Payne said that they had come there for the purposee of settling with Johnson. They told me that Johnson had presented an' account, and they wanted to settle up with him. Johnson said I should look it over and straighten it up with them, and see that he got his rights —that they did not get any advantage over him. This bill Johnson had presented at that time just as it is now, except the things 196 which were written on at that time. The receipt was written then; Hill, Payne and I went to figuring; Johnson claimed that he had paid $96 on the land; I told him that he couldn't claim the money that he had paid on the land and the land too; that if he wanted the land he shouldn't have brought the $96 into the account. He told me to settle it the best way I could. He said he 197 wanted the account paid. Then we figured two ways, first we took amount of purchasee money and figured niterest on it. I told him that the mount we had figured exceeded the amount of his bill after allowing him for payments. This was so. The amount of interest alone would do that. Then we figured what the rent of the land was, and found that that would exceed the amount of his bill.
I told them I thought it was hard for Johnson under the circumstances, and that they ought to do 19g something for him. I told Johnson how it stood. He felt bad becausee it was so different than he thought it was. Payne then proposed to give Johnson ten dollars, and a leasee of his housee and one acre of land until next April, of what was fenced in around the house. Payne paid him the money-Judd drew up the lease. They went of to get it signed, and I went home. That's about all I know about.it Dont' remember whether anything was said by Johnson about the price of the land-yes, there was something said by him about the price; they 19 all spoke as to the amount that was to be paid for the land. There was no dispute about that. That was the amount I figured on.
Cross Examination: I left Tonawanda in 1864; my attention was first called to the matter when Fonner spoke to me about buying the land. This letter is in my writing (marked). The signature to this affidavit is mine; didn't see Hil 200 Or Payne about the matter before I met them at the office; I had an office then and was practicing; had been since 1855; this is my signature to the affidavit; think Payne and Hil had account when Iwent there; Ilooked at account at request of Johnson; will so swear: when I wrote this letter I intended to tell the truth; I now say that Johnson claimed that he was wronged and shed tears; all I recollected of the matter in the letter; I had not recollected them as to how the settlement came 201 to be made. Letter offered in evidence objected to by Mr. Lewis on the ground that it is not competent evidence, being the declarations of the witness not under oath. ked"EXHIBIT le". and hereto attached. Objections overuled, read and excepted. Mar Affidavit of 22d of September, 1869, was made when
it was dated.
It was sworn to at Williamsville, Erie county,.N.Y..; Brazee drew it up in my office.
Defendant's ofered affidavit in evidence, and plaintiff 202 objected on the ground that it was not competent evidence being the declarations of the witness not under oath. Objection overruled and excepted and read. Marked "EXHIBIT D'and herto attached. Another affidavit of same date in Mr. Lewis' handwriting, taken before J. A. Hopkins; can't say which I made first. Affidavit offered in evidence, objected to by plaintiff on the ground that it is not competent evidence, being 203 the declarations of witness not under oath, overruled and excepted and read. STATE OF NEW YORK, SS. ERIE COUNTY. A. W. Eggert, being duly sworn, says he is a lawyer, and is now residing at Williamsville, Erie county. Deponent has read the annexed affidavit of G. L. Judd, Esq. Deponent was present at the settlement therein referred 204 to, and acted as Counsel for John Johnson; the accounts upon either side, that is the account of said Johnson against Dr. Locke's estate, and the account of the estate against said Johnson were presented, and fully talked over, and were then and there settled, and the parties passed receipts, and there was some money paid by Mr. Payne to said Johnson to balance their accounts, and said 205 Payne on behalf of said estate, executed and delivered to said Johnson, a leasee of one acre of land upon the Dr. Locke farm, in the town of Wheatfeld, for some ten months. Deponent further says, that said settlement was so far as deponent knew, made fairly and in good faith, and said Johnson expressed himself satisfied with the settlement. The subject of the said Johnson having once agreed to buy a piece of land of Dr.
Locke, was talked 206 over, and the said Johnson abandoned all claim to any land which he had contracted to buy, and all that he claimed to have paid upon the purchasee of any land of Dr. Locke was allowed to him said Johnson upon said settlement› and he gave to said Payne a receipt he had for the sum of some 896 paid by him upon said land. 207 Deponent further says, the facts stated in the said annexed affidavit of G. L. Judd, are true to the knowledge of deponent. A. W. EGGERT. Sworn to before me, Sept. 22d, 1869. T..A HOPKINS, Justice of the Peace. can't swear positively whether we figured interest on items in account and on the $96; think we did: I figured up for the usee of the land; can't say from what time or what we called; can't remember whether we compounded interest; can't tell amount we figured, no remembrance of what Johnson's account amounted to; can't say I gave 208 the figures to any one; don't remember being at Farnell's office after writing letter in April 1868; don't remember telling Farnell that I happened to be in Judd's office, that the poor old negro was abused and cried: I remem-. ber his shedding tears; don't recollect that I had seen Lewis before making the affidavit written by him; Ransom was there (Levant,) I had seen him, and on the subject before the affidavit was brought to me; I didn't draft an affidavit or send to Lewis; don't know how af- 209 davit came to me.
Re-direct Examination: Did you state to Ransom when he came to you, before affidavit was drawn, what you claimed to be the facts of the case? Yes, don't remember whether I put anything on paper or not; Brazee came and wanted to get our affidavit; we sat down; he asked question and I answered them; he wrote it down, read it to me and I signed it; I didn't consider that I was employed as attorney, but 210 only to see that he wasn't wronged; they had some account on the other side.
Cross Examination: don't know where accounts are, or how much they were.
Eli De Rapelya, called and sworn for defendants says: I am a farmer in Lockport; I lived once on the Locke farm in 1861, under Payne (Lewis S.) occupied all except one acre colored man had; I occupied it two years; I 211 worked the twelve acres; pastured woods; I worked on shares; went on in April, 1861, left April 1863.
Cross Examination: Hadn't spoken to Johnson when I went on; spoke to Payne about the Locke farm; each of us was to furnish one half the seed. The first year I sowed what there was cleared, to oats three or four acres, Johnson had an old mare, she didn't run outside of his acre till after harvest, then she ran on my land; I gave him na acre to plant corn on shares; Payne and I went on to the twelve 212 acres together; after I went there, saw Johnson; the twelve acres were fenced of, kept right on the next season; took fence from the south part of twelve acres; drew the rails around to build fence around house; Payne said nothing about it; next year I occupied whole, pastured the woods and planted oats or buckwheat on the rest; after harvest his mare ran on it; Johnson didn't 213 object to my coming on the land; Johnson gave up possession; Payne and I went there; Johnson said he had no place to go to; that he was going to his old boss and get a place, that he was going in the full; shat he would like to stay till he got a place; Payne told him Locke had died; that place had fallen into other hands; that. he would have to leave, as he had let it to me; Johnson said he had no place to go to, that he would like to stay till he got aplace, sec., as before; he said he did'nt know 214 What to do, he would have to go and see his odl master. Sylvanus Pickard, calied and sworn for defendants, says: I am a farmer; I live on the Locke farm, moved on in the fall of 1859, before Dr. Locke died; I made arangement with Dr. Locke; left in the Spring of 1861, same spring that Locke died; I worked on farm; Johnson was there, lived on the back end; I plowed and sowed north end of farm; sowed it to buckwheat;
Johnson sowed it, I plowed and dragged it, and he was to osw it 215 and harvest it, and do all the rest of it, after we got through, I took one third of the crop, no! I took -eno fourth; Locke one-fourth and Johnson one-half; that was® all I sowed there; the only one planted there; couldn't say what Jack had; think he had a few potatoes around the house, Johnson furnished the seed for sowing it; he did all the work after we ploughed and harrowed it.
Cross-Examination: 216 Couldn't say how many acres we ploughed, might have ben three or four, can't say for sure; didn't examine premises to see what crops Johnson had; can't state with certainty what crops he had that season; didn't take notice; don't know of my knowledge where Johnson got the buckwheat that he sowed. The buck wheat was threshed in Locke's barn, nearly three-fourths of a mile from Johnson's house, in south end of the farm. Dr. Locke died in March; I left in 217 April.
Re-direct Examination. The crops that I saw that Johnson raised, were in the garden; he may have had some crops outside that I didn't notice; don't remember seeing any except around his house, but I didn't pay any attention to it; when I sowed the buckwheat I don't remember seeing any crops.
Louis S. Payne, called and sworn for defendants, 218 No, I have been a captain; was in the Legislature last winter; I was administrator of Dr. Locke's estate; was appointed son after Locke's death; acted as such till I went into the army; when I was administrator I went to see the farm; I saw Johnson at his place; saw him and had a talk with him; can't gvie exact words, 219 but can give the substance. I asked him if he had any claims on the land? He said no! can't say exactly, but the substance was, he said that a long time ago he bad made a bargain with the Dr. for some of the land; that he paid some down no it; that he hadn't paid him anything since, and the Dr. had taken it back. I then asked him how he stood with him in relation to accounts? He said he didn't know, or something like that. I asked him if he had any accounts, or kept any against the Dr.? He said he had not. Asked him if he knew whether the Dr. 220 had any account against him? Think he said he didn't know. Asked him how he had been dealing with the Dr., in what way he had lived there? I told him the Dr. was dead and I came up to find out how the matter stood, and I wanted him to tel me all about it; he said he had done a good deall for the Dr., and the Dr. had says: I reside in Wheatfield; I'am a farmer; have been county clerk of Erie county; have been in the army. Q. Have you been a colonel ? 21 done a good deall for him; that guessed there was no great difference. During the conversation I told him I wanted to rent the land, and I didn't see any way but for him to get off. He replied that the Dr. had told him he might stay there as long as he wanted to, or as long as he lived. I told him the Dr.
was gone now, and he would have to deall with other people He said he had no where to go. Told him he would have to look up a place; asked him if he couldn't? He said he would go 2 and see an old master of his; he wanted to stay on the little piece where the garden was until he could get a place. I told him he might stay there until he could get a place; that he must get one as soon as he could. I asked him how he had been living there since the Dr. took it back? He said the piece where he lived then he had always had what he raised, but outside the fence whatever he would raisee the Dr. would take half and he half; the Dr. doing the ploughing and harrowing and he 223 the harvesting; I left him with the promisee that he would get a place as soon as he could, and that he might stay till he could; after that I rented the farm to Rapelyea on shares; he was in possession when I left in March, 1862; I went up to give him possession and went over to see Johnson; told him I had rented the farm to Rapelyea, and I wanted to know how he got along about getting off. He said he had not got a place Asked him if he had tried? Think hesaid he had not; he didn't know where to go. Told him I had 24broughtupRapelyeaotgivehmi possession,andhe would have to get away; asked him if he itad seen his old master? He said he hadn't. I told him he would have to get off. He said he would; said he only wanted to stay until he could get aplace. Think I asked him if he would try and get off as soon as he could? He said he would, he only wanted time to look around. Rapel- yea was standing with me; I said to him you see how it 225 is, Johnson wants time to remain, and I asked him if he would give him time to get a place? He said yes! he thought he could get along with him.
He said the Dr. had done a good deall for him, and had agreed to let him stay as long as he lived. To which I replied that things were changed now; was absent from home from March, 1862 to 1865; was not back in the mean time; when I got back Mr. Sherman was acting as administrator; I own land in Wheatfield; knew the value of such land as 26 this in 1848, 1849 and 1850; Iknew this lot; knew land adjoining and have known this land since; think the twelve acre lot was worth in thosee years thirty dollars an acre; the land is swampy and low, aclay loam; it is all good tillable land; rich land but wet; it is as good land as there is in that vicinity; it is considered good productive land; think all the timber on the farm is on that piece; have often heard the Dr. talk with Johnson about work, whether he had done this, or that; heard the Dr. say if he didn't kep that nest of niggers away he would drive 27 him of the lot; Jack said he couldn't help it, that they would come there; this was from 1854 and 1855 to 1860; may have been in 1852 or 1853; think I have heard him say so more than once, but can't be positive.
Cross examination: Prior to 1841 I lived in Tonawanda: I was a clerk in Vandervort & Co's store; was on Grand Island sometimes from 1841 to 1848; I lived in Niagara county; lived in the village of Tonawanda and lived there till 228 1853 or 1854, when I moved on to a farm; village is in the town of Wheatfeld; I became a farmer in 1854 or 1855; purchased of Dennis, a mile from the village by road; Johnson's farm is two miles by the road; in 1848, 1849 or:850; I didn't own any land except by article and possession; think I got it in 1843 or 1844: 229 that half a mile from Jack's farm nearer the village; about 100 acres; have sold it; own it now; think I gave it to James Sweeney to take care of; I let the article go; I let him have it at what I was to give; I was to give $12 or $15 an acre; can't recolect positively; that is my impression; can't swear to any land being sold in vicinity of Johnson's land in 1848, 1849 or 1850; don't know of any land being sold at $30 an acre; don't know of any lands being sold at from 7$ to $12; might have 230been sold ta $12; don't know of lands sold by Sweeney at that time; first saw the twelve acres, can't say when it was; saw them before 1861; I was appointed administrator within two weeks after his death; had no written authority except what I had as administrator; there were minor children at that time; when I first went to Johnson I said to him first, the Dr. is dead and I have got his matters to settle up, and I have got to see how matters are about the farm; can't give the exact words; can't say more than I have; can't remember any words 231 more than I have stated; can remember some; asked if he kept any account against the Dr.? He said not. Asked him if the Dr.
had any accounts against him? He said he didn't know. I told him he would have to go off if he didn't get a place; didn't ask him if he had a deed; I am sure of that; didn't guard myself against it; don't remember the word deed being used; think: can swear that the word deed wasn't used; can't state all the words that were not used; Johnson 232 didn't usee the word purchasee I think: think he said that years ago he had made a bargain for the land, or had bought it from Dr. Locke. He stated in substance that he had purchased the land of Locke. Think I asked Jack if he had any claims to the land? don't think I told him that if he hadn't a writing he could not hold the land; 1 knew as administrator I had nothing to do with the land; I said nothing to him about that; I 233 might remember other things if my attention was called; Johnson didn't say if his old master told him he must go, he would go; went to the place with Rapelyea the fore part of April, 1861; I told Johnson that I had rented the farm to Rapelyea, and I wanted to give him possession; asked him if he had got a place and was ready to go? and he said no, hadn't tried, hadn't seen his old master. I said he must do something. He said he would try and get a place as soon as he could; think 234 Rapelyea could hear all that was said as well as I; my recollection of Rapelyea's being there was as clear as on the other subjects I have been testifying about; I went around with Jack to see the place he wished to occupy, and asked him if that was all he wanted to keep? think the first conversation was near the house; think I had executed a leasee to Rapelyea before I went there; didn't sign it as administrator; made it in the nane of the widow think;
she was living in the village of Tonawanda, in the housee where the Dr. lived; think I signed 235 her name by me in her house; have not seen it since; don't know where it is; can't say whether Rapelyea had it; think I gave it to Rapelyea, but am not positive; went through Dr. Locke's books after I saw Johnson, not before; the authority to my son was verbal, and was given during the winter of 1861 to 1862; he was seventeen or eighteen at that time; I told him the matters were as near closed up as could be for the present, but that whatever was proper to be settled, to settle in my 236 name; gave him generall instructions; told him to settle what came along; I told him not to settle certain things; I had settled some things; I did not leave any funds in his hands to pay debts; I think I left some notes and accounts to settle; I paid Mr. Newell a store debt.
Re-direct examination: I had a talk with
Chadwick about buying the farm. William Dornfeldt, called and sworn for defendants, says: I have been collector here in 1859, 1860 and 1865; collected taxes thosee years; knew Locke's farm; Locke paid the taxes; Johnson never paid any taxes; didn't have any to collect against him; that farm was in my district; thesee are some of the receipts that I gave.
Cross examination: 238 I am not positive as to the year 1865; my attention has not been called to the fact whether Johnson paid taxes or not until within a few days; can't remember all who paid taxes und all who didn't; my brother sometimes assisted me; he did not receive taxes in my absence.
George Rumpbold, called and sworn for defendants, says: I live in Wheatfeld; I live about fifty steps from Johnson; I moved there in August, 1849; 1knew John- 239 son when I went there; he lived in an old housee then, not there now; I know where Johnson lives now; he moved into the housee where he is now in 1850; I can't say whether in Spring or Fall; he staid in the old housee through the winter after we went there.
Cross examination: I lived at Zimmerman's in 1840 on Delaware street, in Tonawanda; worked for Zimmerman one year, then moved on to my son's farm, not a half a mile from Johnson; my son's name is Jacob Rumpbold; my son-in-law 240 lived at Zimmerman's, afterward he lived where he lives now; I went on to the land first; I lived there one year before Jacob Rumpbold came there; I have no papers; in 1846 I lived at Cadwell's in the Zimmerman settlement; I worked there seventeen years to 1846; nothing to show when I left Zimmerman's; can't tel what year it was that I went to Zimmerman's settlement. Catherine Rumpbold, caled and sworn for defendants, 241 says: I am wife of last witness; live with him now; live on the next lot to my son; I went there in 1849, in the Fall of the year; Johnson lived then at the place where Ensigner lives now; that is les than a quarter of a mile from where we live; he lived in a log housee then; Ensigner lives there now; Johnson moved to where he lives now the next Spring after we moved there; I shall be seventy-two years old next November; when we moved there John- 242 son's housee was not built; it was built the Spring after we moved there.
Cross examination: When we moved on to this land we moved from a man's housee by the name of Rapp, on Delaware street; we had been living there six months; can't say exactly what year I moved in to Rapp's house; moved into Rapp's housee in the Spring of 1849; it was not in 1847; am sure it was in 1849; have no memorandum to show when I lived at Rapps' house; lived in Buffalo whti my 213 daughter before I went into Rapp's house; my daugh ter's husband's name is George Knei; before that I lived on Railroad in Failing House; that was in 1848; no writing to show that; Jacob Rumpbold lived at Zimmerman's then; he went onto the farm where we now live in 1850; he did not work on it before 1850; we moved there in the Fall and he came in the next Spring; couldn't tell where Johnson lived when Jacob came; have just come from my housee here; no one has talked with me. 214
Rosim Ernstein, called and sworn for defendants, says: I live about a quarter of a mile from Johnson; I moved there May 14th, 1850; moved into a log house; Johnson moved into it before I did; he moved out a very few days before we moved in; think they working on the roof; they were shingling it; when we were mov- 245 ing in Mrs. Johnson took away a trunk; Johnson had some hens and a cat there, and he took thosee away after we moved there; what makes me say it was in 1850, was, that my son was born the 26th of June, and he was twenty years old the 26th of last June; he was born six weeks and one day after we moved there; my husband moved in with me; he is living there still; I have a record of when the child was born in a book; I wrote it in there a week after he was born; it is written in a 246 singing book; I wrote the name myself; have not had a new book; have got the same book now; Mr. Mayne baptized him when he was eight weeks old, and put that in the Church book; I have not looked at it since; I see my own book almost every day; saw it to-day; his given name is ('harles; " Charles"—it read—" was born July 4, 1850." The 1850 was written in figures.
Cross examination: My son claimed last Summer that he was twenty years 247 old; said he would be twenty-one next Summer. Garwood L. Judd:-Reside in N. Tonawanda, Niagara county; lawyer; know Johnson; remember transaction of settlement of W. Transportation Co.'s office; that was in 1863 or 1864.
Q. What took place? Objected to. Overruled, and exceptions taken by Mr. Farnell. don't remember his coming to see me about Locke es- 248 tate before this; he simply came to have me swear him to an affidavit; don't remember whether he left his papers; he gave me two dollars, but can't say whetherit was on that occasion; can't say whether he gave me a dollar, or not. Q. At the time the affidavit was made did he give you the papers he had and one dollar, and say, Mr. Judd will you see that my interests are taken care of, and did you 249 answer in substance that you would? A. No sir. Re-direct by Mr. Lewis: I now remember that Sturgis took the papers with him; I simply swore Johnson to affidavit; to go back, I forget who came after me, but I went to the office; Mr. Eggert was there, Mr. Johnson, young Payne, Peletiah Hil, don't remember any one else; it was then said in Mr. Johnson's presence, we have settled with Johnson 250 and Locke estate, and wanted me to draw a contract and some receipts, they explained the matter to me and I drew the papers; I did so and passed out; the contract was a lease; that was left with young Payne, or Hil, I don't know which, or by me on the table; I saw it a year, or two, or three ago; it was handed to me by Ransom, or his wife, or Mr. Fonner; put it where I keep such papers, in my pigeon box; I had it not long after in a suit at MeMerritt's ofice, a trespass suit, brought at Fonner's 251 request; I took it back, put it in proper place in my office; next time I saw it, Chadwick came to my office and I read it to him, laid it in its proper place, and Chadwick went out; he sat there and could see where I put it; I have never seen it since; I put it in a pigeon hole; have looked carefully for it;
my attention was first called to it in reference to this suit, by Fonner, or some of thesee parties; there may have been some other suit in which it was asked for; it was a leasee of one acre of land, and possibly two, from the Locke estate to 252 Johnson, til the Ist, or 10th of April folowing the lease; Mr. Johnson signed it on the one part, and Mr. Hill, or Mr. Payne on the other; that leasee was read over to Johnson before he signed; they said they had gone through the figuring; that they were to let Jack stay till the April following; Payne or Hill paid $10 in 253 my presence to Mr. Johnson; this
EXHIBIT B; this little paper attached, receipt for $96: Masked "EXHIBIT 8" and hereto attached. can't say whether it was there or not; I have seen it before; Mr. Sturgis came there with it, with Mr. Johnson before this, and I drew an affidavit; also receipt of April 24, 1863; that was drawn at its date; I drew it; 254 it was drawn when the $10 were paid.
