Daniel Brown and Others, Answer, 21–23 November 1850 [United States v. Joseph Smith III et al.]
Source Note
and Joseph Sibley on behalf of Daniel Brown, Joseph Weisbrod, , John G. Kauffmann, Silas G. Strong, Abner Powers, Lewis Telle, and Peter Reimbold, Answer, [], Hancock Co., IL, and , Iowa Territory, 21–23 November 1850, U.S. v. Joseph Smith III et al. (United States Circuit Court for the District of IL 1852). Copied [ca. 17 July 1852] in Transcript of Proceedings, U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois, Complete Records, 1837–1856, vol. 4, pp. 548–561; handwriting of ; Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21, National Archives at Chicago, Chicago. Includes seal.
Schenk, on the 5th. day of May A. D. 1849 by his deed of that date, for the valuable consideration of six hundred and fifteen dollars then paid therefor conveyed the same premises to Respondant Peter Reimbold, which said deed is herewith filed marked exhibit “D” and made a part of this answer.
That said Reimbold then obtained the possession thereof, then believing that had the acquired, the indisputed title to the said South 1/2 of said lot No. 2 Block 118 in said and claims the same in fee.
And Respondants further say;—
That as to the South East 1/6 of lot 1 Block 119, one Adam [Abram] Swartz, on the 20th. day of June 1849, then being in possession of said premises claiming title thereto in fee, for the consideration of 140 dollars then paid him therefor by his deed of that date, conveyed said premises to Respondant Joseph Weisbrodt;—
This paragraph relates to respondant Joseph Weisbrodt
Which said deed is herewith filed marked exhibit “E” and made a part of this answer.
That one Phelps Mix, on the 23rd. day of April A. D. 1849 for the consideration of 175 dollars, conveyed the same premises to the said Adam Swartz, by his deed of that date.
That said Mix had before that time purchased the same of said and and as such Trustees of said Church as herein before mentioned and obtained their deed therefor and the possession thereof.
That afterward said Mix purchased the same of said Peter Poncier and obtained his deed therefor.
That said while sole as aforesaid on the [blank] day of [blank] A. D 184[blank] by her deed of that date conveyed the same with other premises to the said Peter Poncier for a valuable consideration in said deed named then paid by the said Poncier a copy of which said deed, is herein before referred to marked exhibit “A” and made a part of this answer.
And Respondant Joseph Weisbrodt claims the said South East 1/6 of lot 1 Block 119 in fee and verily believed at the time of his said purchase that he acquired title thereto in fee.
And Respondants for further answer say:—
This paragraph relates to respondant Lewis Tulle
As to lots 1 and 2 in Block 149, that on the 30th. day of June A. D. 1846, the said while sole, by her deed of that date conveyed said lot No 1 Block 149 to one for a valuable consideration therein named, a copy of which said deed (the original thereof not being in the control or power of these Respondants to produce) duly certified from the records of the Recorder’s Office of said is herewith filed, marked exhibit “F” and made a [p. 550]