There are no known copyright restrictions on this item. You are free to use this item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. Washington University Libraries does not assert copyright in reproduction scans of public domain materials made openly available on its websites. For more information on policies and procedures governing the use of materials, contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
his atttorney complains of
unto him the sum of Seventy ........Dollars
.....lawful in any of the
and from him unjustly detains for that where as at a court of
Common pleas began and held at the Town of
the aforesaid
in the year One thousand eight hundred and Twelve
recovered against him the said Defendant as administrator
singular the goods and Chattels, rights and credits of
damages as fifty eight . . . Dollars eleven cents his costs
in and about that suit laid out and expended, and it was then & there
the opinion of the said Court then setting as aforesaid, that the said
the estate and effects of the aforesaid
and that the said estate was not insolvent - and also that the said
administrator as aforesaid the aforesaid sum of seventy dollars damages
and fifty eight . . . Dollars eleven cents costs as aforesaid to be levied of
the goods and chattels which were of the said
at the time of his death in the hands of the aforesaid adminis
trator to be administered, and if there were not so much of
the goods & chattels which were of the said
at the time of his death in the hands of the said Administrator
to be administered, then of the porper goods and chattels of the said
where of the said
ted as appears by the records and proceedings of the said court
large appear and the said plaintiff
Judgments in no wise reversed or annulled, but
force and virtue nor hath the said plaintiff yet obtained satisfac
tion for any part there
for obtaining states faction for his damages and costs aforesaid, said
forth out of the clerks office of the said Court of Common pleas
on the
thousand eight hundred and twelve
to the sheriff of the said
the sheriff aforesaid was commanded, that of the goods and chattels
in the hands of the said Defendant Administrator as aforesaid
to be administered being in the
he should cause the damages - costs and charges aforesaid to be made
of the - said Defendant administrator as aforesaid had so much of the
goods and Chattels in his hands to be administred and of the said
administrator had not so much of the proper goods and Chattels
which were of the said
to be administered him the costs and charges aforesaid to be made
of the proper goods and chattels of hour the said
and that the said sheriff should have those sums before the judges
of the said Court
date of the said Execution to render unto him the said plaintiff
his said damages costs and charges aforesaid and that he should
have then there that writ which said writ afterwards and before
the return of the said writ was delivered to the sheriff of the aforesaid
County on the
said to be executed in
to which said
the said first monday in November in the year aforesaid the said
sheriff
aforesaid. That there was no property in his said
to
which said
record in the said Court of Common pleas at the Town of
at large appear. And the said plaintiff also
not yet satisfied of the aforesaid sum of Seventy Dollars damages
as aforesaid ...or any part there of
and the said plaintiff moreover saith that after the
of the said Judgment and before the
and process original of the plaintiff in this cause, to writ on the
and twelve,
sum of Seventy Dollars ... came to the
hands of the said Defendant to be administered
Defendant could have satisfied,
goods & Chattels whereby an action hath
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
plaintiff to demand and have of and from the said Defendant
the said sum of seventy Dollars lawful money of the
above demanded
Yet the said Defendant though often requested
hath ever refused, and still refuses to pay the said sum
of money or any part there of a the damages of the plaintiff
One hundred and Seventy Dollars.
Wherefore he
We command you do summon
and appear before the judges of our court of Common
Pleas to be
for the
February next there and then to
sum of seventy dollars
detains to the damage of the said
said one hundred and seventy dollars, and have
your the there this writ
Nan
Devastavit
Dam. $ 170
This is an action of Devastavit
for
accordingly - Debt. $70 . . .