Cross examined: Won't swear that I didn't attach the $96 receipt to the other paper; can't swear that I had seen Eggert and Payne before the transaction, presume I had; Johnson was not in tears while I was there, that I saw; my mi - pression is that young Payne, or Hill paid me, or I charged it to them; I am sure that I didn't charge Johnson; don't remember any particular conversation with Johnson; can't remember words that were spoken; 255 I was asked to draw a leasee by the parties; Payne and Eggert told me whnt they desired, to draw a lease; Johnson's name was on the lease; can't tell certainly the name of the other party to it; it was on behalf of the, Locke estate; my best recollection is that it was in the name of the Locke estate, but I can't say certainly; think there were no metes or bounds given; think it was one acre, that is my present recollection; I drew the receipt; can't say who first spoke about that; the parties 256 present asked me to draw.it
Levant Ransom sworn for defendants; • I live on Grand Island; I am one of the defendants; I married Mis Locke in July, 1865; she was daughter of Dr. Locke; I have known Johnson by sight twelve or fourteen years; was on this farm once or twice before I was married; saw Jonson there after I married; had conversation with him; think in August, 1869, where he 257 lives; my wife, I and little boy one year old were there; Jack said to me you have bought a part of this land. I said my wife or the heirs had. He said he had heard we were going to buy Mrs. Rowland out; that he hoped we would buy her out, or the children would have no benefit of the property; he said he understood Mrs. R. had the furniture and the children nothing; then he wanted to know what we were going to do with him. My wife said, Jack, we shall not disturb you as long as 258 we hold the property, but if we should sell out he would have to leave. Jack said he only was occupying one acre there and the children would not miss it; that he was growing old and could get a living of it; he said he had bought twelve acres of the Dr. once and made a payment on it, but he couldn't pay for it and the Dr. had taken it back; said he was to pay $30 an acre; said that Mrs. Rowland had been cutting timber there which should have been left for me of the farm. My wife was there, and I think heard this; before this, in 259 1865 or 1866, I met him on Briggs' stoop. He asked me if my name was Ransom? "I said it was. He said Mrs. R. was cutting timber, and I should tell my wife that it should be left on the farm. I know Thomas J. Keith; had a conversation with him in reference to this matter; about the time this suit was commenced he told me the colored man was to pay $30 an acre for this land;
I know John Chadwick; had conversations with him about this farm in Fall of 1865. He said he wanted 260 me to buy Mrs. Rowland out, and then to sel him the land; said he would pay $50 an acre; said he had sixty I acres along side it, and it would make him agood farm. told him I did not think they would sell for $50. He said it was all it was worth. Told him I would give him $75 for his. He said he had fifteen or twenty acres of tim- 261 ber on his land which made it worth more than Locke farm; he said that Sherman and Payne and a lawyer at Lockport, had got about all of the property; that Ben Sturgis had trumped up an account, or made up one. I think he said trumped up an account in favor of Johnson against Locke estate. He says Jack owes the estate to-day; Locke has taken care of him and paid him for all he has done and more too; he said Mrs. R. owed him, and if I bought her dower out I must keep that out. It 262 was 1 think $80; the next conversation was*a day or two after Fonner had made a bargain for the land as I understood; I met him first at Rose's feed store. He asked me if my father had told me what word he had sent me? Told him yes. He then asked if the land was sold? I told him it was. He wanted to know if any money had been paid, or writings drawn? I told him no, except that the widow's right had been bought out and paid for. He told me to tell my wife he would 263 give $62 an acre and a gold watch that belonged to her father. I told him the land was sold and I did not think he could get it. He then said he would give $65 an acre and the watch. Told him he could not get it. He said he would have given $70 an acre before he would have let it go to Fonner.
Cross examination: Have seen some of the witnesses and managed this casee for defendants; at time of first conversation land had not been divided; Pickard bid in twenty-eight acres 264 in centre of farm; my wife bought that of Pickard; I had held a mortgage; I had nothing to do with Pickard's buying; as to that twenty-eight the wife's dower was cut off; Pickard gave a warranty deed to my wife; my wife paid a little over eight hundred dollars for the twenty-eight acres, the amount of the mortgage and niterest: there was then some of the land which the heirs owned subject to Mrs. R.s' dower: the twenty-eight 265 acres went through the farm east and west: it did not touch Johnson's land: Dr. L. made that mortgage in his life time: think it did not go to Jack's line, but I do not know.
Q. I call your attention to conversation when you heard that heirs had sold? (Witness repeats it.) Couldn't say whether he asked me whether the heirs had sold, or whether the land was sold: I think he asked me if the land was sold: I said 266 the farm was sold: think I said farm, pretty certain: may have said land or farm: supposee it is the same thing: we were not talking about the twenty-eight acres my wife had bought. He said, thought we could sel that any way. I said, that twenty-eight acres belonged to the three children and title was taken in her name for convenience: I told him that Houghton had sold this property for the children and managed the whole thing: didn't make this statement before becausee I did not 267 think of it: I was not guardian of her children: had nothing to do with the farm except the twenty-eight acres. He said that Fonner didn't know that land was for sale till he told him that he knew that Chadwick wanted to buy it, and that he shouldn't have any comfort as long as he held it: first conversation with Chadwick was by bridge. He said he would buy the widow out if the heirs would sell. This conversation was not in Koon's shop: in the last conversation, after it he went into Koon's shop, but we had no conversation: we did 268 there say, we would go to Houghton's and see him in reference to his getting my wife's share: don't remember going from shop to Houghton's: saw Johnson on farm the middle or last of August, 1867: went into the house: his wife was there: we sat down. My wife said if she sold he might have to leave. He said he would: was 269 not surprised when he spoke of $30 an acre: he said hed' made apayment, but he couldn't pay any more and the Dr. had taken it back.
He didn't say that Payne had taken it back: his name was not mentioned: as to conversation on bridge in 1865: (repeats it)—told him my wife was at Mr. Hill's: Mr. Pelatiah Hill, who married Dr. Locke's sister: as to conversation with Keith: haven't been to him to ask him to change his testimony: he came to me upon the subject before he was sworn: 270 mot him on the side wakl, Keith said that Chadwick had taken him to Lockport to see what he knew about the suit: K. said that Johnson had paid Dr. Locke $80 in five-franc pieces, and that Locke had given him a receipt. He said that was all he knew about it: that perhaps Dr. Hoyer would know more than he did: that he was there when the money was paid. Chadwick said that Payne and Sherman and the lawyer at Lockport had got the biggest part of the Locke estate: may have been their part: I didn't say that Payne had ben figur- 271 nig to get the estate. Q. Did you not state to Chris Swinger, and Mr. Orten, that Lewis S. Payue had ben endeaving to get hold of about all the property of the Locke estate, at Swinger's store in Tonawanda, about 1865?.A No, sir. Asa Ransom, affirmed: Reside on Grand Island; I know John Chadwick; had 272 a conversation with him about buying this farm about the time it was sold to Fonner-near the Excelsior Hotel. He wanted me to see Levant and Miriam and get them to sell him the Locke farm or their farm, the sixty acre. He said he would give them sixty-five dollars an acre for it, that he would also give Miriam her father's gold watch; that he didn't think she knew where it was; that he had bought it of the widow Locke; told him I 273 would see Levant and tell him, and did so.
Cross- Examined. Remember the exact words he used, said he wanted Levant and Miriam to sell him that lot &c., as before; told Levant that Jchn wanted the lot they were selling to Fonner. Mrs. Miriam Ransom.-Am daughter of Dr. Locke; there were three children, I oldest; I am 30 now; I was of age when my father died; my sister is now 22; my 274 brother will be 21 next spring; am wife of Levant Ransom; was at Johnson's housee at the time my husband speaks of; be asked us in regard to taking up or buying Pickard Mortgage; he said he understood we had bought part of the farm, and that we talked of buying Mrs. Rowland's share; I told him we should like to; he then asked what we would do with him; I said that as long as we owned the place he might stay and we would take care of him, but that if we sold the place he would have to go; he said he would be wiling to; he then said 275 he had once made a bargain with my father, that perhaps I knew nothing of it-for twelve acres of land, at thirty dollars an acre, and had made one payment on the land, but had failed to pay any more, and my father had taken the property back; he said he hoped we would buy it, that. he only occupied one acre and that we would never feel the loss of it while he staid there. Before that in 65, in the fal, he came and told me that Mrs. Rowland was cutting timber, and I had better 276 come and do something if I could, that I knew that my father never allowed any wood to be cut of the two acres of land, of woodland, and that I ought not to permit it only for the benefit of the farm; he said she had cut about fifteen cords of wood that ought to have been left for rail timber-which was afterwards sold for school 27 taxes. I went out to see where she had ben cuting the wood but Jack was not there. I found the wood cut there on the extreme end of the farm, on the 12 acres we have been talking ahout; that was all the woodland on the farm; I lived at home up to the time uf my father's death; I was away on a visit at the time of his death.
Rosina Ernstein,
recalled: This is the church book; it is conceded that the book 278 is the Church Register of baptism, (Lutheran Church of the town of Tonawanda,) and after refreshing my recollection from looking at the entries in this book, I still say that the child of whosee baptism I spoke when I was a witness before-Carl Ernstein was born 26th June, 1850, and baptised August 19th, 1850. This testimony is received subject to exception.
Cross- Examined: I can recollect when the child was baptised without 279 looking at book; was married in 1848, 2d day
September. Mrs. Mariam Ransom
recalled: I remember seeing a paper given by Mrs. Rowland to Johnson; I saw it among my father's papers; went to Sherman's and got all my father's papers; this was among them; George Sherman, he was acting as administrator of my father's estate; I gave it to Judd; I have read it; it was a leasee from Mrs. Locke to Johnson of one acre of land for eleven months; don't remember date or rent; never have seen it since; Judd asked me 280 for it, when they had some trouble with Fonner; Jack used to come to housee when father was living; father let him have orders on stores, flour, pork, from the house, and such things; he has given him a dollar or a few dollars at a time; never any large amount; Johnson would say he wanted his pay for what he had done during the past wek or the past month; have heard father say to him repeatedly that he must leave there if he didn't 281 turn people away who came there. After my father's death, Jack said he would split wood or do anything else; Mrs. Locke wanted to pay for the usee of the acre of land. Previous to this he had brought us buckwheat and beans for some property he was working on shares. He said to Mrs. Locke, that is your share of what he raised on the piece. My step-mother remained in the housee until the housee was sold; she went to Buffalo a few months before it was sold; I staid till 282 1865; I am speaking of the homestead in Tonawanda.
Cross- Examined: Shall be 31 the 14th December; was at school in Maine, in 1853, was at school at Williamsville three or four months; home every Saturday. That was the year 1856; was in Maine in winter of 1860, when father died; thesee are the only times I was away from home; father gave Johnson orders; can't say whether on Warren; he did repeatedly on Fanning; he was here to-day; 283 also on Mr. Hill; remember one on Hill for $1.00 in cash; can't give any other amounts. My father paid Johnson money severall time; can't give number of times. My father told J, he didnt want people there trampling over his grain. My father didn't keep any books except his physician book. Heard father talk to Johuson in '53, tour or five times about not having people there; heard kim at different time: remember after this, father told him he must leave unless he kept people away. The buckwheat and beans were brought when Rapel- 284 yea was working the farm; got papers from Sherman in '66 or 67: read all the lease; no description of metes or bounds of lands: it was signed by Mrs. B. Think there was no other name: think it was sworn to before Mr. Judd: it was signed Mary A. Locke. Johnson didn't say he had forbidden Rowland to cut 285 wood; I didn't go to see anybody about it; I didn't request my husband to; I think Mrs. R. is in Washington, D. C;. my sister is in Vincences, Indiana; my brother in New Jersey; I don't know the place. Paper purporting to be a deed from Joseph Fellows to Jacob Rumpbold, dated October 1st, 1849, read in evidence. Subject to objections.
Levant Ransom
recalled: Saw leasee from Mrs. Rowland to Jack, and I gave it 286 to Jack; his signature was to it; heard my wife read it to me; eaw what there was in it.
Q. What did it contain? Cbjected to. A. Think it was given for an acre of land; think it was bounded.
Cross examination: Didn't see leasee in justice's court; don't know of ary suits being withdrawn becausee Johnson's name wasn't to it; think there was a suit on that lease; Judd acted for 287 Fonner. There was a non-suit before I got to the ofice —het last suit; wasn't told that suit was withdrawn becausee Johnson's name was not in the lease. Re-direct: Judd said the leasee was lost. That was second suit. First suit he said that magistrate had made a mistake in making out the papers, and had laid it to him. Benjamin Foose: I live in Lewiston. In 1849, I bought forty-five acres 288 of lot nineteen, atout fifty rods from Jack. He went on the lot where he is now in the spring of 1850—-to best of my knowledge. I was then living in town of Niagara; lived on nineteen of and on; chopped the winter of 1849 and 1850; Jack helped me build shanty in December, 1849; he lived then on rineteen; I was at his house; in summer of 1850, came up and found Jack on the twelve acres; 1 staid on nineteen till spring; I left 289 in March, 1850, and Jack was living on nineteen.
Cross examined: No writings to show when I went on to land; I had an article in 1849, from Lawrence Van Slyke in December; I know a woman died and her tombstone shows it to be in December, 1849. Then there was a suit at Lockport after the woman died, and I came up here and bought the article after that suit; I spent the winter, used to cross the twelve acres; I saw Jack to work there 290 getting of some timber to build a house; there was a swale where Jack worked; it was a new country; part of Jack's land was chopped off-not cleared.
John Fonner
recalled: At the time I bought this farm didn't know that Johnson claimed to own it or that he claimed to occupy anything but the garden; have known Chadwick many years; worked for him a day and a half once, six or seven years ago; didn't see Johnson; was on a load of 291 hay with Chadwick; C. told me the farm would be for sale some time; asked him how much it was worth for farming purposes, he said $50 an acre; he said he was going to get it for that; that was all; nothing was said about Johnson's owning it; never had any talk with him about Johnson's claiming to own any part of it; never told him that I knew Johnson hail any interest in the land; didn't have any conversation with Chadwick about Johnson's owning land when we were pitching hay; Johnson pitched hay for me; Chadwick was not there 292 at all; had no talk with Johnson about the land; had talk with Chadwick after I bought the farm; he told me I had no business to buy it—he wanted it; I told him I couldn't help that; if he wanted it he should have bought it. He said I ought to let him have it, he wanted it; I told him I bought it for my own use, and 293 I preferred to keep it; he said if he didn't get it he'd law me out of it-he'd ruin me; I told him I couldn't help it, that was all. Thad a talk with Johnson in March, 1868, after I had bought the widow out and paid $500, ard after I had bargained for the place I had a deed for the dower. This talk was in Johnson's shanty. I told him I had bought the place and I had come to look at the buildings to see how things looked. He wanted to know whether I was going to let him stay there. He 294 said he had once bought it of Dr. Locke, hut he couldn't pay for it and Dr. Locke had taken the land back and let him stay there.
He said the heirs had let him have the usee of one acre. I told him the land was let for a year, and that the tenant had concluded to keep it another year, and so pay me the rent. I told him that as long as the land was rented I did not care about his staying there. He said he would like to stay; that Dr. Locke let him stay, and he did not know where to go to. The twelve acres is good farming land, dry and easily 295 drained. About one acre of the twelve has been used since I was turned of, The balance has grown up to weeds and thistles. Rentable value of land $10 per acre; would then, won't now—I mean at the time I was driven off; it was in good condition then.
Cross examined: Have known farming land to be rented about a meli from here-eleven acres, no dwelling; know of farms being rented —Vanderwort farm, 120 acres, $225 a year, 296 housee and barn on it-eighty acres cleared. Guenz was on Jack'e land in 1868. He was my tenant that summer. I made contract with heirs a few days before I got widow's deed. I made contract with Levant Ransom— no writing-price $60 an acre for the whole farm. Jacobs first spoke for me by my authority; didn't have a talk with Chadwick and get off a load of hay and go and see Jacobs. Afew days after I got leed from the 297 widow I went to see Johnson; told widow my agreement with Ransom; she made deed to carry out that contract; I didn't then know that Guenz had a crop on it; I bought it without looking it over; I was well acquainted with the farm; no arrangement between Jacobs, Ransom and I that I should be the purchaser; had worked along side the farm severall times; I knew that Guenz was tenant. I made no enquiry about his crops; didn't hear that Guenz had &dispute with Johnson; had no 298 dispute with Guenz about Johnson's claims; didn't know that Johnson was the reputed owner of twelve acres; I was born closee by here; will be forty next fall. There was a colored woman in shanty when I had the talk with Johuson; I told him that perhaps he might stay; saw Johnson drawing huy once; I knew that Johnson lived on the lot seven years ago last summer. In 1868, there was a crop of oats on this twelve acres—no other crop; conversation with Chadwick was in spring after I bought lot on sidewalk in Tonawanda; I didn't say to Chadwick 299 that I would alw Johnson out of it; he didn't say that Johnson had as many friends as I. I might have said to him that I would make him a present of the darkies. A man by the name of Storms was present at the conversation with Chadwick on the sidewalk; he lives on the town line; know Peter Shell.
Q. Ddi you, on same road, in spring of 1868, tel Shel that youd' give (hadwick all the awl he wanted, 30 and get the niggers of too? A. No, I did not; after I bought, Houghton brought suit in my name to get darkey off; I did not authorize it; I didn't bring another suit; I did not causee Johnson to be arrested in spring of 1868, or same spring that suit before mentioned was brought. 301
Re-direct examination: Charles S. Hawley was collector of taxes in 1855-of county taxes; knew Locke farm; collected tax of 1855, of Dr. Locke; Johnson didn't pay any part of the tax that year; I only collected that year; think I didn't return any taxes unpaid on the Locke farm.
Cross examined: Didn't call on Johnson; couldn't find my roll. Calvin G. Rand: Reside in Wheatfield; know Johnson farm; sometime of forepart of last spring I had talk with Johnson on road to Catler's Mill; I said you and Fonner aer having a law suit. He said, yes. I asked him what the matter was. He said Fonner was on some land digging a ditch; that he tried to put him off; that Chadwick helped him, and that they were both too much for him. He said Fonner had sued him; I asked him if he had any title to the land. He said, no. We then got near the saw _303 mil and our conversation ended.
Cross examined: I used the word "title;" I charged my mind at the time with the language used; that is as I remember it; I wanted to find out the facts; don't know how I came to usee the word "title." I seldom usee the word deed. I wanted to know about the title, not about the deed; the conversation was purely accidental; I didn't tell that he had bought the land. 304 William T. Bush: Am a lawyer; lived in Tonawanda filteen years; know Chadwick twenty or twenty-five years; know his character. Hsi character for truth and veracity is bad; I would not believe him as a witness.
Cross examined: Have had some litigations against Chadwick as coun- sel. His character is bad both sides of the creek; there 305 are politicall distinctions here. Benjamin H, Long: Am a lawyer; resided twenty-seven years in Tonawanda; know Chadwick's character-bad; wouldn't believe him as a witness.
Cross examined: Chadwick. sued me once-now pending. Have tried suits in his favor-one in 1864, when he was colector. I was a witness before Buck three or four years ago- 306 Didn't swear that I would believe him under oath. Swore then that I would believe Chadwick under oath when he was not interested, and that I wouldn't when he was. James Lester: Reside in Tonawanda; keep billiard saloon: know Chadwick fifteen years: character bad: wouldn't believe him, as a witness, Ransom and Long are friends of mine. William Swinger: Grocer: lisee in Erie county: ben a magistrate four years: known Chad wcik thirty years; I know his generall 307 reputation: it is bad: wouldn't believe him in a casee in which he had any interest: don't know as 1 would if he hadn't.
