May vs Graham & Spurlock

Samuel May vs. John Graham & John Spurlock

Bill of Complaint, 6 August 1816

To the Hon. The Judge of The Floyd Circuit Court in Chancery sitting---Your Orator Samuel May humbly complaining sheweth unto your honor that in the year __ A town was legally established upon the lands of John Graham in the Circuit afs known by the name of Prestonsburg. That the said John Graham was privy to and approbated the establishment of said town. That Trustees were legally appointed to superintend the sale of the lots in said town and execute deeds of conveyance to the purchase of lots in the same. Your Orator further states that sometime in the year of 1805-1806-1807-or1808 he purchased of a certain James Young now deceased one half acre lot of ground in said town to wit: Lot No. 10 in long Range for which your Orator paid to the sd. Young the sum of thirty dollars and your Orator accepted of the sd. Young an order executed by sd. Grayham in favor of said Young to the Trustees of sd. Town of Prestonsburg requesting them to execute to the sd. Young a deed of conveyance for sd. Lot of ground which order your orator states was assigned over to him by said Young and for which order the sd. Young amply paid sd. Grayham when after the same was so executed by Hrayham to Yount�you Orator further states that by virtue of the trsd. Order and transfer by assignment as aforesaid the trustees of sd. Town sometime in one of the years afor(esaid) did execute to your Orator a deed of conveyance according to the instructions of sd. Order and assigned your orator also states that at this time the sd. John Grayham was not in possession of the legal title to the lands upon which sd. Town was established the Com�th�s patent not yet having issued your Orator further states that afterwards he lodged his sd. Deed of conveyance in the Clerk�s office of the County of Floyd for the purpose of having the same recorded agreeably to law that afterward and as your Orator believes sometime in the year 1808 the sd. Clerk�s office was unfortunately consumed by fire by which conflagration your Orator�s sd. Deed and record thereof if any such had been made were entirely destroyed. Your Orator further states that about and since that time some of the sd. Trustees died others moved from the County and thereby vacated their offices so that the corporation became dissolved and that the said John Grayham obtained the Com�th�s patent for said lands. Your Orator further charges that a certain John Spurlock sometime in the year of 811 or 1812 amongst other lots of his own enclosed by fencing; your Orators sd. Lot of ground and thereby unjustly took possession of the same without the consent or approbation of your orator and contrary to your Orator�s will and that the said John Spurlock hath ever since held possession and still continues to hold the same. Your orator further charges that as he is informed sometime in the year 1815-the said John Grayham conveyed said lot amongst others to the sd. John Spurlock by his certain deed of conveyance to that effect made. And your Orator further charges that although he hath often in a friendly manner requested sd. John Spurlock to give up the possession of said lot to your Orator and (since he in manner aforesaid acquired said title) also the property of said lot which, knowing the premises as he did, in equity and justice he ought to have done or to pay your Orator a just compensation for said lot and reimburse your orator in the money which he had expended in clearing and improving the same-yet he hath wholly refused and still doth refuse in any manner to redress your orator in this his enormous grievance - And Showeth your Orator had oftentimes requested the said John Grayham to reinstate your orator in the legal title to said lot having first well advised him of the premises herein alledged by executing, while the corporation aforesaid existed; another order to the trustees and since the sd. Corporation was dissolved and the said John Grayham had obtained the patent to said lands by executing to your Orator his personal deed of conveyance or in some other way to make your orator safe in the property of said lot and although he always appeared willing and in fact promised so to do yet he hath hitherto neglected and now refuses to give your Orator any apurances whatever for the property of said lot�But now so it is may it please your honour that the said John Spurlock and John Grayham both of whom your Orator prays may be made defendants to this bill combining and confederating themselves together to and with divers other persons as yet unknown to your orator whose names when discovered your orator prays may be made defendants to this his bill with apt words &c. now to defraud and defeat your orator entirely of said lot and of the title to the same do set up many pretences and not withstanding they do know and must answer that the premises in this your orator�s bill alledged are true and that they have long been acquainted with the truth of the same yet they joint or several in any way or manner refuse to redress your orator in these his most unjust and iniquituous grievances all which actings and doings are contrary to equity and good conscience and tend manifestly to the great injury of your orator�In tender consideration of which and for as much as your orator wholly remidilys &c. and only properly and completely relievable in this honourable court and to the end that the sd. Defendants may respectively and severally upon their corporeal oaths true perfect and precise answers make to all and singular the premises in this your orators bill as fully and particularly as if the same were herein again repeated by way of interrogatories-But move particularly that the said John Grayham may answer and set forth whether he did not sell said lot of ground to James young now deceased and execute an order to the trustees of said town requesting them to convey the said lot to sd. Young by deed? Whether he did not receive from said Young a price agreed upon between them for said lot and how and in what manner he conveyed the same to sd. Young? Whether he did not know or believe that your orator purchased sd. Lot from sd. Young and that said Young transferred said order by assignment to your orator? Or whether Or whether he did know that your orator had some just equitable and lawful title to said lot by some way obtained by which your orator claimed by through or under him the said John Grayham? Whether he did not at sometime since said Clerk�s office was burnt agree to reinstate your orator in some way or other in the title to said lot & how in what way? And lastly, whether he has not since that time conveyed the same to the sd. John Spurlock may set forth and answer whether he had any title to said lot at the time he took possession thereof and if any or what sort it was and from whom derived? Whether he did not know or believe that your orator had at that time justly and bonafidely purchase said lot and that he your orator then had equitable title and afterwards obtained the legal title to said lot? Whether your Orator did not advise him of the same and request him to return the possession to your orator? Whether he did not long since he took possession of sd. Lot obtain the legal title from the said John Grayham to the same and that the sd. Deft. Spurlock may be decreed to relinquish to your Orator all his title claim and address (?) to said lot and admit your Orator into the peaceable possession of the same which he this fraudulent and unjustly obtained and as unjustly holds over? And that the said defendant Grayham may be decreed to reinstate your Orator in the proper and legal title said lot by executing a proper deed of conveyance such as is usual for him to execute to other purchasers or that the said defendants either joint or several by your honour may deem most equitable shall be decreed to pay to your orator a just compensation for said lot according to the value (3 or 4 words missing, hole in page) be reinstated also to reimburse your orator in the money laid out and expended in clearing and improving the lot as the interest thereon which principal your orator ___(?) was twelve dollars and also to pay to your orator such back rents as in justice ought to paid him for the use and occupation of the same. Or if your honour should not deem it equitable that the sd. Defendant Grayham should convey then and in that case your orator prays the testimony may be taken extablishing the first deed of conveyance from the Trustees and the same perpetuate and the said deed of conveyance thereby rendered valid and bear as near as may be the same day and date as when it was executed and that upon the hearing of this case your honour may make such other and further decree and grant such relief as to the equity and good conscience belongs. Your Orator prays the Commonwealth�s wor(thy?) spz &c directed &. And your orator in duty bound will ever pray &c.
Jno. M. McConnell Samuel May, Comm.

