Stout- Joel
Source: Weekly Argus News Oct 2, 1897 p 4
Joel Stout, a well known resident of the county died early Sunday morning at his home near Wesley. His demise was due to stomach trouble from which he has been a sufferer for more than a year. Mr. Sout was 52 years of age and has lived in the county all his life. He leaves a wife and a family of 7 children, all grown. The funeral occurred at Wesley Church this afternoon - transcribed by kbz
Source: Crawfordsville Weekly Journal Friday, 1 October 1897
Joel Stout was born in Fayette County on the 8th of June, 1834, and died Sept. 26, 1897. in 1846 he came with his parents, Wilson and Esther Stout, to Montgomery County
In the death of Mr. Stout the community suffers the loss of a good citizen. He was a man of sterling character, possessed of all those traits that win the confidence and respect of our fellow men. He was honest and industrious, starting with but little means; he by honest effort accumulated a comfortable competency and had the consolation of seeing his children grow to honorable manhood and womanhood. He was buried at the Wesley Cemetery
At an early day he united with the Methodist Church
Source: Crawfordsville Weekly Journal Friday, 20 January 1899
The case of Mrs. Joel Stout against the estate of her husband has been set down in the circuit court for next Thursday. Mrs. Stout claims that her husband married her on the promise of doing well by her at his death and that when that occurred she found that previous to their marriage he had transferred all his property to his children by a former marriage. The defendants, the children, claim that the plaintiff knew that the property was transferred before she married their father. They claim that they paid off a mortgage of four thousand dollars on his place, and that in consideration of this the transfer was made. - s
Source: Crawfordsville Weekly Journal Friday 3 Feb 1899
Several articles have appeared in The Crawfordsville Journal in regard to the case of Jane Stout vs. Angeline Remley et al., the children of Joel Stout, deceased. It is well known that Joel Stout was an honest and honorable man and citizen of Montgomery County, Indiana, and was a man who abhorred fraud, trickery or dishonesty, and the family of Joel Stout feel that part of the articles published and part of the allegations of Jane Stout’s complaint are false and misleading and a slander upon the name and memory of Joel Stout, their dead father, as well as upon the family. That part of the charge stating “that Joel Stout secretly, before his marriage with Jane Stout, and for the purpose of defrauding her out of her rights, conveyed his lands to his children, and that she had no knowledge of the deeds made by Joel Stout to his children before her marriage with Joel Stout, and that she discovered said deeds after his death,” are false and slanderous, and under what is stated to be the fact, are malicious, and the allegation “that the said Joel Stout was engaged to and promised to marry said Jane Stout in November, 1888, is also false.
The real facts as can be proven are about as follows, to-wit: “Several years prior to 1888, Joel Stout bought a body of land and a good home near Wesley, in said county. At that time he had a wife and six children, three girls and three boys, some of them then able to work on the farm, and he told his children that if they would work hard, be economical, and help him pay for the land they should have a share of the land. This they agreed to do and did do and his wife, a hard working woman and a noble wife and mother, also helped to pay the debt, and before her death, which occurred in January, 1888. She and Joel Stout, her husband, talked over the matter of dividing their lands among their children as previously spoken of, and in February, 1888, after the death of his wife, Joel Stout’s health was bad and he desired to settle and adjust his business in regard to a division of his land among his children and the payment of about $400 of original mortgage debts against this land, and make provision for his own support during his lifetime, and with that view he consulted with his friends and as a result, as early as the summer of 1888 the arrangements had been understood and agreed upon by Joel Stout and his children about as follows: Oscar Stout, his oldest son, had received a conveyance for land worth more than his share and it was arranged that he should pay $1,600 of said $4,000 of indebtedness, and pay to Joel Stout the interest on $1,000 during his life, and that his daughter, Mrs. Emma Zook and her husband were to take 80 acres of the land and pay $2,400 of said $4,000 of debts and pay to Joel Stout the interest on $1,000 as long as he lived, and that he was to make deeds to the other children for their portion of the lands and reserve a life estate therein, thus securing his own support, the payment of said $4,000 of debts and divide his lands amongst his children, keeping for himself the undivided one third of the home place in fee, being 122 acres, a valuable tract of land, and that Joel Stout neglected to execute the deeds to carry the said arrangements on his part until the 12th day of January, 1889, at which time he executed the said deeds before John Johnson, recorder of said county, and on said 12th of January, 1889, Joel Stout had never visited said Jane Stout with a view of marriage, and had never spoken to her on the subject of marriage. On the 8th day of January, 1889, Mrs. Mary A. Snyder, a sister of Joel Stout, at the request of said Joel Stout, visited said Jane at her home and told her, (Jane) that Joel Stout had requested her to ask her (Jane), if she would consent for Joel Stout to talk with her on the subject of marriage, and Jane said she would, and it was then arranged that she meet Joel Stout in Crawfordsville the next Saturday and confer as to a day when he should come to see her, and on the said Saturday, the 12th day of January, 1889, in the afternoon, said Jane went to Yeagley & McClamrock’s store and soon Joel Stout came in, and in the hearing of other persons, Joel Stout said to Jane, in substance: “In regard to that arrangement made by Mary Ann with you, when will it suit for me to call and see you?” and Jane said, “next Tuesday,” and that next Tuesday was the 15th day of January, 1889, three days after said deeds were executed, and Joel Stout for the first time visited Jane with a view to marriage three days after the deeds were made and before any contract of marriage, and Joel Stout told Jane before their marriage all about said deeds having been made, and Jane Stout was told also by Mrs. Mary A. Snyder that Joel had conveyed his lands to his children, and Jane replied and said: “Yes he told me all about it; it’s all right and I’m glad of it—I’m not marrying him for his money.” And Jane Stout told Rankin Walkup, Milton B. Waugh and Harvey Wynekoop that she knew about the deeds before her marriage to Joel Stout, and she told others the same. - thanks so much to "S"
Source: Crawfordsville Weekly Journal Friday, 27 January 1899
On Thursday in the circuit court was called for trial the case of Mrs. Jane Stout vs. the children by a former marriage of her deceased husband, Joel Stout. The suit was to set aside a conveyance made by the decedent of certain real estate, the transfer being made shortly before his marriage to the plaintiff. Mrs. Stout alleged that she had married him on the condition that he give her a large portion of this realty upon his death. During their married life, she avers, she was always led to believe that the property was still in his name and that she would be favored per contract. When he died she learned of the ante-nuptial conveyance and ascertained that she was left property in value less than $100. She accordingly sued to have the conveyance set aside. The case was called for trial on Thursday and bright and early all interested parties were on hand. The first witness called was the plaintiff and as soon as she took the stand counsel for the defendant objected to her testimony on the ground that as an heir of her husband she had no right to testify to those matters alleged in her complaint. Counsel for the plaintiff maintained that she was making her claim not as an heir of her husband but as a purchaser of the land in controversy, the consideration she gave the decedent being her services as his wife according to their contract. The point of the law was vigorously argued a greater part of the morning and when submitted to Judge West was determined for the defendants. The plaintiff’s attorneys then rested their case and the court gave judgment for the defendants. The case will be appealed and lawyers think that a very nice point of law remains to be decided by the Supreme Court. Legal opinions are variant on the issue and the result will be noted with interest. - s