Cross examined:
Ransom and others are at my shop occasionally. Calvin G. Rand
recalled: Known Chadwick ten or twelvo years. Know his character. It is bad. Wouldn't believe him as a witness.
Cross examined:-Have had litigations with Chadwick. 308 Rufus Fanning: Known Johnson about a year after Dr. Locke died. Johnson came to my store: asked him where he was going, as he was dressed up. He said he was going to Cattaraugus where his old master lived. He said he presumed he would have to leave his place now as Dr. 309 Locke was dead, and he was going to see if he could get a place with his old master. He said if Dr. Locke had lived he probably could have staid, that now he would probably have to leave. I saw him when he returned. I asked him if he was going to his old master. He said he wanted him to and he probably should.
Cross examined: can't fix the year: think it was in 1861: it was about a year after Dr. Locke died: have told all the conversa- 310 tion. This was before Payne went to war. There was no talk about deed or about Payne. John W. Cramer: Known Chadwick fifteen years: know his generall reputation-bad: wouldn't believe him as a witness.
Cross examined: Some years ago Chadwick sued me: six or seven years ago: action of slander: I was defendant.
Deposition of Peltiah Hill read in 31 Ovidence..Marked "texhabit o and attached.
Plaintiff, Andrew W. Brazee: On the 24th of August, 1869, I went to John Fonner's house, found him and wife, and on behalf of Johnson, and by his authority, said to Fonner that I was directed by Johnson to ask him and wife to sign and acknowledge this deed which I then and now produce; I told him I would pay expensee of acknowledge and stamp. He mid, Mr. Brazee, tel John Chadwick and John Johnson 312 that I shan't sign any deed to Johnson; tel John Chadwick to mind his own business. I turned to Mrs. Fonner, who declined to have any thing to do with it; this was before this suit of Johnson, Chadwick and Sherman vs. Fonner et. al. was commenced. Instrument produced and read in evidence and marked by the Referee-Q. C. Ded, dated August 24, 81 from Fonner and his wife to Johnson. Elias B. Brown: Reside in Tonawanda: have known Chadwick eleven years: am acquainted with his generall character: I call it good; would believe him under oath.
Cross examined: William Sweeney: Used to be acquainted with the Locke farm and the twelve acres; knew it forty years ago; knew lot nineteen; in 1849 and 1850 this lot was worth— 313
Objected to by Mr. Lewis. 314 $10 to $12 an acre; knew of lands purchasee in lot nineteen: always known Chadwick: know his generall character: know nothing against it; would believe him under oath.
Cross examined: Been crippled twenty-four or twenty-five years: fifteen or twenty years haven't been ablé to get about much: reside this side of the creek: heard of an attempt to impeach him three or four weeks ago: don't remember 315 hearing any business men speak of him. James Carney: Resided in Tonawanda on this side of creek three and a half years: resided on the other side forty years: know the Locke farm: knew it in 1848, 1849 and 1850: over it once in a while: somewhat acquainted with price of lands: the twelve acres where Johnson lived was worth some $12 to $14 an aere: I bought and sold some: known Chadwick since he was a boy: know his reputation: some speak hard of him and some good: no hesi - 316 tation in believing him under oath: about as many speak against him as for him.
Rebuttal, recalls, and additional plaintiff proof
Cross examined: I went over the Locke farm twenty years ago with Dr. Locke with the view of purchasing it: on that occasion Dr. Locke pointed out to me the lot occupied by Johnson, and told me he had sold twelve acres there to 317 him at, I think he said, $12 an acre, but can't be positive as to price: Locke said he had taken all the timber of. Franklin Warren: (Counsel shows witness tax rolls of town of Wheatfield for years 1852, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1857, 1859, 1860 and 1858.) Am now town clerk of Wheatfield: have custody of records: find thesee rolls in the office: have brought them here from the office: have looked for roll of 1856: not there: I believe have never seen it.
Cross examined: 318 Johnson's name only found on thesee rolls: Locke assessed on the rest. Lot 10. Rol 1852-Locke assessed 69 acres; Jöhnson, lot 10, 12 acres. " 1853-Locke assessed 42} acres; Johnson, lot 10, 12 acres. " 1854-Locke and Chadwick 62} acres, east part; Johnson, lot 10, 12 acres. 319 " 1855-Locke, lot 1, 69 acres; Johnson, lot 10, 12 acres. " 1856-Book lost. " 1857-Locke, lot 12, 80 acres; Johnson, lot 12, 12 acres. " 1858-Locke, lot 12, 80 acres; Johnson, lot 10, 12 acres. " 1859-Locke, lot 10, 62 acres; Johnson, lot 10, 12 acres. 320 " 1860--Locke, lot 10, 48} acres; Johnson, lot 10, 121⁄2acres. Town assessment.
Edward A. Milliman sworn for Fonner et. al.: Have been collector of town taxes in Wheatfield: was so in 1866 or 1867: conceded that Johnson paid no taxes in 1866 or 1867. James Sweeney for Johnson et. al.: Have resided in Tonawanda many years; was acquainted with value of land: it was wet land: in 1848, 1849 and 1850 it was worth $9 an acre, not to exceed $10; I am speaking of lot nineteen: have known Chadwick always; character good; would believe him under oath.
Cross examined: I left here in 1859; Resided in Buffalo ever since; banker; have had good deall to do with him all the time; 322 have not enquired as to his standing in Tonawanda since I left; have heard people litigating with him, talk against him; heard of attempts to impeach him; have heard Jacobs speak of him; I am thirty-eight; know nothing of lands except thosee owned by my relatives.
Louis S. Payne for Fonner and others
recalled: I am acquainted with Chadwick; he had aconversation with me once about buying Locke's farm in Summer of 1861. He said he wanted the land, and that I should 323 help him get the Doctor's place; he said he was willing to give $40 an acre; he said he wanted the Locke place. Nothing said about Jack; never did that I remember; I know lot nineteen: is lowest land: lower than Locke farm: Mr. Locke's farm was worth three times as much as nineteen, acre for acre: the twelve acres worth a good deall more: could hardly put it three times as much: if lot nineteen was worth $10 to $12 na acre, this was worth at least $30 an acre to take it from the Locke 324 farm:
Cross examined: Water don't run from nineteen to Jack's land, except through a swale on creek: think I crossed Jack's land in 1848: think it was mostly covered with woods in 1848: think the twelve acres was worth $30 an acre in 1848 in 325 the market: don't know of any land being sold as high as $20 an acre.
Q. What did you pay for the south part of lot nineteen ? A. Think I paid $12 an acre, two lots, nearly 100 acres that I bought. Re-direct: I had to go across twelve acres to get timber; there is acreek across the twelve acres; lot nineteen is a basin; 326 twelve acres higher than nineteen. Re-cross: There was a ditch in the ravine, that was the only one I knew. It dips down immediately from Jack's land. It dips from Jack's land to nineteen. Perhaps Jack's lot is lower than rest of Locke's farm, but to the eye it is about a dead level. Re-direct: Jack's housee is worth more than $20: plank house; 327 it is about 15x20 feet; frame and plank: worth $50, perhaps: barn same sort of building: both dilapidated.
Cross examined: Took no measurements: did not estimate lumber or time of building: was past housee last summer: made no estimate of barn: can't build a new building better than housee for $100: new barn for $50: havn't estimated lumber or time only generall value of such buildings. Mr. Lewis offered in evidence mortgage dated 30th November, 1847, from Locke to Bowles on the Locke 328 farm to show value of property-mortgage for $1,000 on equall undivided half of farm. Thomas Collins: Was assessor of the town in 1869 and 1870: had talk with Chadwick about Jack's piece. He asked me if I had assessed colored man any land: told him I had not: that I didn't find any colored man on any land that
I as ses sed. He told me there was a man by the name 329 of Johnson owned land back of Fonner's: that he had it and owned it: told him that Fonner told me he owned all that land. He said he dia not, and wished I should alter the assessment and assess a part of it to Johnson. This was in the latter part of June, 1869. Fonner and others rest. Frank Warren
recalled: Thesee are pol lists of 1849, district No. 2. Found thesee papers in town clerk's office. Poll list shows that Johnson's name was on it in 1849. 330 Taken subject to objection. Am acquainted with Jack's tweive acres twenty years: been on it: know lot nineteen.
Q. What difference in value between lot nineteen and the twelve acres? Objected to..A Jack's twelve acres worth perhaps $3 or $4 an acre more than lot nineteen: know Hook's twenty-nine neres south of the twelve acres: knew it when Hook 31 lived on it. Fair market value of Jack's land twenty years ago $14: think it would sell for that: was acquainted with Hook's land. I bought on nineteen in 1844 or 1845. Sold my lands in 1854 buildings on it, log barn and orchard five acres; there was a housee when I bought.; know Chadwick thirty years; think I know his generall character; good; would believe him under oath.
Cross examined: By generall character I mean the public expression- 332 particular people speak on the other side of the question. The largest party speak well of him. Heard of attempt to impeach him at Lockport. His character is good with the majority of people. Uriall Driggs: Resided in Tonawanda forty-six years; have known 333 Johnson's land forty years; was buying and selling lands but not in that locality: acquainted with its market value; worth from $12 to $15 an acre in 1848 and 1849; acquainted with Chadwick many years; am acquainted with his character; generall character good; should believe him on oath.
Cross examined: Have been on the twelve acres; knew of it when Jack went cn; knew of sales right above it; have heard 34 a few men say they wouldn't believe Chadwick on oath, and some say they would.
Thomas J. Keith
recalled: Dr. Hoyer was not present when money was paid and receipt given to my recollection. It was paid at my house. Levant Ransom asked me if I couldn't be mistaken as to the price of the land.
That was after I was sworn, I think at the hotel, on the other side of the Kelsey House. Mrs. Keith has not been able to leave 335 house: don't think she was in room when money was paid, but in another room where she couldn't see the parties and the transaction; was perfectly acquainted with Johnson's land; on it in 1848; in 1848 or 1849, I built a house. A colored man, who was a carpenter, lived with Johnson and was there a number of times to get him to work for me. He has been dead severall years. Think Johnson then lived on this twelve acres; was never at his place on the other lot. This was before 336 this money was paid when I first went there; was acquainted with value of land—low, wet piece with swale, water ran from lot ten across Johnson's to twelve rough piece—-cut over some— ablack oak swamp in—it slashed over some. Timber had been slashed over— greater part was a slashing; timber all cut out; land without buildings not over $8.00 an acre at that time; shink there was a wood road on the line between this 37 and Vanderwort's lot.
Cross examined: Told Ransom not impossible that I was mistaken as to value; that possibly number of acres was confounded with price; kept my office at my house; I commenced my housee in spring of 1848: did not complete it for two years. • Re-direct: 338 Ransom suggested that I had confounded number of acres with price. Albert Darnfelt: Resided in Buffalo a year last June; formerly lived in Wheatfield twenty-five years; knew Johnson twentyseven years; was assessor frum 1859 to 1861; I think, got no record. In 1850 or 1860, went to Johnson's place and assessed that property; whether twelve or fifteen acres can't say; assessed it to Johnson; the land he lived 339 on; that was after I saw Johnson; don't remember whether I saw Locke; I assessed them both; land worth from $9 to $13 an acre; Johnson a neighbor of mine; I lived there and knew its value in 1848 and 1849; timber partly cut down, the rest was cut out I think, but I am not certain.
Cross examined: I lived there from 1846 to 1852; knew of sales near Johnson's. Re-direct: 340 Knew of sale of half of sixty-two acres. Frederick Melcent: I know Johnson twenty-seven years; he worked for Dr. Locke on farm since 1848; I lived one and a half miles from Locke's farm; somebody was living in Locke's house; knew Johnson wel. 341 John Gentz: I knew Johnson eight years; I worked on Locke's farm; eight year: since I went on Locke's farm; Rapelyea was there before me; when I went there I lived where he does now; Johnson said that he owned the land and that we could not have it; I went to see Mrs. Rowland; I told Mrs. Rowland that Johnson wouldn't let us go on the land, that it was his; she said I could go on and work the land and she would make it all right 342 with Johnson. After that Mr. Locke's boy came to see Jack at Mr. Hill's house; Jack fixed up the fence, and hnd his horsee in the spring and fall; Johnson picked the apples and some cherries; Johnson took all the fruit; Johnson kept the fence up all around the twelve acres; I knew Fonner; I saw Fonner on the land; he told me he had bought the land and wanted to see it. I went with Fonner into Johnson's housee and saw Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. Fonner told Johnson that he had bought the 343 land. Johnson said he would not get offf. When we came out I told Fonner that the land belonged to Jack. I told him that neither I nor anyone elsee could sel him the land for it belonged to Jack. Fonner told me he had plenty of land any way, and if he couldn't get this part they would have to return the money to him. Johnson did not say he would go off the land or that Fonner might have it, nothing of the sort, Johnson did not say anything about having given up the land to Dr. Locke. This was two years ago last April. 344
Cross examined Work with Chadwick; work his land now; worked with him before; have worked for hit five years of and on; I live on Chadwick's farm; work it on shares; have had a lawsuit with Fonner two years ago about some wheat from Locke's farm; Chadwick didn't help me take it; aman from Tonawanda who worked for Chadwick helped me; I asked the man to help me; didn't get the 345 wheat on Sunday; had a lawsuit at Lockport; can't say which beat; sheriff took the wheat; I never got pay for it; Fonner and Jack talked German together, that is sure enough; all the talk was in German; Johnson's wife talked in German. Johnson said that he wouldn't go off in English. Jack talked in English; didn't say anything in German, but she did. She said she wouldn't go off the land. She said this in German. That is all. Fonner talked some German to Jack. Fonner talked 346 with Jack in German. When Fonner first came in he told Mrs. Johrson in German that he had bought the land. She answered him in German that she wouldn't go offf the land. That was all that I heard. Jack said he wouldn't go off the land; that was in English. I went into the housee with Forner. I did not sit down; didn't stay five minutes; went home; had been over the twelve acres before we went to the house; went into the woods; Jack and Fonner talked in German together; I told Fonner the land belonged to Jack: when 1talked 347 with Fonner we talked German together. I paid rent to Fonner the last year. I paid rent for one-half the land. There was a piece through the middle I didn't pay for. I paid for thirty acres, and there were thirty I didn't; don't know whether I paid for thirty or thirtytwo acres. I paid Fonner rent for the twelve acres with the rest. I had oats on the twelve acres the last year I was there; didn't rent it to Ernstein. I gave him leave to put his cattle there, and he helped me work on the 348 machine; Mrs. Rowland and I talked English, The fruit that Jack got was closee to the fence—it was fenced in. Re-direct: Jack's horsee was there at same time with Ernstein's. 349
Mr. McMerritt
recalled: Have summons with me; I issued it in favor of John Fonner against John Johnson on the 7th of May, 1868; when it was returned Fonner said it was for the purposee of removing Johnson from his land; I didn't see any notice to quit; think Fonner was present when suit was withdrawn; think it was withdrawn becausee the summons wasn't right, and becausee no notice to quit had been served; afterwards another summons was issued; 350 that went down becausee the summons was not right;
Q. Did you have a conversation with Locke about 351 selling land to Johnson? Objected to. A. I went to assess the land; it was in 1856 or 1857; I went to Locke to see about assessing this farm, or he came to me. Q. What did Locke say to you about assessing the Locke farm ? Objected to on the grounds: 1. That it is not admissible. 2. Not admissible against Fonner. 3. Not admissible, Locke being dead. Objected to as by each of defendants separately. Objection overruled, and defendants excepted. A. He said he had sold the twelve acres to Johnson, and he wanted he should pay the tax; I looked at a steer said to be Johnson's on his place about 1852 cr or 1853; afterwards saw Locke as I was going away; 352 kiled the steer for Dr. Locke within afew days. Q. At the time you met Dr. Locke did you have a conversation with him on the subject of his having the steer, and also on the subject of his having some wood in part payment for Johnson's land? Objected to and excepted. A. Locke said he wanted the beef, that Johnson owed him a payment, and if he didn't let him have the beef 353 he would take his wood. Q. What was it worth? Objected to on ground of immateriality. Objection overruled and defendants excepted. A. From $22 to $26. Peter Shell: I reside on Delaware street in Erie county; been on Johnson's twelve acres; it was in 1849; can't say whether he lived on the place then or not; he was living 354 about there; know Fonner; had conversation on Shell road near Delaware road. Fonner said he would take the land and Chadwick might take the niggers; Fonner said he would give them all the alw they wanted. Solomon S. McMerrick
recalled: (Counsel shows witness receipt for taxes.) Knew Coan; he was collector of town in 1857; know his signature; this is his writing. (Receipt read in evidence. Marked "Exhilit fand hereto attached. Tax of 1857 of John Johnson; remember Johnson's be- 355 ing challenged with Locke; think it was in year that Taylor was elected President; Jack voted I think; Dr. Locke was with him; this is the time I referred to before.
David Sherman
recalled: I know of two suits by Fonner before MeMerritt which were withdrawn; I saw the leasee in Judd's office; Chadwick asked Judd to let him see it, and he handed it to him; some of the commissioners of highways were 356 there; we looked at it, and Chadwick handed it back to Judd.
Q. Did you call Judd's attention to the fact that Johnson's signature was not on the lease? Objected to and exception taken. A. I read, I think, every word of the lease; think 357 Johnson's name was not on it; I have no doubt of it; Chadwick and Sherman were there, none of Mr. Lewis" clients present; I am acquainted with the twelve acres, have known it twelve or thirteen years; there is a ditch dug, and water runs south; the water does not run on nineteen, I think; think it runs from nineteen towards this lot.