Summons, John Graham & John Spurlock, 6 August 1816

The Commonwealth of Kentucky to the Sheriff of Floyd County Greeting. We command you to sum John Graham & John Spurlock to appear before the Judge of our Floyd Circuit court at the courthouse in Prestonsburn on the fifth day of our Present August term next to answer a Bill in Chancery exhibited against him by Samuel May and this they shall not omit under the penalties prescribed by law and have then there this writ Witness Jonathan Mayo Clerk of our said court the 6^th day of August 1816 and in the XXV year of the Commonwealth. /s/ Teste Jona. Mayo, Clk
Executed on John Spurlock the 6^th Aug�t 1816
Executed on John Graham the 7^th Aug�t 1816, H.B. Mayo, for S. Adams

Summons, Wm. J. Mayo, Jonathon Mayo & Elizabeth Young, 7 October 1816

The Commonwealth of Kentucky to the Sheriff of Floyd County Greeting. We command you to summon Wm. J. Mayo, Jonathan Mayo & Elizabeth Young to appear before a Justice of the Peace of Floyd county court at the lower house in Prestonsburg on the 26 day of our October term next to testify and the truth to say on behalf of Sam�l May in a certain matter of controversy in our said court depending and undetermined between said Samuel May Pltf. & John Spurlock and John Graham Deft and this he shall not omit under the penalties prescribed by law and have then there this writ. Witness Jonathan Mayo clerk of our said court the 7^th day of October 1816. Teste, Jonathan Mayo

Notice to Appear, Spurlock & Graham, 7 October 1816

Messrs John Spurlock and John Grayham you are hereby notified that I shall attend at the courthouse in Prestonsburg on 26^th of this instant to take the depositions of William J. Mayo, Jonathan Mayo, Elizabeth Young and others which are to be read as evidence in a suit in Chancery now depending and undetermined in the Floyd Circuit Court in which I am complain and you are defendants at which time and place you may attend if to your it shall seem proper.
October 7^th 1816 Samuel May
Jno. M. McConnell pro. Complt.

