1881 to 1887 - Jackson W. Reeves vs Malachi W. Reeves
North Carolina, Estate Files, Madison County
1881, Reeves, Malichi & William
Introduction
This case is between Jackson Wells Reeves and his brother Malachi W. Reeves over their deceased brother, William M. Reeves, shares in the estate of Malichi Reeves Snr, deceased.The case file includes a range of documents such as summons, subpoenas, motions, and receipts from the year 1881-1887. While not all of these are outlined here, the following items may be of interest to those seeking to explore the case further:
- The first complaint available filed by Jackson Wells Reeves – March 8th, 1882 (images 50-54)
- J. W. Reeves Amended Complaint – February [7?] 1887 (transcribed below) - (images 38-44)
- M. W. Reeves Response – August 7, 1887 (images 47-49)
- Judgement - August 1887 (images 34-35)
- Disposition of Wells Reeves (Malachi Snr, deceased, brother) (images 27-29)
Transcript
J. W. ReevesVs.
M. W. Reeves
Madison Superior Court
February [7?] , 1887
The amended complaint of the Plaintiff filed by leave of the Court alleges
1st. That prior to 1858 one Malichi Reeves died in the County of Madison after having his last will + testament which is made a front [part] of the complaint marked Exhibit “A”. That said testation left ten children, and died seized of certain lands situated in Madison, a portion [?] of which, [xxx] the subject of this controversy.
(2) There is no special controversy about the Last Will & Testament as it provided for equality among the children and heirs as well as the widow. That the plaintiff and defendant are brothers and children of the said Malichi Reeves. That the plff and defendant bought shares of all the heirs except their brother William M. Reeves.
(3) That the plaintiff + defendant prior to the year 1858 were the owners as follows of the shares in their father’s estate: – The plaintiff owned 2 ½ shares, the defendant 6 ½ shares and their brother William 1 share, making the 10 shares (the widows share being included in Williams share as subsequently decided).
(4) That on the 24th day February 1858 a portion of the land owned by their father was made between plaintiff, the defendant, and their brother William M. by which a certain number of acres were allotted to each of their [parties] in [severalty] taking into consideration the ownership of each of the parties by purchase or otherwise
VH(5) That in said [partitions] the number of acres were assigned to William M who with his mother took possession of the same – both of whom are now dead – the said William died in the year 1859
(6) That on the death of the said Williams the land assigned to him by the [partitions] of 1858 descended to the brothers and and sisters (9 in number). And that of the 9 shares the plaintiff bought all the shares of the heirs in their brother Williams Estate, except 1 ½ shares which was owned by the defendant.
(7) That prior to the 10th day of December 1860 the defendant had sold to his brother William a certain parcel of land, situated on the south side of the 200 acres tract owned by their father. That on the said 10th day of December 1850 by an agreement said contract was [rescinded]. Said agreement signed by the plaintiff and defendant (a copy) in here filed marked Exhibit (B) and made a part of this agreement. From this agreement it will be seen that the heirs of Malichi Reeves were to mark valid the division between [plff] and defendant made 1858. Such as the intent and object of the agreement.
(8) That on the day of the defendant caused a deed to be performed which did not comply with the ~[proper ?] writing marked Exhibit (B) - that the plaintiff and the other heirs were induced to sign the same, believing that they were conveying the interest in their fathers estate and not in the Estate of their brother William
(9) That the plaintiff and others of the heirs of William M. Reeves who signed this deed did so through a mistake on their part and the fraudulent concealment of the fact on the part of the defendant that said mistake and fraudulent concealment was in this, the plaintiff and the other heirs believe they were conveying to the defendant their interest in their father’s estate, whereas in fact and in truth the deed conveys in terms their interest in their brother Williams estate, contrary to their interest and understand and in [fraud found] of their rights.
(10) That this deed to the defendant is wholly without consideration except one half interest in their sister’s interest (Mrs. Catherine Gregory) that the plaintiff [so earned] no [consideration] nor did the other heirs of William [as] here stated and the deed is fraudulent as to them. That from information and belief the writing of said deed was procured by the defendant and that the parties signing the same were induced to believe by the representations and concealment of the defendant that they were conveying their interests in their fathers estate and that the deed was drawn in [pursuance] of the agreement between plff and defendant here marked Exhibit (B) The [?] plaintiff owes the [facts] to be true as here charged [especially] as to himself.
(11) That the plaintiff is the owner of all the interest in the lands of which his brother William dec’d seized except as herein stated more fully described in the original complaint filed.
(12) That the defendant is now in possession of said lands for which this fraudulent deed was obtained, claiming the entirety refusing to account to the plaintiff for rents although often demanded and is thereby guilty of an ouster as to the plff as tenant in common.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays
1 That said deed as herein described be declared fraudulent as to the plaintiff and other co tenants of William M. Reeves estate; that the same be declared void and that the defendant and other co tenants of William M Reeves estate, that the same be declared void and that the defendant perpetually enjoined from [setting up ?] said deed.
2 That he be allowed to recover his interest in said lands, and let in as tenant in Common.
3. And for orders orders and decrees as to the nature of the transaction may authorize.
W.H. Marlow
Att. for the ptff
Commentary
This amended complaint contains some facts of interest:- Malachi Sr., had 10 children
- Jackson, Malachi, and William are brothers who bought out the other children's shares
- One sister's (daughter of Malachi, Snr) name is Catherine Gregory
- William died 1859.
- That the mother had died by the time of this suit, 1881
- The case file contains the deposition of Wells Reeves, Malachi Snr's brother, who was around 80 at the time.