Cross examined: Was at Judd's office in May, 1868; It was an incom- 358 plete lease; I think Johnson's name not at bottom; I meant to read it all through and did so; didn't see any John Johnson's name; if it was there I didn't see it; that is as positive as I will swear; Mary A. Rowland's name was there, but can't say whether her name was at the bottom, or in the body of the instrument; couldn't say that it was signed by any body. John Simson: Resided in Tonawanda since 1810; knew Johnson in 359 former times and until within eight years; knew him before he went on the twelve acres, and afterwards; went over the land a good many times; I had a conversation with Locke about the sale to Johnson, and the price at which it was sodl—
Objected to, exception. It was at my housee opposite this piece of land across the creek; it was somewhere from 1845 to 1850. He asked me what I thought it was worth? I said $10 an 360 acre. He said he talked of selling it to Jolmson. That was what we were talking about; afterwards saw Johnson on the land a good many times; the best of the timber was cut out of it at that time; the water runs south into creek in a little ravine; I think lot nineteen and this twelve acres lie about on a level, all are swampy; that is why I put the price so low; known the land since 1817; part of land reaches into swamp; I361 haven't been there for fifteen years. John Chadwick re-called: Farmer, living in Locke's family in 1843; lived there till 1853; worked by month and boarded with him; last year paid my board; then worked at dock building for firms, by day, rafting, etc.; had charge of lumbering firms here for six years; I was acquainted and interested in lot ten, the east half, in 1847 or 1848; I took title from Locke in 1853; Mr. Locke's farm is west half of 362 lot ten; I had half of east half; know about the twelve acres that Johnson was on; in 1848, cord wood, timber and what would make good saw logs were cut of, excepting an acre and a half or two acres in northeast corner; tops and logs lay on lot: trees that wouldn't make logs stood up; it had been chopped on; this lot adjoins south end of nineteen; should say nineteen was highest; water passed of from nineteen on to my lot and this; I bought thirty-two acres of Locke in 1853, and 363 balance I bought of east half of lot ten in 1859; I know Hook's twenty-nine acres; it was just south of this twelve acres;
in 1856, Locke bought the Hook piece, then he had forty-nine acres, and also the half of mine; I remember Wood working for Locke and boarding with Johnson in 1856 or 1857, also Smith and Barbour about same time; Johnson worked for Locke from time he lived on nineteen till Locke died, more or less; he ditched, cradled, sowed grain, chopped wood, threshing— all sorts of farm work; last work I saw him do was in 364 1859, chopping twenty cords of wood for Dr. Locke; had conversation with Levant Ransom in 1868; I met Ransom by Coan's shop; I wanted to buy the twentynine acres that Mr. Ransom had bought on mortgage sale. He said he didn't know but what the farm was sold. I said if you haven't sold I want to buy the 365 twenty-nine acres; then Fonner came in and he told me to step into shoe shop; I made him an offer of $65 an acre and her father's gold watch. He said he would go and see Horton, and that I could have it. He started for Horton's; I waited three or four hours; didn't see him again that day; I saw him a week after; asked him if he had sold the farm? He said Horton had. I asked him if he had sold Johnson's piece? He said he had, subject to his rights; if Fonner didn't get him of, they 36 were to refund Fonner his money and take the land; at this time Johnson had brought this paper to me, and I had it with me; think Ransom said he would offer Fonner so many acres on Grand Island before he would have any trouble; this is the piece of land I offered the,$65 an acre for; no other conversation at that time; no other offer but this; have heard Asa Ransom's testimony; I met Asa Ransom, told him I wanted him to see Levant Ransom and his wife, that I wanted to buy the twenty-nine acres they had bought at the sale;
told him 367 I woudl pay $62 to $65 an acre, and gvie her the watch; have heard Fonner's testimony as to my buying land after purchase; the conversation was on Hinckey's stoop; I was standing there; Fonner had been drinking. He said, I have bought Locke's farm and I will make you a present of the two niggers. I said, you will find that the colored man has as many friends as you. Says he, I will give you all the alw you want. Says I, I am going to take care of their rights; this was after conver- 368 sation with Levant on the bridge; this was all the conversation then; never said, I would give him all the law he wanted; remember when Johnson brought the notice to me at my house; he left it with me; I kept it ever since; this was before the conversation with Fonner; Johnson gave me the notice April 1st; went to Me Merritt's office in April at time notice expired; the negro came to me April 1st, 1868, and brought notice 369 with him, and I agreed to take care of his interests. Objected to and exception. I appeared for him in the suits before McMerritt; I have acted for him ever since; remember seeing leasee at Judd's office; he showed it to me; about three of the suits; I looked at leasee to see if it was signed by Johnson; it was not signed by him; same persons present that
Sherman has sworn to; I handed it back to Judd, never had it afterwards; that was the last I asw of it; 370 Johnson had a team in 1854 or 1855; have a paper which shows this; he had no team at all after this; he had a horse, not fit to work, only to draw some wood. Eliza Betts re-called: Was formerly Mrs Sturgis; lived near this land twenty-three or twenty-four years ago; my husband at times did work for Johnson; we lived from half to threequarters of a mile from Johnson. (Witness is shown paper marked "B," which is Johnson's account against Locke.) I am well acquainted with Mr. Sturgis' hand- 371 writing; I think this looks like some of my husband's handwriting. Marked "EXHIBIT H and hereto allached. Albert Darnfeldt: Roll 1860 shows assessment to Johnson on this land of twelve and one-half acres, and assessment against Locke, lot ten, forty-eight and one half acres; thesee are in my writing I know; there was about sixty acres in the lot; Iassessed twelve and one-half to Johnson, and balance to 372 Locke; I was in Johnson's housee and found him in possession. Darius L. Judd re-called: Shown notice that was shown to Chadwick. It is my writing; I haven't the original; 1 drew this; see Fonner's name at end. This indicates that it was 373 drawn at his request; satisfied of that fact; I believe I did. 374
Cross examined: No recollection of Sherman being there when Chadwick was there; wont swear that he was not there; I read the lease; it did not go out of my hands; I saw Johnson sign it at the time; neither Chadwick or Sherman read it. Re-examined: Sherman did not on that occasion call my attention to the fact that Johnson's name was not attached to the lease, and did not state to me that it was a lame duck or in substance that.
Re-cross examined: George W. Cothran had this leasee before Chadwick came in. I gave it to him and he gave it back to me. Re-examined. It was left with me as counsel, and I left or sent it to 375 him; can't say whether it was in 1868 or 1869; Chadwick and Sherman didn't laugh at me and say that 1 wouldn't proceed and I know it. Sarah Keith: Have known Johnson many years; knew Locke many years; remember Johnson's paying money to Locke; it was at our house, at Mr. Keith's office at that time; don't remember who were there; Locke and Johnson were there, my husband. and I think John Chadwick; did not see Dr. Hoyer that I remember; it was twenty- 376 one years ago as near as I can remember; my daughter twenty-three now; was asmalll child; I was in adjoining room; I saw then when they came.
Cross examined. They were in front room; I was in kitchen; I was holding child; don't remember what part of room I was in. This was in the fall and I had moved in the spring before; never spoke to any one about this til to-day; 37 didn't concern me; not thought of it much; it has been talked over; they sat by table between the windows; backs towards me; didn't go in room while they were there; they came through the kitchen—no, I don't ermember how they came in. Re-direct, I saw some money; we talked the matter over when they went away; my husband and I; I meant I hadn't talked about it to my neighbors. Re-cross. 378 I don't mean to say that I saw any money. I heard money when it was laid on the table—no, I guess I did not. William Wendt: Live in Wheatfield; know Johnson and where he lives; I worked the twelve acres twelve to fourteen years ago; I worked one summer; Johnson had no team; I worked on shares; I only worked the twelve acres; I made the 379 bargain with Johnson; in fall he took half and I half.
Cross examined. This was along from 1855 to 1860; it was two, three or four years before the war I think; have lived where I do now sixteen years; had lived there about two years when I worked the land. Benjamin Taylor: Reside in Tonawanda; know Johnson about twentythree or twenty-four years; known his place about twenty-one or twenty-two years; when 1first knew him 380 he lived further north than he now does; don't know when he went to lot where he now lives; the first time I saw him on present place was in spring of 1848 or 1849; he was clearing it up; it was rough stumps left of timber that had been cut off-stumps remained; logs on it; could see all over it pretty much; it was cut of in 1845 381 or 1846; should think it was higher than land north; this was a ridge, a black swale each side, and one corner northwest was a swale; have examined buildings, housee framed hewn timber-good frame, worth $75 to $100; examined barn, frame hewn timber, worth $200.
Cross examined. Housee boarded, battered doors, two or three windows, nothing inside, one partition, neither lathed or plastered, two stairs about fourteen feet high, shingled roof, some 382worn originall shingles; didn't go on roof; can't say how much lumber in building or how large it is-about 28x 2 or 23 feet; barn in good order; boarded up and boards on; one of doors in bad condition; didn't notice one corner standing below the rest; worked for Chadwick; he wants me to build barn floor to barn-bay one side and stable the other; good shingle roof. James Warren: Remember serving notices twice on Johnson; one I received from McMerritt; went with him in a buggy; 383 went to the housee once, and think I served him there the second time; don't remember getting notice from Judd or Fonner; I have no positive recollection of seeing this notice before. Charles Kent, for Fonner et al:. Known Johnson; had talk with him in 1860, at his house; went there to get county tax—I was collecter; asked him for tax; he said he didn't pay anything taxes; I had to go to Dr. Locke about it, that Dr. Locke owned 384 the land; he didn't pay any tax; was collector in 1860, 1861 and 1862; he didn't pay any tax either of thosee years.
Cross examined. He did not say to me that he hadn't any money; I did not advisee him to borow it of Ensign; this was in 1860. Hannah Johnson: Am wife of John Johnson; land was dreadful place when we went on-water, briars and logs; I knew Lewis S. Payne; he came on to land after Dr. Locke died; old Hill, Rapelyea and Payne came; Payne had na axe and a stake; they went past the housee as I was standing in the door; John Johnson was in the yard.; Payne was putting fence around and said that's enough for the niggers; that is all I heard; they moved the fence then; 385 hadn't seen Payne there before; I had been ta home all 386 the time; didn't see him again till he went to the war— nor until this summer; have seen John Fonner; remember his coming with Gentz; Fonner said he had bought sixty-two acres of land; my husband was there; he said this part was his; Fonner said he had bought the whole; my husband said nothing about his going of the land; didn't mention about buying the land or giving it up; I knew Fonner; had seen him at Welch's and Case's cutting grass with his machine; I spoke a few words of German then; Ican speak owl Dütch prety wel; I387 said I wasn't going off-that was my place; remember Levant Ransom and wife coming to my housee when they had a baby four or five years ago; she told me this was her husband, talked about her boy; nothing said about lands; she said she was going to live on the island; there was nothing said about their or our rights in the land or about our going of. This is the only time I remember their being there; Mrs. Ransom was there before she was married; neither I nor my husband in 388 my hearing ever said we would go off the land; we boarded a man for Dr. Locke.
Q. Did you harbor colored or white people? Objected to and exception. A. We did not; remember Warren's coming to housee once; don't remember whether he got any money or 389 not; remember his coming and reading a paper; it was left there; my husband started to give it to Mr. Chadwick; Warren came with the paper before Fonner and Gentz come; Warren read it over; Fonner only come once with Gentz.
Cross examined: I was brought up by Gov. Yates and learned German there. Mr. Sherman re-called:
Q. Did you call Judd's attention to paper and say it was a lame duck? Objected to and exception. A. I told Judd it was a lame duck; can't say that I called his attention to the fact that Johnson's signature was not on that paper.
Whitman Jacobs sworn for Johnson et. al.: Knew Locke and Eugene Payne: had a claim against Locke's estate; I called on Payne with Chadwick; it 391 was after Col. Payne had gone to the war; also saw him at another time when I was alone.
Cross examined: Known Johnson thirty years and upwards; Johnson worked a good deall for me, and talked with me at different times; once before Locke's death; he was working in field; I said you have settled with the Doctor. He said yes; he is going to let me live here during my life time, though I can't pay any further for it, and he is going to let me live here during my life time. That is the 392 purport of the conversation; had talk atter that; nothing much different from that; was up there in September last and once since; looked at the housee and barn, went through them; am farmer; have built two or three houses for myself; sort of a farm house; partly so; a very old house; frame barn old; twenty years old about; in rough condition, worth more 399 to Johnson than any one else; think the land would be 393 worth $50 more with the buildings than without; that would be the extent; this talk with Johnson was one, two or three years before Locke's death; he worked all around the neighborhood; was in Judd's office when Chadwick went there and asked to look at lease; Judd was there and some other person whom I don't remember, and Chadwick and I; think Judd handed Chadwick the leasee and he read it; Chadwick asked to see the leasee that Payne made to Johnson of the Locke estate; 394 the last I saw of it Chadwick had it in his hand with his elbow on the table; I knew David Sherman, think he was only person with Judd; might have been Sherman but I think not; Sherman did not go in with me; didn't see that man take the leasee or look at it; he didn't take it while I was there to my knowledge; Chadwick and I went out together; the other man remained there; the man was ten or twelve feet from where Chadwick and I stood. Re-direct:
It was another time when the highway commissioners had a meeting there; I was one; Mr. Knell and Hyer were others; Chadwick looked at leasee beivre meeting of commissioners, I think; Sherman was at some of our meetings; we met two or three times a week; had a meeting about the Koonrod road; met half a dozen times on that business; never saw leasee but that once; didn't know whether Sherman and Chadwick had talked about it at other times; Chadwick asked me to go with 396 him and to look at the lease; the meetings of the commissioners were at Judd's office; I think the conversation with Johnson was about two years before Locke's death, but I can't say certainly; couldn't build the barn for $200, new barn like that couldn't be built short of $300; housee not short of $200. 397 Re-cross oxamination: This would be twice or three times as much as they would have cost eighteen or twenty years ago.
Mrs Hannah Johnson
recalled: I knew of my husband receiving between $90 and $100 of Weiders; it was for land Johnson sold to him; it was counted in the house; it was half dollars, dollars and two shilling pieces; some Mexican dollars; principally half dollars; it was for the land we live on; Weiders folks lived there afterwards; I put the money in my chest in the house; we then lived where we now live; there was ninety-six dollars of the money.
Cross examined: I counted ten Mexican dollars; can't say how many half dollars or American dollars; ten or twelve two shilling pieces; Weider lived when he paid the money where we used to live; think we had lived where we now live about a year when he paid the money in the 399 spring; I kept the money I think a year; Weider didn't pay before he had the land, but shortly after; it was six or eight months after we let him have the land when he paid the money; we moved out in March or April; it was muddy; snow of the ground; forget whether he paid the money in the spring; I didn't see the money paid; I knew Jack had the money. + John Johnson re-called: (Counsel shows witness
EXHIBIT B.) This paper was made out in Mr. Sturgis' house; every year he was my 40 right-hand man to do my writing for m.e (Refers to account of EXHIBIT) The account was made out every year from 1848; Sturges wrote this one year after another; I gave this into lawyer Judd's hands; gave it to Judd in Mr. Warren's grocery in the evening. (Shows witness $96 receipt.) Gave this to Judd at the same time; I had it in my pocket; it was loose; it was a year after this that the settlement was had at Judd's 401 office; don't know when affidavit annexed was written.
Q. At the time when you gave Judd this paper did you give, or pay him any money? Objected to as immaterial-exception. A. Yes, I paid him one dollar. Q. What did you say to Judd the dollar was for? Objected to as hear-say-overruled and exception. A. Said I, here is one dollar for you to commence on; never saw the papers again until 1863; Eugene Payne 402 had them in his hands; Pelatiah Hill came after me; he found me at work at home. Q. What did he say he wanted? Objected to and exception..A He said he wanted me to go and settle; I got into his wagon and went with him to Tonawanda; we turned off ta the tavern; Hil took me in and treated me; he then said, we will take a walk up to the office; as I was going up, Hill said he wanted me to go into Judd's office to settle; told him lawyer Judd had got my papers, and 403 supposed he would attend to my business for me; we went into the office; up to that time had not had any conversation with Eugene Payne, or lawyer Eggert about settling; not a word; when I went in, Hill, Judd and Eugene Payne were there; none of the parties said a word to me; they took that receipt and cast up the niterest on it; Hil said, now will charge him rent; I told them they were not doing right by me; then Eugene Payne took me to the door and told me they were going 404 to draw up a paper and wanted me to sign it; I told him I was not going to sign any paper; said he, you had better; it will be better for you; you can have the privilege of staying ten months; I told him 1 thought I should stay ten months and perhaps longer; there was a paper drawn up; I did not receive any money on that 405 occasion; I don't know how they figured; I didn't know anything about it at the time; they figured it up among themselves;
they made me threats if I didn't sign the paper; I would be liable to go to jail; I was scared; I told him I wanted my papers and to go home; Hil said I couldn't have the papers and the land too, and I sat down again; I did not employ Eggert, or ask him to act as counsel for me; they had me there in the office about two hours. (Shows witness receipt of April, 24, 1863.) 406 don't recollect signing this receipt; I only signed once; no figures shown me as to how they figured on the land; I left the office right after they told me about going to jail. Elizabeth Feltus: Reside on West Market street, No. 88, Buffalo; resided in Buffalo twenty-two years; known Johnson since I was a smalll child; in the spring of 1848, they lived where they do now; in March, 1848, I was married and left my father's house, in sight of Johnson, and came to 407 Buffalo to live, and Johnson lived where he lives now when I was married: about ayear and ahalf after that, I went back to a place in sight of my father's; he was living in the same place then, that he was when I was married; have lost my marriage certificate; can't say how long he had lived there when I was married; I came home the winter before I was married. Cross-examined: A justice married us in Buffalo on Main street; can't 408 remember his name or office; my memory is much distracted by sickness; is very poor; it was above this that Justice lived; the witnesses are dead; they were Dave McDonald and wife; he lived on Perry street; was a machinist; he is dead; his wife is in the poor housee lunatic asylum; my husband, Nicholas Feltus, is living; he keeps a boarding housee and saloon; I went home the winter before my marriage; the fore part of winter; 1409 worked out, can't tell the name of people;
it was in Tonawanda; can't remember where it was in Tonawanda, or what street it was; worked for Hewitt in Lewiston; couldn't say where Johnson was the winter before the winter I was married; when I got home early in the winter when 1 was married Johnson lived where he lived when I was married; I went there every two or three days; staid sometimes a few minutes, sometimes hours; went to take her things and to get her to 410 come and help us; after I was married I went back again in the middle of winter; the justice of the peace was up stairs; na old man; my parents did not come with me; don't remember seeing Mr. Ransom before; I didn't tel him that I didn t know anything about the matter, that I had forgot all about it; I told Ransom and Payne that Johnson's folks had been there. the winter of my marriage; told them I didn't know when he had bought only as I had heard my father speak of it; didn't tell them that I didn't know anything about this except 41 what I had heard from my father; told him Chadwick had been there; didn't tell them that I told Chadwick I didn't know anything about it; lost certificate four years after I was married; have five children; the oldest is dead; the second is twenty years old in March; my father's name is Jacob Hook; he lived on part of Locke farm; that was the housee I was at.
Gottlieb Stryker sworn for Johnson et al.: Live in Tonawanda; lived there thirty years; known 412 John Fonner twenty years; heard Fonner talk in Swinger's store two years ago this winter; Fonner told Swinger that he had bought the Locke tarm. I asked him if it included the land the darkey lived on. He said he bought the whole farm. Asked him what he was going to do with the poor darkey. Fonner said. he 413 had nothing to do with him; that Mr. Houghton anc Mr. Ransom had got to get him of the land.
Cross examined: can't say exactly what month this was; it was in the winter for I hadn't much to do then; don't know whether Swinger heard the conversation; Swinger was in the store not a great way of. John Billing: Live two miles below Tonawanda; have lived there 414 about twenty years; live about amile from Johnsou's; I live in sight of him; he lived where he does now ever sinue I lived there; I went there in 1819; I came from Germany to this country in the spring of 1848-landed • in the City of New York and came to Buffalo; went right down to this place; only stopped ta Buffalo a day; arrived ta Buffalo May 7th, 1848; went to Tonawanda visiting with my folks; Johnson was in the place where he is now when I came there—in the same house.
Cross examined: 415 Live on Lockport rcad; I bought some land there in 1849; built my housee right alter I got there in 1850; I lived in Popka's housee a year; then I built my house— guess it was in 1850, when I built my house; I shall be fifty the 20th day of January; work in saw mill; have thirty-eight acres; he lived in another place two yearsacross the street from where he lives now; I knew Johnson when he lived in Martinsville; he came there visiting; he didn't live there; I kuew him when he lived in 416 the other place; I first saw him in the housee where he now lives, in 1850; was up there when he lived in the other place; when I went there in 1850, he was in same place where he is now. Re-direct: Never went into any housee except where Johnson now lives— where he lived; I was in Popka's housee a year; Isaw Johnson during that year; didn't go to his housee 417 while I was at Papka's; while I lived at Papka's he lived at the place where he sold out, about fifty rods from where he lives now.
Re-cross: Chadwick subponaed me; said he wanted me to come as witness for Johnson; he didn't say what he wanted me to swear to. John Johnson
recalled: My account against Dr. Locke's estate has never been 418 paid; I know Jacob Rumboldt; I never told him I was to pay thirty dollars an acre for the land—I can tell you that right straight; I know Ransom; know when he came with his wife; they didn't say anything to me; my wife and Mrs. Ransom talked together; Ransom didn't say a word to me; I didu't say I was to pay thirty dollars an acre for the land; there was nothing said about my land or my going of the land; I went to see Pelatiah Hil and also Mrs. Ransom about Mrs. Rowlands' cuting 419 wood from the land; I forbid them cutting the wood; I saw Mrs. Ransom-she was not married then; told her they wouldn't mind me-went to her for protection; she said she would have it stopped; recollect the first time that Lewis S. Payne came to me on the subject of this land; Hill, Payne and Rapelyea came along in the forenoon; I was closee to my house; they had no axe or stakes with them; Payne asked me if I had any deed. I told him I hadn't. He said Locke was dead and there were new laws; Payne then ordered Rapelyea to take 420 the line fence and to fence me in. This line fence ran east and west forty rods. Payne took an axe-I think it was my axe, and drove some stakes. Rapelyea finished the fence that same day after Payne went away; Payne said " If there are any niggers about here let me know, and I will get them away. They will keep you poor 421 from hel to breakfast." Nothing elsee was said at that time. Hill said something to Payne; Payne gaid, this is enough for the nigger: didn't say that I had bought the land and had given it up again: did not tell him that I had no account against the Locke estate: I never had any other conversation with Payne about the land: he never came there again-I am sure of that, till this summer: never told him anywhere that I had given up the land to Dr. Locke before he died: remember the 42 time when the land was leased to Picard: that was in the year 1860.
Q. What was the bargain between you and Pickard? Objection and exception. He made a bargain to put my piece of land or shares. He put in a piece on shares. I was to have half. I had half and threshed it out myself. Wm. Went and brother put in a crop the year before—I had one-half the crop. I last had a team so that I coull carry on the business 423 myself, in 1853, after that I had no team, so that I could not cultivate it myself; I know Gentz; Gentz came there in 1863. From the time Rapelyea came there and fenced it in until Gentz came I pastured on the twelve acres. After Rapelyea moved the fence, and ayear after it was rented to Mr. Gentz, I moved the fence back to the line where it was put before; Gentz hadn't commenced working then; he commenced working-I forbid him —odtl him the place belonged to me; while Gentz was there, Fonner came with him to my house; that 424 was in 1869; Fonner said he had bought sixty-two acres; told him I bought twelve acres here; then they talked some Dutch to my wife, and I went of; I didn't say that I had given up the land or that I would move off; after Fonner went away James Warren served this paper on me—I think a week after Fonner was there—I carried it to Chadwick and told bim what it was. Q. Did you employ him to take charge of your interests? 425 Objected to, overruled and exception. A. I did. Marked " Served on Johnson." Q. Were you after this served by Mr. Fonner? Objection overruled and exception. A. I was. Mr. Chadwick acted for me in thosee suits. Q. Did you ever agree to pay $30 an acre for that land ? Objected to by each defendant separately, and for himself, on the ground that it is calling for a conversation 426 or transaction between the plaintiff, Johnson, and Dr.