Executed by leaving a true copy of the within Notice with John Spurlock one of the within named defendants on the 12 day of October 1816 and also by leaving a true copy of the within notice with John Graham on the 12^th day of October 1816. D.K. Harris, DS
S. Adams, SFC

Deposition of Elizabeth Young, 26 October 1816

The deposition of Elizabeth Young taken on the 26^th of October 1816 at the house of John Havens in the town of Prestonsburg to be read as evidence in a suit in Chancery now depending & undetermined between Samuel May Complainant & John Spurlock & John Graham Defts in the Floyd Circuit Court she being first duly sworn on the holy Evenjelist of Almighty God before me Henry B. Mayo Justice of the peace for said County at which time & place the Complainant by his atto. appeared.
The said deponent saith that she knows that her husband sold to Samuel May a lot in the town of Prestonsburg for which Sam�l May did the inside work of her Husband�s house. That it did adjoin to a lot that her husband gave to Thomas Evans which lot is the same that Mr. Spurlock now has his kitchen on. Sworn to and subscribed this day & date above written.
Elizabeth Young, her mark

Bill of Revivor, 16 April 1817

To the Honorable the Judge of the Floyd Circuit court in Chancery sitting your orator Samuel May humbly complaining sheweth unto your honour that at or about eh (left blank) term of your honorable court which was in the year 1816 your orator exhibited unto this honorable court his certain bill of complaint against John Spurlock and John Graham Gent. Amongst other things for the conveyance of a certain lot of ground in the town of Prestonsburg in the circuit aforesaid called and known upon the plat of said town by the name and description of Lot No. (blank) long range or for a remuneration in damages for the wrong done in withholding the same from your orator should it be inconvenient to enforce a conveyance for the same. And your orator farther shews unto your honour that the said defendants being duly served with process to appear respectively and to answer the said bill of complaint they the said defendants severally failed to answer the said bill and thereupon your orator at November term of your honorable court 1816 obtained an order to amend his said bill of complaint which amended bill your orator hath herewith filed and referred to. But before any answer filed by either of the defendants or any further proceedings had in the said cause the said John Spurlock departed this life to wit on or about the (blank) day of (blank) 1816 whereby the said suit as to him became and is abated and your orator would further shew unto your honour that the said John Spurlock in his lifetime duly made and published his last will and testament in writing and constituted Fanny Spurlock his wife and Hiram Spurlock his son joint executors thereof who duly proved the said will in the Up__? Of the County court of Floyd Count at their (blank) term last past. That the said John Spurlock by his will aforesaid devised to the said Fanny Spurlock his wife the said lot in controversy for and during her natural life and then to revert to and be divided amongst the heirs equally and that the said executors have possessed themselves of all the personal property by virtue of their appointment as executors and the said Fanny Spurlock amongst other lands dvised to her for life as aforesaid hath possessed herself of the said lot of ground which your orator claims to have conveyed to whereby the said suit ought to be revived against the said Hiram and Fanny Spurlock joint exr�s as aforesaid the said Fanny being also devisee for life as aforesaid and the said Hiram being the son and one of the heirs of the said John Spurlock and against Mathew Spurlock, David Spurlock, Adam Garegart and Rhody his wife late Rhody Spurlock, David K. Harris and Anna his wife late Anna Spurlock, Nicholas Tarter and Sally his wife late Sally Spurlock, Robert Spurlock, Artimessa Spurlock, Polly Morgan, David Morgan and Anna Morgan, heirs and representatives of William and Susana Morgan both Dec�d late Susan Spurlock heirs and representative of the said John Spurlock Dec�d and that they and each of them respectively ought to answer as well the original and amended bills in this cause as this your orator�s bill of revivor unless they can shew good cause to the contrary. To the end therefore that the said suit and all proceedings therein may stand revived and stand in the same situation and plight as they were in at the time of the death of the said John Spurlock and that the said Fanny Spurlock executrix and devisee as aforesaid the said Hiram Spurlock executor and heir as aforesaid the sd. Mathew Spurlock, David Spurlock, Adam Garehart and Rhody his wife late Rhody Spurlock, David K. Harris and Anna his wife late Anna Spurlock, Nicholas Tartar and Sally his wife late Sally Spurlock, Robert Spurlock and Artimesia Spurlock and Polly Morgan, David Morgan and Anna Morgan heirs and representative of William and Susan Morgan both dec�d late Susan Spurlock heirs and representatives of the said John Spurlock dec�d Mays true perfect and precise answer make as well to the original and amended bills as to this your orator�s bill of revivor and that such decree may be had as to equity belongs &c may it please your honor to grant unto your orator the court writ of Spa. &c. directed &c. commanding &c. and that your orator may be further relieved in all and singular the premises and your orator in duty bound will ever pray &c. J.M. McConnell, pro. compt.

