LAUDERDALE COUNTY, ALABAMA
COURT RECORDS - CHANCERY COURT

Page 231
Sale of items from Samuel Savage’s Estate
November 1, 1838

John B Dillahunty 1 side board 16.00
John B Dillahunty 1 small table 3.00
Hugh McClusky 1 table 4.00
Hervey Dillahunty 1 lot crockery ware 3.00
Nathan Lee 1 lot dishes 1.75
Hugh McClusky 1 lot dishes .50
John Shone 1 lot dishes 2.62
Hervey Dillahunty 1 sett china 10.00
Willis Haygood 1 lot crockery ware .56 1/4
Willis Haygood 1 lot crockery ware .56
Stanton Flint 1 lot plates .75
S Dameron 1 lot plates .87
H Dillahunty 1 lot plates .50
B P Brown 1 lot crockery ware .25
S Dameron 1 lot plates .62 1/2
A M Scruggs 1 lot cup plates .50
Finch Scruggs 2 salt cellars .25
Nathan Lee 2 pitchers .50
Nathan Lee 2 pitchers 1.00
B T Karsner 1 lot table spoons 1.50
Henry Simmons 1 lot tea spoons 2.25
A M Scruggs 1 lot tea spoons 6.12 1/2
J B Dillahunty 1 lot tea spoons 9.75
A M Scruggs 6 table spoons 19.00
Henry Simmons 6 table spoons 20.00
J T Savage Bed and furniture 29.00
H Dillahunty 1 bed, bedstead and furniture 50.00
A M Scruggs 1 counterpane 7.75
Nathan Lee calico spread .75
H McClusky 2 checked counterpanes .50
J B Dillahunty 3 checked counterpanes .75
Nathan Lee 3 counterpanes 1.25
R Kernachan 1 carpet 24 1/4 yds @.75 18.19
J T Savage 1 counterpane 6.00
A M Scruggs 1 counterpane 1.50
J B Dillahunty 1 quilt .50
A M Scruggs 1 calico spread 2.00
Nathan Lee 1 pr blankets 2.50
J B Dillahunty 1 pr blankets 4.25
H Dillahunty 1 pr blankets 7.00
H Dillahunty 1 pr blankets 3.00
A M Scruggs 1 pr blankets 8.00
H Dillahunty 1 blanket 4.00
A M Scruggs 3 pillows 1.75
L Dameron 4 towels .38
R Kernachan 1 towel .50
J T Savage 1 pr sheets 1.25
A M Scruggs 1 pr sheets
H Dillahunty 1 pr sheets 1.75
J B Dillahunty 1 pr sheets 1.00
H Dillahunty 1 pr sheets 1.00
J B Dillahunty 1 pr sheets .25
S Dameron 1 pr sheets .62
Nathan Lee 1 pr sheets .25
A M Scruggs 1 pr Diaper table cloths 5.00
A M Scruggs 1 pr diaper table cloths 7.00
H Dillahunty 1 pr diaper table cloths 5.00
J B Dillahunty 1 pr sheets .75
Nathan Lee 1 pr sheets .50
Nathan Lee 1 pr sheets .75
J B Dillahunty 1 pr cotton sheets? .50
James Noel table cloth .50
A M Scruggs 1 pr sheets 2.25
Jas Noel window curtains .25
A M Scruggs 1 pr dining tables 27.00
R Kernachan 2 window curtains 2.50
J B Dillahunty 1 settee 5.50
R Kernachan 6 Windsor chairs @ .621/2 3.75
R Kernachan 6 Winsdor chairs @ .50 3.00
H McClusky 1 cupboard 6.25
H Dillahunty 28 glass tumblers 3.50
S Dameron Sett of castors .75
S Dameron 2 pitchers .38
John Shane 2 brass candle sticks .62
V P Brown 4 candlesticks .18
H Dillahunty 2 candlesticks .50
S Flint 1 lot knives, forks and waiters 2.75
J T Savage 1 vol American Biography 10.00
J T Savage 1 vol. Walker’s Dictionary 3.00
N Parish 1 sugar chest 2.00
Ely South 1 medical work 1.50
Willis Hagood 1 lot bottles .37
N Lee 1 lot bottles .25
R Kernachan 1 bone saw .38
N Lee 2 trunks .25
S Dameron 1 trunk .37 1/2
N Lee 1 trunk .25
J B Dillahunty 2 trunks .25
R Kernachan 1 pr draw bellows .38
R Kernachan 1 jug .25
James Noel 1 lot jars and jugs .63
R Kernachan 1 bed pan 2.25
J B Dillahunty 1 Demijohn .50
J B Dillahunty 1 wash stand and bowl 3.50
A M Scruggs 1 bed and furniture 40.00
H Dillahunty 1 candle stand 1.50
Jas Noel Small table 2.25
H Dillahunty Clark Commentary 2.75
J T Savage History England .37
H Simmons Chitty’s Blackstone .25
E South Algebra .12
J T Savage 7 Vol Ancient History 4.37
H Dillahunty 5 vol Malte Boun? Geo 5.00
W Scruggs Wesley’s Sermons .75
H Dillahunty 2 vol Ancient Geo .25
H Dillahunty 2 vol History South Carolina .31
Jas Noel Gibson Surveying . 25
Jas Noel Virgil .12
Jas Noel Virgil .12 1/2
Morris Whitmire History Martyrs .50
Jas Noel Horace .12
J B Dillahunty Constitution U.S. .31
S Flint 1 lot books .25
E South 2 books .25
S Flint 1 lot books .43
E South 1 lot books .12
Thomas Nail 1 medical work .13
E South 1 lot books .06
J B Dillahunty Bed and bedstead 20.00
A M Scruggs 1 Desk 23.00
R Kernachan 2 chambers .36
Jas Noel 3 chambers .38
J B Dillahunty Bedstead and cord .25
R Kernachan 1 small bedstead and cord .25
H Dillahunty Bathing Pan 8.50
R Rice 1 kettle 1.25
H Dillahunty 2 kettles 2.50
Jas Noel 2 kettles 2.00
S Fling 1 pot .75
E South 1 pot 1.75
R Kernachan 1 pot 1.25
S Flint 1 pot .50
Jas Noel 1 pot .50
Jas Noel 1 oven .50
Jas Noel 1 oven 2.13
R Kernachan 1 oven .75
J B Dillahunty 3 ovens .50
H Dillahunty 1 brass kettle 1.25
Jas Noel 1 pot rack 1.00
H Dillahunty 1 pr andirons 1.50
Jas Noel 1 pr andirons 1.00
S Flint 1 pot hook .25
J B Dillahunty 1 wash tub .87
J B Dillahunty 1 mortar and pestle .63
W Compton Grid iron and waffle iron .63
H Dillahunty 1 Toaster .50
J B Dillahunty 1 lot tin ware .87 1/2
W Compton 1 lot tin .62
H Dillahunty candle moulds .63
J B Dillahunty lot tin ware. 63
J B Dillahunty 1 water pail .25
S Dameron 1 Demijohn .25
R Rice 5 jars and 1 pitcher .13
Jas Noel 4 jars 1.25
Jas Noel 3 jugs .62
Jas Noel 2 jugs .87
H Dillahunty 1 stone churn 1.88
John Dillahunty 1 lot wool No price given
E South 22 lbs wool @ 28 cents 6.16
R Kernachan 44 lbs wool @ 27 cents 11.88

(No total given)

Page 235

This certifies that the foregoing inventory of the household and kitchen
furniture belonging to the estate of Samuel Savage decd is a correct
list of all of said property together with the sale of the same and the
names of the purchasers.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22nd day of November 1839
George M Savage, Executor
John T Haraway Judge, Lauderdale County Court, Alabama

I Wiley T Hawkins Clerk of the County Court of said county and state do
hereby certify that the above and foregoing pages is a true and perfect
transcript of Sale Bill of the Estate of Samuel Savage deceased as
returned by George M Savage Executor of said Estate and now on file and
of record in my office.
W T Hawkins - March 21, 1845

Page 235
Accounts paid for the estate

1842 Cash paid Samuel T Johnson for attending to plantation $6.50
1/26/1840 Advances to H Dillahunty to defray expenses to Washington to
attend to the suit Taylor’s heirs vs Estate $252.00
2/18/1840 Doct J W Stewart Medical Bill for Estate $102.82
5/3/1840 Hervey Dillahunty for attending district court $20.00
1/24/1843 Askew Taxes on estate $52.23
6/24/1843 Cash paid Negro midwife for one of the negroes $5.00
10/23/1843 Barker and Dillahunty for shoes for negroes $27.00
9/22/1843 Midwife fee $3.00
8/1843 James Irvine in part for law fees $192.00

Other accounts paid.

