Family:Alexander Brock and Sarah Williams (1)

11 May 1899; To the Honorable the Chancery Court of the County of Pike [...] Emily Alford, a resident and citizen of the county of Pike, in the state of Mississippi, complainant vs. Mary Collins, Sally Barnes, Rebecca Smith, Watson Brock adult, Walter Brock (minor), Winny Brock supposed to be a minor, Alexander Brock Jr. (minor), Fleet Brock (minor) defendants and residents and citizens of the county of Pike, in the state of Mississippi, and Rosa Smith, Nancy Smith and Harriet Haley, residents and citizens of the parish of Washington, in the state of Louisiana, and also defendants herein, complainant shows to the court as follows: That Alexander Brock about or in the year 1882 died in the county of Pike, in the state of Mississippi, and at the time of his death a resident and citizen of said county in said state of Mississippi, and said Alexander Brock, at the time of his death, left as his surviving widow Sally Brock, who lived six or eight years after the death of the said Alexander Brock, and the said Sally Brock left no heirs at the time of her death but the said complainant and the aforesaid defendants; that both the said Alexander Brock and the said Sally Brock so far as complainant knows and believes left no wills, but both died intestate; that none of said infant or minor defendants have guardians; that the aforesaid defendants are the issue of the said Alexander Brock and Sally Brock, and are the sole legal heirs of said Alexander Brock and Sally Brock; the said Alexander Brock died seized and possessed of the following described real estate all lying and being in the county of Pike, in the state of Mississippi, and particularly described as follows viz.: southwest quarter of southwest quarter, and east half of southeast quarter section (19) nineteen, township (1) one range (10) ten east; northwest quarter of northwest quarter, and east half of northwest quarter, and north half of northeast quarter section (30) thirty, township (1) one range (1) ten east; containing three hundred and twenty (320) acres more or less; that each of said heirs---the complainant and defendants---are entitled to a one twelfth interest in said land, and complainant avers that from the nature and quality of said land and the number of shares unto which it would have to be divided in order to be partitioned among said heirs, it could not be equitably advantageously and fairly divided, and complainant avers that therefore a sale of said lands would better promote the interest of all parties concerned than a partition thereof in kind, as complainant avers that an equal and equitable division of said lands cannot be made, as complainant believes; Now complainant avers that she is desirous of having said lands sold to effect a division of the proceeds among those interested, and to that end complainant asks that the aforesaid defendants be summoned to answer the premises at the next term of this court to be held in the town of Magnolia in said county and state, and upon due proceedings had, complainant asks that a commissioner be appointed to make said sale, and that all necessary steps which may be legal, equitable and just may be had to effect said sale for the best interest of all interested in the said lands.
---
Deposition of W. Jack Holmes, 20 May 1899;
Interrogatory 1: What is your name, age and where do you live?
Ans.: W. Jack Holmes, age 67, live at Tylertown, Miss.
Inter. 2: Did you know Alexander Brock and his wife Sallie Brock during their lifetime and about what time did they die?
Ans.: I knew them. Alexander Brock died in Feby. 1882. Sallie Brock died afterwards, do not know exact time.
Inter. 3: Were you called upon by the heirs and relatives of the deceased to take charge of and manage the estate?
Ans.: The wife of Alexander Brock and his brothers asked me to look after the estate and do what I thought best, as the boys were all small.
Inter. 4: Did you have any business relations with Mr Alford the husband of the complainant in this suit in relation to the personal property and real estate owned by Alexander Brock at his death and now involved in litigation in this suit?
Ans.: I did.
Inter. 4: Did Mr J. N. Alford for his wife Emily Alford enter into any contract in regard to this land involved in this suit with the heirs and in your presence at any time after the death of Alexander Brock?
Ans.: He did enter into a written contract with me for the heirs. I was representing the heirs. Some of the heirs were small, all the boys.
Inter. 5: Who was Mr Alford representing?
Ans.: His wife.
Inter. 6: When and where and who was present when that contract was written up and signed?
Ans.: About a year after Alexander Brock's death at the old Brock homestead. Offie Morris and Alex Brumfield were present. We three were appointed appraisers, Mr Alford having administered upon the estate.
Inter. 7: Was that contract signed by Mr Alford for his wife?
Ans.: It was signed by Alford for his wife.
Inter. 8: What became of that contract?
Ans.: I do not know what became of the contract. My best recollection is that I carried it home with me. I have not seen it since about that time and do not know what became of it.
Inter. 9: What was the contents of that contract?