Summons, William J. Mayo, 30 April 1817

The Commonwealth of Kentucky to the Sheriff of Floyd County Greeting. We command you to summon Wm. J. Mayo, Clk Floyd County Court & bring with him a copy of the Town Plat & to appear before the Judge of our Floyd circuit court at the Courthouse in Prestonsburg on the first day of our July term next to testify and the truth say on behalf of Samuel May in a certain matter of controversy now in said court depending & undetermined between said May Pltf & John Spurlock�s heirs & devisees &c. defts and this he shall not omit under the penalty prescribed by law, and have then there this writ. Witness Jonathan Mayo clerk of our said court the 30^th day of April 1817. Jona. Mayo, Clk

Spa in Chancery, Spurlock Heirs, 30 April 1817

The Commonwealth of Kentucky to the sheriff of Floyd County Greeting. We command you to summon Hiram Spurlock, Fanny Spurlock, joint executors of the last will and testament of John Spurlock deceasted, Matthew Spurlock, David Spurlock, Adam Garehart and Rhody his wife late Rhody Spurlock, David K. Harris and Anny his wife late Anny Spurlock, Nicholas Tarter and Sally his wife late Sally Spurlock, Robert Spurlock, Artemmia Spurlock, Polly Morgan, David Morgan and Anna Morgan heirs and representatives of William and Susanna Morgan both deceased late Susanna Spurlock heirs and representatives of John Spurlock deceased to appear before the Judge of our Floyd Circuit Court at the Courthouse in Prestonsburg on the first day of our July Term next to answer a Bill in Chancery exhibited against John Spurlock deceased and also a Bill of Revivor exhibited against them the heirs representative & devisees of John Spurlock deceased by Samuel May and this they shall in no wise omit under the penalties prescribed by law & have then there this writ witness Jonathan Mayo Clerk of our said court the 30^th day of April 1817 & in the 25^th year of the Commonwealth. Att. Jona. Mayo, Clk

William James Mayo Named Special Guardian, July Term 1817

On motion by attorney William James Mayo is appointed Special Guardian to defend in the room of Polly Morgan, David Morgan & Anne Morgan infant heirs of William Morgan deceased heirs at law and devisees of the defendant John Spurlock deceased as set forth in the Bill herein filed.
A Copy, Att. Jona. Mayo, Clk

Answer of Fanny Spurlock, 22 October 1817

The joint and separate answer of Fanny Spurlock Executrix Hiram Spurlock Exrs of John Spurlock dec�d and of Mathew Spurlock, David Spurlock, Adam Gareheart and Rhody his wife, David K. Harris & Anne his wife, Nicholas Tarter and Sally his wife, Robert Spurlock & Artimena Spurlock Heirs and devisees of John Spurlock dec�d to a Bill and an amended Bill exhibited against them in the Floyd Circuit Court by Sam�l May.
These defts saving and reserving all benefit of exceptions to the many errors untruths and uncertainties in said Bill set forth but for answer thereof or to so much thereof as they are advised material they answer and say that they know nothing of the facts and allegations set forth in the complts bill therefore they call upon him to produce full ample and complete proof in support of the several allegations contained in his said bill and when proved these respdts are advised to charge that the facts therein contained are insufficient in law to support a decree for a specific performance against them and they plead the same in bar (?) to any farther prosecution against them your respdts Fanny & Hiram answer and say that the testator in his lifetime purchased said Lott No. 10 of a certain William Keeton and paid therefore a valuable consideration the and they are unable to say whether he had a deed therefore or not, but they charge that the said Graham made and excuted to the Testator in his life time a legal title to said Lott with an attested copy they will in due time produce and which they make part of the answer. These respdts charge that the said John Spurlock dec�d was an innocent and bonifide purchaser of said Lott for a valuable consideration without any notice of the complts pretented equity & therefore hopes the court will protect their equity & property these respdts deny that ever a town was established according to law and they own none could be as the said Graham their Co deft never procured a legal title to the premises in question and which covered the town until the day of (blank) in the years 181_ (blank last number) a patent there for the first issuing to their codeft Graham which enabled him to convey the same with other Lotts to these respdts testator. These respdts state that the said William Keeton was in possession of said lott when the afrd purchase was made of him & who transferred possession of the same among other lotts to their testator who has quietly enjoyed the same until the pretented claim set up by the complts. These respdts know nothing of the pretented purchase bye the complts of James Young and of the several orders and we (?) therein stated to have passed. These respdts will state that their testator paid to their codeft Graham when he executed said deeds the farther(?) sum of one hundred dollars (in a horse &c.) and the said Graham was to convey the whole of the lands as described in said deed the whole of which had been purchased of said Keeton, also the price of fifteen hundred dollars except some small peaces of surplus land which the said Graham suggested he had never before sold and also some lotts & land which the said Graham had long before sold to the testator himself. These defts having answered every allegation in the complts bill, they deny all fraud &c. and pray to be depd with their costs &c.