Page 237
April 21, 1844
Wm Cooper and S W Probasco, Solicitors for Martha E Savage,, made
exception to the expenses listed by Benham in regard to defending the
suit of Taylors heirs vs said estate - about $1500. paid to H
Dillahunty, John Sargeants, Jno. Simpson, and Charles Gookin.

Cash advanced to H Dillahunty to defray expenses to Washington to attend
the Suit of Taylors heirs vs said Estate $252.00
John Sargeants professional services in Supreme court - not vouchers
explaining therefor
$210.00
Exchange on above bill 52.55
Jno Simpson & Co a/c vs said Estate 407.87
Charles Gookin acct vs said estate 441.07
H Dillahunty for attending Supreme Court 150.00

Page 239
Exhibit H
May 21st 1836
This Book contains my charges and advancements made to my several
children in my lifetime which is refered to in my will
Sam Savage

September 1822, I gave to Cathy Johnson to be taken out of her part I
may leave her in my will after my death

Two Negroe girls Lucy and Kid $450.00 $900.00
1 Boy John 400.00
3 Fine Horses $150. each 450.00
Cash on your starting to Carolina 235.00
Cash paid Conly for Johnson Horse 29.00
Cash on returning in 1824 September 300.00
Cash sent you in a letter by Mr. Hitt 500.00
Cash paid John Duckett for his care in moving you from Carolina 100.00
One Negro girl Louisa 250.00

Frances Rucker

Given to her to be taken out of her part I may leave her in my will
after my death

1 Girl Polly $400.00
1 Girl Mary 250.00
1 Woman Rose 500.00
Goods, Sugar and coffee 70.00
1 Gig 185.00
1 Bed, Bedstead, furniture 135.00
Cash given at Mrs. Ruckers to buy a horse 150.00
Bacon, Sugar and coffee 40.00
House and Lot in Florence 900.00
Sundries given at different times 500.00

Page 240
W F T Savage
To be taken out of his part of what I may leave him in my will after my
death

Cash let you have on your starting to Carolina the first trip $200.00
Cash give you when you went into business $2500.00

Sally N Dillahunty
To be taken out of what I may leave her in my will after my death

One Negro Girl named Nancy $400.00
One Negro Girl named Anna 250.00
1 Bedstead and some Furniture 40.00
Sundries furnished - and for use of my land three years up to the first
of January 1837
750.00
Total amount $1440.00

Geo. M Savage
To be taken out of what I may leave him in my will after my death

Cash give you at L. Rock 600.00
At Home 700.00

Wiley Hawkins, Clerk of the County Court certified that the contents of
this book was duly recorded in Will Book A, No 1 Pages 105 and 106

Page 240
Exhibit I

Know all men by these presents, that we Martha E Savage and Samuel K
Oates and Thomas J Crow, are held and firmly bound unto Vincent M
Benham, administrator of all and singular the goods and chattels, rights
and credits of Samuel Savage decd with his will annexed in the sum of
Twenty Thousand dollars, for the payment of which well and truly to be
made, we bind our selves, our heirs, executors and administrators,
jointly severally firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals and
dated on this 21st day of March A D 1845.

The condition of this obligation is such that whereas the above bound
Martha E Savage as administratrix of the estate of Samuel G Savage
deceased by the law and will of Samuel Savage the elder deceased, is
entitled to one sixth of the residue of said estate according to said
last will and testament. Now therefore with a view to receive said
portion of the estate of said Samuel Savage deceased the said Martha E
Savage shall pay after receiving said portion one sixth of all the debts
now due and owing from said estate or which may hereafter be established
legally, against the same, to the said V M Benham as such administrator
as witness our hands and seals the day and date above written.
Martha E Savage, S K Oates, Thomas I Crow

Page 241
Subpoena 16 April 1845

To any Sheriff of the State of Alabama, Greeting
You are hereby commanded to summon, Vincent M Benham, admr of Samuel
Savage decd with the will annexed, George M Savage, Hervey Dillahunty,
Behethaland Dillahunty, Samuel T Johnson, Gideon J L Johnson, Charles
Dillahunty, Hervey Dillahunty Jr, Milly Dillahunty, Samuel S Dillahunty,
Samuel J Rucker, Ann Eliza Rucker and Matilda Rucker - if to be found in
your county that laying aside all excuse personally appear before our
next Court of Chancery, to be held at Florence .. First Monday in May
next ...

“I acknowledge service of the bill and exhibit in this case for my
children Charles L Dillahunty, Hervey Dillahunty and Milly Dillahunty
and for my nephew Samuel Savage Dillahunty. August 12th 1845 Hervey
Dillahunty”

“Executed by delivering a copy of the Bill and Exhibits to Gideon J L
Johnson August 12th 1845, W P Pettus Shff by his Deputy J H Roberts”

“I acknowledge service of a copy of the Bill and Exhibits in this case
August 12th 1845 Samuel J Rucker”

Page 242
Benham’s Answer

He admits it to be true that the complainant intermarried with Samuel G
Savage about the time mentioned is said bill and that said Samuel G died
on the 28th April 1840. He is also informed and believes it to be true
that Saml Savage the elder, respondents testator died in the fall of the
year 1837. Respondent cannot admit that the complainant was duly
appointed admx of al and singular the goods and chattles, rights and
credits of her said husband by the Orphans Court of Lauderdale County.
That she was appointed admx he will not deny but admits the same to be
true, but he also states that he is informed and believes she was so
appointed before she was 21 years of age, and during her minority
executed the only bond she hath ever executed for the due performance of
her duties as such admx.

The defendant therefore denies that she was duly appointed Admx of Saml
G Savage decd as she has stated in said Bill.

Respondent says in further answering that Samuel Savage the Elder made a
last will and testament and the exhibit C in Complainants bill is with
some exceptions a copy thereof, but not being so in all particulars, he
refers to a copy from the Original exhibited in the answer of
Behethaland Dillahunty as a correct copy of said last will and testament.

Respondent further answering says that he believes it to be true that
George M Savage alone took out letters testamentary upon the said Last
will and testament, and acted as sole Executor up to the period of his
removal in Nov 1842. But how he managed the business while he conducted
the same, respondent does not know save by the records of the Orphans
Court of Lauderdale County, nor is he bound to answer thereto as he is
advised having had no connection with said George’s acting and doings as
such Executor.

It appears however by exhibit A of Complainants bill or rather by the
copy thereof served on Respondent, that said George M Savage did return
an inventory of said estate, for although it was returned as an
appraisement, it is evidently intended to stand as an inventory as well
as an appraisement, for the debts due to said Samuel Savage are included
therein and as appears thereby the debt due by James T Borroughs was set
forth in the same amount 575 dollars, so that it is not true as charged
by Complainant that the debt due by said Burroughs was not mentioned.

Respondent amits that said Geo M Savage on or about the __ day of
November 1842 clandestinely left the state and as respondent is informed
took with him nine Negroes and Nine horses and Mules to carry them away,
which conduct of said George was participated in by the father of
Complainant, Samuel K Oates who was present when said George started
with the property and aided him in his preparation therefor, and as
respondent is informed and believes was acting as agent for Complainant,
and as Complainant has stated in a bill filed in Franklin County against
this respondent, said Samuel K Oates procured on that day a lot of
cotton raised on the plantation of Samuel Savage decd by said George as
Exr as aforesaid exceeding ninety bales for her as part of her husband’s
portion under said last will and testament so that according to her own
admission in a sworn bill said Oates was acting for Complainant as her
agent with said George at the same time that he had a full knowledge
that said George was making preparations to carry off said property
clandestinely and actually aided him to do so as respondent is informed
and believes.

Respondent further answering admits that soon after said George left the
county his letters testamentary were revoked and annulled, and
respondent was appointed by the Orphans Court of Lauderdale County admr
de bonis non of said Estate with the will annexed. Said George left on
Saturday night; on Monday following, Res’t was so appointed admr (after
the revocation of said George’s letters testamentary) and on the next
day he went to the plantation which was directed by the will to be
carried on, to take charge of the property, at this time respondent was
ignorant of what property did belong to said estate or in what condition
the estate stood, and was necessarily obliged to call upon persons who
did know for information on these subjects.

He met with Complainants father on said plantation on that day viz
Samuel K Oates, and knowing that he had much to do with said George
while Executor as aforesaid, on behalf of his daughter the Complainant,
and believing he knew all the property of said Estate Rest called upon
him to designate and point out the property of said Estate to him. This
he freely did, but in pointing it out he claimed for his daughter as
admx of said Samuel G Savage estate by reason of a pretended allotment
to her by order of said Orphans Court during the time that said George
acted as executor of the following negroes viz, Jack, Andrew, Dave,
Washington and Bolivar, all men, and Charlotte and Betsy women, and a
boy and girl named Sam and Adaline.

