ESTATE OF MARTIN CLICK, SR
We are indebted to Mrs. Diana Holt, of Speedway, Indiana for her wonderful discovery of these court documents in March 1972 and providing them to Mae Twitchell. This file gave the early researchers the tie they were looking for of the Washington, Greene, and Cocke County Click families. We can also thank Mary Click Muncher/Moncier for her boldness in filing this lawsuit for what she felt was right in the settlement of her father’s estate. Mary was struggling to keep her family situated in their home. She had left John Muncher and was living on her own with 4 of her children still at home. Mary was determined to keep her home intact, because of the threat by her 1/2 brother, Martin Click, Jr, to sell the land she was living on with her children. So with the help of her son-in-law, William H. McCoy, she fought back and won. The courage of Mary for a woman in this timeframe is quite remarkable. First of all to EVEN LEAVE HER HUSBAND, let alone still have 4 children still at home to finish raising by herself. She had been married to John Muncher for approximately 31 years when she left him, so she must have had enough!
In order to understand who these people involved were, also, check the worldconnect database at rootsweb. But a brief scenario of the 2 wives and children of Martin Click, Sr. His first wife, Mary Ann Borders with 4 children: Mary Click Muncher/Moncier (husband John Muncher/Moncier), Elizabeth Click Hughes (husband Hezekiah Hughes), John, George. Their marriage ended in divorce in 1810. He married second Elizabeth “Betsey” Kerlin and had 3 more children: Lewis, Susannah (husband John Bird, Jr), and Martin Alexander Click, Jr. Martin, Jr was executor of the estate.
The daughter of Mary Ann Click Muncher/Moncier, Anna Muncher/Moncier married “Squire Billy” William H. McCoy, who assisted Mary Muncher in her filing of this lawsuit. As you will soon see, the battle raged on for a number of years, and finally the children coming to an equitable settlement of this estate.
It gives us great insight into the lives of this family.
From the research I have done, this court case tells me about the children of JOHN MUNCHER and MARY CLICK. According to my information they had 10 children: John (don't know if he was ever married), Hogan (whom we believe married Emeline CLICK but no marr record), Eliza (who married 1832 Peter Laney), Anna (who married 1840 William H. McCoy), Rachel (who married 1842 her cousin Nathan Click), Mary Ann (who married 1845 Thomas Wesley Pierce), George Buchanan (who had 5 wives but didn't marry the first time until 1851), Margaret (who married 1847 William Alexander McLaughlin), Catherine (who married 1861 B.F. Thomas), and Elizabeth (who married 1862 Maburry Holder).
According to the initial filing of the lawsuit Mary Click Muncher states that she was living on the land of her father, Martin Click, Sr; having left John Muncher about two years(abt 1844)before filing this case. She states the REASON why she left John Muncher because of him being "very intemperate man" (which could mean a couple of things: lacking moderation OR given to excessive use of alcoholic drinks. During these times they often referred to the word "intemperance" meaning the use of alcoholic drinks)"prodigal" which means addicted to wasteful expenditure, as of money, time, or strength; extravagance, "wasteful in his habits, and insolvent or nearly so in his circumstances".
Mary further states "has had several children by him EIGHT OF WHOM ARE STILL LIVING, FOUR OF WHOM - THREE DAUGHTERS AND A SON - ARE NOW AT HOME DEPENDANT UPON THEIR PARENTS, in a good degree for support."
From the marriage records we do have we know that by the time she filed this suit, Hogan (we know lived nearby by a deed I have in my possession dated 1840; but no marr record); Eliza, Anna, Rachel, and Mary Ann were all married and living on their own. John was most likely already gone out of the house as he appears to be the oldest child. This totals 6 of the children. Through my own personal research, I have been able to document the approx death date of daughter Eliza Muncher Laney between Jan/Aug 1845 Crawford Co. Missouri. I believe she died in childbirth with her youngest daughter Sarah Elizabeth Laney born Jan 1845. I can only ASSUME that son John Muncher was dead by the time she filed this lawsuit, because we can establish death deaths for every other child. The 4 children who were not yet married were George Buchanan, Margaret, and the twins Catherine and Elizabeth. These would have been the 4 children she mentioned still living at home and is documented by the 1850 census records of Greene County. Mary had 3 of the children still at home: George and the twin girls, Margaret having married 4 Feb 1847.
So in the end this confirms to me that the two dead children were John Muncher and Eliza Muncher Laney. The EIGHT still alive were: Hogan, Anna, Rachel, Mary Ann, George Buchanan, Margaret, Catherine, and Elizabeth. The FOUR of whom were still at home (AT THE TIME THE SUIT WAS FILED 13 MAY 1846)were George Buchanan, Margaret (didn't marry until 4 Feb 1847), and the twins Catherine and Elizabeth.