Answer of Polly Morgan, David Morgan & Anna Morgan, 22 October 1817

The Joint and separate answer of Polly Morgan, David Morgan & Anna Morgan infant Heirs of William Morgan and Susan his wife late Susan Spurlock heirs and devisees of John Spurlock dec�d by William J. Mayo their Guardian to a bill in chancery exhibited against them & others in the Floyd Circuit by Samuel May.
These defts for ___(?) to so much thereof as they are advised material, they answer and say that it is true they are infants of tender years and whether they have an interest in the Lott No. 10 set forth in the compts Bill as devisees of John Spurlock dec�d or not or if they have right it is under the will of said Spurlock which they submit to this Honorable court. They know nothing of the facts set forth in the complts Bill and they being infants of tender years hope their interest will be protected & the court compelled to make full and complete proof of his cause and they pray to e hence dep�d with their costs &c.
/s/ Wm. James Mayo

Answer of John Graham, 24 April 1818

The separate answer of John Graham to a Bill in Chancery exhibited against him and others in the Floyd Circuit Court by Samuel May.
This deft saving and reserving all just exceptions to the many errors of uncertainties in said bill set forth but for answer thereto or so much thereof as he is advised material he answers & says that it may be true that he had a Town laid off as described in complts bill and he says it is true James Young did purchase several lotts in said town at the sale thereof and whether this respds have an order to the Trustees to convey he can not recollect nor is he able at this time to state the different No�s of the several lotts which Young purchased, this respds recollects and will state that some time after the death of said Young he was applied to by the complt who suggested that Young was indebted to him for work done about his House and to know whether if he could get any of those lotts this depdt will state that of the complt ever received any conveyance for said Lott he has not the smallest recollection of the fact therefore requires full proof thereof your respds will state that James Young or his representatives never pd one cent on account of his purchases of to___? Lotts but this respdt yet holds Young�s note for somewhere about L80 with interest &c. this respdt admits he made the conveyance to his codeft Spurlock in the compts bill set forth who set up a claim thereto as sub purchaser of the original purchaser�s at the sale your respdt will state that upon laying off the town of Prestonsburg some 30 persons are entitled to lotts under Prestons proclamation to the first 30 settlers that each should have a lott that the Lott ascribed in the complts bill are one of those Lotts, that the legal title although emanated to him for said Lott was for the benefit of one of the settlers and as such he conveyed the same to Spurlock who claimed under many of them without receiving any consideration whatever. You respdt will state that upon executing his deed to Spurlock that Spurlock claimed the whole with the acception of perhaps two Lotts under sub purchases & his recollection and situation at the time of executing the deed afsd will not permit him to state under whom he severally claimed this respdt having assured all things which he is advised material he denies all fraud without that, that he hopes the compt will be put upon the complete proof of his cause that he will be paid this Honorable court with the benefit of his costs &c.

Affidavit of Samuel May, June 1818

The complainant on oath states that the he procured a subpoena for Wm. J. Mayo to attend about the (blank) day of June last past for the purpose of taking his deposition in the above cause. That whether the officer to wit Peter Smyth then Const. Floyd County who rec�d the same executed it or not this affiant cannot state but this affiant states that the witness did not attend. This affiant further states that he gave the defendants notice of his intention to take said deposition. That the deposition of said witness is material for him in the trial of the said cause that he cannot go to trial safely without it.
/s/ Saml May, his mark

Notice to Fanny Spurlock, 24 September 1818

Mrs. Fanny Spurlock Executrix ~~and Hiram Spurlock~~ Executor of John Spurlock deceased please to take notice that I shall attend at the Courthouse in the town of Prestonsburgh on the 5^th day of October 1818 in order to take the deposition of Wm. James Mayo and others to be read in our Floyd circuit cort as evidence in a case depending in said court in chancery wherein I am plantiff and you are defendant where you may attend if you see proper. /s/ Samuel May