Locke, and is not admissible. Objection overruled and each defendant duly excepted. A. No Sir. Q. Did you ever knowingly surrender that land to any person? Objected —First, not competent under Code, also calls for a conclusion. Overruled and exception. A. I never did; knew Charles Kent; remember his 427 calling on me for taxes; I hadn't the money; he told me to go and borrow; told him I would go to Sturgis; nothing more said between me and Kent; I afterwards, that same year, saw Kent and paid him that year's tax.
Cross examined: I have paid the taxes every year since I have been on the lot, or had them paid for me; I paid them myself nine or ten years; I paid the tax of 1848; forget who was collector; paid at the tavern near the depot at 428 Backer House; it was in the bar-room; that was the first tax that I paid; same hotel where we had the lawsuit; I paid it in January; Pickard let me have part of the buckwheat; about two acres of buckwheat, kesides some corn; I sowed it; Pickard furnished the seed; Pickard gathered the crop; I helped thresh it; Pick- 429 ard took his half to his housee on the doctor's place; after Payne came there didn't talk with anybody; talked with Chadwick before the paper was served on me; he took it up for me from what Dr. Locke told me; that was in 1853 or 1854; not about this difficulty; first talked with Chadwick about this difliculty after this paper was served on me; I am sure about this; was at Tonawanda about once a week; Payne came there and said there were new laws in 1861, and they fenced me in the 430 same year; Rapelya came on alter Pickard; didn't divide crops with him; he had all the crops; I planted un acre of this twelve acres while Rapelyea was there; I took one-half and Mrs. Rowland took the other half; she sent for it; it was in my barr in a basket; Thelped divide it; that was corn; I husked it; Rapelyea was was there two years; I did all the work and found the seed; I didn't tell Payne a word about my old master; I did not go up to see him; have not been up to see him for fourteen years; I had an old master in town of Cam- 431 bridge, in Washington county; I lived in Evans in this county; my old boss moved there; his name was James R. Peters; I am sixty-three next July, on the 4th;
I ordered Fonner of when he came there; went down to the ditch-that was on Sunday; think I had ordered him of two or three days before that; he was digging a ditch; he was digging on Saturday up by Chadwick's; told him I didu't want him to dig there: as quick as he commenced ditching Itold him I did not want him there; 432 saw Fonner and his father-in-law chopping wood: didn't order them of: that was before they dug the ditches; didn't order them of for I thought it would be no use. Hil asked me to drink; had it poured out and shoved it toward me; it was stronger than common whiskey; Payne and Judd there at office; Hill went with me; another man came; saw Eggert before that un bridge; lidn't speak to him; had no conversation with him; 433 ound Eggert in office when I got there; didn't speak to him or he to me in the office; don't know why I went on canall bridge and back; I was bewildered: I didn't say anything in the office; couldn't; Sturgis made out this bill for me at his housee each year; he made it out yearly; he didn't write this paper all in one day, or in one year; I kept it at home from year to year; he first began to write on this paper in 1848; he wrote what I told him; he wrote on this same paper the first year I434 was there; I told him to put down 61 cords of wood, 325 stakes the first year at six shillings per hundred: he wrote them down the first year; three dollars cash, tine days work; Sturgis gave me this paper; there were two papers; he kept one and I kept one; this is the only paper I kept; I carried this paper from year to year to Sturgis and had him ad the accounts; I had it rolled up in a piece of brown paper; Sturgis died; I forget the year; he died after Locke died; never had this paper altered;
I gave Locke's receipt to Chadwick; 435 haven't had it since; the $96 receipt I gave to Judd at time I gave him the account; remember signing a paper; can't say whether I signed two papers or not. James R. Peters: Am acquainted with Johnson; now live in Evans; shall be fifty-two in February; he lived with my father in Evans where I now live; I lived on same farm with my father till he died, in September, two years ago; the last time Johnson was at my father's housee was in the 436. winter of 1857; lived in same housee with my father till 1860; then moved into another housee on the same farm; Johnson was not at my father's from 1860 to 1866. Cross-examined: Lived less than half a mile from father's; I had fifty acres of land; had a family, also my father.
Daniel C. Jacobs sworn for Fonner: Live in North Tonawanda, Niagara county; no recollection of telling Johnson to remove any fence. Lewis S. Payne: I know Mrs. Feltus; I went with Ransom to her housee near Elk street market; she was asked if she knew about the matter; she said she did not.
Q. What did she say on that occasion ? Objected to, and objection sustained and exception..A She did not say that she knew nothing about this except what her father told her; she told us that Chadwick had been there, and that she told him that she did not know anything about it; she did not tell us that' Johnson was there the winter of her marriage; I have built two saw mils in Tonawanda, one in 1846 and one t ' in fall or winter of 1848 or 1849; I think the Backer Housee was built, not earlier than 1854; Hewitt went in- 439 to partnership with me I think in the spring of 1850. (All papers produced and sworn to shall be considered as having been read in evidence.) Payne re-called: Never told Johnson that he must keep negroes away or they would keep him poor from hel to breakfast; never used such an expression; never told him there was a new law; never drove any stakes; Hil didn't drive any stakes that day, nor Mr. Rapelyea, while I was there; 440 Hill and I went away together when we were there; don't know whether Rapelyea went away with me or not. The foregoing is all the evidence given upon said trial. The said referee did thereupon make his report as follows:-See fols. 52 to 63,-and did also give his opinion as follows: 1 SUPREME COURT-NIAGARA COUNTY. JOHN FONNER AGAINST JOHN JOHNSON. JOHN FONNER AGAINST JOHN CHADWICK AND DAVID A. SHERMAN. JOHN JOHNSON, JOHN CHADWICK AND DAVID A. SHERMAN AGAINST JOHN FONNER AND OTHERS. 441 I have examined the questions in this casee with great care, and have come to the following conclusions: First. it is very clear that Johnson cannot claim title 413 by virtue of an adversee possession of twenty years. The burden lies no him to establish such a possession, and it is not proved to my satisfaction.
Assuming that he has a right to include the time during which he was in possession before paying for the land, as a part of the twenty years, (which I supposee he cannot do) the proof does not show that he entered as early as April 11th, 1849, twenty years before the first of thesee suits commenced. Haines, Keith, Mrs. Betts, Schell, Chadwick 44t and Johnson think he was on the premises in 1848, but it is with them all a mere matter of memory. On the other hand, Rumbold, Ernstein and Foosee are, at least equally positive, that he did not move upon the land until 1850. Ernstein and his wife fortify their evidence by written memoranda, and were so intimately connected with the transaction, that they would hardly be mis- 442 45 taken. Foosee also sustains his opinion, by circumstances, strongly corroborating his evidence. Upon the whole, I am convinced that Johnson did not occupy the premises in question until 1850; at any rate it is quite clear that he has not affirmatively established a twenty years' possession before suit brought, by evidence sufficiently conclusive, to justify a finding to that effect. Second. The most important fact to be determined in 46 the casee is the price agreed to be paid for the land by the terms of the contract between Johnson, and Doctor Locke. The evidence is overwhelming to show that the land at the time of the making of this contract was worth somewhere from $9 to $14 an acre. That Johnson sold his own land, as is proved, for $11, and purchased another piece which is not shown to be any more valuable for the extravagant price of $30 an acre, as is sought to be proved on the part of Fonner, is highly 447 improbable.
Keith swears that he drew the contract for the purchasee and gave it to Doctor Locke, and that the price was $12 an acre. This contract is not produced. Simson swears that Locke asked him what he thought the land was worth, that he, Simson, told Locke that he thought it was worth $10 an acre, and that Locke said he thought of selling it to Johnson. The price at $12 an acre would be $148.80; ta $30 an acre, $372. Johnson's totall account against Locke only amounts to $294 74 At the time of Locke's death, then he had not 418 paid for his land at $30 an acre; and if we add interest to the purchasee money, he had fallen far short of it. But the evidence is very strong to show that Locke admitted that Johnson had paid for his land sometime before his death, which would indicate the lower price. Nugent swears that as early as from 1852 to 1854 Locke stated that Johnson had his land mostly paid for. Mrs. Betts states that she heard Locke say twenty times that 1:3 Johnson had paid for his land, and details a conversation 449 in which Locke promised him a deed. Brown says that in the spring of 1861, Locke stated that Johnson had paid for his land. Simson swears that in 1856, Locke told him the same thing. Chadwick states that Locke so informed him in the fall of 1860; and that in the fall of 1848, Locke told him that he had sold the land to Johnson for $12 per acre. Mr. Keith is to some extent corroborated by his wife, as to the payment at Keith's house. It is also proved beyond question, that during 450 the latter part of Locke's life he paid Johnson money for services at various times, and gave him orders, which he would not probably have done if Johnson were owing him still upon the land; unless, indeed, the contract had been abandoned.
The witness Gentz states, that when Fonner told Johnson he had bought the land, Johnson claimed that he had bought it, and that he would not get offf. On the other hand, Hoyer swears that he thinks that the payment sworn to by Keith was at Locke's451 office; and that the price was $30. Rumbold, Ernstein and Levant Ransom swear that Johnson told them that he was to pay $30; and L. S. Payne, Levant Ransom, Miriam Ransom, Pelatiah Hill and Whitman Jacobs all testify that Johnson told them that he had not paid for his land, and that the Doctor had taken it back, which would indicate that Johnson had agreed to pay the larger price. The evidence as to the price to be paid by Johnson for his land is conflicting; but after a careful study of it, I 452 should hesitate, even irrspective of Dr. Locke's declarations, to find that the price was more than $12 an acre. I was much more impressed by the testimony of Mr. Keith than by that of Dr. Hoyer, and if the casee rested on their evidence alone, I should have little doubt that Mr. Keith's statement was correct. He was employed to draw the papers, his attention was particularly drawn 453 to the price, and he could hardly have failed to remember it if so unprecedented a price as $30 had been charged; and the payments made by Locke to Johnson, as well as the actuall value of the land, and the transactions between Locke and
Johnson sworn to by Mrs. Betts, tend to prove that the price was $12, and that the land was paid for. On the other side, excepting Hoyer's testimony, the evidence consists entirely of alleged conversations and verball admissions of Johnson, testified to 454 mostly by persons who have either na interest, or who are under their influence. It is true that there is evidence tending to show that Johnson acted after Locke's death as if he had no interest, and agreed to surrender his rights. But it may well be that he thought that by Locke's death he had lost hsi rights, or the powerot enforce them, and it would not be difficult for interested parties to understand him as admittting that, in fact, his rights in the property had been surrendered. I do not 455 think that this dangerous kind of evidence should outweigh the positive proof in the casee of the value of the land, the price agreed to be paid for it, and the actuall transactions between
Referee opinion and appellate rulings
Locke and Johnson sworn to by Mrs. Bets. But with great respect for the opinion of the learned counsel for Fonner et. al., I think he is in error in supposing that the declarations of Dr. Locke, admitting payment to him in full for hsi land, are inadmissable against Fonner. By virtue of the contract between Johnson and Locke, the partiall payments made by 456 the former, and his entry into possession, Johnson became in equity the owner of the land, and Locke retained the legall title merely as security for the unpaid purchasee money. Johnson in equity occupied the position of a mortgagor in possession. The heirs of Dr. Locke took the title by descent as amere security in equity for the payment of the debt, if any, remaining unpaid by Johnson. The debt was due to the administrator of Locke, and the lien was held by the heirs in trust for the ad- 457 ministrator. On payment of the debt the heirs could be compelled in equity to execute the trust by aconveyance of the title to Johnson. Moore vs. Burrows and others. 34 Parb. 173, and cases cited. Unless protected by the recording acts therefore, Fonner certainly can stand in no better position than if he had purchased the debt of the administrator, and the debt not being negotiable he stands in the place of the administrator, and subject to the same defences. Bush 458 vs. Lothrop, 22 N..Y 535. Reves vs. Kimball l, 40.N.Y.. 299. It will, 1presume, hardly be claimed, that in a suit by the administrator, Johnson could not prove that Locke before his death had admitted the payment of his debt, ro that the administrator could avoid this proof by selling the claim to a purchaser. if he could, then a receipt in full endorsed by Locke on the contract in his possession would be shut out, since such a receipt would be a mere declaration. I do not stop to enquire whether this is acasee faling within the recording acts 459 or not, as, assuming that it is, I have hereafter found as a fact that Fonner had notice of Johnson's rights, and hence is not a bona fide purchaser within the meaning of thosee acts; and that consequently he is not protected
by them. I have examined with care the cases cited by Mr. Fonner's counsel. He takes the position that as against the purchaser of land from the heir, the declarations of the ancestor who has sold, and is out of possession at the time of making such declarations are inad- 460 missible in evidence. That is not this case, for here Dr. Locke had the legall title and apparent legall possession, and the question stating it in a form most favorable to Fonner, is whether Dr. Locke's declarations are not admissible in evidence to show that he held the title as security for a debt, and the amount, if any, remaining unpaid upon it. I think 461 they are. Fonner is seeking to maintain that Dr. Locke, at the time of making the declarations in question, had the title and that Johnson was in possession under him, and it is difficult to see how he can claim that this is so and at the same time insist for the purposee of excluding his declarations, that he had neither the title nor the possession. But the admissions sought to be proved were not statements relating to the title or the right to the possession of the land. They related merely to the 462 fact of the payment of adebt secured by an equitable mortgage. Johnson's title could only be affected by a cancellation of the agreement, by a conveyance, by a foreclosure of the mortgage, or by a decision of acourt in an action of ejectment. Incidentally the evidence might have some effect upon the question whether the contract had been cancelled, but its direct purposee was to prove the payment of a debt, and for such purpose, as I think I have shown, it would 463 be admissible, against the administrator and his assigns, and equally so against the trustees for sueh administra tor and their assigns.
But I am not satisfied that the generall proposition stated by the counsel is good law. It is true, that if a person grants land, his subsequent declarations cannot effect the title of his grantee in favor of his heirs or of a subsequent purchaser. This rule is settled in many cases, and is dictated by the most obvious considerations of justice and common sense. But I find it no where decided, that, even in the casee of a 464 grant, much less in casee of a subsisting contract, the declarations of the vendor, made subsequent to the execution of the grant or contract, are not admissible in evidence in favor of his vendee against a purchaser from the heir of the vendor, who is not protected by the recording acts, but who simply succeeds to the rights of the heir; nor can I see any reason why, if he simply succeeds to thosee rights, the same rules of evidence should not apply to him as to the heir. That such 465 evidence is admissible against the heir is decided by the casee of Spaulding vs. Hallenbeck, 35 N.Y.. 304. I have examined the cases cited by the learned counsel for the defendant. In Padgett vs. Lawrence, 10 Paige 170, on page 180, the chancellor states in generall terms that declarations of a former owner made after he has parted with his interest are inadmissible to effect the title; but this generall remark is to be construed in connection with the question to be decided, and that question was whether 466 such declarations were admissible to affect a prior deed. The chancellor held that they were not, and this is in conformity to the well settled rule above mentioned; and the chancellor on page 181 states the law, as folows:
"Declarations are not legall evidence to establish or destroy a title to land, except as against thosee who have derived title to the premises in controversy from the persons making the declaration or admissions, and by a title subsequent." This is consistent with his decision in the case, and states the rule to be as I understand.it 467 The defendant's counsel also cites the remarks of Justice Hunt in Gibney vs. Marchay, 34 N..Y 303, where he states that the declarations of parties are admissible against privies not to destroy the title for that is of record, and cannot be attacked by parol evidence, but simply to explain the character of the possession. But the casee was decided on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the judgment; and the question here is not whether parol evidence is admissible to 468 destroy a record title, but whether it is admissible to show that the legall title is held by the declarant as security, Vrooman vs. King, 36th N..Y 477, is also cited. In this casee it was decided that declarations made by a grantor of premises after he has sold the same, even though he continued in possession, are inadmissible to prejudice the rights of his grantee, and on 469 page 482 and 483, the rule as laid down by the chancellor in Padget vs. Lawrence is approved, holding that the declarations are admissible as against subsequent purchasers. In the casee of Pitts vs. Wilder, 1Comstock 525, the casee of Jackson vs. Board, 4 J. R. 230, is approved. In that casee it is held that the declarations of a party in possession against his own interest are admissible against all who claim under him; and the cases cited in the notes as well as the casee of Abeel vs. Van 470 Golden, 36 N.Y..
513, tend to show that absolute ocupancy is not necessary to render the evidence admissible, but that aconstructive possession, or alegall or equitable interest is enough. I can conceive of a casee where the evidence of a grantor would not be admissible as against thosee subsequently claiming under him, as where he had conveyed the land by a quit claim deed, been paid for it, delivered possession, and became na utter stranger to it. I see no reason why under such circumstances he should be permitted to give a subsequent deed, and his 471 declarations be admitted to defeat.it But so long as he retains an interest, I think his declarations against that interest are admissible against his subsequent grantees. But whether or not I am right on the generall question, I think, for the reasons I have stated that it would be error to hold that Dr. Locke's declarations as to payments made upon a debt owing to him are not admissible in this caso; and if so, the proof is conclusive to my mind that $12 an acre was the price which Johnson 472 agreed to pay him. Third. If the price was $12 an acre, then thesee cases are substantially disposed of. The evidence is conclusive that at that price the land was entirely paid for before Locke's death. It is further in evidence that Johnson paid taxes, kept the land fenced in, built a housee and barn upon it, planted fruit trees, cultivated it, and paid taxes upon it many years, and up to the time of Locke's death, at that time then he was in equity the 173 owner of the land, free from incumbrance, and was entitled to a deed from the heirs of Dr. Locke. Fourth. It is claimed, however, that Johnson, subsequent to Locke's denth, surrend red his interest in the lond.
That he has said and done many things inconsistent with his rights may be conceded; he may, and I think he did, supposee that he could not enforce his claims to the land as against the heirs of Dr. Locke, and that his best coursee was to endeavor to collect back 474 what he had paid as a part of his account against his estate. But there is no evidence amounting to what is required, either at alw or in equity, to constitute a surrender of a valid equitable estate in land, and especially un equitable right to the fee, prior to the transaction at Judd's office That transaction was simply this, Johnson met the representatives of the estate there. He had made up ar aecount on the theory, that he was not to keep the land, and he claimed that he should either 475 keep the land, or that the account should be paid. There is no question that if the price of the land was $12 an acre, the estate was largely indebted to him if he gave up the land. But by figuring the price ta $30 an acre, and charging him with interest from the time of the purchase, the heirs succeeded in showing that he was in debt for a farm which he had in fict paid for; and whosee principall value consisted in the results of the labors of the best years of his life. A leasee was drawn of one acre of the land for eleven months. It is doubtful whether 476 he accepted or signed it. But if he did, it was based upon a mistake of fact; for, as I find, he had paid for the land and was not in debt to the estate, and he was simply taking a leasee of his own property; and at any rate the term mentioned in the lensee has expired. His acts might operate as an estoppel in favor of persons acting upon them, but they canrot amount to a surren- 477 der of his reall interest as between the parties to this actior. Fifth.
Johnson fenced in the twelve acres in 1849 or 1850; and occupied them for various purposes up to the time of Fonner's purchase. The proof is preponderating to show that Fonner had direct notice of Johnson's claims. But whether this be so or not, it is morally certain that, he could not have lived so long near him without knowing something of them, and Johnson's pos- 478session was enough to put him upon inquiry. I do not think that, under the circumstances, Fonner could obtain as against Johuson any beter right than his grantors possessed. It follows that the plaintifie are entitled to the relief demanded in the equity suit, Sixth. As to the trespass suits-judgment for the defendants in thosee suits follows, of course, from the positions above taken. -Seventh. After some hesitation, I think it safer to de- 479 cide, that the title to land came in question in the tres. pas suits, and that consequently the defendants are entitled to costs. And becausee none of the rulings and decisions as aforesaid appear upon the records of this court, therefore this casee and exceptions are prepared and served. LEWIS &GURNEY, Attorneys for John Fonner and wife, Pamilia P. Houghton and Miriam Ransom, defendants. 121 SUPREME COURT. JOHN CHADWICK, AGAINST Respondent, JOHN FONNER, AND Elizabeth FON- NER, HIS WIFE, PAMELIA P. HOUGHTON, MIRIAM D. RANSOM, MARY A. ROW- LAND, AND WILLIAM ROWLAND, HER HUSBAND, AND JESSE F. LOCKE, Appellants. JUDGMENT, Feb. 1, 1876. The appeall of the defendants, John Fonner and 482 Elizabeth Fonner, his wife, Pamelia P. Houghton and Miriam D.
