Abercrombie v. Baldwin

2 said deed and the consideration upon which the same was made - Respondent futher insists that of such conveyance was made. That said complainant and said Crawford at the time of making the same - were fully informed of the adverse possession of Respondents of their peaceful & quiet possession, for about the space of six years prior thereto, also - of the improvements made on said lands by Respondents=Respondent further answering saith that he is now informed and believes the information true that the said Crawford had before that time towit about the year AD 18} conveyed his interest in said lands to said Robert G Haden. That his is now informed and believes the information true, that the name of said Crawford was run in said approved deed - either for form or as a partner with said Haden in speculation upon lands. That the said Haden about the year [blank space] professed owner of stated half section and as such about the time last named sold the same to Respondent, Benjamin of which sale Respondent is informed and believes the said Complainant for years prior to the said quit claim to him was fully informed: that said Complainant resides in said County of Macon, about 25 miles from said lands, That Respondent believed said Haden to be the sole owner of said half section, and holding all the titles until almost the [blank space] day of [blank space] AD and long subsequent to his purchase as herein named, Respondent does not admit that by the issuance of the Patent or conveyance from

3 Crawford; that either said Crawford or Complainant are or were tenants in Common with Respondent for further answer in relation to the manner in which Respondents derived title Refers to the answer of Respondent Benjamin Bauldwin and prays the same may be taken and considered as a part of this his answer, admits that Respondent B Bauldwin has sold and conveyed to divers persons as alledged, and there are now many persons in possession of portions of said half section. That Respondent is unable to set forth the time at which the several defendants went into possession of the portions by them respectively holden or as to the full character of the Titles under which they severally hold but is informed and believes the information true. That most of defendants hold by covenants of warranty, That Respondent is in possession of ten acres of said half section the same being a part of S W (1/4) quarter of the S E (1/4) quarter Sec 35 & five acres of which Respondent went into possession of in May or June 1839 by purchase of Bird Fitzpatrick and Joseph Fitzpatrick at the price of one hundred and fifty Dollars, which sum was paid soon after his said purchase for which he received a quit claim deed, that said lands were unimproved & upon which he has entered improvements at an expense of about three hundred Dollars, which purchase payments and improvements were made by Respondent without any notice that said

4 Crawford had any claim whatever and under the full conviction that his vendors had a perfect right to sell and convey which Evidences of title he makes a part of this his answer, the other five acres he purchased of Respondent Waugh at the price of fifty Dollars the same was wholly improved his whole improvements with the lands Respondent believes to be worth about three hundred Dollars the unusual value only the sum of forty Dollars and denies that the unusual value of said land are worth as charged in said Bill. That the purchase of the five acres of Waugh as last above named was made in the winter of 1843 & 1844 He saith it is true that before he made said last purchase as named that he had heard that the patent had issued in the name of said Crawford and Haden but was at the same time informed by Respondent Benjamin Bauldwin that Crawford had no interest in the land for that he Crawford, had conveyed before the sale by said Haden to said Bauldwin as herein before refered to. Respondent further answering that Complainant at any time proposed a compromise or an amicable partition as charged in said bill and says, that upon some intimation that there might be some litigation concerning the lands named, Respondent proposed to complainant a compromise, if he complainant would make to Respondent a warrantee deed, which he refused; and insisted upon making a quit claim deed such as the one held by him of Crawford which Respondent believed to be founded in [forced?],

5 38

which compromise or offer of compromise by Respondent was not because Respondent believed that complainant had any well founded claim to partition or damages. Respondent insists that complainant has no right to a partition of said lands. That Respondent and the persons under whom he claims, have been in peacable and quiet possession of said lands under [passee?]title for the space of years pending the exhibition of complainants bill, and that Respondent did not claim title by form or under said Crawford or by form or through any person from whom said Complainant claims. That said complainant and said Crawford before the Execution of said claim to Complainant were aware of the adverse possesssion of Respondents of the extensive and progressive improvements by them made, that the said deed is for this cause void, or voidable. That said Crawford was also as Respondent believes informed at the time of the making of said improvements and that he gave no notice of his claim of title. That if said Crawford had any interest in and to said lands. Respondent believes that said Hadent was fully authorised to sell and convey his said interest. That by copartnership in lands, a conveyance by one copartner is binding as to all Respondents is further advised and believes, that if said Crawford had any interest in and to said lands that he had long since been satisfied by said Haden for said interest. That if said Crawford had any interest in the same

6 39

has been forfeited by his neglect and by permitting Respondents to advance large sums of money in improvements aforsaid lands without notice of his claim. Respondent insists that he is a purchaser for a valuable consideration and without notice, and that if complainant or said Crawford had or have any rights they have the same against Robert G Haden seenr or Benjamin Bauldwin and not against said lands in the possession of innocent purchasers without notice. Respondent further answering saith that Complainant at the time of the reception of said quit claim under which he claims was aware that Respondents would litigate his rights to any interest in and to said lands. Respondent further insists that if complainant could in any manner claim any interest in and to said lands, that he should only be entitled to one moity of the half section unimproved, by settlement. That Respondents should be entitled to pay for the improvements made. And this defendant having fully answered the several matters in said bill needful or necessary to be answered prays that he may have the same benefits of this his answer as upon demurrerr and relies upon the several statutes relative to adverse possession and possession under colour of title and assigns to the Court here following causes of demurrer 1st that Complainants remedy is adequate Law 2 that from said bill, the deed under which Complainant claims, is void, being made while Respondents held adversely.