damage $170
Executed
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
The Defendant by
record, non
rendition of the judgment in the aforesaid declaration mentioned, and
that Charles Gratiot, David Delaunay &
according to law by the orphans court of the county of
adjust and declare to what creditors the remaining assets in the hands
of said defendant administrator aforesaid of the estate of the said
of said estate
given for at least three weeks in the
the house of the said
the
business of their appointment as auditors aforesaid and the papers
Documents & Claims against the said estate being presented to them by
the said defendant as administrator the said Auditors did thereupon
adjourned to meet and did meet on the
one thousand eight hundred & fourteen
and did meet on the
from day to day untill the twenty fifth of the said month of January
of the year aforesaid. And thereupon the said Auditors having maturely
considered all and singular the claims & demands against the said
estate and the accounts of the said administrator, did find that the
whole amount of the proceed of the sales of the property of said estate
in the hands of the said administrator to be administrered said amount
to the sum of five hundred & one Dollars, the said Auditors did make
and decree the following apportionment to writ to Merry P Ledue
Judge of Probate three Dollars thirty two & one half cents- to Indians
for
Louis Bauer Two Dollars - Feeding &
Clermont three Dollars -
Belissine three Dollars -
Alexander Mc. Nair Thirty Three Dollars & eleven Cents - Antoine F.
Saugrain Eighteen Dollars & fifty cents -
hundred seventeen dollars and two and one half cents -
auditors having settled and adjusted the rates and proportions of the remaining
assets aforesaid due & payable to the respective Creditors aforesaid the
said Defendant sayth that he hath no assets in his hands where with he cause
have paid and satisfied the find debt and demand in the declaration
of the said Plaintiff mentioned - And so he sayth that he hath fully
administer all and singular the goods & chattels rights & credits
estate of the said
the year and at the place last mentioned in the declaration of the said
Plaintiff and this the said Defendant is ready to verify &c.-
wherefore &c.
And for further Plea the said defendant sayth that the said
Plaintiff did neglect to exhibit his said account & demand in the declaration
aforesaid specified to him the said Defendant as administrator as aforesaid
within one year after public notice was given by the said defendant in the said
Paper for four weeks, Therefore according to the statute in that case made
and provided said Plaintiff is not entitled to demand or receive any
of the aforesaid assets which were remaining in the hands of him the said
defendant as aforesaid and which have been administered in manner
aforesaid by him the said defendant.
ads
Abr: Parker
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Dept on Judgment suggesting Devastavit in
On the trial of this cause the plaintiff proved
assets to have been received by the defendant during his administration
to the amount of more than the plaintiffs demand that
the sum of about four hundred dollars, and thereupon the
Defendant by his attornies offered evidence to prove the payments
of divers debts of said
the dependants administration to shew how he had adminis
tered said estate: and to show that said Defendant never
had assets enough in his hands to pay all the debts of
the deceased, and insisting that therefore the plaintiff
could recover only his proprotion of the assets with inter
est out of the proper estate of the defendants; to
all which proof of payments by the Defendant the
plaintiffs attorney excepted and prayed the court to
reject the same because it did not appear that the Defend-
ant as administrator of said estate had filed any inventory
a list of sales of said estate and because it did not appear
that the Defendant had caused said estate to be
reported insolvent in a proper manner by having auditors
appointed and the rates settled by them which each creditor
was to receive out of said estate, which exception of the
plaintiffs attorney the court sustained and refused to
admit proof of any payments made by the Defendant
out of said estate to any other creditors than the plaintiff
and gave Judgment for the plaintiff for his whole former
Judgment with interest. In testimony whereof the Defend
ant by his attorney prays the court to sign this
bill of exceptions
ads
Exceptions
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
And the plaintiff replied to the first plea of the
said Defendant, and saith that there is such a record of the
Judgment non remaining in this Court. as the said Plaintiff in his
Declaration hath complained against the said Defendant, and this he
is
this Court
And to the second plea of him the said Defendant the
said plaintiff saith that the said Defendant did design, work,
detain, and to his own proper use correct and dispose of the
goods &
Declaration the plaintiff hath complained, and this he prays may
be inquired of by the Country.
And to the third plea of the said Defendant, the plaintiff
saith, that the said Defendant at the time of seeing
the writ aforesaid
on the
deceased, at the time of his death to the amount of seventy dollars
wherewith he might have satisfied the plaintiff aforesaid in manner
and form as aforesaid recovered, and this he prays may be
enquired of by the Country.