Deposition of William James Mayo, 5 October 1818

This day personally appeared before me James H. Wallace one of the Justices of the peace for the Commonwealth of Kentucky in and for the County aforesaid, William James Mayo of lawful age, who after being duly sworn on the Holy Evangelist of Almighty GOD the truth to speak in a certain matter of controversy in the Floyd Circuit Court now depending and undetermined wherein Samuel May is complainant and Fanny Spurlock Executrix Devisee of John Spurlock dec�d together with their heirs of the said decedent are defendants in chancery. Deposeth and saith that to the best of his recollection it was in the month of May 1805 that this deponent was appointed and qualified Clerk for the Board of Trustees in and for the Town of Prestonsburg which said office of Clerk he this deponent has continued to fill until the present time. The deponent will state that he verily believe in the latter part of the year 1807 or in the former part of the year 1808 (say previous to the 16^th of April 1808) the complainant Samuel May produced to the Board of Trustees of said Town an order executed by John Graham the proprietor of said Town, directed to said Trustees requesting them to make a deed to James Young now deceased to in lot Long range in said Town number ten as he (said Graham) had received full satisfaction for the same of said Yound, Dec�d, (For orders of this kind were the only orders that the Board of Trustees were pd accept under the statute to my certain knowledge) which said order given by said Graham to said Young was assigned by said young to the complainant Samuel May, on the production of which said order to said Trustees they in their Trustee capacity ordered & directed a deed to be made to the complt May for said lot No. 10, which deed this deponent also believes said Trustees to purchasers of lots in said Town or to their assigns and that said Deed was (as this deponent believes) acknowledged before him (this Deponent) the then as now Clerk of the Floyd County Court (or else before me the Deponent as the then Clerk of the Floyd Circuit Court) and that said deed so ackn�d was as this deponent believe lodged in his office as Clerk to be recorded as the law directs. This deponent cannot positively state that said deed to said May was actually recorded but states positively that all the Books records and papers belonging to the Clerks office of this Floyd County & Circuit Court for Floyd afs�d (of both of which this deponant was Clerk) together with all the books records and papers of the Board of Trustees of said Town of Prestonsburg and a considerable part of my private books papers were carefully deposited and remained in the Clerks office in the Courthouse of Floyd County on the 16^th day of April 1808 all which said Books, records, papers, the Clerks office together with the courthouse of Floyd county aforesaid, and all that said Courthouse contained were on the following night (to wit the night of the 16^th of April 1808 being Friday) unfortunately consumed by fire. In which said conflagration this deponent believes the said deed recorded as aforesaid to said complt May was (and if recorded the record & deed) consumed to ashes.
                This Deponent further saith that he knows expressly that said aforementioned lot No. 10 is one of the lots usually termed & called the Yarnall lots and it is now perfectly in the recollection of this deponent that Yarnall employed Thomas Evans to build and erect him a store house on said Lot No. 10 of a certain description and said Yarnall employed this deponent (who then as well as previously & subsequently resided on the adjoining lot No. 11) as his agent to attend to & receive the said store house when completed by said Evans agreeable to contract which was to be sheet sealed, floors laid, sash made, but no glass & chimney raised to the mantle piece and stairs run but upper floor laid loose and when it was finished the deponent was to write Yarnall to come on with his goods but said house was never completed. The very spot whereon said storehouse was to stand on said lot No. 10 was agreed on by said Yarnall & Evans in the presence of this Deponent which was immediately behind the kitchen of this deponent which stood on sd. Lot No. 11 &c.
                This deponent will further state that said Yarnall left and deposited with this deponent a title bond from sd. May to said Yarnall condit___(?) for the conveyance of said lot No. 10 with others which said bond this deponent wrote and attested and which bond remained in the possession of this deponent for several years where it was given up to an order sent to me by Yarnall-, and further this Deponent saith not.
                Question by Plaintiff: Have you any knowledge of William Keeton�s selling said Lot No. 10 to John Spurlock deceased?
                Answer: Not any but ___(?) Keeton frequently, (a short time previous to a sale made to Spurlock of Town Lots) enquired of me if I knew what situation the Yarnell Lots were in. I as frequently replied I had in my possession a title Bond from Samuel May to Yarnell for the said Lot and Keetons general reply was if he could see Yarnell he would buy the Lots, and I believe to the best of my recollection when Keeton sold the Lot to Spurlock and at the time of drawing the writings Keeton excepted the Yarnall Lots out of the contract.
                Question: Have you any knowledge of John Graham�s giving an order to the Trustees of Prestonsburg to make a deed for any other lots in said Town to James Young Dec�d?
                Answer: I have for John Graham gave James Young decd an order to the Trustees of Prestonsburg to convey to said Young an lot long range No. 11, which said deed executed by the Trustees in pursuance of said order is now so recorded in my office as clerk of the Floyd County Court and under the statute relative to the destruction of Public records &c. Also-said Graham gave said Young an order to the Trustees aforesaid to convey to said Young in lot long range No. 13, also 5 acre lots upper town Nos. 4, 5, & 6 which said order said Young assigned over to John Spurlock, a deed for all of which has been executed by the Trustees of said town to said Spurlock assignee and recorded in my office on aforesaid in the above recited deed to Young and further this deponent saith not.                  /s/ Wm.J. Mayo, seal
                Sworn to and subscribed before me James H. Wallace a Justice of the peace for said county this 5^th day of October 1818 Samuel May & Fanny Spurlock both being present. Given under my hand & seal this 5^th day of October 1818.                                                                                       /s/ Jas H. Wallace

