Person:Christopher Chinn (5)

Christopher Chinn
m. Bef 1794
Facts and Events
Name Christopher Chinn
Gender Male
Marriage Bef 1794 Kentuckyto Milly A Tandy
Death? Bef 1808 Fayette, Kentucky, United States
Other[1] 3 Jun 1820 Fayette, Kentucky, United Statesnamed in court case concerning land his wife Milly had inherited
  1. Family Recorded.

    [Kentucky Court of Appeals. Reports of Selected Civil and Criminal Cases Decided in the Court ..., Vol 9, p 328]

    June 3, 1820
    Asa Wilgus v. Thomas Hughes et ux.
    On an appeal from a decree of the Fayette Circuit Court.
    Judge Mills delivered the opinion of the court:

    Asa Wilgus exhibited his bill in the court below stating that William Tandy, by his last will and testament, devised to sundry devisees certain parcels of the tract of land on which he lived; and among the rest devised one fourth part thereof to his widow Jane Tandy, who survived her husband for several years, and died, having previously made her last will and testament wherein she devised her fourth part granted to her by the will of her husband to her son-in-law John Allen and his heirs forever, in trust, and for the purposes following, to wit: that he should suffer her daughter, Milly Chinn, the wife of Christopher Chinn, separately and to her own use and apart and distinct from her husband to have, hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the said moiety of the said fourth part of the said tract of land, for and during the term of her natural life, and in trust that he should suffer her said daughter Milly to receive and take to her own use, separate, apart and distinct from her husband, the rent, issues and profit of said land, for and during the term of her natural life, and after her death in trust that he should suffer or permit such person or persons as her said daughter Milly shoud by her last will and testament in writing appoint, them and their heirs to have, hold, occupy and possess, and enjoy the said land, to them and their heirs forever. But in default of such appointment she devised the said land, after the decease of her said daughter Milly, to the said John Allen and his heirs forever.

    He then proceeds to state that after the decease of Christopher Chinn, and during the widowhood of Milly, he bought the said land of her, and received a deed from her for the same, fully supposing and believing that she had the absolute right to sell. That he afterwards sold and conveyed the same land being ninety six acres by two several conveyances to Patterson, receiving therefor [sic] a consideration somewhat larger than he had paid and warranting by said deeds the title to the land by general warranty. That John Allen is dead and that Milly Chinn had since married Thomas Hughes - that he had paid the purchase money to Hughes, except a balance for which judgment is obtained by him, which he prays to enjoin. He then alleges that it had been not more than six weeks since he was possessed of the facts and circumstances which made the title defective, and that on the discovery he had applied to Patterson to rescind the contract, restore the possession and receive the purchase money back again; but he had refused to do so.

    He further alleges that he had also discovered that until after his sale to Patterson no division had taken place between the devisees of William Tandy; and that a division had subsequently taken place, to which he was no party, that the share of Mrs. Chinn, now Mrs. Hughes, had been assigned somewhat different from what it was, and that instead of ninety six acres, one hundred and two had been allotted to her and that she and her present husband had again conveyed the ninety six acres only by a subsequent deed, which neither he nor Patterson had accepted, and he claimes the whole one hundred and two as his purchase. He prays for and obtains an injunction against Hughes and wife for the balance of the purchase money, prays that the contract between him and Patterson may be dissolved; he restoring the purchase money and Patterson the land, and that the contract between him and Mrs. Hughes may be rescinded, and the parties all around placed as near as may be in the original situation. ...
    [cos1776 Note: there is more about the lawsuit, but no more genealogical information]