And Respondent then having confidence in said Oates not then knowing him
as he now does, believed him, and on the same day to wit the 29th day of
November 1842 Said Samuel K Oates as agent for Complainant, took the
said Negroes away, and his daughter afterwards claimed them as admx of
Saml G Savage, and hired ot pretended to have hired them to her Brother
David C Oates, and she kept and retained the said Negroes, till the __
day of December 1843, not accounting for the hire or profits arising
from the labor of said slaves to the present time.

Respondent further answering states that soon after his appointment as
such administrator he ascertained the estate of said Samuel Savage
deceased to be greatly embarrassed, owing many debts and being much
envolved in litigation. The debts owing were chiefly created from the
litigation in which the estate was envolved which were of an undisputed
nature, said Savage having but a small amount of undisputed debts owing
at the time of his decease. But it appears that soon after his decease,
a suit was instituted against said George M Savage in the district Court
of the United States for the Northern Division or district of the State
of Alabama, held at Huntsville by the Heirs of one William T Taylor
deceased of a very stale nature arising out of transactions which took
place in South Carolina and Kentucky as far back as 1811, in which suit
the Complainants claim an amount exceeding the whole value of the
estate, and out of which suit large expences and were enacted against
said Estate by said George, and about the time said George left the
County and was removed a decree had been rendered against the estate for
$5212.92 Dollars besides costs and Complainants not satisfied with this
amount of recovery took the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States when defendant was obliged to defend the estate. That in
so doing he had necessarily to incur large expences in employing an
agent, travelling expenses and lawyers fees.

Respondent succeeded in having the appeal dismissed, but the case was
remanded and at the said district Court said Heirs of William Taylor at
the November Term thereof held in the year 1844, again recovered the
same amount with additional interest and cost against this respondent as
administrator as aforesaid and respondent believing said decree to be
erroneous as taken the case to the Supreme Court of the United States
and the Complainants in that suit hath done so likewise where it is yet
heading and undetermined.

Page 244

Respondent further answering states that when he came into the admr of
said Estate he found another suit pending in the Chancery Court of this
County wherein Kirkman and Andrews were plaintiffs and George M Savage
and others were defendants, by which the complainants were seeking to
recover property levied on by virtue of a Judgment and execution in
favor of said George M Savage as Executor as aforesaid. Respondent after
said George’s removal had to become a party thereto to guard the rights
of the estate he represented, and in so doing had necessarily to incur
large expences in feeing counsel and other things incidental to said
suit. Respondent succeeded in dismissing said bill, but said Kirkman and
Andrews have again renewed in a somewhat different way, and based upon a
different state of facts, which suit has lately been instituted in your
Hon Court held for this District.

This respondent further states, that the complainant and her said
brother have severally instituted suits at common law against respondent
for a re-caption of said Negroes so taken away by said Samuel K Oates as
agent for complainant, which suits respondent has enjoined by the order
of this Hon. Court on grounds therein mentioned which suits are yet
pending and undetermined, and in prosecuting and defending which
respondent has to be at much outlay.

And in answering Respondent further states that soon after he became
admr as aforesaid he ascertained that said Samuel K Oates had purchased
from said George M Savage as Exr as aforesaid a short time before he
started from this country 92 bales of cotton or thereabouts and had paid
but a very small part of the price therefor, and the balance was justly
due the estate of said Samuel Savage. To recover the sum due, respondent
instituted suit against said Oates in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County, Ala. But during the last term thereof when respondent expected a
trial of the cause said complainant had an injunction served upon him
enjoining all further proceedings at law in the case mentioned and on
reference to her bill filed to obtain an injunction she states that said
Samuel K Oates obtained said cotton as her agent from said George M
Savage in order to pay to her in part her husband’s share, which case is
yet pending and undetermined, and attended with costs and charges
against the estate in Respondents hands to be administered.

And in all the cases the costs and charges and expences are uncertain in
amount and cannot be ascertained besides some part thereof which may be
looked to as unavoidable and not yet created.
Respondent further answering states that there are other debts and demands a
gainst the estate in his hands to be administered to a considerable
amount besides the cases mentioned, but he is unable now to state the
exact amount, but will be able to exhibit them before a master if an
account should be ordered.

Page 245

By the statements above made your Honor will perceive that the estate
cannot be distributed amongst those entitled to legacies as by such
distribution it would leave him no means to pay the liabilities created
for said estate the most of which are personal liabilities on himself
arising chiefly by his own contracts and proceedings, but wholly for the
benefit of the estate of Samuel Savage decd and for it and on its
behalf, and much of the litigation which at present exists has grown out
of the complainant’s acts and the acts of her father and professed agent
Samuel K Oates, and if distribution cannot now be made it is to some
extent the fault of said complainant. Nor can the bond offered as
exhibited in their bill entitle said complainant to distribution as
respondent is advised, because it is not such a bond as would indemnify
respondent and he submits that question to your Honor whether he would
be safe in making the distribution the complainant seeks under the bond
proposed by her and by her exhibited.

This respondent admits it to be true that Ann R Savage the widow of said
Samuel Savage hath departed this life, she died, according to the best
information and belief of respondent not in October 1840 as is stated in
said bill but sometime in the fall of the year 1841, but although the
event has happened upon which the estate was by said last will and
testament to have been divided amongst the legatees entitled, yet as
legacies are to be postponed to the payment of debts and necessary
expences of carrying on the plantation and other incidental expences,
the payment of legacies to those entitled cannot be yet made, because as
above set forth there are yet many debts, and demands, expences, and
necessary and proper charges against said estate many of which are from
their nature uncertain in amount, and other claims in suit against the
estate on which the judgment and decrees of courts must be had before it
can be ascertained whether the estate of said Samuel Savage is liable
for them or not.

Respondent further answering states that when he took upon himself the
administration of said Estate in November 1842 he found but little
cotton upon the plantation, compared with what ought to have been there
and he afterwards ascertained that said Samuel K Oates took and carried
away 92 Bales of that Crop; he had what was in the fields gathered and
when all he could get was ginned and packed there was but 86 Bales and
20th of the inferior part of the crop; this he sold at 5 cents per pound
amounting in all to the sum of $1737.39 dollars.

That on the 26th February 1844 he had a partial settlement of his
administration with said Orphans Court, wherein he credited said Estate
with that sum at the times received and with $74.78 dollars for stock
sold as appears by a copy of the account stated with the county court a
copy of which is exhibited in Complainants bill marked E. That account
also sets forth the charges against the estate which he states to be
just against the same, necessarily made, and for its use and benefits.

The sum of $252. was advanced to H Dillahunty for expences to and from
Washington City and while there and the $150 Dollars was a compensation
to him at the same time for his time and trouble in attending to the
case of the appeal of Taylors heirs before mentioned, said Dillahunty
knowing more about the case than respondent and as some person had to go
to Washington City to carry up a transcript of the record and to employ
counsel and to do other necessary business connected with the cause
respondent believed said Dillahunty would be more useful than himself.

Page 246

The item of 210 Dollars and 52.5 Dollars Exchange was part of the fee
paid to John Sargeant Esqr a Barrister of said Court in sound funds for
arguing the cause mentioned on the appeal, said Sargeant and James T
Moorehead another counsellor of that court who assisted in arguing said
cause, each charging 250 Dollars fees, in the opinion of respondent not
unreasonable, but very moderate.

The account of Jno Simpson & Co and Charles Gookin were for articles got
for said plantation and applied to its use consisting of bagging, rope
and twine, iron, salt, and other articles necessary, and here respondent
although he has answered to the justice and correctness of said accounts
submits it to your Honor whether he is subject to account as such admr
with the Orphans Court as he has done and again with the court as if the
accounts were open in both Courts. If not, he insists upon his rights as
to accountability and not to be considered as yielding or waving the
same by having answered as to what was adjudicated by said Orphans Court
and more particularly whether said Complainant has a right to have the
account opened by a general charge of incorrectness, without surcharging
and falsifying.

Respondent admits that he raised crops on said plantation in the years
1843, 1844 and 1845, for which he is at all times willing to account
with all persons entitled to an account from him. That in 1843 he made
only 84 bales of cotton owing to two causes, one was that said
complainant had during that year the hands mentioned as taken away by
said Samuel K Oates as her agent, and the other was that the marshall of
the district by virtue of an execution issued on the decree of Taylor’s
heirs against said Estate took and carried away in the early part of the
month of March 1843 upwards of 20 Negro men the most efficient part of
the force on said plantation and kept them untill sometime in April
next. These 84 Bales sold for the sum of $2616.24 Dollars.