Additional Deposition of Wm J. Mayo
                Question by Fanny Spurlock: How many lotts were there which is usually called & denominated the Yarnall Lotts?
              Answer: Three
                By Same: Do you not claim one or more of them?
                Answer: I have a claim to in Lott long Range No. 15 I believe. And I believe that George Martin claims the lot long range No. 9 another of said Yarnall lots.                           /s/ Wm. J. Mayo

Amended Bill of Samuel May, 20 October 1818

The amended bill of Samuel May to a bill in chancery in the Floyd Circuit Court exhibited against John Spurlock and others. Your Orator prays that Elizabeth Young wido and relic of James Young dec�d who is also Administratrix of all and singular the goods chattels and credits of the said James Young dec�d, Patrick Young, the unknown heirs of James Brown, and Maryann his wife late Maryann Young, Isabella Evans widow and relic of Thomas Evans dec�d late Isabella Young, Andrew Rule and Sally his wife late Elizabeth Young, Wilson Sullivan and Fanny his wife late Fanny Young, and James Young the right heirs and representatives of James Young Dec�d may be made defendants to this and the original bill herein filed &c. &c.
The names of the heirs of James Brown are Robert Brown, James Brown, Elizabeth Brown, George R. Brown, Malinda Brown, & John Brown and James Brown himself is prayed to be made defendant. Done by leave of the court to amend at the October term 1818.
Amendment to the amended bill filed the 29^th October 1818. /s/ Attest Wm. J. Mayo, CFCC

Deposition of John Turman, 19^th March 1819

The deposition of John Turman taken at House of Micaga Frashier on the 19^th day of March 1819 between the hours of ten o�clock in the morning and twelve o�clock at noon to be red in the cort of chancery now as evidence in a suit depending in the Floyd Circuit Cort in whitch Samuel May is complained and Fanny Spurlock and others are defendents this defendant being of lawful age and first duly sworn on the Holly Evengalist of the almighty God before me Edward Burgess a Justice of the peace in and for the county of Floyd deposeth and saith:
That he perched the Lot coled Number ten in PrestonsBurge of Samuel May and when I apptied to him to make me a title he told me that he had no title him Self and he could Note make the title and he paid me back in cattle and hogs. We went to the Clerks office and to John Graham. We could find no record of the same. /s/ John Termen

I Edward Burgess a Justice of the piece in and for the County of Floyd and Commonwealth of Kentucky do her by sartify that the fore gaing exparition of John Turman was duly taken sworn to and subscribed before me at the time and place in the captian menchened given under my Hand and Seal this 19^th day of March 1819. /s/ Edward Burgess, JP

Samuel May Notice to Frances Spurlock, 17^th May 1819

Miss Francis Spurlock administratrix of John Spurlock deceased take notice that I shall attend tomorrow morning between the hours of eight and ten o�clock at the house of David K. Harris in Prestonsburg to take deposition of William Keeton and others to be read as evidence in a chancery suit depending and undetermined in the Floyd Circuit Court where in I am complainant and your are defendant at which time and place you may attend if you please. /s/ Samuel May, May the 17^th day 1819

Deposition of William Keeton, 18 May 1819

The Deposition of William Keeton taken to be read as Evidence in a suit in chancery pending and undetermined in the Floyd Circuit Court where in Samuel May is Complainant against Francis Spurlock & Hiram Spurlock Executrix and Executor of John Spurlock deceased and others defendants Taken at the house of David K. Harris on the 18^th day of May 1819 agreeable to a notice given to said defts.
                After being duly sworn on the wholly Evengelist of Almightly God deposith and saith:
                Question by Complainant: Did you ever sell any lots in the town of Prestonsburg by the name of the Yarnal lots?
                Answer: I never did.
                Question by same: Did you or did you not sell any lots in said Town that you had not any title papers for?
                Ans: I never did sell any lots with out tittle papers except one or two and I remember of giving up one since to Hiram Spurlock.
                Question by Same: Did you or did you not git liberty of William J. Mayo to fence in two lots in said town.
                Ans.: I got liberty to fence one and there might be another but I am not Shure.
                Question by Complainant: Did not the lots that you occupied(?) in the sails to Spurlock be aprt the Brick house ajoining the lot that my house now stand on?
                Ans.: I understood it did then or there or there abouts.
                Question by Same: did William J. Mayo tell you those lots they were that he give you liberty to fence?
                Ans.: I understood from him that they were the Yarnal lot or lots that was in his leas(?) or possession.
                Question by Deft.: Did you not refuse selling some lots that you call the Yarnal lots?
                Ans.: I did.
                Question by same: Where did these lots lie?
                Ans.: One above and one below the main cross street.
                Question by Same: do you know whether they were Yarnal lots or not?
                Ans.: How the Devil do I know wheather there were or not they said they were.
                Question by Same: Do you know how many there were of the Yarnal Lots?
                Ans.: I do not know.
                Question by Complainant: Did you ever entered selling any of the Yarnal lots?
                Ans.: I never did, nor never did sell any of them.
                                                                                /s/ William Keeton, his mark
Floyd County to wit:
I Henry B. Mayo a Justice of the Peace for Floyd County do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition of William Keeton was this Day duly taken swron to & subscribed at the time & place mentioned in the Caption mentioned. Given under my hand this 18^th day of May 1819. /s/ Henry B. Mayo, JPFC

