Hutton - suit over title - Montgomery InGenWeb Project

Go to content

Hutton - suit over title

Source: Crawfordsville Weekly Journal Friday, 23 July 1897

 
An interesting suit to quiet title has been filed in the circuit court; the title being Samuel Hutton et al. vs. Nelson Cunningham et al. in the complaint set forth that for some years prior to 1834, William Hutton and Mary, his wife lived in prosperity and peace in Rockbridge County, Virginia. About 1834 they lost their property by reason of going security for people who failed, and so they came to Indiana with their four sons, W. Gilmore, Jacob, Samuel and George. Not having money to purchase a farm, the father took charge of a saw mill on Walnut Fork, three miles east of Crawfordsville and in the work there was assisted by his sons. In a short time they had accumulated in a common fund the sum of $1,000 and with this they resolved to purchase a farm, land at that early day, being, of course, much cheaper than at present. It was decided to place the land in the name of the oldest son, W. Gilmore Hutton and that it beheld as a family farm, to be divided in equal parts after the death of the father and mother. A quarter section of land was therefore purchased from Joseph Cox and wife at no great distance from the saw mill site and onto this land the Hutton family moved, building a house, barn and fences, and making many radical improvements. The father died in 1837 and in 1846 the mother followed him. Meantime the boys were marrying and were removing to other farms which they were working and by industry acquiring as their own. Finally W. Gilmore was left alone on the home place. His health was poor and he was obliged to have it worked by tenants. The brothers frequently discussed the joint ownership and it was decided by them that W. Gilmore be allowed to hold the land for his own maintenance during his life, although the others should retain their interest.
In 1857 Gilmore married Mrs. Martha Johnson, a widow of Darlington, and a daughter of James Cunningham, of that place. They lived together until his death but had no children. In 1872 a tract of 7 ½ acres adjoining the Hutton homestead was purchased and added to the farm with the understanding that it was also the joint property of the four brothers. It was the intention to divide the homestead before Gilmore’s death and he and Samuel talked of this in 1877. However, it was never done, for in that year Gilmore died very suddenly, being found dead in his bed.
After his death, Samuel was appointed administrator of his estate and after settling it placed in the widow’s hands the sum of $6,225. She then requested of the brothers the privilege of living on the farm the joint ownership of which she knew and acknowledged. In deference to her wishes this request was granted by the brothers and she continued to live on the homestead until some time in the eighties, when she removed to Crawfordsville. After leaving the farm she rented it for the sum of $350 a year and devoted the whole sum to herself, although entitled to but one fourth of it. She also sold $300 worth of timber and kept this money.

Early in 1897 she died and Jere West was appointed administrator of her estate. The Hutton heirs, so the complaint recites, upon learning that the estate is to be settled without a consideration of them, even in the division of the farm, now come into court for justice. They ask that their title in a three fourth’s interest of the homestead be quieted and that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the place until the matter be settled. They further ask an accounting of the rents and profits of the place for a term of years and a judgment for their legal interest therein. There are about twenty plaintiffs and twenty defendants named and as quite a snug sum of money is curiously involved, an interesting legal contest will doubtless take place.
__
Source: Crawfordsville Weekly Journal Friday, 23 July 1897
The heirs of Mrs. Martha Hutton will make a vigorous defense in the suit brought against them by the Huttons. They will deny that the homestead was owned jointly by the four brothers.

Back to content