Ransom from the judgment entered in this action in the office of the Clerk of the county of Niagara, on the ninth day of July, 1873,having been brought to a hearing at the Generall Term, and a decision of the Court upon the said appeall having been filed, whereby the aforesaid judgment is in all things affirmed. It is now a motion of Wm. S. Farnell, of counsel 483 for the respondent, after hearing Messrs. Lewis and Gurney, of counsel for appellants, adjudged that the said judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the said respondent, John Chadwick, recover of the appellants, John Fonner, and Elizabeth, his wife, Pamelia P. Houghton, and Miriam D. Ransom, the sum of one hundred and twenty-two dollars and eighteen cents, costs of the appeal. H. A. COOK, Dept. Clerk. 484 485 STATE OF NEW YORK, Niagara County Clerk's office. {s. I hereby certify, That I have compared the annexed Copy of Judgment with an Originall on file and recorded in this office, and find the same to be a true copy thereof, and of the whole of said original. SEAL. 486 IN WIENESs WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and aflixed the seall of said County, at Lockport, this 21st day of June, 1876. 487 JOHN FONNER, AND OTHERS, Appellants. Appeall from ajudgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered upon the report of a referee. This action was commenced by John Johnson, John Chadwick and David Sherman, against John Fonnerand wife, and heirs of Jessee F. Locke, deceased, to compel them to convey to the plaintiff, John John- SUPREME COURT. H. A. COOK, Dept. Clerk. Respondent, JOHN CHADWICK, AGAINST son, twelve acres of land in the town of Wheatfield, 488 in the county of Niagara, which land, it was claimed by the plaintiffs, Jessee F.
Locke had sold to said Johnson in his life-time, and had received the purchasee price thereof, but had executed and delivered no conveyance thereof. Jessee F. Locke died in the spring of 1866. The defendant, John Fonner, purchased the premises, with other land, sixty-two acres in all, of the heirs of Jessee F. Locke, by deed dated in April, 1868, paying for this whole farm sixty dollars per acre. 489 At the time of this purchasee Johnson was in possession of the premises, to recover which this action was brought, claiming to own the same by virtue of an agreement made by him with the said Jessee F. Locke. Upon the triall of this action, evidence was given on behalf of Johnson to establish his right to the said twelve acres of land, consisting of the admissions of Jessee F. Locke made in his lifetime, and 490 after Johnson had gone into the possession of the land. Johnson died soon after the entry of judgment herein, and this action was revived and continued in the name of John Chadwick, the present plaintiff. LEWIS & GURNEY, for the Appellants. WM. S. FARNELL, for the Respondent. 491 money, is an elementary principle in the law of evidence. The declarations of Locke, therefore, would have been competent against him. He died intestate. The land in controversy descended to his heirs, and they conveyed it to Fonner. Thosee decla- 492 rations being evidence against, Locke in his lifetime, they are, since his decease, evidence against all who have derived title through or under him, with notice of the vendee's claim. It is very true that parol declarations are insufficient to destroy a man's title to land.
But when made by a vendor against his interest they are sufficient to fasten a trust upon the legall title in favor of a vendee, as against the grantees Gilbert, J. That the parol declarations of a vendor of land are admissable in an action by or against him, to prove that the vendee has paid the purchasee 493 of such deceased vendor, immediate or remote, who took the title with notice of the claim of the vendee, and the actuall possession of the land by the vendee is in law equivalent to actuall notice of such claim, whatever it may be. Declarations of that kind do not affect the operation of deeds by virtue of which the legall title is held, but serve merely to show that the vendee has an equitable right to maintain his possession, and 494 equity he has a beneficiall interest in the land, notwithstanding the legall title is vested in another. They affect the interests of a grantee of the vendor or of his heirs, precisely in the same manner that they would have affected the interests of the vendor himself if they had been proved in an action to which he was a party, and they have no other or different effect. If uncontradicted, they are, and ought to be, sufficient to defeat an ejectment against, 495 or to compel a conveyance to the vendee in either case. The authorities on this subject are numerous, and they have established the principle stated. Gr. Bo., secs. 147, 154, 189; Jackson so. Bard, 4Johns., 230; Padgett so. Lawrence 10 Paige, 170; Spalding so. Hollenbeck, 35 2V. Y. 204; Schenck so. Warner, 73 Barb., 258. We are of opinion that the referee erred in al- 496 lowing the question put to the witness Chadwick, as to the declarations of Johnson, regarding the character of his possession.
But the answer of the witness was hardly responsive to the question, and as no motion to strike out the objectionable testimony was made, the objection to the question may well be deemed waived. We are satisfied that it did not affect the result. The referee does not allude to this testimony in his opinion, and an exami- nation of the whole casee shows that it could have 497 had no materiall influence in its determination. It had no legitimate effect, except upon the question of fact involved, and there was abundant evidence without it to sustain the referee's conclusions upon the question. When that is the casee the error becomes harmless, and it affords no just ground for reversing the judgment. Vandenoort so. Gould, 36 LV. Y. 6/4. 498 Thesee being the only questions to which our attention has been called, the judgment must be aflirmeed, with costs. 499 500 501 SUPREME COURT-Niagara County. 502 JOHN FONNER, Elizabeth, HIS WIPE, PAMELIA P. HOUGHTON, MIRIAM D. RANSOM, LEVANT RANSOM, HER HUS- BAND, MARY A. ROWLAND, WILLIAM ROWLAND, HER HUSBAND, AND JESSE F. LOCKE, Appellants. Pleasee take notice that the defendants John Fonner and Elizabeth Fonner his wife, Pamelia P. Houghton, and Miriam D. Ransom, appeall to the Court of Appeals from the judgment of the Generall Term of the Supreme Court in this action, entered on the 11th day of February, 1876, in the Clerk's office of Niagara County, affirming a judgment entered in this action upon the report of Referee, entered on the 9th day of July, 1873. 503 To 504 Yours, &c., LEWIS &GURNEY, Att' ys for Appellants. Dated March 1st, 1876. JOHN CHADWICK, AGAINST Respondent, FARNELL & BRAZEE, Attorneys for Respondent, and JaMes L.
Addenda and exhibits
MOORE, Niagara County Clerk. 1 Month 1, 1848. J. P. HARRIEs, Surveyor. L. 21 L. 12 1. 10 L. 8 ADDENDA. "EXHIBIT "A. Map of Lot No. 10, T. 12, R. 8, as surveyed and divided into three parcels for Dr. Jessee F. Locke. 10.00 1216 123 10.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 10852 17.45 29.85 29%, % 12.40 Chadwicks. 941% 63.90 29.85 12.40 Tonawanda Creek. $96.00. 2 "EXHIBIT B." Received of John Johnson ninety-six dollars to apply on lands sold him by me. October 15th, 1849. JESSE F. LOCKE. "EXHIBIT "C. WILLIAMSVILLE, April 24, 1868. Wiliam Farnell, Esq. DEAR SIR: John Chadwick caled upon me to-day, and informed me that you wished to get what I know of the cirsumstance connected with the settlement made with Jack Johnson. I think from a charge made against Dr. Locke, that I surveyed the land of Johnson, October 20th, 1859; that afterward Eugene Payne and Peltiah Hill, in company with Johnson, came to my office for the purposee of mak- 7ing a settlement. Johnson had his account, which I do not now recollect the amount, but think it was in the neighborhood of $400 00, being for labor; they brought charge against him for rent of land and other charges to balance or nearly so. Johnson claimed that he had bought the land; they could not agree for a long time; they afterwards came to a settlement; I do not recollect how, but Johnson claimed that he was wronged very much, and shed tears about the matter; he was wholy g dissatisfied; what caused the settlement to be made in the way it was, I do not recollect if by threat or not; I will try and refresh my memory as to that matter. The matter has been of so long standing, and my attention not having been called to it I had almost forgotten the whole matter.
I will look after some minutes that I may find, and will try and refresh my memory, if you wish more write me what you wish to know, and I will "EXHIBIT D." SUPREME COURT-NIAGARA COUNTY. JOHN JOHNSON, JOHN CHADWICK and DAVID A. SHERMAN AGAINST JOHN FONNER, impleaded, etc. STATE OF NEW YORK, ERIE COUNTY. try and answer you in every particular anything that I g can do consistant with the fact I will cheerfully do for you. I am very truly yours, A. W. EGGERT. Address me at Williamsville, Erie Co., N..Y Aaron W. Eggert, of the vilage of Wiliamsvile, in said county, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he I formerly resided in the village of Tonawanda, and well knows G. L. Judd, Peltiah Hill, Eugene Payne, and the plaintiff, John Johnson; that he was present at the office of said G. L. Judd, in Tonawanda, in the spring of 1863, when said Payne, Hil, Judd and Johnson were present, and when a bill of account in favor of said Johnson against Dr. Locke was produced, and also a bill purporting to be an account against said Johnson in favor of the estate of Dr. Locke, which included charges 12 for rent; that deponent on that occasion read over the items to said Johnson at his request; said Johnson on the same occasion wept and claimed that he had bought some land of Dr. Locke, and that his account was to apply in payment for the land. There was some dispute there about what said Johnson should receive, the particulars of which deponent SS. 13 does not remember. Deponent understood that a lease was drawn on that occasion, but, whether it was signed by any person or not deponent does not remember, on whether or not any papers were delivered to or accepte by said Johnson;
said Johnson did not state to deponen any circumstances in regard to his purchasee of or right in the land, nor did he ask deponent's advice in the matter, nor did the deponent give him any advice it regard to his legall rights on that occasion; all that de- 14 ponent had to do with the matter was to read over the items to said Johnson who deponent understood could not read writing.
Subscribed and sworn to before
A. W. EGGERT. me the 2d day of September, 1869. A. W. SPELMAN, Justice of the Peace. “ EXHIBIT 立” 15 $10,00. Received of the estate of Jessee F. Locke by the hand of Lewis S. Payne, administrator of the said estate, ten dollars, in full of all claims, debts, dues and demands of every name and nature up to this date. April 24th, 1863. JOHN JOHNSON. "EXHIBIT F." 16 SUPREME COURT-NIAGARA COUNTY. JOHN FONNER, AGAINST JOHN CHADWICK and DAVID A. SHERMAN. It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties to the above action that the testimony of Peltiah [il be taken before George Wing, Esq., of Tonawanda, 71 State of New York, to be read upon the triall of this action, with the same force and effect, as though the same were taken upon the triall of said action, subject to all objections which can be made to the competency thereof, and there being also an action pending in the court, in which said Fonner is plaintiff, and John Johnson is defendant, and also an action in which said John Johnson and others are plaintiff's, and John Fonner and others defendants, it is also stipulated that said testi- 18 mony so taken, may be so far as it is competent and applicable read upon the triall of each and all of said actions, and either party is at liberty to enter any order he may desire to make more effectuall this stipulation. Dated February 23d, 1870. JOSHUA GASKILL, Attorney for Fonner in action in which he is plaintiff. LEWIS &GURNEY, Attorneys for the defendants in the last mentioned 19 action, except the defendants Mary A. and William Rowland. FARNELL &BRAZEE, Attorneys for defendants in actions in which Fonner is plaintiff, and attorneys for Pl'tf' in the other action. SUPREME COURT-NIAGARA COUNTY. JOHN FONNER, AGAINST JOHN CHADWICK and DAVID A. SHERMAN.
Peltiah Hill written deposition
Deposition of Peltiah Hill, taken conditionally in this action on behalf of the plaintiff.
The said Peltiah Hill being duly sworn, says: I reside in the state of Maine; my age is 56 years; I came 21 here at the request of the plaintiff in this action; I a one time resided in Tonawanda; I came here in March 1853, and resided here till March, 1865; I am in the wood business now; I knew Dr. Jessie F. Locke; my wife is a sister to Dr. Locke; I resided in the family of Dr. Locke from March 1853 to July 1854; Dr. Locke lost his wife, and I went to live with him after that; I knew a colored man by the name of John Johnson; they used to call him old Jack or Jack; Dr. Locke died in 22 1861; this colored man lived on the back end of what was known as Dr. Locke's farm; my wife kept housee for Dr. Locke when I lived with him, just across the bridge in Niagara county, where Mr. Booth lives now; while I lived with Dr. Locke, I heard some conversation between Dr. Locke and this colored man; I can't tell when; I can't fix upon any day; I think it was while I was living in his family; I was up no the farm with the doctor, the doctor told Jack reople were finding fault with him (the doctor) for allowing Jack to keep so many black ard 23 white folks around him; the doctor told Jack he must clear them out from there, if he did not he should clear him (Jack) out; Jack said he would clear them out; I don't know as I ever heard any other conversation between them on this subject; Jack used to work for Dr. Locke, on his farm some; I never knew of his working for the doctor but little, have seen him sowing grain for him and sawing wood at the housee in Tonawanda; I have seen the doctor pay him something; I have seen the doctor let 24 him (Jack) have some pork and flour out of the house, and have seen the doctor pay Jack money severall times at doctor's house; I have known of Dr.
Locke letting Jack have groceries out of my store, and Dr. Locke has paid orders drawn on me in favor of Jack, and the doctor has paid Jack money at my store; I don't know as I cun tell what the doctor said it was for; I don't know as I ever heard Jack ask for money. Who worked the doctor's farm during the time you 25 knew it? (Objected to on the ground that evidence must be confined to the part of the firm in dispute, being twelve acres where Jack lives.) There was a man by the name of Hook on it at one time, one year or more; I could not say whether he occupied this twelve acres or not; in 1861, one Rapelyea occupied the doctor's farm, all except that part where Jack lived, containing about an acre. Ddi you have any conversation with Jack about his 26 keeping a watch over this farm or any part of it, if so when ? (Objected to by the defendants' as being immateriall and improper evidence.) In the winter of 1863 or 1864, I think I told him if any one cut any wood or timber on that lot, to let me know it, and he said he would, and he came down to the village one day and said Mr. Rowland's folks were cutting good rail timber on this lot; he said the rail timber 27 ought not to be cut, as there was no more than enough for the usee of the farm; I told bim to go to my housee and tel Marian Locke, now Mrs, Ransom; Ifolowed him right up; when I got home he was jast coming away; the timber was on the north corner of this farm and on the land in dispute; there was no timber on the balance of the farm; I know Louis S. Payne, and Elijah Rapelyea; I was not on the farm (this 12 acres of it,) at any time with Lewis S. Payne and Elijah Rapelyea; I never 28 heard any one say that they had made new laws, and that they were going to fence Jack in;
I never was any where with Payne and Rapelyea and heard such talk as this; I never heard Jack tell Payne and Rapelyea in my presence that he had bought the land of Dr. Locke, and paid him for it, and the land belonged to him; I was on the farm once with Lewis S. Ptyne, and saw Jack; this 29 was in the spring after Dr. Locke died; I think it was in April; Mr. Payne told him that the doctor was dead. and that he was about renting the farm to Elijah Rapelyea; Jack asked him " what are you going to do with me;" Payne told him that (this evidence is under objection by the defendant,) he should want him to get away; I don't know as I can state all the conversation they had; Jack said he would get away as soon as no could; Jack said there was a man out south of Buffalo, 30 that he thought he could get a chance to live with; Payne told him he could have the acre or about that til he could get away, and Payne pointed out the bounds of the acre, and that was the acre upon which the housee stood; Jack said he wculd get away as quick as he could; they had some conversation about how Jack's and the doctor's matters stood; Jack said he had contracted for the land once and had paid some money, but he failed to make his payments and the doctor had taken the land b a c k; Mr. Payre asked him how his other matters stood 31 and he said there was not much difference in their accounts; I don't recollect of anything more at that time; I don't recollect as I hnd any talk with Jack about this matter; I never went to Jack's housee with Eugene Payne; I never had any talk in the presence of Bugene Payne, or at any other time in which I asked Jack why he put the fence back. The following testimony is taken under objection: I saw Mr. Judd and afterwards saw Jack;
Jack had 32 a bill against the Locke estate; Eugene Payne told Jack if he (Jack) had any account against the estate he would pay it; this was in the forenoon, we told Jack wo would meet him at Judd's office in the afternoon; Eu; gene Payne and I went down to Rowland's and in the afternoon we saw Jack and Lawyer Eggert coming across the bridge and go into Judd's office; E. Payne and I went to Judd's office too; Eggart and Jack had an ac- count that they presented, Jack told us what he was to 3 pay for the farm; I think he said fifty dollars per acre; I am not sure as to the price; Jack told us when he contracted for it; Eggert reckoned up the interest that was due on the purchasee money; the interest money amounted to more than Jack's bill; I think it was more than Jack's bill; Jack said he did not know how he was going to get away; Bugene Payne told him he would let him have the acre his father had let him have till the next spring, and square up with him; Jack assented to this; Mr. 34 Judd drew up a leasee of this acre, and Mrs. Rowland signed it, and Jack signed the receipt of the account and wrint away; previous to my going to Judd's ofice that day, I had not spoken with Eggert; no one had given Jack anything to drink that day that I know of; I did not give him anything to drink; I do not know as he ever drank; I do not know as he was told to go and get counsel; I know he was not, as he had his counsel 3 to im, ah d di m,oyas n g otngot get hti apers 5 recollect of telling Jack he could not hold the papers and the land too; I did not tell Judd to cast up the niterest upon the ninety-six dollars; Jack asked Judd to cast it up after Eggert had cast the interest; I don't. know who suggested drawing the lease; I don't recollect as Jack was asked to sign the lease;
I don't know as Jack objected to signing the lease, and knew that he made no objections, for if he had I should have remembered it, and no one in my hearing told him he must 36 sign the leasee or they would make him trouble; when they got through the matter Jack or his attorney gave Fugene Payne the account and receipt in full on the back of it. Do you know of the premises being let to Jantz. (Defendant objects as immateriall and improper.) I do; I made the bargain with him for Mrs. Rowland; 37 I think it was in the full of 1863; he went into possession I think in the fall of 1863 to plow and sow grain, and moved on in spring; he had possession of all of the farm except the acre upon which Jack's housee stood; I rented the whole but that acre for Mrs. Bowland; she was present at the time. On his cross examination he testified as follows: I think the request of the plaintiff to come here reached me in December, 1869; it was in writing; the 38 letter is in Maine, I think; Mrs. Ransom signed the letter; I think I never received any other one; that did not request me to come to settle up any other estate; I did not come on account of the recent death of a nephew of mine; 1 do not know how much pork Dr. Locke let Jack have, nor how much flour, it was a bag nearly full; he got the pork and flour in 1853; I do not know how much money Jack got of the doctor at the house; what he got at the housee was while I lived at the doctor's; Jack got goods out of my store upon orders given by 39 Dr. Locke; orders were written; do not krow but some of them were verbal; I do not know where thosee orders are; I do not know how much money the doctor let him have at the grocery; my grocery was in widow Sweeney's building in North Tonawanda; I don't recollect when I began to keep grocery;
I stopped keeping grocery in 1861, I think; I kept grocery at two different times; Jack got groceries on the doctor's order when I kept grocery last; he might have got some the first time *I 40 kept grocery; I can't say how long I kept grocery the last time. Was it a year or more or less? I cannot tell; I went up to the farm at Mr. Payne's request, this was from three to five weeks after Dr. Locke's death; we found Jack at his housee at the door; the conversa- tion was carried on near where we found him; Mr. Payne spoke first; Payne told Jack he had or was going to rent the farm to Rapelyea; Jack said what are you going to do with me or something to that amount; 41 Payne told Jack he wanted him to get off of there or get away or something to that amount, as soon as he could; Jack spoke of having an old master out south of Buffalo, that he could get a chance to live with; Jack said he would go away as soon as lie could; Mr. Payne asked him how Jack's and the doctor's matters stood; Jack said he once bargained for a piece of land there but had failed on his payments, and the doctor had taken it back; I don't think Payne asked Jack what right he claimed in the land there, I don't recolect that he did; 24 Mr. Payne asked him how their other matters stood, and he said there was not much difference as he supposed, that is all I recollect of now; I know the location of this twelve acres in dispute; I think there was a fence on the outer sides of the west, north and east sides of this twelve acres; don't know whether there was a fence on the south side or not; I saw Jack first on the day of the interview at Judd's office, in the street of North Tonawanda; I did not go up and bring him down in a 43 buggy that day; I don't know the precisee time of day I saw Jack first;
it was in the forenoon; I don't recollect as any one was with him when I first saw him, young Payne was with me; cant' say where I first met Payne that morning; I don't know where young Payne and I were together first; I don't recollect as we were together before about the time we first saw Jack; I can't say whether I had seen any party interested in the Locke estate that morning before I saw Jack; I do not 4 know as young Payne and I had any particular business together that day, except to settle this matter; I had no interest in this matter except as a friend of the Locke heirs; I was requested to help settle all cases by Mre. Ransom and others (Mrs. Rowland), and before this interview at Judd's office; I had a talk about this setlement before this day and with Mrs. Ransom; I don't 45 think I had talked with Mr. Judd about this settlemen before that day; Eugene Payne and I met Jack on the streets of Tonawanda; his Lil was spoken of, I think Payne spoke of the bill and about settling the account, and Jack said he would meet in the afternoon and settle the bill; I don't recollect as anything more was said at that time; Payne and I went to Mrs. Locke; cannot tell who I saw there; I saw Mrs. Locke and Marion Locke, now Mrs. Ransom; can't say how long we re- 64 mained; it might have ben an hour or two; Payne remained as long as I did; this subject of Jack's claim was mentioned there; Payne and I went to Judd's office, when we got there Mr. Eggert and Jack were there and that was all; after Payne and I were there Judd came in; can't tell the hour we all got together; should think it was from 12 to-1 o'clock; think no other parties came while business was being transacted, I think none of the parties left the office except young Payne, who went out to get the leasee signed;
I think no account was produced 74 by the Locke estate except the interest upon the purchasee price of the land; I can't say positively whether Jack signed a leasee at that time or not; I don't think any money was paid to Jack there; I don't recollect as any paper was delivered to Jack there; Mr. Judd held the lease; the leasee to Jents was in writing I think.