The crop of 1844 consisted of 135 Bales of cotton and respondent sold it
for the sum of $2344.11 Dollars. The crop of 1845 consisted of 153 Bales
of cotton part of which has been sold and part not, and respondent has
not received an account current from the commission merchant in New
Orleans to whom the same has been shipped but he expects to hear it in
time to lay before the Master if an account should be ordered to be
taken by him. So far as respondent has received from cotton crops and
from other sources since he settled his account with the Orphans Court
in 1844 he presents in an account herewith filed marked P and prayed to
be taken as a part of this answer, and in the same account is set forth
the payments and outlay made for such estate and the compensation
allowed him by the Orphans Court of said county allowed to him when the
duplicate is filed.

Respondent further answering states that it is true the family of said
Hervey Dillahunty has resided on said plantation since respondent took
charge thereof, respondent found them there, and he did not direct them
to quit. But said Dillahunty himself resides at a different place
occasionally visiting his family. Respondent cannot live there himself
and if Mrs. Dillahunty and her children did not live in the house it
would be uninhabited as there is a house for the overseer on the place
besides which was built for that use, so that so far as the house is
concerned it is no loss to any one interested in said estate, and a
benefit to the family which few people would grudge. As to drawing their
whole living or supplies from said plantation so far as respondent knows
it is not true; he believes they brought with them considerable supplies
and the second year also they killed more pork than necessary for the
family. If they drew supplies in the way mentioned in said bill of
complaint, Respondent did not direct it.

As to the statements that said family of said Dillahunty had the
exclusive use and services of four negroes of said estate it is untrue,
they have had the exclusive use of but one negro since respondent to(ok)
charge of said plantation and one an old man worth little or nothing in
the field.

And in stating that Mrs. Dillahunty has had the exclusive use of this
old man he will further state that she has only the exclusive control of
him keeping him in the house as a cook but at the same time that he
cooks for her and family he cooks for upward of twenty negro children of
the Estate.

Respondent on enquiring finds that Mrs. Dillahunty has some times done
by other negroes but not to interfere with the business of the
Plantation to any material extent, such as making her bed and making a
fire night and morning. This is all the use made of the negroes on the
plantation by said Hervey Dillahunty and family according to the best
information and belief of respondent, and respondent would say as his
his belief that Mrs. Dillahunty has rendered to said estate a full
equivalent at least for all the benefit she has derived therefrom from
the use of the house, supplies to the extent drawn, and the use of the
negroes to the extent she or her husband has used them, in this she has
done the cutting of all or most of the negro clothing; she has
superintended the weaving of the cloth for the use of the same; she has
to a great extent attended to the sick negroes in seeing that they got
proper medicine, nourishment, etc., and she has superintended the young
negro children seeing that they were properly nursed and attended to in
all respects.

Respondent therefore denies that said Dillahunty and his family had the
exclusive use of any negro of said Estate, or that they drew all their
supplies from the same, and so far as she has received services,
supplies and shelter, from the use and occupation of the house she is in
the opinion of respondent has fully compensated for the same as above
mentioned.

Respondent denies that he has combined to cheat and defraud the said
Complainant with said Dillahunty or any one else as alledged in said
bill of Complaint nor is said Hervey the real admr of said Estate as is
shown by the last will and testament of said Samuel Savage decd. Said
testator had confidence in said Hervey and so has respondent, but to
allow said Hervey to use him for purposes of fraud and injustice as
Complainant has unkindly alledged is not true. That respondent has
declined giving to complainant what she now demands by her bill is most
true and for the reasons above stated. He denies that he has received
more means from the proceeds of the crops and from all the means
received by him of said Estate than is sufficient to pay the debts of
said Estate and the just expences and charges against the same, which
are real and pressing, not to take into calculation imaginary debts
etc.. On the contrary he has obtained far from enough and to save the
property viz land and negroes he has allowed himself to be harrassed by
the claims of said Estate requesting indulgence, and time in order to
make from the plantation the means of paying the demands against the
Estate. If he had acted otherwise than from an earnest zeal for the
interest of all the legatees he would have long since sold property and
paid of all undisputed debts against said Estate. It would have been
greatly to his comfort to have done so, as by this he would have got rid
of annoying applications for money which he was unable to pay.

Respondent denies that he is paying the debts of said George M Savage or
those of said Dillahunty; he denies paying any but the liabilities of
said Estate of Saml Savage decd, or what he believes to be the
liabilities of said estate, according to his own judgment and as he is
advised by Counsel in cases of doubt and difficulty.

And Respondent having fully answered he prays the Judgment of the Court,
whether he is an accounting party to said Complainant under the said
admr granted to her under which right she claims an account and if
accountable to her he prays that in the account she as such admx may be
charged with wages of the Negroes of said estate so held by her from the
29th November 1842 to the day of December 1843 as an offsett to any
claim she may have against said estate and for all other means or money
she or her deceased husband may have had from said Estate, and that
respondent may be allowed to prove the same before the person or persons
directed to take the accounts.

And by way of demurrer said Respondent says that the said bill of the
Complainant joins distinct matters of account against distinct and
different defendants, that is to say she by her bill seeks to make
George M Savage liable from a devastavit personally, for his actings and
doings as Executor up to the period of his removal with which respondent
is in no way connected and she seeks by her bill to make this respondent
liable for his actings and doings since, and the said Complainant prays
two separate accounts and decrees against said Savage and Respondent all
of which will be seen by a reference to said bill wherefore Respondent
says said bill is multifarious, and he therefore prays the same to be
dismissed with costs, etc.. V M Benham
Irvine Sol for Respt.

“This day personally appeared Vincent M Benham and made oath that the
facts stated in the foregoing answer as on his own knowledge are true,
and those facts stated as on the information of others he believes to be
true. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day of April 1846
J Bigger, J. Peace

Page 247
Exhibit P to Benham’s Answer

Estate Saml Savage in Acct Current and Interest with V M Benham, Admr

1844 (Interest calculated to 15th April 1846)

April Amt recd of Fellowes Johnson & Co for 43 bales cotton sold by them.
$1607.03 plus 260.34 interest
May 1 40 bales cotton sold by Dick and Hill, New Orleans
$979.16 plus $143.36 interest
1845 one bale cotton sold by Jno Simpson & Co.
$30.00 plus 4.70 interest

January 1, 1845 S Brown for rent land 21.00

Sept 2, 1844 James Noel rent land 23.75

February 1, 1845 30 bales cotton sold by Fellowes, John & Co. 456.36

Other receipts for cotton


Page 249
Amounts received from settlement with Florence Bridge Company in 1845
and 1846 Total: $872.69


Page 250
Long list of people who were paid by the estate including:

Saml T Johnson, G N Arnett, Thos Ashford, Spencer Rhodes, Martin and
Cassity, David C Oates, Wm P Horne, James W Stewart, E Fowler, L T
Johnson, Jas H Reister, Jas Irvine (1197.08), H Dillahunty, Chas
McClusky, Jas Brahan, John A Portlock, L Brown, Saml Martin, Jno M
Branch (July 22, 2844 - $23.00), Jas H Viser, L T Johnson, B F Karsner,
S C Stafford, J D Coffee, Wm M McClusky, H Thompson, A Askew, N Boddie,
Wm M McClusky, W T Hawkins, Wm M McClusky, M Munn?, Jas H Reister, Wm R
Garner (350.00), G Campbell, J T Moorehead (250.00), Moses Wood, Thomas
Wright, Wm M McClusky, R L Bliss, T Thustin, Wm Koger, J B Leftwich, R M
Patton, Wm M McClusky, Robt Kernachan, H Thompson, A Askew, W F Turnley,
Mary Borroughs, Bennet Pope, B F Karsner, Jas Irvine (1082.00 on May 9,
1845), Barker and Benham (678.29 on May 8, 184 5), G I Houston, B F
Rhodes, John A Portlock, W M Brandon, M Harkins,
E A O’Neal (49.93), G N Arnett, Jno Simpson & Co, (372.43), Jno Simpson
& Co (202.23), James Irvine (250.00 on July 13, 1846), James Irvine
(350.00 on July 14, 1846), Wm M McClusky, W M McCluskey, Wm M McCluskey,
Wm M McCluskey, C Gookin (186.16 on Jan. 13, 1846), H H Brayton?, M
Munn, Jas W Stewart, W Cheatham, Jas W Stewart, L C Moore, L T Johnson
(1105.94 on March 4, 1846, L T Johnson (112.50 in 1845?), M Harkins
(172.84), E A O’Neal ($5.00 on March 5, 1846), B B Barker, Smith &
Lewter, Nathan Boddie, D M Thompson, Wm Cooper (100.00 on March 5,
1846), John McKorkle, Thos Shepperd, L T Johnson, L T Johnson, J H
Craig, Boys for Coal, A Wright (500.00 on May 3, 1845), Edward
Dillahunty (1000.00 on June 20, 1845), James Ham, N Boddie’s Negroes,
corn, Savage’s negroes, corn, D M Thompson, W T Turnley, S A M Wood
($5.00 on April 13, 1846), V M Benham as for settlement (1035.83 on Feb.
26, 1844), L T Johnson, G W Lucas, W T Hawkins, E A O’Neal (16.80 on
Apr. 15, 1846), Allowed admr by the Judge of the Orphans Court $300. per
annum for 3 years 6 months (1050.00). Balance interest carried to
principal (50.72).