I am transcribing these records not from the original documents, but from the files of Mrs. Mae Twitchell’s transcription of the original documents she had in her possession. She spent years researching her Cleek family of Sullivan Co Tennessee, as well as ours to separate the families. Without her indebtedness to research, we probably wouldn’t have all the documentation she provided. These files are used with the permission she provided in the workbook she gave to our family in hopes our history would get published. We are deeply indebted to Mae Twitchell for her untiring determination to find every link she could to anyone by the name of Click.
After studying the documents closely, I feel I may be missing a few pages of the file in the final settlement of the estate.
In Re: File #80 State of Tennessee, County of Greene
I, JOHN D. SOLOMON, Clerk and Master of the Chancery Court for Greene County, Tennessee, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Original Record in the above styled cause as the same now appearing of record and on file at my office in Greeneville, Tennessee.
Witness my hand Official Seal of said Court at my office in Greeneville, Tennessee, on this the 31 day of March, 1972
(Signed) John D. Solomon, Clerk and Master
Mary Moncier versus Estate of Martin Click, Sr
To the Honorable THOMAS L. WILLIAMS Chancellor sitting in Chancery for the District composed of the County of Greene in the Eastern Division of Tennessee.
Humbly complaining sheweth unto your Honor your Oratrix MARY MONCIER, who sues by her next friend, WILLIAM H. MCCOY, that she is the daughter of one MARTIN CLICK who departed this life in said County of Greene, intestate, sometime in the spring of 1845. Administration on the estate of the said MARTIN CLICK was duly granted to MARTIN CLICK, son of the intestate, by the County Court of Greene County at JULY TERM, 1845. Your Oratrix shows that the said MARTIN CLICK, at the time of his death, was seized and possessed of a tract of land, upon which he then lived containing between sixty and seventy acres, adjoining the lands of JOHN W. WILLHOIT, ALEXANDER LAUGHLIN and others in said County. He was also the owner of a considerable amount of personal property, consisting of household and Kitchen furniture, farming utensils,, horses, cattle, sheep and probably various other articles; which, as your Oratrix is informed, was sold by the administration at the sale for between $105 and $110.00. Complainant is also informed that one GEORGE CLICK was indebeted to the intestate in about the sum of seventy dollars and there were other debts probably due him at the time of his death. The testater, at the time of his death, as complainant is informed, was not indebted to a greater amount than sixty five or seventy dollars. She understands that the administration has declared that the just debts due from him, aside from those herein mentioned, did not exceed that sum.
Your Oratrix shows that the intestate was twice married and that he died, leaving as his heirs at law by his first wife, your Oratrix and his sons GEORGE AND JOHN, both of whom reside in Greene County, and a daughter ELIZABETH married to one HEZEKIAH HUGHES, both of whom reside in Bledsoe County, Tennessee; and by his last wife, two sons, LEWIS and MARTIN CLICK the administrator and a daughter SUSANNAH, who intermarried with one JOHN BIRD, all of whom reside in Greene County, Tennessee.
Complaintant charges and believes that the intestate, previous to his dath, frequently declared his intention to place all his children on an equal footing and to cause his property to be equally divided between them. He believed that he was able to give each one hundred dollars and accordingly, by way of advancement to his said children, he, in his lifetime paid to his sons GEORGE and JOHN CLICK each one hundred dollars. He also paid to his son LEWIS sixty dollars and executed his note to him for forty dollars, while on his death bed. The intestate also, in his lifetime, conveyed to his son MARTIN a tract of land worth eight hundred dollars, for about the sum of four hundred dollars, intending one half of the price as an advancement to said MARTIN. The intestate about one year before his death executed his note to JOHN BIRD for the sum of one hundred dollars payable twelve months after his decease. Your Oratrix charges that each of the above mentioned sums was paid or agreed to be paid by the intestate to each of said heirs by way of advancement as parts of his estate to which he expected they would be legally entitled after his death.