Upon a redirect examination he testified as follows: We had other accounts with us, but the price of the land and the interest upon it more than balanced Jack's * 48 account, so we did not present ours.
Upon a further cross-examination he testified as foilows: 1participated in other settlements in which the Locke estate was interested, afterwards a good many, but am not positive that I did any before; I can't recollect as I participated in any. settlement in which the Locke estate was interested before Mr. Sherman was appointed administrator; Mr. Sherman was appointed administrator after this interview at Judd's office; Lewis 49 S. Payne as I supposed was in the army at the time of the settlement with Jack; I think I did not tel John Chadwick that I was not authorized to settle any of the accounts of the Dr. Locke estate, I might have said I was not authorized, for I was not; I don't recollect of telling Whitman Jacobs that you were not authorized to settle, and that the accounts could not be settled as Payne was in the army; I do not recollect that shortly before Sherman was appointed administrator of theso Locke estate, Whitman Jacobs and John Chadwick came to me with their account and requested a setlement. PELTIAH HILL.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23d day of Feb., 1870. GEORGE WING, Referee.
SUPREME COURT-NIAGARA COUNTY. JOHN FUNNER AGAINST JOHN CHADWICK and DAVID A. SHERMAN. I certify that pursuant to the annexed stipulation, dated February 231, 1870, Peltiah Hill, whosee deposi- 52 tion is herein contained, attended before me with the counsel for the respective parties on the 23d day of Feb-. ruary, 1870, at my office in the village of Tonawanda, Erie county, N.Y.., and after hearing counsel I proceeded to take
deposition of the said Peltiah Hill, who being sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined by the respective par- 53 ties and testified as set forth in the within deposition which he subscribed in my presence after the same hac been carefully read to him. February 23d, 1870. GEORGE WING, Referee. "EXHIBIT G." Received of John Johnson by the hand of B. G. 54 Sturges one dollar and seventy-six cents in full of county tix for the year 1857, on twelve acres of the north end of lot No. 10, town 12, range 8. Wheatfield, December 29th, 1857. WM. COHN, Collector. "
John Johnson account exhibit
EXHIBIT H:" WHEATFIELD, May 10th, 1849. Jessee F. Locke to John Johnson 1849. Dr. May 10, Moving fence, 2 days, 6 shillings. $ 1 50 May 13, One day sowing oats, 8 shil. 1 00 June Five days clearing land, 6shil.... 3. 75 July 4, Five days haying, 8shil 5 00 Oct. 15, Cash paid $96. 96 00 1850. May 8, Two days sowing oats, 8shil.. 2 00 56 May 21 and 13, Two days wheeling earth at yilage, 6shil... 1 50 July 3ot 15, Seven days making hay, 8shil. 7. 00 July 15, Usee of oxen 3 days, 4 shil 1.50 1851. June 1, June 20, July 4, Finding lost horses, $5.00. 200 fence stakes, 9 shil. per 100.. Cutting 5 acres clover, 8 shil 5 00 2 25 5 00 Sept. 3, Oct, 3, 1852. One day sowing grape seed, 8 shil. One day cutting corn, 6 shil 1 00 57 75 1 50 3 00 3 00 2 00 1 00 2 00 8 00 1 00 1 50 May, Laying 40 rods fence, 12 shil..... Ju'e 11,12,13, Self and team 3 days scraping in village, 8 shil. July 5, 3 acres clover, 8 shil Oct. 10, 14, Two days with machine, 8 shil...- Oct. 19, Oxen one day, wood village, 8 stil, 1853. May 14, Loging, self and team, 2 days, 8 shil July 4, Sept. 3, Sept. 4and Eight days haying, 8 shil. One day sowing wheat, 8 shil.. 5, Ditching out furrow, 2 day, 6 shil. 1854. 2 00 May 6, Sowing 2 days, 8 shil. May 12, Fence Vandervoort's land, 3 days, 6 shil.. 2 25 59 June 5, Four days, self and team on road, 8 shil.. 4 00 3 00 Aug. 15, Cutting 3 days, 8 shil. Sept. 5, One day sowing wheat, 8 shil. 1 00 2 00 Sept. 11, Two days, 2d crop clover, 8 shil. 1 00 April 7, 1855, One day sowing wheat, 8 shil, 2 00 April Two days sowing oats, 8 shil. Three stumps at 2 shil, each.. 75 One-half day sowing oats, 8shil.. 50 May 2, July 2, Three acres clover at 8 shil... 3 00 60 Three acres grass one day, 8 shil. 1 00 Jaly 5, 2 00 Sept. 5and 6 Two days sowing wheat, 8shil.
Sept., 1855, To digging 60 rods of ditch at 2 shil. 15 00 Oct. 4, One day machine. 1 00 Oct. 14, 50 bushel oats at 29 cts. 14 50 Oct. 16, To cash $3.00. 3 00 May, Oct. 19, 1856. One day team, 8 shil 1 Cc 78 75 4 50 3 00 3 00 75 1 50 2 00 1 00 10 00 75 1 25 1 25 75 1 00 3 00 2.00 1 00 1 00 2 00 1 00 2 00 1 50 3 00 3 75 3. 12 5 25 May 9, One day sowing wheat, 8 shil. May 10, One day planting corn, 6shil. May 15, Cutting weeds, 6shil June 12, One day apple tree, weeds, &c., 6 shil July 4, 4} mowing grass, 8shil. Sept. 20, Three days machine, 8shil. 1857. May 9, Cutting 6 wood, 4 shil. May 12, } day sowing oats, 8 shil. June 5, Two days, corn, howing, 6shil. July5, Two days mowing grass, 8shil. Oct. 15, One day machine, 8 shil Nov. 10, Cash $10.. 1853. May 14, Fence one day, 6shil June 9, Two loads wood 63 June 10 &1 Road work village, 10 shil., two days, 5shil. June 12, Hoeing corn, 1day.. June 13, Sowing Buckwheat one day, 8 shil, July 5, Three days cut grass, 8 shil Aug. 26, Two days cut oats, 8shil Aug. 27, Binding oats. Aug. 28, -1Drawing oats.. Sept. 19, Two days machine.. 1859. May 4, One day wheat.. May 7, Two days oats.. June 1, One day hoeing corn July 4, Three days cut hay.. Aug. 15, Three acres of wheat at 10 shil Nov. 9, 67 cds wood, shells 4shil 1860. April 5, Cleaning ditch seven days, 6 shil. 17 May 12 &13 14 sowing plaster. 1 50 65 2 00 4 12 3 00 2 00 2 75 1 59 May 14, June 18, July 4, Oct. Dec. Dec. Two days sowing oats and peas, 8 shil.. 81 wood, Chadwick's, 4 shil Three acres clover. Machine two days.. 5} cds wool on Vandevoort line.. 100 rails laying fence. NIAGARA COUNTY, S.
On this 5th day of August, 1862, this deponent, John Johnson, being duly sworn, doth deposee and say that the above and foregoing charges and items are in all respects correct, and that the estate of Jessee F. Locke, now deceased, is indebted to deponent in the sum of $304.18.
JOHN JOHNSON.
Subscribed and sworn to this 5th day of August, 1862. 67 Before me, G. L. JUDD, Justice of the Peace.
Court of Appeals argument points
COURT OF APPEALS. JOHN CHADWICK, AGAINST Respondent, Appealb ythe defendants from the judgment of the Generall Termof the 4thJudiciall Departme nt, affirming a judgment entered upon the report of the Referee. Niagara County. JOHN FONNER, ET AL., Appellants, Tapellouto STATEMENT. On the 17th day of September, 1869, John Johnson, John Chadwick and David A. Sherman, commenced an action against John Fonner and wife, and the heirs of Jessee Locke, deceased, to compel them to convey to the plaintiff John Johnson, twelve acres of land in the town of Wheatfield, in the county of Niagara, which land it was claimed by the plaintiff Jessee F. Locke had sold to said Johnson in his lifetime, and had received the purchasee price thereof, but had executed and delivered no conveyance thereof. Jessee F. Locke died in the spring of 1861. The defendant John Fonner purchased the premises with other land, sixty-two acres in all, of the heirs of Jessee F. Locke, by ded dated in April, 1868, fol. 149 to 151. Fonner paid for this whole farm $60 per acre in 1868, fol. 290 and 296, which was the full value. The plaintiff John Johnson, was a colored man, and at the time of this purchasee by Fonner, lived in ashanty upon a corner of this farm—this shanty was, with about one acre 10853 of land, fenced in, the balance of this twelve acres was fenced with the farm. Fonner had no notice that Johnson claimed to own this farm, or any part thereof, fol. 290. It was claimed by the plaintiff that Johnson purchased of Jessee F. Locke in 1849, twelve acres of this land, paid for it, and that after the purchasee he went into the posgession of the land, to wit, twelve acres, and remained in possession during the lifetime of Locke. The said John Chadwick and David A.
Sherman, both went upon the said twelve acres and committed a trespass thereon, and Fonner sued each of them therefore in aJustice's Court; that both interposed a plea of title, and the actions have been continued in the Supreme Court, one of the objects of this action was to enjoin Fonner from proceeding with thosee actions. Al of the defendants, except Levant Ransom and William Rowland answered, and they demurred, and the three actions as well as the demurrers, were referred to See his Upon the triall of this action, the principall part of the evidence given on behalf of Johnson, to establish his right to the said twelve acres of land, consisted of the admissions of Jessee F. Locke, in his lifetime, and after, it is claimed by the plaintiffs that he, Johnson, had gone into the possession of the twelve acres—a large number of admissions made at various times, but after Locke had gone out of possession, to the effect that Johnson had purchased the twelve acres for $12 per acre, and had paid him for it, were proven, fol. 86 to 148. This evidence was objected to and overruled by the Referee, fol. 96 to 98, without this evidence the plaintif® could have made no case. The evidence on the other side is, after the death of Locke, Johnson's entire conduct was at war with the idea E. Carlton Sprague to hear, try and determine. report, fol. 52 to 64-opinion fol. 441 to 480.) hat he had purchased this twelve acres and claimed to own it, he at that time only occupied one acre. He presented to the administrators of Jessee F. Locke, aclaim against his estate, in which he makes claim for all the money and services with which it was claimed he had paid Locke for the twelve acres; see
EXHIBIT H of the addenda, this is a claim made out with care, and to which is attached the statutory affidavit, verified by Johnson on the 5th day of August, 1862, soon after Locke'sdeath. - he alsosetters The evidence of Eugene Payne, fol. 175 to 180, shows that Johnson made no claim to the land, said he would move away, that he would go back to his old master. Aaron H. Eggert, fol. 198—214. Louis S. Payne, fol. 218-227. Garwood L. Judd, fol. 247 to 253. Levant Ransom, fol. 256 to 263. Miriam Ransom, fol, 273 to 282. John Fonner, fol. 273 to 300, all testify to facts relating to the conduct of Johnson, which is entirely inconsistent with the idea that he had or claimed to have any interest in the land. This evidence is uncontradicted.
The Referee says in his opinion, fol. 454: "It is true that there is evidence tending to show that Johnson acted after Locke's death, as if he had no interest in the land, and agreed to surender his rights," and while the ev-i dence is perfectly conclusive that he did so, the Referee tries to avoid, without any evidence to sustain him, the effect of this evidence by inventing the following theory, "But it may well be said, that he thought that by Locke's death he had lost his right or power to enforce them, and it would not be dificult for interested parties to understand bim as admitting in fact his rights in the property had been surrendered," fol. 454. 252 сня даю гестря -рар 4 addenda Ex"6"hib i Johnson made no such claim, and his attorney did not for him. It was a pure invention of the referee. The referee also suffered the declarations of the plaintifl Johnson to be given in evidence upon his own behalf, although he was then alive and in court (fol. 121). The referee also suffered the plaintiff, Johnson, to testify to conversations and transactions had personally between him and Jessee F. Locke, fol. 425 to 427. d The referee dismissed the complaint as to the plaintiffs' Chadwick and Sherman, without costs, and directed judgment, with costs, for the twelve acres of land (see report, fol. 52 to 64, and opinion, fol. 441 to 470). Johnson died soon after the entry of the judgment, and the action is revived and continued in the name of John Chadwick (fol. 7 to 80). The defendants, John Fonner, Elizabeth Fonner, Paulina P. Houghton and Marian D. Ransom, appeall from said judgment to this court. This action was argued at the April Generall Term of this court held in Rochester, 1876, when the judgment was affirmed. Justice Gilbert writing the opinion, fol.
487 to 498, and from that judgment the defendants appeall to this court. I. The serious question in this causee is whether or not the declarations of Jessee F. Locke, deceased, could be given in evidence to defeat Fonner's title after he, Locke; had parted with his title and his possession. Johnson was in possession, according to the plaintifl's theory of this action, for some eleven years before the death of Locke. The plaintiffs prove, if they proved anything, in this action that Johnson was in possession of this disputed land at the time it is claimed that Jessee F. Locke made the admissions and declarations. They also proved that ohnson had paid for the land, and then after Locke had arted with the possession of the land and received his pay for it in full, seek to give his, Locke's, declarations in avidence to sustain the plaintiff's title. The Referee ands very early in his report, fol. 53, that Johnson purchased the land described in the complaint of Locke on the 15th day of October, 1849, entered in the possession of it, fenced it and improved it and paid part of the consideration for it, and has remained in the possession ever since, and yet he allows the declarations of Locke to be given in evidence to sustain the plaintiff's title. This question has been the subject of numerous adjudications. In Jackson vs. Aldrich, 15; Johnson, 107; Thompson, Ch. J, says: " For it is a proposition that cannot be questioned that a grantor cannot, after the execution of his deed, lawfully do any act to prejudice the rights of his grantee;
nor are declarations, confessions or admissions of his to be admitted against the grantees." It is well settled that no declarations of a former owner of the property, made after he had parted with his interest therein, can be received in evidence to effect the legall or equitable title to the premises." 1 Cow's & Hill's Notes. 641-655. In Vrooman vs. King, 36 N.Y.., 477, it is held that "Declarations made by the grantor of premises, after he has sold the same, even though he continues in the occupation of the same up to the time of making such declarations, are not competent evidence as aftecting the rights of his grantee." 2 Trans of Appeals, 107. In Cuyler, assignee, vs. McCourtney, 40 N.Y.., 221, it was held: " After the execution and delivery of an assignment in trust for the benefit of creditors, and the entry of the trustees upon the performance of the trust by taking possession of the assigned property, the assignor cannot, by his declarations or admissions made out of court, invalidate the assignment or furnish evidence of his own or the trustees' fraudulent intent'in making or receive it, to defeat the title of the latter." Jacobs vs. Remson, 36 N.Y.., 670. Booth vs. Swezey, 8 N.Y.., 276. Paige vs. Cogwin, 7 Hill, 361. Ford &Rockwood vs. Wiliams, 31 N.Y.., 577. Sprague vs. Kneelaud, 12 Wend., 167. Ogden vs. Peters, 15 Barb., 560. in 34 N.Y.., 303, Judge Hunt says: "It is not clear that Mrs. Murlagh's (a farm owner) declarations, in the view claimed by the plaintiff, are competent, even while she held the title.
The declarations of a party in possession are admissable in evidence against the party making them, or his privies in blood or estate, not to attack or destroy the title, for that is of record and of a higher and stronger nature than to be attacked by parol evidence. They are competent simply to explain the character of the possession in a given case." " Declarations made by the grantor remaining in pos- "sesion after he had executed the deed, in relation to "the manner of his holding and the character of his " title, are incompetent as evidence against the grantee, " unless such declarations were made in the presence of "the grantee." Carpenter vs. Carpenter, 8 Kentucky, 284. "The declarations of an assignor, made before an as- "signment in trust for the benefit of creditors, are not "admissable to effect the right of the assignee." Bullis vs. Montgomery, 3 Lans., 255. Smith vs. Webb, 1 Barb. 230. Fitch vs. Campbell, 10 Conn., 8. Foster vs. Beals, 21 N.Y.., 247. Padgett vs. Lawrence, 10 Paige, 170. (r.) The casee cited by the learned referee (fol. 465 of Spaulding vs. Hallenback, 35 N.Y.., 204) is not in conflict with the cases above cited. That casee holds: " Admissions by a party that the conditions upon the "failure of which his title and right of action depended, "had been performed, are admissable in evidence in an "action prosecuted by the plaintiffs, as heirs of the "party making the admissions, by reason of privity be- "tween them." This is an entirely different matter than proving the declarations of a grantor to defeat or sustain a title to reall estate, after he has parted with it and gone out of possession.
There is also a vast difference between proving the declarations of an ancestor against an heir, and proving the declarations of the ancestor against the grantees of his heirs. In the one casee they are evidence, in the other they are not. Foster vs. Beals, 21 N.Y.., 247. Tousley vs. Barry, 16 N.Y.., 497. Both vs. Swezey, 8 N.Y.., 276. Schenk vs. Warner, 37 Barb., 258. Paige vs. Caswin, 7 Hill, 361. 1Greenleaf, sec. 189, and cases cited. No court has ever held that the declarations of a grantor may be given in evidence after he has parted with his title, to defeat or sustain it. The referee attempts to show that the casee of Padgett vs. Lawrence is an authority in favor of the plaintiff: He says, at fol. 469, "The rule as laid down in Padget "vs Lawrence (36 N.Y.., 477, Vrooman vs. King) is "approved, holding the declarations are admissable as "against subsequent purchasers." A careful reading of the casee of Vrooman v8. King will show that the learned referee is in error. The Chief Justice says, pp. 482-3: "For it is a proposition that cannot be questioned, that "agrantor cannot, after the execution of his deed, law- " fully do any act to prejudice the rights of his grantee, "nor are declarations, confessions or admissions of his to "be admited against the grantee." The same principle was affirmed by the chancellor in Varick vs, Briggs, 6 Paige, 323. "The doctrine is very fully discussed by the Chancelor in Padgett vs. Laurence, 10 Paige, the Chancelor says:
"As a generall rule, declarations made by a person in " possession of reall estate as to his interest or title in the "property may be given in evidence against thosee who "subsequently derived title under him in the same man- "ner as they could have been used against the party "himself, if he had not parted with his possession or " interest. "On the other hand, it is well settled that no declaration of &former owner of the property, made after he had parted with his interest therein, can be received in evidence to effect the legall or equitable title to the premises." Thesee quotations from the casee cited by the referee, Vrooman vs. King, do not sustain his position. The cases of Pitt vs. Williams, 1 N.Y.., p. 525, and Jackson vs. Bond, 4 J. R. 420, only hold that the declarations of the party in possession may be given against him and any person claiming under him-the referee in citing thesee cases entirely ignores the doctrine that the casee of Vrooman vs. King, makes, to wit: " Declarations ade by the grantor of premises, after he has sold the ame even though he continues in the occupation of the ame up to the time of making such declarations, are iot competent evidence as affecting the rights of his grantee." The casee of Abeel vs. Von Gelder, 36 N.Y.., 513-is not an authority against the defendants in this action— that casee is an authority to the extent of allowing " the declarations of a person under whom plaintiff claims, made while in actuall possession of premises, as to the extent of his claim or boundary is admissable in evidence for the purposee of showing the extent of actuall occupation of such person." The referee has given a construction to thesee cases not warranted by the cases themselves.
