Cattle v. Bull

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 249
CourtCourt of Chancery of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 4, 1719
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 249 (Cattle v. Bull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cattle v. Bull, 6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 249 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1719).

Opinion

The Answer of William Bull Gentleman Defendant to the Bill of Complaint of William Cattle and Peter Cattle Complainants.

This Defendant Saveing and reserving unto himselfe now and at all times hereafter All and All Manner of benefitt and Advantage of Exceptions which may be had or taken to the manifold Incertainties Imperfections and untruths in the Complainants Said Bill of Complaint Contained for Answer thereto or to Soe Much thereof As this Defendant is Advised is Material for him to make Answer unto this Defendant Answereth and Saith that he beleives it may be true that About Eight Years agoe the said John Cattle the Complainants Father might take Out Such warrants from the then Governour of this province to run out Such Tracts of Land in Berkley County as in the said Warrants were Expressed and that the said Complainants Father did employ This Defendant to Admeasure And lay Out the Same which This Defendant did accordingly And made plotts thereof in Order to be Signed by the Surveyor Generali to the intent that the Complainants Father might have Grants for the Same And beleives that about the Same Time certain persons To witt Messrs. Turber-ville And Saunders And others might then Newly Arrive from England And were desireous to take up Lands And might Apply themselves to Mr. Henroyda English who might have such a deputation from Col. Thomas Broughton then Surveyor General whereupon he beleives the said Mr. English did Survey the Same Lands for the persons aforesaid And make plotts thereof which this Defendant had Surveyed for the Complainants Father And that they put in Such Caveat in the Secretaries Office that the Complainants Father might not have Grants for the Same as in the bill is Sett forth And beleives that the Complainants Father dying in the interim the Complainants might Apply themselves to Col. Broughton to Sign the Said Plotts Soe made by the said William Bull as aforesaid which he beleives the said Col. Broughton refused to do because the Said Mr. English had a Deputation And this Defendant had none and That the said Turberville And Saunders might therefore Insist that this Defendant [250]*250was Incapable of Executing any Warrant to Admeasure and that therefore the Lands were granted away from the Complainants to the persons aforesaid and beleiving the said William and Peter Cattle might Complain of the Hardship they lay under in being deprived of the Lands aforesaid. But does not know that this Defendant was Chargeable with any Neglect in not applying before that Time for a Deputation because this Defendant had before that without any Deputation at Several times run out for Several persons Several Thousands of Acres in this Province and returned Plotts of the same into the Secretaries Office aforesaid and Grants were had thereupon accordingly and never any Grants to this Defendants Knowledge were refused or Stopt before that Time for that reason And many other Surveyors here have done the like Says that however to prevent that Objection for the future this Defendant did afterwards take out a Deputation from the Surveyor General Col. Broughton And this Defendant says That the persons who had these Lands might apply to this Defendant to Survey them over again which the Defendant did And the Defendant further Answering says that all the Charges that he remembers the Complainants Father or the Complainants were at which they paid the Defendant for running out the said Fourteen hundred and Eighty Acres of Land was a Barrel of Tallow containing about Two hundred Weight sold then at a Ryal per pound Which came to Six pound Five Shilling and a pistole one pound Six Shilling and nine pence in all Seven Pounds Eleven Shillings and nine pence and not Twenty Pounds as in the Bill is untruely alleadged and says that Fees of Surve[y]ing the said Land at a penny per acre including the plotts came to about Eight Pounds Eight Shillings and four Pence Out of which the One half vizt Four Pounds four shillings and two pence belonged to the Surveyor General Which the Defendant offered to return to the said William Cattle but he Refused it and said he should have some other Land to run out some time or other and that he would rather take it out in Surveying [blank] to that Effect and says that he this Defendant has since done some small Services of that Kind for the Complainant in order to quitt himself of that Obligation and was always willing to do other of the like kind if he had been required by the Complainants Believes that about Seven or eight years ago he might tell the Complainants that there was a Tract of Land of about Five hundred and Seventy Acres and that a part or piece of which came into Jack Savannah And that this Defendant of himself offered either one or both of them— That if that part of the Tract which came into the Savannah would be of any Service to them they might have it but denies that ever he this Defendant offered the whole Tract of Five hundred and Seventy Acres or any more than that part which came into Jack Savannah. And don’t remember that they the said Complainants or either of them ever Exprest any Desire to have the whole Tract of Five hundred and Seventy Acres or even that part of it which came into Jack Savannah till some time last Summer about July last Nor does this Defendant remember that the Complainants or either of them Employed [251]*251or order’d this Defendant to run out that Tract of Five hundred and Seventy Acres or any part of it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cattle-v-bull-ctchansc-1719.