Volume 748, Page 166 View pdf image |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
(166) said Comp.lt and his heires for Ever against the said Robert Atchinson and his heires for ever according to the true intent and meaning of the said bargaine and agreement and that processe of subpœna might thereout bee Awarded against the said Defend.ts appeared and to Answere make of all & singular the p.rmisses the w.ch being granted and Wee being informed that the said Sam.ll was soe weake and the said Robert a tender infant That they could not travell to our said Court to answere the said bill without greate Danger of theire heath Wee therefore comisserateing there condicon and Reposeing especiall trust and confidence in the fidelity of James Ringold of Kent County gentl Did give him free power & authority dilligently to examine the said Samuell and Robert upon y.e matter of the said bill (haveing first examined the said Robert if hee Did elect and chuse the said Samuell to bee his Guardian to Answere for him with power to the said James the said Samuell if chosen by the said Robert to bee his Guardian to admitt and the said Samuell and Robert to the matter of the said bill upon the Oath of the said bill Sam.ll upon the holy Evangelists that hee should dillegently examine and the answere of the said Sam.ll and Robert by the said Samuell his Guardian that hee should receive and reduce the same into writeing and the same send to us in our Court of Chancery without delay, And now here at this day to witt the Seaventh day of October in the fourth yeare of our Dominion Over our said Province Annoq Dominij 1679 The said James Ringold made returne of our said Comission to him Directed to us in our Court of Chancery close sealed up The said Comission the said Comission being indorsed that the execucon thereof appeareth in a Certaine answere thereunto annexed And under the said answere to the said Comission annexed the said James Ringold Certifieth that the Eight and twentieth day of September 1679 psonally appeared before him the Defendent Robert Atchinson and close the Defend.t Sam.ll Tovery to bee his Guardian to Defend that suite, and the said Defend.t Sam.ll for himselfe, and as Guardian to the said Robert being Duely sworne upon the holy Evangelists before him, The said Defend.ts answere and say that they beleive it to bee true that the said Vincent Atchinson in the bill named and Hanah his wife in Right of the said Hannah were in theire life times seized in theire Demeasne as of Fee of and in all that tract of land called Colchester, Lyeing in Talbott County formerly now in Kent County Containing by estimacon One thousand acres, and that being soe seized it may bee true that they the said Vincent and Hannah Did for the consideracon of the sume of tenn thousand pounds of tobacco to them to bee paid by the Complaynant about the time in the bill for that purpose menconed contract and agree to sell and Convey y.e said land to the Complaynant his heires and assignes for ever in such manner & forme as in the said bill is sett forth, and it may bee true the s.d Comp.lt did pay unto the said Vincent Atchinson some part of the consideracon for the said Land, But whether hee paid the sume of seaven thousand pounds of |
![]() | |||
![]() | ||||
![]() |
Volume 748, Page 166 View pdf image |
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.