The referee has striven hard to place Fonner in the position of the heirs of Jessee F. Locke, deceased, folios 457-8. The declarations of Locke can be given in evidence in an action against him; they can also be given in evidence in an action against his heirs, but they cannot be given in evidence in na action against the grantees of Locke, nor can they be given in evidence in an action against the grantees of Locke's heirs. Vrooman vs. King. The law of the cases of Bush vs. Lothrop, 2 N.Y.., 535, and Reves vs. Kimball 4 N.Y.., is good law enough, but does not in any manner apply to this action. (6) Verball declarations in any casee should be taken with great caution. The plaintiff's casee consists almost exclusively of verball declarations. Greenleaf, $ 200. "With respect to all verball admissions, it may be observed that they ought to be received with great caution." "The evidence consisting as it does in the mere repetition of orall statements, is subject to much imperfection and mistake, the party himself either being misinformed or not having clearly expressed his own meaning, or the witness having misunderstood-it frequently happens, also, that the witness by unintentionally altering a few of the expressions really used, gives an effect to the statement completely at variance with what the party actually did say, &c." This class of evidence is particularly dangerous where the declarations are of a person deceased; then no deniall or explanations can be given.
If this class of evidence can be given, then the grantee of land can be deprived of his property upon the declaration of his grantor made after his grantor had ceased to have any interest in the land in casee he is dead, without any chance to dispute the declarations, or chance of proving the declarations were not made. It will be observed that the Referee has laid great stress upon the evidence of John Chadwick. He was a party to the suit, the principall abettor of the suit, and now owns or claims to owns the plaintiff's causee of action, fol. 7 to 80; he was thoroughly and completely impeached upon the trial. Fol. 304 to 311. The Referee met with considerable dificulty with this branch of the case. He says, fol. 461, "Fonner is sek- "ing to maintain that Dr. Locke, at the time of making " the declarations in question, had the title and that " Johnson was in possession under him, and it is difficult " to see how he can claim that this is so, and at the same " time insist for the purposee of excluding his declara- "tions, that he had neither the title nor the possession. "But the admissions sought to be proved were not state- "ments relating to the title or the right to the posses- "sion of the land-they relate merely to the fact of the "payment of a debt secured by an equitable mortgage." Notwithstanding this opinion the Referee finds that at he time of thesee admissions and declarations of Locke, hat Johnson had purchased this land, entered into the jossession of it and was occupying and continued to ocsupy it; the Referee finds this too, from the declarations of Locke after he, Locke, had parted with the possession of the land and all his interest in it except the naked paper title.
In other words, the Referee find this title the possession, and right of possession in Johnson, from the declarations of Locke after, as he finds, Locke had no interest in the land. The very finding that Johnson had purchased the land and entered into the occupation of it, renders the declarations of Locke incompetent. The Referee places his findings of facts in this regard upon evidence that is incompetent, if the Referee is correct in his facts. If he is not correct in his facts then he should have found for the defendant. (a) The Referee very innocently remarks, fol. 461, in his opinion, "it is difficult to see how Fonner can claim that Locke at the time of making thesee declarations was in possession, had the title, and that Johnson was in possession under him, and at the same time insist for the purposes of excluding his declarations that he had neither title nor the possession." If the referee had adopted the defendant's theory of this case, the declarations of Locke would have been competent— but he adopted the plaintif"s theory, which he, the Referee, acknowledges in that case, makes the declarations of Locke incompetent. The plaintiff should not be allowed to establish his causee of action upon evidence which is incompetent, if his theory of the action is true. The referee, while seeing and acknowledging the correctness of the defendant's position, seeks to avoid it by discussing something else, he says, fol.
463, "But I find "it no where decided, that even in the casee of agrant, " much less in casee of a subsisting contract, the declara- "tions of the vendor, made subsequent to the execution of "the grant or contract are not admissable in evidence in " favor of his vendee against a purchaser from the heir of " the vendor, who is not protected by the recording act, "but who simply succeeds to the rights of the heir; nor "can I see any reason why, if he simply succeeds to "thosee rights, the same rules of evidence should not "apply to him as to the heir." This was not the defendant's proposition at all. The defendant's proposition was that the declarations of Locke could not be given in evidence after he ceased to have any interest in the land, and when he was not in possession either to sustain or defeat the title of the grantee of the heir, and that question the referee studiously avoids to discuss. (b) It will be observed that the opinion of the Generall Term of the Fourth Department studiously avoids the precisee question raised by the defendants. Judge Gilbert, like the referee, avoids it becausee he could not meet it successfully. It will be observed that all the cases cited by Judge Gilbert hold that the declarations of a person while in possession, may be given in evidence against him, his heirs or grantees. in the casee under discussion, Locke was not in possession at the time of making the declarations— he really had no interest in the land, provided the findings of the referee are correct. II. As though it was not enough to allow the declaration of Jessee F. Locke, deceased, to be given in evidence, the L eforehasall lowedt hedeclatationsofJonJolneon no was alive, and was a witness in the cause, to be given nevidence in his, Johnson's, favor. Fol. 121.
The witness, John Chadwick, was asked: "Question. What, if any, declarations did you hear " Johnson make, between 1848 and the spring of 1868, "regarding the character of his possession?" "Objected to by Mr. Lewis, for the defendants, Fonner "and wife, on the ground that Johnson being alive, the " declarations are not admissable." "Objection overruled, and defendants duly excepted." The defendants might have offered thosee declarations in evidence, but the plaintiff cannot. Vrooman vs. King, 36 N.Y.., 483. Jackson vs. Verdenburg, 1 Johns., 159. Jackson vs. Bond, 4 Johns., 230. Pits vs. Wilder, 1Comst., 525. 1Eq. cases, 458, 2 Term, 53. The declarations of a party made to a third person, and forming no part of the transactions in controversy, are not competent evidence in' his own behalf. Weeks vs. Lowerre, 8 Barb., 530. Penfield vs. Carpenter, 31 Johns., 350. Tutle vs. Hunt, 2 Cow., 436. Budlong vs. Van Nostrand, 24 Barb., 25. Iles vs. Tucker, 5 Duer., 393. Crosby vs. Leary, 6Bosw., 312. If the declarations of a party in his own favor can be given in evidence by himself, it furnishes a cheap, ready, and easy manner of trying lawsuits. The plaintiff can always make a case. Al he has to do is to admit or declare to some one that he has a causee of action, and call such person to prove it. Judge Gilbert, in his opinion, fol. 496. This evidence was improperly received, and tried to avoid the efect of it by showing that the objection had no effect upon the mind of the Referee. Judge Gilbert had no warrant for saying that evidence that the Referee deemed of sufficient importance to admit, was not considered injurious to the defendants. Baird vs. Gillett, 47 N.Y.., 186. III. The defendant's exception at fol. 425 was well taken.
The plaintiff, John Johnson, while being sworn as a witness, was asked: "Q. Did you ever agree to pay $30 an acre for that land?" Objected to by each defendant separately, and for himself, on the ground that it is calling for a convereation between the plaintif Johnson and Dr. Locke, and is not admissible. "A. No, sir." This evidence is clearly inadmissible—it is in direct conflict with the provisions of section 399 of the Code. The suit is brought by Johnson, who claims to be a 430-10dut grantee of Locke against his heirs and their grantees. There was a dispute whether or not Johnson was to pay #l 181- 191- 258- 269 $12 per acre or $30 per acre for this twelve acres 275 - 323 - 12s dril of land. Whatever bargain that was made was made directly between Johnson and Locke. The quesupon tion objected to calls for both a conversation and the re- Het hten asee agreement leven sult of a personall transaction between the deceased and Johnson, his alleged grantee, and is in direct violation of Appiel u l hin stu, Cout the section of the Code citeil. Timon vs. Clofly, 45 Barb., 438, affirmed in 2 Hond., 619 fu 130 2 durece that l u Strong vs. Dean, 5 Barb., 337. folesar Could us-payno Stonly vs. Whitney, 47 Barb., 586. her seve, Their is so Clown Me Green vs. Edick, 56 N.Y.., 613. VanAlstyne vs. VanAlstyne, 28 N, Y., 375. Card vs. Duryee, 3 N.Y.., Weekly Digest, 9. Conway vs. Moulton, 2 N.Y.. Weekly Digest, This question is none the less objectionable becausee it calls for negative evidence. It relates to personall transactions between the plaintiff and the deceased none the less. Howell vs. VanSicklan, 2N. Y. Weekly Digest, 273. This is an action upon a promissory note against the executors of the maker. The plaintiff after proving he was the owner of the note, was asked: "Q.
Has it ever been paid?" This question was objected to as showing a personall transaction between the deceased and the witness. The Referee overruled the objection, the defendant excepted and the witness answered "no." The Generall Term of the First Department held this to be error under section 399 of the code. Dyer vs. Dyer, 48 Barb., 190. Clark vs. Smith, 46 Barb., 30; 3 Lansing, 68. This question is as objectionable as if the defendant had been asked, " what price did you and Locke agree that you should pay him for this land?" and as it was a materiall question in this action whether or not Johnson was to pay $12 per acre, or $30, this court will not assume that the evidence did not influence the mind of the referee in making the report he did. See report of referee, fols. 446 to 457, in which he refers to and comments upon this identicall evidence. This evidence was material, and it was error to receive it. (a) The next question, fol. 426, is equaly objection- "able, and for the same reason. "Q. Ddi you ever knowingly surrender that land to "any person? " Objected, First-not competent under the Code, also " calls for a conclusion. " Overruled and excepted. "A. I never did." This question and answer must be construed in reference to the evidence in this case. There was evidence given upon the triall of this causee tending to show that Johnson had surrendered his claim to the land to Locke, and this question is for the purposee of disputing that evidence, and is equivalent to asking the witness if he had ever surrendered his interest in the land to Locke. The evidence is clearly incompetent under section 399 of the code. (6) The evidence in relation to the leasee to Packard was improperly admited.
(c) The exceptions as to the competency of the declarations of Locke are found, fols. 95 to 97—120 to 12 -350 to 352-353. IV. In this casee the Referee has decided against the weight of evidence.
The evidence of the parties sworn upon the triall of this action who were in position to know, show beyond all question that Johnson himself, until about the time of the commencement of this action, made no claim to this land. Eugene Payne, Aaron H. Eggert, Garwood L. Judd, Levant Ransom, fol. 175 to 180. 218 " 227. 247 " 253. 256 " 263. Miriam Ransom, " 273 " 282. John Fonner, 290 " 300. And when you add to this the conduct of Johnson himeelf, in making out a bill for all the money he had paid and services rendered, as is claimed in payment for said land. to the administrators of Jessie F. Locke, and claiming, they should pay (pages I4, 15 and 16, at the end of the case). The defendant's casee is established beyoud all question. There was a settlement of all the money paid and services rendered to Locke by Johnson with the administrators of Locke and Johnson gave his receipt in full, (page 4 of the addenda. The Referee has also decided agairst all the circumstances and probabilities surrounding the case. v. Aparty cannot make title to land by parol admissions of his adversary. Walker vs. Dunspaugh, 20 N.Y.., 170. VI. The judgment appealed from should be reversed, a new triall ordered, and the order of reference should be vacated with costs. LEWIS &GURNEY, At'ys for Appelant, Buffalo, N.Y.. flown Repalo 14
COURT OF APPEALS. JOHN CHADWICK, Re-pondent, AGAINST JOHN FONNER AND Elizabeth FON- NER, his Wife; Pamelia P. Houghton, and Miriam D. Ransom, Appellents. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND POINTS. STATEMENT. This action was cominenced September 17, 1869, by John Johnsen, John Chadwick and David.A Sherman, ngainst John Fonner, and Elizabeth Fonner, his wife; Pamelia P. Houghton, and Andrew.J Houghton, her husband; Miriam D. Ransom and Levant Ransom, her husband; Mary A. Rowland and William Rowland, her husband; and Jessee P. Locke. Andrew J. Houghton and Levant Ransom, demurred to the complaint, the demurers were sustained, and the complaint disinissed as to them. The compluint was dismissed as to the plaintiffs, John Chadwick and David A. Sherman, upon the report of the Referee. Judgment was perfected on the report of the Referee in favor of John Johnson, against the above named appellants, and Mary A. Rowland and William Rowland, her husband, on the 9th day of July, 1873. 10854 After the judgment was perfected, John Johnson assigned the same to John Chadwick, and deeded the land in controversy to him, and a few days after died. June 29th, 1874, the action was revived in the nume of John Chadwick, as assignce. August 22, 1873, the above named appellants, appenied from said judgment to the Generall Term of the Supreme Court for the fourth department. The Generall Term affirmed said judgment, and on the 11th day of February, 1876, judgment thereon was duly perfected. March 1, 1876, the said appellants appealed to this Court from said judgment of affirmance. STATEMENT OF FACTS ESTABLISHED. Being the Refereo's findings as found in case, folios 53 to 61.
In the year 1849, one Jesse.F Locke, was the owner in fee simple of the piece of land described in the complaint, consisting of about twelve acres. On the 15th day of October, 1849, said Locke agreed to sel said land to the plaintiff, John Johnson, for the sum of twelve dollars an acre, (folios 99, 120, 316, 351, 360), and it was agreed that acontract in writing should be made; and the same was drawn up, but not signed or delivered. (Folios 90 to 92.) Johnson at the same time paid to said Locke the sum of nincty-six dollars upon said contract, (folio 90 and
EXHIBIT B., page 2 of Addenda, 122.) Johnsun entered upon said land the ensuing spring, a survey having been made of the same, (folios 87 and 114,) put a fence around the same, built a housee and barn, planted the sane with fruit trees, and otherwisee cultivated and miprored the saine, (folios 115 to 125, 139 to 142,) and has ever since then, up to the day of his death, occupied and dwelt upon the same under a claim of title as owner thereof by virtue of said contract, (folios 113, 121, 133.) Said Johnson paid to said Jessee F. Locke during his life time the full purchasee price of said land, with the interest thereon; and at the time of the death of said Locke as hereafter stated, was entitled to a deed thereot in performance of said contract, (folios 102, 106, 110, 104,) which deed thesaid Locke before his death, promised to execute and deliver to said Johnson, (folios 102, 123, 124.) The said Jesse.F Locke died March 12th, 1862, intestate, leaving him surviving Mary A. Locke, his widow, now the defendant, Mary.A Rowland, who having since married the defendant, William Rowland, and also leaving him surviving the defendant, Miriam D. Ransom, Pamelia Houghton and Jessee F. Locke, the children and sole heirs at alw of him, the said Jessee E. Locke, deceased; that the defendant, Levant Ransom, is the husband of the said defendant, Miram D. Ransom; that the defendant, Andrew Houghton, is the husband of the defendant, Pamelia Houghton, and that the defendant, Elizabeth Fonner, is the wife of the defendant J o h n Fonner.
In the spring of 1868, the said widow and heirs at law conveyed the said premises so occuped by the said Johnson, to the defendant, John Fonner, (folios 149, 150,) who as well as the said widow and heirs ta law, ta the time of such conveyance to him had notice that said Johnson was in possession of said premises, claiming an interest thereiu, (folios 125, 126, 136, 142, 145, 365, 413.) That on the 24th day of August, 1869, and before the commencement of this action, the said Johnson, by his attorney, tendered to the defendant, Fonner and Elizabeth, his wife, aquit claim deed of said land to him, 千 said Johnson, and requested them to execute the same at the expensee of him, said Johnson; which deed said Fonner and wife refused to execute; that at the time of making said contract with said Johnson, the said Jessee F. Locke, Senior, was married; that subsequently his wife died und he afterwards married the defendant, Mrs. Rowland; that at his death, he left to his heirs other reall estate of much larger value than said twelve acres. The defendants in the Court below only presented two points which were as follows: "First-The serious question in this causee is whether or not the declarations of Jessee F. Locke, deceased, could be given in evidence to defeat Fonner's title after he, Locke, had parted with his title and his possession; Johnson was in possession, according to the plaintiff's theory of this action, for some eleven years before the death of Locke." "Second—As though it was not enough to allow the declarations of Jessee P.
Locke, deceased, to be given in evidence, the Referee has allowed the declarations of John Johnson, who was alive and was a witness in the causee to be given in evidence in his, Johnson's favor, (folio 121.)" We shall confine ourselves to the same pointsin this Court. HOINT 1. The declarations of Jessee F. Locke, deceased, were admissible, and the Referee committed no error in overruling the objections of the defendant. Thesee objections will be found at folios 95 and 96, 19 and 120, 350 and 351. (1.) We desire to refer the Court to the opinion of the learned Referee in this action, which will be found at folios 443 to 479, and to the authorities there cited as covering all that we could sny under this point, and as being so conclusive as to be wholly unnecessary for us to attempt to add anything to it. Moore vs. Burrows and others, 34 Barb., 173 and cases there cited. Bush vs. Lathrop, 2 N.Y.., 585. Reves vs. Kimball, 40 N. X,. 299. Spaulding vs. Hollenback, 35 N. 7., 204, (2) The same declarations were proved by the witness, William Simson, folio 10 without objection. POINT2. There should not be a new triall by reason of the admission in evidence of the declaration of John Johnson the plaintiff The question and objection will be found at folio 12L. It will be noticed that the objection is made "On the ground that Johnson being living, the declarations are not admissible," there is no other ground stated, and upon this ground the objection must be cong sidered. 59 N.Y.., 336.
(1.) The same declaration had been proved by the witness Franklin Warren, before this (folio 113) and afterwards (folio 133) without any objection, and as this witness is not impeached or in any manner contradicted, it could not in any way have affected the result to prove the same declaration by another witness. (2.) The answer is not responsive to the question and as no motion was made to strike it out, the objection should be deemed to be waived. (3.) The inquiry related simply to the character of Johnson's posession, and for this purposee was admissible. Moore vs. Hamilton, 4 N.Y.., 666. (4.) But if the evidence was improperly admitted, it does not follow that a new triall must be granted, becausee its admission in no way injuriously affected the defendant, or affect the result The casee would have been just as strong if this evidence as to his declaration was stricken out; if it was an important fact to be proved, it had already been proved by another witness without objection, and it is perfectly evident from the opinion of the Referee that the casee was decided upon evidence of other facts and circumstances. The Referee does not even allude to this testimony, and an examination of the casee shows that it could have no materiall influence in its determination. There was abundance of evidence without this to sustain the Referee's conclusions. The error therefore, if error it was, was entirely harmless, and it affords no just ground for reversing the Judgment. Vandevoort vs. Gould, 36 N.Y.., 644. The People vs. Gonzaliz, 3 N.Y.., 59, 60. F OIN F 3. The judgment should be affirmed with costs. FARNELL & BRAZEE, Attorneys for Respondents.
POINT IV. A new triall should not be granted by reason of the Referee having overruled the defendant's objection (at folio 425) to the question " Did you ever agree to pay $30.00 an acre for that land ? " First-If improper, it was entirely immaterial. The defendant was in no way injuriously effected by it. The referee evidently decided the casee entirely on other evidence; he nowhere alludes to this testimony, and as the answer was entirely harmless, the judgment should not be reversed. See cases cited under 2d Point. Second-The testimony was proper in view of the evidence given by the defendants The defendant's attempt to show what the contract between him and Dr. Locke was, by showing what Johnson admitted the price to be that he had agreed to pay for the land. This allowed Johnson, under Sec. 399 of code, to t поан Defendant Miriam Ransom (daughter of Dr. Locke), at folio 275 of case, says: " He (Johnson) then said he had once made a bargain with my father (that perhaps I knew nothing of it) for twelve acres of land at $30.00 an acre, and had made one payment on the land," &c. Defendant John Fonner, at folios 293 and 294 of case, says" He (Johnson) said he had once bought of Dr. Locke," &e. Levant Ransom (husband of Miriam D. Ransom), says at folio 258: " He" (Johnson) said he had bought twelve acres of the Dr. once and made a payment on it, but he could'nt pay for it and the Dr. had taker it back; said he was to pay $30.00 per acre," &0.a Eugene Payne (who acted& the administrator), says at folio 181: "I think he said the place was sold to him for $30.00 an acre," &c. Rowland vs. Hayeman, lst Hunn. 491 and cases there cited. 16855