Total amount paid in principal: $12,820.83. Total interest: 918.21
Benham swore it to be a true and correct account of his administration
before Wm B Woods, Judge, on 15 April 1846
Page 253
Hervey Dillahunty’s Answer

This defendant now and at all times hereafter saving and reserving to
himself all, and all manner of benefit, and advantage of exception that
can or may be had or taken to the many errors, uncertainties, and other
imperfections and defects in the complainants said bill of complaint
contained for answer thereunto, or unto so much and to such parts
thereof as he is advised it is material or necessary for him to make
answer unto answering saith,

That it is true that the complainant intermarried with Samuel G Savage
and that he died intestate as stated in said bill, and that letters of
administration on his estate were granted to complainant by the Orphan’s
Court of Lauderdale County. He further admits that Samuel Savage the
father of Samuel G Savage departed this life on the 25th day of November
1837, and that he had made a last will and testament having in his
lifetime been seized and possessed of a considerable real and personal
estate situated in said county, consisting chiefly of lands, slaves, and
such stock as is usually kept on plantations. It is further true that
the said Saml Savage in his lifetime cultivated cotton, and corn, and
that by his last will and testament he appointed George M Savage, Finch
P Scruggs and John Lorance the acting Executors of his will and this
defendant, Finch Scruggs and Sidney C Posey, as advising executors to
counsel with and advise the acting executors.

It is further true that George M Savage alone proved the will and took
out letters testamentary on the estate of the said Samuel Savage, and
shortly afterward took said estate into his possession but whether he
returned a seperate inventory or not is wholly unknown to this
defendant. He however believes that the return made by the said George M
Savage to the office of the Clerk of the Orphans Court of said County
exhibited the whole of the personal estate belonging to the said Samuel
Savage at the time of his death.

This defendant does not admit that Exhibit C of the complainant’s bill
is a true copy of the will of Samuel Savage, and he refers to Exhibit A
of his wife’s answer as a copy of said will. It is true, that after
providing for the payment of his debts, the said Samuel Savage by his
will bequeathed a negro man named Jonah, and a liberal support to his
wife Ann R Savage during her life, or widowhood, in lieu and bar of
dower, but it is likewise true that the said Ann R Savage refused to
accept of the provisions made for her by said will and came to Florence
for the purpose of entering her dissent thereto, when by the advice of
Counsel, the executor of the will of the said Samuel Savage and his
children agreed to submit the matter in controversy to the arbitrament
and award of James W Stewart, John Key, Benjamin Reynolds and John
Lorance, and on the 29th day of December 1837 they together with the
said Ann R Savage bound themselves in the penalty of twenty thousand
dollars to stand to and abide the award of the said arbitrators, and on
the same day the said arbitrators proceeded to make an award in writing
by which the said Ann R Savage received from the estate of the said
Samuel Savage the following slaves, namely Jonah, Charlotte, Glascow,
Martha, Ann, Henrietta, old Polly, Sally Tom, and Amelia, Two beds and
furniture, the family carriage, one brass kettle, two homespun
counterpanes, two mattresses, three hundred pounds of lard, one hundred
pounds of soap, and twenty nine hundred and twelve dollars in current
Bank notes of the State of Alabama, as may be seen by reference to
copies of said bond and award, made exhibit B and C to the answer of
Behethaland M Dillahunty.

This defendant says that it is true that by the 4th Item of his will
said testator directed his tract of land should remain undivided untill
the death of his wife and his executors were empowered to do all and
every thing necessary for the purpose of keeping up his plantation, by
keeping the negroes, stock etc. on the plantation by employing
overseers, and in all things to act for the prosperity of the plantation
affairs as he had been accustomed to do, and that in pursuance of this
provision the said George M Savage as Executor of the last will of said
Samuel Savage conducted the affairs of said plantation from the time of
said testators death untill the latter part of the month of November
1842, that he sold or directed the selling of the crops of 1837, 1838,
1839, 1840, 1841 and part of the crop of 1842, upwards of ninety bales
of which he sold to Samuel K Oates, the father of Complainant, which has
not yet been paid for as this defendant has been informed and believes.

This defendant has no doubt he saw an account of the sales of all the
cotton belonging to said estate that was sold in New Orleans and that he
was informed of all sales made in this country but he does not now
recollect the sums for which said crops were sold; he however does not
believe, or admit that they sold for the sums mentioned by complainant.
It is true was a sale of some personal property made by the said George
M Savage as mentioned by the complainant, but this defendant does not
know that said George sold any stock or provisions from said plantation,
and if any such were sold he is satisfied it was to an inconsiderable
amount.

It is true that the said George M Savage resided on said plantation most
of the time he acted as executor of the will of Samuel Savage, and so
did the complainant and her husband from the time of their marriage in
1839 till his death in April 1840.

Further answering this defendant says it is true that the said Samuel
Savage in the 5th item of his will expressed his desire that the net
proceeds of his plantation (ie) from the crops after deducting what was
necessary for the support of his wife and directed in the second Item
and for the support, boarding schooling and clothing of his younger sons
Samuel and Tacitus should be annually divided between his children who
were married or of full age, and the amt thus paid over to them should
be charged to each in accordance with the plan he had pursued, and in
the final division of his estate as therein after directed the younger
children who might not have had the benefit of such dividend were to be
reimbursed that their portion with lawful interest out of the property
to be divided, and in the division of such annual proceeds regard was to
be had to his previous directions, but it is likewise true that said
testator directed that his debts should be paid and that on the first
day of September 1838 which was less than one year after his death a
bill was filed by Samuel Taylor and others, representing themselves to
be the legatees of William T Taylor late of Edgefield District in the
State of South Carolina in the District Court of the United States for
the Northern District of Alabama at Huntsville against the said George M
Savage as executor of the last will and testament of Samuel Savage decd
by which bill, claims and demands against the estate of the said Samuel
Savage, were set up to an amount much greater than the value of said
estate, that after said suit was brought and before the trial thereof
the said Samuel Taylor died and the suit was revived in the name of his
son William Taylor and others, and was prosecuted up to the November
Term 1842 when a decree was rendered against the said George M Savage as
Executor of the last will and Testament of Samuel Savage decd for the
sum of Five thousand two hundred and twelve 92/100 Dollars, besides
costs of suit amounting to about the sum of two thousand dollars more.

Page 255

 From this decree the complainants appealed and the defendant by his
agent prayed an appeal which was allowed but could not be prosecuted
because the said George M Savage had been removed from his trust as
executor of the Will of Samuel Savage and his letters testamentary
repealed by the Orphans Court of Lauderdale County before said appeal
was asked for, or granted by the District Court.

The Complainants however entered into the usual bond for costs, and took
up a transcript of the record to the Supreme Court of the United States,
where the cause was docketed for trial, but afterwards at the January
term of said Supreme Court in the year 1844 said appeal was dismissed,
and the cause remanded to the District Court at Huntsville for the
purpose of making Vincent M Benham the administrator de bonis non cum
testaments annexed, a party defendant to said suit, it appearing to the
satisfaction of said Supreme Court that the said George M Savage had
been removed from his office of Executor of the will of the said Samuel
Savage about the time said decree was rendered.

In the meantime about the month of January 1843, the said Complainants
procured the Clerk of the District Court of the United States for the
Northern District of Alabama at Huntsville, to issue an execution
against the estate of the said Samuel Savage deceased for the amount of
said decree, and placed the same in the hands of the Marshall of the
United States for the said Northern District of Alabama, who levied said
execution upon about twenty of the most valuable slaves belonging to
said Estate, and after this was done the said Vincent M Benham appointed
this defendant his agent and attorney to defend the Estate of the said
Samuel Savage in his hands to be administered and as soon thereafter as
practicable a transcript of the record in said cause was procured from
the clerk of the said District Court at Huntsville, by this defendant
and carried by him to Washington City and filed in the office of the
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.

A petition was also filed, setting forth the facts which prevented the
said Vincent M Benham from prosecuting his appeal by filing his bond in
the District Court and showing that he was then prepared to give
satisfactory security - said petition also prayed that the security
offered might be approved and received, that the proceedings in the
District Court might be superseded that the execution irregularly issued
by the Clerk of the District Court as above stated might be set aside
and such other relief granted as would enable petitioner to obtain a
reverse of said decree. This petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court
of the United States, but said Court in delivering its opinion declared
that the Execution which had been levied upon the Negroes belonging to
the estate of Samuel Savage decd as above stated, was irregular and
void, and that a sale of them under it would convey no title to the
purchaser, and upon delivering an authenticated copy of the opinion of
the Supreme Court delivered on the matter of the petition above stated
the said Marshall about the last of March or first of April 1843
returned all the negroes which he had taken from the plantation of the
said Samuel Savage decd to the said Vincent M Benham.