Deposition of George Martin, 18 May 1819

The Deposition of George Martin taken to be read as evidence in a Suit in Chancery pending and undetermined in the Floyd Circuit Court wherein Samuel May is Complainant against Frances Spurlock & Hiram Executrix and Executrix of John Spurlock dec�d and others Defendants at the house of David K. Harris on Tuesday the 18^th day of May 1819. After being duly sworn deposeth and the following questions in the following manner here wrote down.

Question by Complainant: What did you understand of John Graham was the cause of his conveying the title to Mr. John Spurlock of the lot No. 10 in long range in the town of Prestonsburg called the Yarnal lot in the manner that he did?

Ans.: I was in conversation with said Graham at his own house about the lot No. 10 called yarnal lot and asked him how he came to make a deed to No. 10 and not No. 9 & 15 as they were all Yarnal lots and he said he was in liquor and he simply asked the family how many Yarnal lots there were and they said two. /s/ Geo. Martin

I Peter Amyx am of the subscribing Justice of the peace for Floyd County Kentucky do hereby certify that the within and foregoing deposition was this 18^th day of May 1819 taken and sworn to before me the Complainant and one of the Defts being present. /s/ P Amyx, JPFC

Deposition of William Herrell, 20 October 1819

The Deposition of Wm. Herrel in a suit in chancery now depending in Floyd Circuit Court whereas Samuel May is Plffe vs. Hirrum & francis his mother is executrix for John Spurlock decised this day came William Herrel befar me Peter Amyx a Justice of the pece for floyd county and the said Willil herre says:

Question: What year John Spurlock baught the lower(?) land in?

Answer: I realy forget.

Question: (Hole in paper, one word missing) you know what lots the afendants bought.

Answer: Noe the afandant further sayes Mr. Keeton went out to Mr. Spurlock Mr. Keeton shewing the boundareys of land he sold him Keeton sayes all these lots I have sal of you except 2 Yarnel lots No. 9 & 15.

Question by ?: Did you go over all the lots or did you stand in one place?

Answer: We stood opizet the Brick house.

/s/ Wm. Herrel

The foregoing deposition was taken before me the subscriber a Justice peace for said County sworn to and subscribed this 20^th Oct. 1819 in presence parties & by their consent. P. Amyx, JPFC

Supplemental Answer of John Graham, 20 April 1820

The Supplemental answer of John Graham to a Bill in Chancery Exhibited against him & others by Sam�l May in the Floyd Circuit Court.

This deft saith that since filing his former answer herein he hath discovered that Rich�d W. Evans purchased at the Original sale of lotts in the Town of Prestonsburg In Lott No. 10 at the price of L6.18 due the 21^st July 1802 and although it was an adventurers lott as set forth in his original answer this respdt having purchased out a large majority of them & settled with the others is entitled to the consideration money and interest no part thereof being paid and this respdt charges that the said Evans purchased at said sale four other lotts the total amount he was to give waas L68.0.1 and that no part is paid that some oof the lotts may be worth now as much as the original purchase money and interest but others is not the presumes that Evans could not coerce a conveyance until the cause duration money with interest be paid. He knows of no transfer from Evans to the complt. The herewith files the original bond for the purchase money executed with J.G. Lycan, Rob�t Haws & Thos C. Brown as his securities executed to secure the payt of the purchase money and makes the same part of this answer he protests against the complts right of recovery for said lott without his first being paid the consideration money being paid the shewing a complete right to the same with the proper parties before the court. He now states that he conveyed this lott to the deft the late Jno. Spurlock without any consideration from him other than an assurance he held the same under the original purchase as he now understands the circumstances of the case he as formerly denies all fraud without that that he prays to be hence aijn. With his costs &c.

/s/ Jno Graham