Complainant is also informed and believes and so charges that the testator, in his lifetime, by way of advancement gave to his said son, GEORGE, a horse; to JOHN a horse; to his said son MARTIN two horses and a saddle and bridle; to his son LEWIS two horses; to his daughter SUSANNAH BIRD a twenty five dollar saddle, two feather beds and furniture, a cow and heifer, some hogs and sheep, a table and other articles; and to your Oratrix, some twenty years ago, he gave some fifty dollars by way of paying a debt due from her husband JOHN MUNCHER; a colt at $15.00, a heifer at $7.00 and at the administration sale an old saddle was given at $6.00. Your Oratrix thinks it probable that other advancements were made to his heirs at law by the intestate and they are severally called upon to state fully, minutely and specifically all the money, property, debts or advancements ever given or paid to them by the intestate, to the end that a just and fair distribution of his estate may be made. Neither your Oratrix nor her husband, so far as she knows, ever received any other advancements than those herein before mentioned. But your Oratrix shows that the intestate often, in his lifetime, declared his intentions to place her on an equal footing with his other children and to this end, in part, about two years ago he settled her upon the said tract of land containing between sixty five and seventy acres, the fifth part of which he declared it was his intention to give her. Under these circumstances, your Oratrix who was then living SEPARATE FROM HER HUSBAND settled upon a part of said tract, in the lifetime and with the express approbation and consent of the intestate, and without any aid whatever from her husband, she caused by her own industry a small dwelling hose, loom house and stable to be erected upon said tract and caused some clearing and fencing to be done.
Your Oratrix further shows that she has been informed and believes and so charges that the testator previous to his death and at the time he conveyed a part of his land, as herein-before stated, to his said son MARTIN, took four notes, or obligations each for one hundred dollars, two of which were payable two years after death, and the other two payable three years after his death to the HEIRS OF MARTIN CLICK, without specifying their named.
Complainant is informed and believes that the assets which have come into the hands of the administrater and arising from the sale of his intestater’s property, are sufficient, as he has declared, to pay all the debts due from the estate including the said notes given by way of advancement to his children, except about the sum of twenty or twenty five dollars. She is further informed and believes and so charges that all of the heirs at law, except the administrator, but including those who have been advanced as well as those who are not advanced, claim their distributive shares of the intestater’s estate and that they, or some of them, have declared that your Oratrix can get nothing because she holds no note upon him. Your Oratrix is advised that as the heirs at law and distributes claim a share of the testater’s property they are not entitled to it, either at law or in equity without bringing into hotch potch the sums they have severally received and accounting for the same. She is further advised and believe that she is entitled to an equal share of the estate, including the said notes executed by the said administrator and payable to the heirs and also to compensation for the improvements made by her upon the land with the express assent and approbation of the said MARTIN CLICK, deceased.
Your Oratrix also charge that the said MARTIN CLICK, in his lifetime, advanced to his said children LEWIS, SUSANNAH and MARTIN, or was their credition for the sum of seven hundred dollars. This amount was collected by MARTIN CLICK (note: JR) and JOHN BIRD in the STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, as complainant is informed, being a LEGACY DUE THE WIFE OF THE SAID MARTIN CLICK SENIOR which was reduced into possession by her husband. (Note: meaning Elizabeth was dead) Your Oratrix is informed and believes that after it was collected, it was divided as above stated, between the said three children of the LAST WIFE, WHO DIED ABOUT THE TIME THE MONEY WAS COLLECTED, and who children, as your Oratrix is informed and believe refused to advance a single dollar to their father to aid in defraying the funeral expenses of their mother. Your Oratrix further shows that most of the property which her father had was DERIVED OR ACQUIRED FROM THE SALE OF A TRACT OF LAND WHICH CAME TO THEIR MOTHER, and the children by the last wife having already used up the legacy or distributive share which came by their mother and was her only property are now endeavoring to come into an equal division of the balance of the property. This is most unjust, because, in addition to the above facts, your Oratrix shows that the tract of land which it is pretended was sold by the said MARTIN CLICK SENR to the said MARTIN CLICK JR at the ruinous sacrifice herein before mentioned, was bought with the means which her father ACQUIRED BY THE SALE OF HER MOTHER’S LAND, OR HER MOTHER’S LAND WAS EXCHANGED for it. Your Oratrix prays that this whole transaction may be investigated with scrutiny; that the protended title of the said MARTIN CLICK JUNIOR to the tract of land which he says he has purchased may be examined, as well as all the equities which may exist, growing out of the circumstances under which said land ws purchased in the first instance by his father and afterwards sold to his said son. Your Oratrix shows that the said MARTIN CLICK administrator having pretended that she is not legally entitled to any part of the estate, refuses to make any advancement to her, and threatens to SELL the tract of land upon which her father died, INCLUDING THE SMALL PIECE SET APART TO HER BY HER FATHER and upon which she made improvements. This pretense upon the part of the administrator, as your Oratrix is advised, is most unjust since he is himself a debtor to the estate for his part of the seven hundred dollars, divided between the three children as above stated, by a wrongful act of their own, done without the approbation or consent of their father. And if the said administrator would account for his own part of the said sum of Seven hundred dollars and collect the balance, as it is his duty to do, there would be no deficiency of assets but a larger surplus to distribute. But so it is, may it please your Honor, your Oratrix is informed and believes that the said administrater has published a notice calling upon the heirs at law to appear at the next term of the Circuit Court of Greene County to be held at the Court House in Greeneville on the second Monday in June next to answer his application to be made to said Court for sale of said land to pay debts. She has not been able before filing this bill, to see said advertisement, but is satisfied that notice of such an application has been published either by said administrator or a portion of the heirs at law. Complainant is advised that a sale of said land would be most injurious to her; and she charges that partition thereof can be equally made in such manner as, under all the circumstances, t assign her the part of the tract upon which her improvements were made, her father having encouraged her to make said improvements and having told her that he would make a deed for the land or that she could get it after his death. A sale of said land, as complainant is advised, ought not to be made, until it is ascertained whether or not there are any debts in fact due from the intestator and what are the equities of all the parties.
