Rusk - David - Montgomery InGenWeb Project

To the Editor and Readers of the Journal:

We noticed in your paper dated Jan. 8, a piece about the David Rusk estate, in which are made some very falsifying statements. In the first place it speaks of David Rusk, a widower, marrying Mrs. Munns and David Rusk having nothing when he married Mrs. Munns. In 1823 David Rusk and his father came to Montgomery County and settled on the 80 acres which are now under dispute. David Rusk, Sr., deeded to David Rusk, Jr., in about 1830, that 80 acres of land on which he always lived. He soon married Martha Ball, the daughter of Dennis Ball. To them were born six children, all of whom are still living except Robert, who died when he was twelve years old. Our dear mother departed this life in 1846. David Rusk lived a widower until the fall of 1847, when he married Mary Munns, the daughter of William Heath.

It spoke of Mrs. Munns being such a wealthy lady. She owned at the time of her marriage 80 acres as a life time dowry, which was sold to John Munns, where he lived until his death. She had formerly owned 160 acres in Fountain County which was sold to a man named Mr. Graham for $600. He failed to pay for the place and James Ingersoll took the farm and paid Mother Rusk the $600 after she was married. It was also stated that David Rusk owned nothing when he married the widow Munns. We can show papers to prove that David Rusk owned 280 acres of land and was out of debt when he married Mrs. Munns.

Father Rusk died in 1875, leaving a will in Dan Merrill’s possession. A few days after father’s death, the heirs including Mother Rusk, met at the home place to hear the will. Dan Merrill read the will, in which it said Mother Rusk was to have 80 acres of land her lifetime and $1,000 and other personal property. Mother Rusk felt somewhat dissatisfied in regard to the amount of money she got, but said she did not want to break David’s will. The heirs wanted her to take it under the law, but she refused to do so. The heirs then before leaving stated that they would give her $400 in money and other personal property, all amounting to near $900. Mother Rusk stated that it was more than she expected and acted as if she was perfectly satisfied.

The heirs and Mother Rusk chose Dennis Rusk administrator. The next day Mr. Merrill and others took the will to Mr. Ristine, who pronounced it a legal transaction, which now can be found in this city upon the inventory.

The article furnished the Journal says William Armstrong was twelve years old when taken by Mother Rusk, trying to make it appear that he was old enough to earn his own living. He was between three and four years old when taken by Father Rusk to raise. We have nothing to say in regard to William, but Mother Rusk left a will, in which she willed all she had to William. About the time Mother Rusk was stricken down the heirs have reason to know that she had about $2,000.

J. S. alleges that the Rusk heirs refused to give any assistance to their mother’s support. It not being true, for the Rusk heirs paid the taxes on that 80 acres for the last ten years, while mother received the profit.

We, the heirs, would like to see J. S. have as many provisions stored away as we gave Mother Rusk, and he could live sumptuously for two or three years. We could not leave our homes and families to go and take care of mother as we would like to have done, nor would she be satisfied when she was at our homes.

We think J. S. and William have both started in business but have failed, but we cannot say when they will start in that other business J. S. spoke of—the matrimonial business.

The Rusk heirs did not step in smilingly to get the estate but expected to let William and his administrator settle the estate. They saw the administrator was going to let the place go for debts. Then the heirs wanted their share that was provided for by the will.