Page 256

This defendant further says that while attending the Supreme Court in
1843 he employed John Sargeant and James T Moorehead Esqrs Counsellors
admitted to practice in said Court to attend to the appeal of William
Taylor vs George M Savage executor of the will of Samuel Savage and he
states from information which he believes to be true that it was upon
their motion, made at the January Term of said Court in 1844 said appeal
was dismissed and the cause remanded to the said District Court and this
defendant knows that sometime previous to the November Term of said
District Court of the United States at Huntsville in the year 1844 a
bill of revivor was filed in said court by the said William Taylor and
others against the said Vincent M Benham administrator de bonis non with
the will annexed of the said Samuel Savage deceased and that at said
November Term of said District Court made an order reviving said decree
against the said Vincent M Benham as such administrator and that from
this order and decree the said Vincent M Benham prosecuted an appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States and that the said Complainants
also prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States
where both of said appeals are now pending and undetermined as he is
informed and believes.

Further answering this defendant says that it is true that his wife
Behethaland M Dillahunty and George M Savage were the only children of
Samuel Savage who were of full age, or married at the time of his death,
but it is utterly and wholly false that the whole of the net proceeds of
the crops of said Estate, disposed of by the said George M Savage, has
been divided between said George M Savage and this defendant or his
wife; on the contrary thereof for the reasons herein before stated and
of all which the complainants has full knowledge no division of the
proceeds of said crops were ever made to the knowledge or belief of this
defendant, nor does he admit that the net proceeds of the crops raised
on said plantation after paying all expenses to have amounted annually
to the sum of four thousand dollars.

This defendant admits that in the 4th item of the will of Samuel Savage
he says “When my younger children (who were Samuel G and John T Savage)
arrive at the age of twenty one years, it is my desire that they be
advanced by my Executors by giving them as much property as I have given
my children on their marriage or majority” and it is also true that he
concludes this clause by saying “but in making this allotment I charge
my executors to do it with a special regard to the management of my
plantation to the best advantage” thus giving extensive discretionary
powers to his executors with regard to the advancement to be made to the
testators younger children and clearing showing, as this defendant
believes, that the management of his plantation to the best advantage
was the principal object of the testator.

Page 257

It is admitted that the said Samuel Savage had advanced money and
property of the value of $3164.00 to the wife of this defendant and that
he advanced to Francis T Rucker the sum of $3180.00, To William F T
Savage the sum of $2700.00, To Charles L Savage one of the sons of said
Testator who died at about the age of twenty three years he had advanced
nothing. That to George M Savage he had advanced $1300.00 and to Sarah N
Dillahunty the sum of $1400.00 as appears by book A, refered to by
complainant.

It is further admitted that Samuel G Savage attained the age of twenty
one years on the 28th day of March 1838, but it is not true that the
said George M Savage as executor of the will of Samuel Savage did not
advance to the said Samuel G Savage any amount either in property or
money, either after the said Samuel G Savage attained the age of twenty
one years, or after he was married; on the contrary thereof this
defendant saw the said George advance the sum of Seven hundred and sixty
dollars to the said Samuel G Savage of money belonging to the Estate of
the said Samuel Savage, after the said Samuel G had attained the age of
twenty one years, and this defendant has been informed and believes,
that other large sums of money belonging to the estate of the said
Samuel Savage were advanced to the said Samuel G Savage by the said
George and other sums of money belonging to said estate were applied by
the said George to the payment of debts contracted by the said Samuel G
Savage since he attained the age of twenty one years, both before and
since the said Samuel G Savage departed this life, and if this court
should decide that the said Samuel G Savage had a vested right in the
advancement mentioned in the 4th Item of the will of the said Samuel
Savage, then this defendant submits that all the advancements made by
the said George to the said Samuel G Savage since he arrived at the age
of twenty one years, and that all sums which have been paid by the said
George for, or on account of debts contracted by the said Samuel G since
he attained the age of twenty one years shall be charged to the said
Samuel G Savage, and allowed in the payment of said advancements.

This defendant does not believe, or admit that said George M Savage did
not defray the necessary expences of the schooling boarding, education
and living of the said Samuel G Savage prior to his majority as is
stated by the Complainant, nor does he believe, or admit that many or
any of the charges therefor have been paid by the complainant as admx of
the estate of the said Samuel G Savage nor does he know or admit that
some claims against the estate of the said Samuel G Savage still remain
unpaid, and that the said complainant has no means of said estate
wherewith to pay them.

This defendant has been informed and believes, and so charges that after
the death of the said Samuel G Savage, the said George M Savage at
different times placed money belonging to the estate of his testator in
the hands of complainant for the purpose of paying the debts of Samuel G
Savage, but whether this was done before the complainant was appointed
administratrix of the estate of the said Samuel Savage this defendant is
entirely ignorant, but he feels well assured if the Complainant did pay
any of the debts against the estate of the said Samuel G Savage that she
paid them with the money furnished to her by the said George M Savage as
above stated.


Page 258

It is true that George M Savage left the State of Alabama in the month
of November 1842, and that he has not returned to Lauderdale County
since that time and it is also admitted that he took away with him nine
Negroes, and nine mules and horses belonging to the estate of Samuel
Savage decd and has as this defendant believes and admits converted them
to his own use but he does not believe, or admit that they were of the
value of seven thousand dollars. Further answering this defendant admits
that George M Savage was removed from his office of Executor of the will
of Samuel Savage decd by the Orphans Court of Lauderdale County on the
28th day of November 1842 and that on the same day Vincent M Benham was
appointed administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Samuel
Savage decd by the same court and that on the next day afterwards he
took into his possession all the remaining property of the estate of the
said Samuel Savage except the following negroes namely Jack, Andrew,
Dave, Washington and Bolivar who are men, Charlotte and Betsy women, and
a boy and girl named Sam and Adaline, who were taken from the plantation
of the said Samuel Savage decd by Samuel K Oates the father and agent of
the Complainant on or about the 29th day of November 1842, and detained
untill about the __ day of December 1843, when the said Vincent M Benham
got them into his possession, and has continued to keep them to the
present time. And it is also true that said Benham has employed the
hands of said estate such time as he has had them in his possession in
the cultivation of corn and cotton chiefly.

It is further true that the said Benham received upwards of eighty bales
of the cotton raised on the plantation of the said Samuel Savage in the
year 1842, and that he sold the same and applied the money arising from
the sale to the payment of debts against said estate. It is likewise
admitted that he has sold the crops raised on said plantation in the
years 1843 and 1844, but it is not true that the said crops amounted to
one hundred and fifty bales each of those years or that said crops sold
for the sums mentioned by Complainant; on the contrary thereof this
defendant has no doubt that the account of Vincent M Benham exhibited
with his answer to Complainant’s bill shows the exact amount of the
cotton raised on said plantation in the years 1843 and 1844 and sums it
was sold for and that the facts stated in his answer sufficiently
account for seemingly short crop of 1843.

This defendant admits that himself and family (such part of the time as
he has been with them) have resided upon the plantation of the said
Samuel Savage decd since the latter part of the month of August 1842,
but it is utterly and wholly false that they have been supported
therefrom with all their family supplies; on the contrary thereof this
defendant states that he carried with him an amount of bacon, wheat and
corn more than sufficient to support his family for one year, and that
in the ensuing winter pork to the amount of four or five thousand pounds
was killed out of his stock hogs which were left on the plantation
formerly owned by him and which had run at will in his cornfields.


Page 259

It is likewise false that this defendant and his family have during all
the time they have been on said plantation had the exclusive use of four
negroes belonging to said estate as servants to wait on them; on the
contrary thereof the family of this defendant have not had the exclusive
use of one negro belonging to said estate and he here refers to the
answer of his wife as containing all the facts relating to this allegation.

Further answering this defendant denies that it is by the 7th item of
his will that the said Samuel Savage disposes of the residue of his
estate it is by the eleventh Item of said will that said testator
disposes of his Estate both real and personal and he refers to the Copy
marked exhibit A, to his wife’s answer.

That defendant believes that William F T Savage was dead at the time
Samuel Savage made his will and that the legacy bequeathed to him is lapsed.
It is not admitted that Ann R Savage the widow of said testator departed
this life on the 7th day of October, 1840; on the contrary this
defendant has been informed and believes that the said Ann R Savage died
sometime in the fall of 1841.

