Transcript of Proceedings, , Sangamon Co., IL, ca. 17 July 1852, U.S. v. Joseph Smith III et al. (United States Circuit Court for the District of IL 1852); U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois, Complete Records, 1837–1856, vol. 4, pp. 486–697; handwriting of ; Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21, National Archives at Chicago, Chicago.
his heirs and assigns the said premises therein described, and which said deed this defendant afterwards and on the 27th. day of May A. D. 1846 caused to be duly recorded in the proper recording office of the County of and State of , according to the laws of the said , all of which will more fully appear, reference being had to the said deed, a copy whereof duly certified from the records of the proper recordings of the said County of is hereto annexed marked “No. 4 Exhibit” which is hereby made a part of this defendant’s answer to the said bill.
This defendant further says:—
That before he would purchase the said premises as aforesaid being a comparative stranger in the and wholly ignorant of the title to the said premises he applied to Esq. then a practicing lawyer in the City of in the State of and formerly one of the Judges of the Circuit Court of the State of , to examine the title to said premises for him and to advise him as to whether the said had a title to said land and could convey a title to him, and that the said on an examination of the title to said land, advised this defendant that the said had a perfect and undefeasible title to the same and could convey such title to this defendant, and upon the said opinion and advice of the said as to the said title, this defendant so purchased the said premises of the said received a conveyance as aforesaid and paid her therefor the said sum of two thousand dollars which this defendant then considered and believed a now states was a full and adequate consideration for the said premises conveyed and that this defendant would not have purchased the same as aforesaid if he had had any doubt or suspicion about the title of the said .
This defendant further states:—
That at the time of the said purchase and conveyance as aforesaid the said was in the possession of the said premises which consisted of an improved farm and timber-land then whereby her tenants, cultivating the same and that at the time of the said sealed conveyance the said put this defendant into the quiet and peacable possession of the said premises and that from thence to the commencement of this suit this defendant was in the quiet and undisturbed possession of said premises claiming to own and being the owner in fee simple thereof, by virtue of the conveyance aforesaid and during that time made valuable and lasting improvements thereon.
And this defendant most unequivocally and positively denies that either at the time he was so negotiating the purchase of the said premises from the said as aforesaid, or at the time of the said contract of sale was made, or at the time of the [p. 635]