Ans.: After Mr Brumfield, Morris & myself had appraised the property there being some unpleasantness between the administrator Alford and the Brocks, at the request of the brothers of the deceased and his wife, in behalf of the heirs I made for them a proposition to Mr J. N. Alford and he accepted it acting as the agent for his wife. That proposition was this, for him to dismiss his administration proceeding and to pay all costs and atty. fee except the Clerk's costs and leave the land undisturbed for the use of the minor children until the youngest should become of age and he could take therefor a young mare owned by the heirs of Alexander Brock valued at about one hundred dollars. When he accepted the proposition for his wife I sat down and wrote the contract in substance as above stated and Mr Alford acting for his wife signed it.
Inter. 10: Is the land you speak of which Alford agreed to leave for the use and benefit of the children until the smallest should became of age before it should be divided or sold the old Alexander Brock homestead and place that he owned at his death?
Ans.: It is but I do not remember the land by government numbers.
Inter. 1: Do you know or are you acquainted with the lands mentioned in the bill as to their quality or situation I mead the Alexander Brock place?
Ans.: i do.
Inter. 2: From your knowledge as to said lands what do you say as to a division of these lands into twelve parts or in other words can they be divided into twelve parts so as to give each heir his or her just or proper share of the same?
Ans.: It could not be divided into twelve parts.
Inter. 3: When you acted as an agent in this matter of the contract referred to by you who authorized you to act in the way you did?
Ans.: The brothers of the deceased.
Inter. 4: How was the contract signed by Alford? In whose name?
Ans.: In his name if I am not mistaken.
Inter. 5: Was his wife present of that occasion?
Ans.: If she was I do no remember it.
Inter. 6: Who was the administrator on the est. of Alexander Brock?
Ans.: John Alford
Inter. 7: State to what extent if any you have searched for the written document you refer to?
Ans.: I have not made any search. I have had two or three burns and have moved several times.
Inter. 8: Why do you say in this matter of contract that J. N. Alford was representing his wife?
Ans.: She had no one else to represent her but him, and she was the only member of the family married.
Inter. 9: Have you any personal knowledge that he had authority to represent her in this matter and the authority to make such a contract as you say was made?
Ans.: I have no personal knowledge of these matters.
---
Deposition of J. A. Brumfield, 20 May 1899;
Interrogatory 1: Do you know or are you acquainted with the lands mentioned in the amended bill as to their quality & situation, I mean the Alexander Brock place?
Answer: I do.
Inter. 2: From your knowledge as to the said lands what do you say as to a division of these lands into twelve parts so as to give each heir his or her just or proper share of the same?
Ans.: It can not be divided into twelve parts to as to give each a joint share
Inter.: What do you know if anything in reference to the contract or a contract made at the time referred to by [W. Jack] Holmes?
Ans.: I have. I do not know anything about a contract.
Inter. 4: Were you one of the appraisers of the estate?
Ans.: Yes sir.
Inter. 5: Were any propositions made between J. N. Alford and other parties about the estate and if so state all you may know on the subject.
Ans.: A proposition was sent to the three appraisers, who were myself, Mr Morris & W. Jack Holmes, from Mrs. Sallie Brock the wife of Alexander Brock. The proposition was this, that if Mr Alford would withdraw his administration that she would give a young mare the turn of two years old to his wife Emily Alford and Mr Alford accepted. As well as I recollect the mare was appraised at sixty dollars.
Inter. 6: What if anything was said as to no action being taken as to a division of the lands until the youngest heir became of age?
Ans.: I did not understand it that way. There was nothing said about the land.
Inter. 7: About what time did you leave the Brock place on the day of the appraisement?
Ans.: We were two or three days making the appraisement. I left each day late in the evening about sundown.
Int. 1: Who was there representing Mrs Emily Alford at the time the proposition was made?
Ans.: John N. Alford
Inter. 2: Do I understand you to say that there was no written contract written by MR Holmes and signed by Mr Alford or do I understand you to say if there was such a contract you know nothing of it?
Ans.: I did not know anything of it if there was. I thought I did the principal part of the writing that was done and I did not write any contract.
---
Deposition of Jno. N. Alford, 20 May 1899;
Inter. 1: Do you know or are you acquainted with the lands mentioned in the amended bill as to their quality and situation?
Ans.: I do
Inter. 2: From your knowledge as to the said lands what do you say as to a division of these lands into twelve parts so as to give each of said heirs his or her proper share of the same? I mean the Brock heirs and the Alexander Brock place.
Ans.: No sir it could not be done.
Inter. 3: Did you hear the testimony of W. Jack Holmes as to a certain written contract purporting to have been made by you & other parties in reference to a certain mare and division of the lands?
Ans.: Yes sir I heard his testimony.
Inter. 4: What do you know about the contract and what was its contents?
Ans.: The contents of the contract was this: That they would give me or my wife a dun mare or filly as her part of the perishable property but there was no land mentioned in the contract at all.
Inter. 5: Did you or not read the contract before the signing of the same and is or is not your recollection distinct as to the contents of the contract?
Ans.: I read the contract and I am positive there was no land mentioned.