This defendant admits it to be true that by the provisions of the will
of the said Samuel Savage his executors were directed to divide his
estate both real and personal and give the same as therein directed upon
the death of his wife but owing to the litigation in which said estate
became envolved shortly after the death of said testator as herein
before stated, it has never been in a condition which in justice to all
the parties interested therein would authorize a division to be made,
and he knows that said Vincent M Benham has done, and caused to be done
all that was in his power to bring said litigation to a close and that
its continuance to the present time is not from the fault or neglect of
himself or of any agent has has employed, and it is submitted that it
would be gross injustice to make a partial division of said estate
before said suit is finally ended and determined.

This defendant denies that he has combined and confederated with the
said Vincent M Benham for the purpose of cheating and defrauding
complainant or that he has been misapplying the funds of said estate as
charged by the complainant, or that he is the real administrator of said
Estate. And he also denies that there was or is any combination between
himself and George M Savage to cheat and defraud the Complainant and the
other legatees of said Samuel Savage or any of them out of their
residuary interest in said estate, or that it was with any such view
that the said George did not carry into effect the 5th item of the will
of his testator. On the contrary thereof for the reasons herein before
stated there was no division made of the nett proceeds of the crops
raised on said plantation as the Complainant has known from a short time
after her intermarriage with her intestate to the present time.

Nor did this defendant receive any sums of money from the said George M
Savage as executor of the will of Samuel Savage “in right of his wife”
or “in his character of husband of his said wife” “the receipts for
which” were fraudulently transferred” in to a debt as is falsely charged
by the Complainant; nor was the Judgment mentioned by the Complainant
fraudulently confessed.

But this defendant is advised and believes that he is not bound to
answer to the Complainant in this Court, for, or touching any of the
dealings and transactions between himself and the said George M Savage
as Executor of the will of Samuel Savage deceased.

And this defendant doth deny that any other matter or thing in the
Complainant’s said bill of Complaint contained material or necessary for
him to make answer unto and not herein well and sufficiently answered
unto confessed and avowed, traversed or denied is true to the knowledge
or belief of this defendant and this defendant having fully answered,
said bill prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs in this
behalf most unjustly sustained.

Hervey Dillahunty Solicitor for himself
30 April 1846

Amendment to Dillahunty’s Answer

Amendment to the enclosed answer filed by consent.
Said Hervey Dillahunty in answer to the bill here states and says that
the judgment as alluded to pr $7773.83 was for and on account of monies
of the estate of Samuel Savage loaned to him this Respondent by George M
Savage the Executor of the will of said Samuel and no other
consideration than monies and effects, assets of said estate, and whilst
said George M was such acting Executor.
And that Respondent then at time of said judgment was and yet is insolvent.


Page 260
Mrs. Dillahunty’s Answer

First day May 1846 Mrs. Behethaland M Dillahunty filed her seperate
answer in said cause to the bill of complaint of Martha E Savage Admx
etc in the words and figures following to wit.

The seperate answer of Behethaland M Dillahunty wife of Hervey
Dillahunty to a bill of complaint exhibited against herself, her
husband, her children, namely Samuel T Johnson, Gideon J L (who is
called by the complainant by the name of John A Johnson), Charles
Dillahunty, Hervey Dillahunty Junior and Milly Dillahunty and against
her nephew Samuel Savage Dillahunty, and her nephew and nieces Samuel J
Rucker, Frances Matilda Rucker and Ann Eliza Rucker, and against Vincent
M Benham administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Samuel
Savage deceased and George M Savage late executor of the last will and
testament of said Samuel Savage deceased by Martha E Savage Admx of the
Estate of Samuel G Savage deceased in the Chancery Court. ...

Behethaland (Defendant) admits that complainant intermarried with Samuel
G Savage about the time stated in her bill, and that he died about the
28th day of April 1840 in said County of Lauderdale intestate and that
letters of administration were granted to the complainant by the Orphans
Court of Lauderdale County as mentioned in her bill. She further admits
that Samuel Savage the father of this defendant and Samuel G Savage
departed this life on the 25th day of November 1837 having previous to
that event made his last will and testament and that he was in his
lifetime seized and possessed of a considerable real and personal estate
situated in said County, consisting chiefly of lands, slaves and such
stock as is usually kept on plantations, but whether or not said estate
was “of the value of seventy five thousand dollars” this defendant is
wholly unable to state.
...
This defendant does not admit that Exhibit C to the complainants bill is
a true copy of the last will and testament of her father Samuel Savage
decd, on the contrary thereof she is advised and believes that said
pretended copy differs materially from the original and she herewith
files a copy marked (A) to which she prays reference may be had by the
court on the final hearing of this cause. She admits that after
directing the payment of his debts the said Samuel Savage bequeathed by
his will a negro man named Jonah, and a liberal support to his wife Ann
R Savage during her life or widowhood in lieu and bar of dower but it is
also true that the said Ann R Savage refused to accept of the provisions
made for her, by the said will and came to Florence for the purpose of
entering her dissent to the provisions of said will when by the advice
of counsel she agreed to submit the matter in controversy to the
arbitrament and award of James W Stewart, John Key, Benjamin Reynolds
and John Lorance, and on the 29th day of December 1837 the said parties
above named and the said Ann R Savage bound themselves in the penalty of
twenty thousand dollars to stand to and abide the award of the said
arbitrators, and on the same day the said arbitrators proceeded to make
an award in writing by which the said Ann R Savage was to receive and
did receive from the estate of the said Samuel Savage the following
slaves, namely Jonah who had been given to her by the will of the said
Samuel Savage, Charlotte his wife, Glascow, Martha Ann, Henrietta and
old Polly and Sally, Tom and Amelia, children of Charlotte, two beds and
furniture, the family carriage, one brass kettle, two home spun
counterpanes, two mattresses, three hundred pounds of lard, one hundred
pounds of soap and twenty nine hundred and twelve dollars in current
bank notes of the State of Alabama .... (Same as deposition of Hervey
Dillahunty)
It is true that by the 4th item of his will the said Samuel Savage
directed that his tract of land should remain undivided untill the death
of his wife and his executors were empowered to do all, and every thing
necessary for the purpose of keeping up his plantation by keeping the
negroes, stock etc. on the plantation, by employing overseers, and in
all things to act for the prosperity of the plantation affairs as he had
been accustomed to do and that in pursuance of this provision the said
George M Savage as the executor of the will of the said Samuel Savage
conducted the affairs of said plantation from the time of said testators
death untill the latter part of the month of November 1842, that he sold
or directed the selling of the crops of 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841,
and part of the crop of 1842 upwards of ninety bales of which were sold
by the said George M Savage to Samuel K Oates the father of complainant
and has not as yet been for as this defendant is informed and believes.

Of the amount or value of the other crops raised and disposed of by the
said George M Savage this defendant has no certain knowledge; she
however believes the estimate made by the complainants is greatly
exaggerated.

This defendant knows that there was a sale made of some personal
property consisting of household furniture by the said George M Savage
about the time mentioned in complainants bill but whether the amount
stated by the complainant or whether such amount was collected by the
said George in the course of his administration this defendant is wholly
ignorant, nor does she know whether said George sold any stock or
provisions from the plantation of his testator she however believes if
he did sell any it was to an inconsiderable amount.

Further answering defendant states that said George did reside with his
family (consisting at first of himself and wife, with the addition
afterwards of one child) on the plantation the greater part of the time
of his administration of said estate, but whether the supplies he drew
from said estate were of the value mentioned by the complainant this
defendant is entirely unable to state.

Page 263

It is true that the said Samuel Savage in the 5th item of his will
expressed his will and desire that the net proceeds of his plantation
... (Same as Hervey Dillahunty)

Page 264

Further answering this defendant admits that herself and George M Savage
were the only children of Samuel Savage deceased who were of full age or
married at the time of his death, but it is utterly and wholly false
that the whole of the net proceeds of the cotton crops of said Estate,
disposed of by the said George M Savage has been divided between the
said George M Savage and this defendant, or her husband. On the contrary
thereof for the causes and reasons above set forth and of all which the
complainant long since had full knowledge, no division or distribution
of the proceeds of said crops were ever made to the knowledge or belief
of this defendant nor does she admit or believe that the net proceeds of
the crops raised on said plantation after paying expences to have
amounted annually to the sum of four thousand dollars.

It is true that in the 4th Item of his will the said Samuel Savage says
“When my younger children (who were Samuel G and John T Savage) arrive
at the age of twenty one years it is my desire that they be advanced by
my executors by giving them as much property as I have given my children
on their marriage, or majority,” but in immediate connection he adds
“but in making this alotment I charge my executors to do it with special
regard to the management of my plantation to the best advantage” thereby
as this defendant is advised, and believes clothing his executors with
large discretionary powers with regard to the advancement to be made to
the testators younger children, and showing that the management of his
plantation to the best advantage was the principal object he had in view.

