Flanagan Testimony in Suit Brought By Griggs Admin

February Term 1837

Having fully answered, these respondents deny all [?] and pray to be [?] dismissed with their costs, etc.
Wm. C. Worthington.

Articles received from John Griggs, dec’d.
Bed Straw & bedding
1 Carriage — 2 Milch Cows –
1 Heifer, 1 Calf, 1 Shoat,
1 Horse, Pan of shovel & tongs
James Flanegan
Francis M Flanegan.

Jefferson County Sct.
James Flannegan and Francis his wife personally appeared before the subscriber a justice of the peace for Jefferson County and State of Virginia and made oath, that the statements of the aforegoing answer, signed by them are true, so far as given upon their own knowledge and so far as given upon information received from others, they believe to be true– Given upon my hand this 8 day of Februrary, 1837.
William Butler, J. P.

The joint and several answer of James Flananagan and Frances, his wife, late Francis Griggs, to a bill of complaint exhibited in the Circuit Superior Court of Law and Chancery for Jefferson County by John Griggs junior against Richard Williams [?] or of John Griggs senior, deceased, and the distributors and heirs of said deceased.

These respondents coming and reserving to themselves now and at all times hereafter all benefit of exception to said bill, for the manifold errors and uncertainties herein contained, for answer thereunto, or to so much thereof, as they are advised it is material for them to answer — Answer and day —-

That it is true, as stated in the Bill of Complainant that John Griggs, senior departed this life in the month of January 1836, intestate, leaving a considerable personalty, consisting of slaves, horses, cattle &tc. That Richard Williams, agt, qualified as the Administrator of the estate. That the persons named in the Bill are distributors of said deceased.

As to the “first object” of the bill of Complainant — His Respondent answers, that he believes it to be true, that as the daughters of the intestate were married, and as the sons went into business for themselves, advancements were made to them. What amount was advanced to each these respondents are not able to state — they annex to this answer a statement of the property received by them.

These respondents do not believe that those only of his Father’s children who left the “homestead” shared in his bounty, or that the above received advancements from their Father. On the contrary, they believe that the Complainant and Peter who remained at home were placed by their Father upon a footing of equality with the other distributees. They were continually receiving from the Father beyond their maintenance sums of money or property or both, and the Complainant especially, these respondents believe, is largely indebted in their accounts.

These respondents believe that after the payment of the accounts of the intestate, there will be a surplus to be distributed among the children. They consider it just that those who seek a participation in the distribution should be required to bring the advancements into Hotch pot. They therefore unite in the prayer of the bill that distribution of the said surplus should be made upon the above principle.

To the second matter to which the attention of the Court is called by the Bill of Compaintant, and “in which he asks relief– “These respondents answer– that it is true that the complainant resided with the intestate from “his majority to the death of the old gentleman”– They deny however that during his residence he did in any capacity, or for any time sufficient to justify the character work hard for his Father; or that his services in all capacities were worth his maintenance and the expenses accrued and paid on his accounts. And as the interest drawn from the statements of the Bill on this “matter” that a quasi partnership existed between the intestate and the Complainant. They deny its correctness. They deny the existance of any such partnership, of any character, either such as described in the Bill, or otherwise– or that the complainant had any interest whatever in the slaves, stock &c. used on the farm — And upon this matter, these respondents further state, that they are advised that the existence of the partnership between Complainant and the said John Griggs, senior, is not sufficiently or well charged or alleged in the Bill, and they therefore pray the benefit of a formal demand for this defect in the allegations of the Bill– as fully and to all intents as if the said demurrer was specially and formally pleaded.

These respondents further answering deny that the Complainant is entitled to any compensation for his services, or that if entitled to any thing therefore, that there is any special character attaching to his claim rendering the remedy by Law incomplete. On the contrary, they are advised that the remedy at law is ample and complete, and without any legal impediment, they therefore deny the right of the Complainant to one on the chancery side of this court for compensation, and claim the benefit of demurrer to this allegation of the bill, as fully as if the said demurrer was formally and specially pleaded. And as to any claim for compensation for services [?] beyond the period of five years prior to the death of John Griggs, senior, they pray the benefit of the act of the General Assembly of Virginia entitled an “Act for limitation of actions, for presenting frivolous and vexatious suits, concerning [?] and certain proceedings in civil cases.”

These respondents further answering state it may be true that the complainant did execute his individual notes for amounts due to for debts incurred for the use of the farm. It may also be true that he signed his name first in notes executed by himself and Father for such debts. But these respondents deny that such circumstances can be or are evidence of the existance of a partnership between the parties — they may be evidence of the loose and careless manner of doing business practiced by the parties, or of the confidence reposed by the complainant in his Father– But they are well explained of as also in the part stated in the Bill relative to the Deeds of Trust for the use of Ford & Snyder, by the statement contained in the answer of Lemon and wife and Buckle and wife, to the bill of Complainant, as requested from the answers of Ford & Snyder to a bill in a suit in this court — that the union of the complainant with his Father in bonds, notes — Deeds of Trust, &c. was by their request, from prudent caution suggested by the party having heard whispers in circulation of the Father having made over his property to the son– Such suggestions and were doubtless made by other creditors arising probably from the same rumor. It is however just and equitable that should the complainant be held to the payment of any claims in which he is the principal owed the amount of whichever for the use of the farm. He should be indemified or exorcuted unless indeed he is a debtor to the Estate. In such case he can have no claim.