Inter. 6: By whom was the contract signed?
Ans.: I signed the contract.
Inter. 1: Who wrote the contract?
Ans.: To the best of my recollection J. A. Brumfield did all the writing that was done.
Inter. 2: Who is living on the land since the summer of 1897 & who is living on the land now?
Ans.: Watson Brock lived on it in 1897, Walter Brock lived on it in 1898 and Alex Brock in 1899.
Inter. 3: Who witnessed the signing of that contract?
Ans.: There were no witnesses.
Inter. 4: Were you acting as the agent of your wife and for her at the time you signed the contract?
Ans.: I suppose so.
---
Deposition of W. S. Brock, 20 May 1899;
Inter. 1: Have you heard the testimony of the witnesses who testified int his case today?
Ans.: Yes sir.
Inter. 2: Have you ever seen the contract that has been testified to here?
Ans.: No sir.
Inter. 3: What research or investigation if any have you made to find the contract and have you had access to your father's old papers?
Ans.: I looked through my father's papers and also the papers of my uncle Wm. Brock for the contract but failed to find it.
---
Deposition of T. D. Morris, 20 May 1899;
Inter.: Did you hear the evidence of Mr Holmes, Mr Brumfield & Mr Alford given in this case?
Ans.: Yes sir.
Inter. 2: What recollection if any have you of the contract entered into by Mr Alford for his wife about the time you with others appraised the estate of Alexander Brock if you remember such a contract?
Ans.: They entered into an agreement there. I think they proposed to give him a young mare that was there if he would withdraw the administration and my understanding was that they would give him that young mare for his interest in the personal property if he would quit and not bother them any more until the youngest child became of age. There was talk of the sale of land and the land was not to be sold or bothered until the youngest child of Alexander Brock became of age. That is my recollection of the contract.
Inter. 3: Who wrote the contract if you remember?
Ans.: To the best of my recollection Jack Holmes wrote it.
Int. 4: Who witnesses the signing of the contract?
Ans.: My recollection is that J. A. Brumfield (the witness who testified here), W. Jack Holmes & myself witnesses the signing of the contract.
Inter. 5: Who is the youngest child of Alexander Brock dec'd and when will he be of age?
Ans.: Fleet Brock is the youngest. My understanding is he is about 17 years old.
Inter. 1: Are you related to the Brocks?
Ans.: No sir.
Inter. 2: Did you read the contract referred to?
Ans.: I can not say for certain that I read it. My recollection is Mr HOlmes read it over after he wrote it.
Inter. 3: Was Mr J. A. Brumfield present when he read it?
Ans.: I think he was.
---
13 June 1899, Pike Chancery Court no. 459, Emily Alford vs Mary Collins et al. This cause having been set down for final hearing by said complainant on bill, answer, depositions, waiver, and all of the papers connected with said cause, and said cause coming on to be heard, after having been so set down, and the court after having duly considered said cause after having been so set down from the papers submitted, and evidence adduced, is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for, and it appears to the court, from the depositions in said cause, that each of said heirs of Alexander Brock deceased and Sally Brock deceased are entitled each to a one twelfth interest in the lands in said amended bill mentioned, and that the following parties to said suit, viz. Emily Alford the complainant, and the following defendants, viz. Mary Collins, Sally Barnes, Rebecca Smith, Watson Brock, Walter Brock, Winny Brock, Alexander Brock, Fleet Brock, Nancy Smith, and Rosa Smith, and Harriet Haley, are the sole heirs of Alexander Brock deceased and Sally Brock deceased, and it further appearing to the court from the evidence submitted, that the said Alexander Brock deceased and Sally Brock deceased both died intestate and that the said Alexander Brock deceased died seized and possessed of the following described real estate, which is the lands herein-before referred to, and that said land is in the county of Pike in the state of Mississippi, and particularly described as follows, vi.: south west quarter of south west quarter, and east half of south east quarter, section (19) nineteen, township (1) range (10) ten east; north west quarter of north west quarter, and east half of north west quarter, and north half of north east quarter, section (3) thirty, township (1) one, range (1) ten east, and west half of south west quarter section (20) twenty, township (1) one range (10) ten east, containing (400) four hundred acres more or less; and it further appears to the court, that from the nature and quality of said land, and the number of shares into which said land would have to be divided in order to be partitioned among said heirs, that it could not be equitably advantageously and fairly done, and it is therefore considered, and so ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the said land be sold in order to effect a distribution among the aforesaid heirs. It is considered and so ordered, adjudged and decreed that W. C. Vaught, the Chancery Clerk of this county, be and he is hereby appointed, a special commissioner, to make said sale, and that he sell said land at public auction to the highest bidder for cash, and that he make said sale at a door of the court house in the town of Magnolia in said county and state, and he publish a notice of the sale... [etc.]