And as to the fourth plea of the said Defendant the said
plaintiff saith that the said plea is bad & insufficient in Law
to preclude him the said plaintiff from recovering his demand afore
any
Wherefore for want of a sufficient plea in this behalf, the said
plaintiff prays Judgment of her debt & damages aforesaid & his
Costs and for causes of
and
1 That part of said plea which states that the Estates
the rendition of the Judgment in the aforesaid declaration
mentioned does not show the amount of assets in the hands
of the Defendant.—
2. It does not show the amount of Debts
3. It does not show in the manner required by Law the
adjustment of the same.—
4. It does not show for what amount the said state is
5. It does not show
of
6. Insolvency cannot be pleaded in discharge of this demand after
the finding of the Jury in the former action that the said Defendant
had in his
without lawfully accounting for those assets so as to preclude
the plaintiff from any
7. The said plea does not show when
on said Estate, whether before the seeing forth
in this case, nor the diligence he used to obtain a final
adjustment
of the said Estate.
8. The said plea does not state that the said Defendant
exhibited the demand of the plaintiffs with others to said
Auditors.—
9. The said plea does not state, that said Report, of said
Auditors had been presented to the court of common pleas to
be approved & confirmed by said Court.—
10. It does not state that the report of the auditors has-
been confirmed by said Court, after which only the administrator
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
is authorized to pay the proportions reported. —a—
11. In said plea does not state that said Defendant hath
paid the assets in her hands to the Creditors named in said
pretended report.—
12. The said plea admits assets to a greater amount there
the plaintiffs demand.
13. The said plea
of this suit and
requesting the auditors to act before the
this suit unless they were appointed afterwards and in that
case he has been guilty of negligence.—
14 Because said plea is double in this, that it states first
that the Estate of said
that it was insolvent, thirdly, the appointment of
fourthly, that he has no assets, & fifthly that he has
fully administered and contains several distinct matters which
cannot be joined in the same pleas —
15. The said Defendant cannot plead
the Jury have found assets in his hands, and the Judge-
ment of the Court in the
unsatisfied and not appealed from or reversed.—
16. The said plea which states he has fully administered
cannot be received after judgment against the administrator
and assets sufficient to pay said judgment found by the Jury
without showing that debts of a higher degree and
to the plaintiff against the Estate have exhausted their
assets and due diligence in the Defendant in setting the
Estate.—
17. That said plea is not issuable wants form is
contradicting and uncertain.—
And to the fifth and last pleas of said Defendant the said plaintiff
saith that he did within one year after public notice was given
by said Defendant in the
day of August one thousand eight hundred & eleven
his account or demand to said Defendant according to this
Statute of this Territory in such cases made and provided and
this he
Parker
vs
Recd. a copy of the
within replication
the
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
vs
1. This notice is
and the jury was mistaken as to the
of the
2. The
Jury
report of said
from receiving the full amounts
vs
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
You are hereby commanded
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay
before the judges of our court of common pleas now
the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said court, wherein
defendant, on the part of the
ads
Executed
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
In the town of Common
Pleas, St Louis County.
Action of
On the trial of this case the
the reform on the Execution and that the
administration was granted in the
August 1870
of
made by the said Defendant & find by him
with the Judge of
1810.
evidence being admitted under the declaration in
this case on the ground that the plaintiff
having suggested a devastant of assets
which are alledged to have come to
the hands of the administrator, after
the said judgment obtained against him
in
go for assets received before that date - the
which said his of
figures following to wit.
Sales of George Druillard's Property
pour que le public je trouve chez moi a tois heures apres qu'il lit une
ci
E. D.
Le 268 vendu deux suivant
personne es avoir affiche apres de
Une Do Do 15
Un
The
the said paper so 90 is
for the plaintiff
and make the
vs
Bill of exception