Complainant further states that for many years her husband JOHN MONCIER has been a very intemperate man, prodigal and wasteful in his habits, and insolvent or nearly so in his circumstances; that your Oratrix has had several children by him eight of whom are still living four of whom-three daughters and a son- are now at home dependant upon their parents, in a good degree for support. Under these circumstances, your Oratrix is advised that the said MARTIN CLICK, who is a Trustee for all the distributes should not be allowed to pay into the hands of her husband the distributive share of your Oratrix and that said tract of land should not be sold, or partitioned except for the exclusive use and benefit of your Oratrix and her children, free and apart from the control of her husband.
The premises considered your Oratrix prays that the said MARTIN CLICK as administrator of the ESTATE OF MARTIN CLICK, deceased and also as one of his heirs at law, who resides in Greene County, Tennessee, and all the other heirs at law and distributes of the said MARTIN CLICK, DEC’D. whose names and residence are herein before stated, may be made defendants to this bill and may be compelled on their corporal oaths full, true and perfect answers to make to the same and each and every part thereof, according to the best of their knowledge, information and belief as fully and amply as if the matters and things therein contain were herein again repeated and they move particularly interrogated and especially that they may each give a full, minute and specific detail of all the advancements of every kind and description whatsoever made to them by their father, and of every portion of his property, or of property real, personal or mixed ever claimed by him that ever came into the hands or was otherwise applied to the benefit of the said heirs at law, or either of them; and that they may fully state and prove the consideration of all notes, bonds, receipts, deeds or other instruments held by them or either of them upon the said intestate or upon any other person in any manner connected with the business of the estate.
Your Oratrix prays an injunction to prohibit the said heirs at law from applying for a partition or sale of said tract of land until after the rights of your Oratrix are ascertained in your Honorable Court; and also an injunction to restrain and prohibit the said administrator from making any further distribution of the estate until the rights of your Oratrix are ascertained and declared, and especially to restrain and prohibit the said administration from paying into he hands of your Oratrix’s husband, or of any of his creditors any portion of the estate to which she may be entitled. Your Oratrix prays that process may issue.
And, on final leaving the prayer of your Oratrix is that an account may be ordered at such time as your Honor deems proper; that the administrator be charged with all the assets which have come or with due diligence may come into his hands; that there may be a collation of the various advancements herein before mentioned; that partition may be made of said tract of land and the share assigned to your Oratrix that was given to her by her father; or if this cannot be done, that she may be paid for her improvements, and that all such other, further or different relief in the premises may be granted to yor Oratrix as your Honor may deem consistent with equity and good conscience. This is the first application for an injunction.
AR NELSON Solicitor
State of Tennessee County of Greene
This day personally appeared before me DAVID SEVIER, Clerk and Master of the Chancery Court at Greeneville, MARY MONCIER the feme convert and WILLIAM H. McCOY her next friend named in the foregoing bill and made oath in due form of law that the facts therein stated are true to the bet of their knowledge, information and belief.
MARY (X) MONCIER
WM H McCOY
Sworn to and Subscribed before me this 13th May 1846 D. SEVIER,, C & M
To the Clerk and Master of the Chancery Court at Greeneville.
Let a writ or write of injunction issue as prayed for in the foregoing bill on bond and security being given according to law, or the law being otherwise complied with. 13 May 1846. THOS S. WILLIAMS, CHANCELLOR
ARTICLES OF COMPROMISE AND DECREE
MAKE SURE YOU GO TO THESE LINKS
Copyright 3 Aug 2003
All rights reserved
Carolyn Whitaker, Webmaster