This defendant admits it to be true that her father Samuel Savage
between the month of September 1822, and the time of his death gave to
her, property consisting of Negroes, horses and money amounting to the
sum of $3164.00 and that he gave to Frances F Rucker the sum of
$3180.00. To William F T Savage the sum of $2700.00 To Charles S Savage
one of his sons who died at about the age of 23 years he advanced
nothing, that to George M Savage he advanced $1300.00 and to Sarah N
Dillahunty he advanced the sum of $1400.00.

Defendant also admits that Samuel G Savage attained the age of twenty
one years on the 8th day of March 1838, but she denies that the said
George M Savage as executor of the will of Samuel Savage did not advance
to the said Samuel G Savage any amount either in property or money after
the said Samuel G Savage attained the age of twenty one years or after
he was married; on the contrary thereof this defendant saw the said
George advance the sum of $760. of money belonging to the estate of the
said Samuel Savage, after the said Samuel G had attained the age of
twenty one years and this defendant has been informed and believes and
so charges that other large sums of money belonging to the estate of her
father were applied by the said George M Savage to the payment of debts
contracted by the said Samuel G Savage after he attained the age of
twenty one years, both before and after the death of the said Samuel G
Savage, and if this Honorable Court should be of the opinion that the
right to the advancement mentioned in the 4th item of the will of the
said Samuel Savage had vested in the said Samuel G Savage before his
death, then it is insisted that all sums that have been paid to, or for,
the said Samuel G Savage since he attained the age of twenty one years
shall be charged to the said Samuel G and allowed in the payment of his
advancement.


Page 265
... (Same as Hervey Dillahunty - expenses for Samuel G)

and she further says that the said George M Savage was the acting
executor of the will of the said Samuel Savage on the 28th day of April
1840 when the said Samuel G Savage departed this life and that he had
been the acting __ of said will from the month of December 1837 up to
that time and so continued till the latter part of the month of November
1842 and that all persons who had just claims against the Estate of the
said Samuel Savage for, or on account of the support, boarding,
schooling and clothing, or for either of them, might have presented them
(and if such claims did exist) no doubt did present them to the said
George M Savage for payment, when it became his duty according to the
will of his testator to pay the same, and this defendant further says
that if the persons holding claims for the necessary support, boarding
schooling and clothing of the said Samuel G Savage prior to his
attaining the age of twenty one years (if any such there were which is
not admitted) failed or refused to present them to the said George M
Savage and to collect the amount from him such failure or refusal was as
this defendant is advised, at the peril of the creditor so failing or
refusing to present such claim to the said George M Savage and collect
the amount from him, and would transfer no right to the complainant to
prosecute a suit against the representatives of Samuel Savage decd for
debts or claims due to other persons.

Defendant has been informed and believes, and so charges, that after the
death of the said Samuel G Savage the said George M Savage handed to the
Complainant divers sums of money belonging to the estate of Samuel
Savage for the purpose of paying the debts of the said Samuel G Savage,
but whether this was done before or after the complainant was appointed
administratrix of the said Samuel G Savage this defendant does not know
but she verily believes that if complainant has paid any of the debts
against the estate of the said Samuel G Savage she paid them with the
money handed to her by the said George M Savage as above stated.

... (Same as Hervey Dillahunty - George M Savage left Alabama - took
slaves and mules with him - Samuel Oates took slaves - Benham sold crop
- short because Oates family had their slaves - also slaves taken by the
Marshall for the N.C. lawsuit.)

Page 266

Slaves, Jack, Andrew, Dave, Washington and Bolivar, who are men,
Charlotte and Betsy, women, and a boy and girl named Sam and Adaline?,
were taken from the plantation by Samuel K Oates, the father and agent
of the Complainant on or about the 29th day of November 1842 and
detained until about the day of December 1843, when the said Vincent M
Benham got them into his possession and has continued to keep them on
the said plantation to the present time.

Page 267

... This defendant states that it is true, that herself, her husband
(such part of the time as he is at home) and their family have resided
upon the plantation of her father, the said Samuel Savage decd since the
latter part of the month of August 1842 but it is utterly and wholly
false that they have been supported therefrom with all their family
supplies, on the contrary, thereof this defendant states that when her
husband was broken up in the month of August 1842, the sheriff did not
levy upon or in anywise intermeddle with the family supplies then on
hand which were therefore removed with the family, and she states that
the supplies then on hand was more than sufficient for one years support
of their family diminished as it was then in numbers, and she further
states that during the ensuing winter pork to at least the amount of
four or five thousand pounds was killed out of her husband’s stock of
hogs, which were left on the plantation formerly owned by him and which
had run at large in his corn fields. Wheat and corn also to a
considerable amount for the support of their family, were brought from
said plantation. It is also false that this defendant and her husband
have during all the time they have been on said plantation had the
exclusive use of four negroes belonging to the Estate of the said Samuel
Savage as servants to wait on themselves and families; on the contrary
thereof this defendant has not had the exclusive use of one negro since
she removed to the plantation of her father.

It is true that an old negro man by the name of Moses (should be
Morris?) who was for many years cook for her father has most of the time
since her removal in 1842 cooked for herself and family but he also
cooks for upwards of twenty negro children belonging to said estate and
she has also had the use of an old negro woman by the name of Aggy (who,
on account of her age had been withdrawn from the field by the father of
this defendant in his lifetime) to wash and iron for herself and family;
besides this her bed is made, and the rooms swept in the morning
sometimes by one of the women, and sometimes by another, care being
taken not to hinder a field hand - choice generally being made of one
that is nursing a young child, or who from some indisposition is not
sent out to work. Wood also is cut, and a fire made for this defendant
night and morning by a negro man, or boy, when a fire is necessary but
this is done at such times as not to interfere with the labors of the field.

And this defendant further states that since herself and family have
resided on said plantation she has devoted most of her time to advancing
the interest of said estate by attending to the spinning and weaving of
cloth to make the negro clothes, by cutting out their clothes, and
having them made in due season, by attending to the negro children and
to the sick negroes and having them properly nursed and taken care of,
and in general by doing all that was in her power to promote the
interest of said estate, and if your Honor should determine that the
Complainant is entitled to an account for house rent, negro hire, or any
thing else she submits that in equity and good conscience, she too is
entitled to compensation for her services above stated.

It is true that defendant and her family have resided in the house
occupied by her father in his lifetime, since the month of August 1842
but said house is of but little value, and not occupied by this
defendant would be of no use, or value to those interested in said
estate as there is an overseer’s house and plenty of negro houses on
said plantation.

Further answering, this defendant says it is not true as stated by the
complainant that said testator disposes of the residue of his intestate
by the seventh item of his will, it is by the eleventh item in said will
as may be seen by the copy hereto annexed that said testator disposes of
his estate, both real and personal. In said last mentioned item said
testator says, “Upon the death of my dearly beloved wife it is my will
and desire that all my property of every kind and description both real
and personal, then in the hands of my executors shall be equally divided
between my children, that is one seventh part of it shall be given to
the children of my daughter Behetheland Dillahunty or the survivors of
them in equal proportion, one seventh part of it to the children of my
deceased daughter Frances T Rucker upon the considerations and
limitations expressed in the seventh item of this my will, one seventh
to Samuel Savage Dillahunty as directed in the eighth item,, one seventh
to my son William T T Savage, one seventh to my son George M Savage, one
seventh to my son Samuel G Savage, and one seventh to my son John
Tacitus Savage.”

But as the will of the said Samuel Savage is the foundation upon which
the complainant claims his estate this defendant refers your Honor to
the whole will being advised that no further notice of the garbled
extracts therefrom or the strained constructions put thereon by the
complainant is necessary in her answer.

This defendant believes and therefore admits it to be true that her
brother William T T Savage was dead at the time her father the said
Samuel Savage made his will, and that his legacy is lapsed. She further
admits that the advancements made by said testator were charged in a
book marked A, and that the entries therein were recorded in the Orphans
Court of Lauderdale County. ...

This defendant does not admit that Ann R Savage the widow of the said
testator departed this life on the 7th day of October 1840, on the
contrary she has been informed and believes, and so charges that the
said Ann R Savage died about the month of October 1841.

This defendant admits it to be true that by the provisions of the will
of the said Samuel Savage his executors were directed to divide his
estate both real and personal and give the same as therein directed upon
the death of his wife, but owing to the litigations in which it became
envolved shortly after the death of said testator as herein before
stated it has never been in a condition which in Justice to all the
parties interested would authorize a division to be made. She believes
that the said Vincent M Benham has done and caused to be done all that
was in his power to bring said litigation to a close, and that its
continuance to the present time is not from any fault or neglect of his
or of any agent he has employed to attend to said suit, and she submits
to the court that it would be iniquitous to make a partial division of
said estate before said suit is finally ended and determined.