Hoofnagle Chancery Court Papers

Anne Arundel County, Maryland

CHANCERY COURT

Petition to Partition Land
20th September 1833

Eleanor Getz and Lydia Davis,
sisters residing in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,
challenge their brothers and sister residing in Maryland
by filing a Petition to Partitian Land in Maryland Chancery Court.

The land lying in Anne Arundel County, Maryland was previously owned
by their parents, George Hoofnagle and Mary Stringer Hoofnagle, deceased.

George Hoofnagle and his wife Mary Stringer were the parents of John Hoofnagle,
George Hoofnagle, Richard Hoofnagle, Mary Hoofnagle White,
Eleanor "Ellen" Hoofnagle Getz, and Lydia Hoofnagle Davis.

D. L. H. G.

CHANCERY COURT (Chancery Papers)
1833/09/20
8082: John Getz, Ellen Getz, and Lydia Davis vs.
George Hoofnagle, Richard Hoofnagle, John Hoofnagle,
Frederick W. White, and Mary White. AA.
Petition to partition land.
Accession No: 17,898-8082. MSA S512-8068 1/38/3/
Transcribed 2002 by D a v i d B r y a n C h i c a g o, IL

Document 1
Bill of Complaint of John Getz.
Folded parchment written on three sides with filing info on fourth side.

To the Honourable Theodorick Bland, Chancellor of Maryland.

The Bill of Complaint of John Getz and his wife Ellen Getz and Lydia Davis of Lancaster County in the State of Pennsylvania respectfully represents

That a certain George Hoofnagle the father and Mary, the wife of said George and mother of said Oratrixes Ellen and Lydia departed this life seized of Lands and Real Estate in the State of Maryland and especially of (illegible) tracts (illegible) of Land situated in Anne Arundel County in said State and that said George Hoofnagle and his said wife died in testate leaving the following persons their only children and heirs at law, to wit: your oratrixes Ellen and Lydia, George Hoofnagle and Richard Hoofnagle, and Mary now the wife of Frederick F White, of Anne Arundel County and John Hoofnagle of the City of Baltimore. Your Orator and Oratrixes now state to your Honour that no division of said Lands and Real Estate among the said Heirs has ever(?) taken place; but that said (illegible) of the Real Estate situated in Anne Arundel County has since the death of said George Hoofnagle the father been occupied and enjoyed by George Hoofnagle and Richard Hoofnagle aforesaid.

Your Orator and Oratrixes now state to your Honour that they desire that a partition of said Lands and Real Estate of said deceased George Hoofnagle and his wife (illegible) should take place; and they (illegible) that said partition cannot be made without a sale thereof, especially of the said Land in Anne Arundel County which your Orator and Oratrixes (illegible) it would be beneficial for all the said Heirs and all concerned therein to have decreed to be sold and to divide the proceeds of sale.

Your Orator and Oratrixes state, however, that inasmuch as there are found heirs as aforesaid and among them a concurrent action in the premises (illegible) a partition and sale as aforesaid are impracticable without recourse to this Honourable Court.

In tender consideration whereof and forasmuch as your Orator and Oratrixes are reme… in the premises without the aid of this Court (illegible) the (illegible) therefore that said George Hoofnagle and Richard and John and said Frederick F and Mary may on their corporal oaths answer the premises and that a Partition of said Lands and Real Estate may be directed and made by this Honourable Court, and a sale in and (illegible) to such Partition as aforesaid; and that said George and Richard may account for the value of their use and occupation, and for the (illegible) and (illegible) of the Land occupied and used by them as aforesaid, in the (illegible) of their share of the proceeds of sale aforesaid of said Lands and Real Estate, and that your Orator and Oratrixes may have such further and other relief in the premises as to your Honour to grant to your Orator and Oratrixes the (illegible) of the State of Maryland of subpoena directed to said George Hoofnagle and Richard Hoofnagle and said Frederick F White and Mary his wife, of Anne Arundel County, and to said John Hoofnagle, of the City of Baltimore, commanding them to be in this Court to answer the premises and therein to stand to and abide by such order and decree as to your Honour may seem rightly.

William J Cole
Charles F Mayer

On Reverse
copd
Bill
John Getz and Ellen his wife and Lydia Davis
vs
George Hoofnagle
Richard Hoofnagle
Frederick F White and
Mary his wife,
Anne Arundel County
John Hoofnagle-Baltimore City

R Waters: File this Bill and (illegible) as prayed
W J Cole
Charles F Mayer

Filed 20 Septr
1833 subpoenas issued

Document 2
Folded parchment with letter written on front and inside page, with filing date written on reverse

To the Honorable Theodorick Bland Chancellor of Maryland-the answer of John Hoofnagle to the Bill of complaint of John Getz and his wife Ellen Getz and Lidia Davis in this honourable court exhibited-

And this respondent saving unto himself all benefit of exception to said bill for its errors and imperfections for answer thereto says, it is true, as in said Bill mentioned that the said George Hoofnagle and his said wife departed this life in testate leaving their only(?) children and heirs at law to wit: the said Ellen Getz, Ledia Davis George Hoofnagle and Richard Hoofnagle and Mary, now the wife of Frederick White and this respondent - and this respondent further says that at the time of the decease of the said George he was possessed of a certain tract of land situated in Anne Arundel County as in said file specified, and this respondent does not believe said division and he further avows(?) that he believes it to be for the benefit of all the parties interested therein that said land should be sold and the proceeds thereof divided among the said heirs-and …fore prays that an order for the sale of the same may be granted by your honour-and that he be herewith dismissed.

John Hoofnagle

State of Maryland
City of Baltimore

On this the twenty ninth day of July in the year of our Lord Eighteen hundred and thirty four personally appeared before me a Justice of the Peace of the state of Maryland in and for the city aforesaid. John Hoofnagle the respondent in the foregoing answer and (illegible)

Acknowledged Before
William Maifield

On Reverse
Getz and wife
vs
Hoofnagle & others

Filed 1st Augt 1834

Document 3
Interloc Decree. Single parchment written on one side with filing info on reverse

John Getz & Ellen his
wife and Lydia Davis
vs
George Hoofnagle, Richard
Hoofnagle & Frederick F
White and Mary his wife

In chancery December Term 1834
In this case the Defendants above named having been returned summoned and having failed to appear or answer according to the rules of the Court.
It is thereupon this 18th day of December 1834 by Theodorick Bland chancellor and by the authority of this Court adjudged ordered and Decreed that the Complainants are entitled to relief in the premises. But in as much as it does not sufficiently appear to what relief the said Complainants are entitled, It is further adjudged and ordered that a commission to take Testimony on behalf of the said complainants issue to Brantz Mayer of the City of Baltimore according to the Act of assembly & (illegible)

Theodorick Bland ,Ch

On Reverse
Getz vs Hoofnagle
Interlo Decree
18 Decr 1834

Document 4
Request by Charles Mayer to examine John Hoofnagle as a witness. Order to do so on same page. Filing info on reverse.

John Getz and wife and others
vs
George Hoofnagle and Others
In Chancery-

The Plaintiff pray the order of the Chancellor allowing them to examine as a witness in this cause the Defendant John Hoofnagle under the Commission issued.

Charles F Mayer

In Chancery:
20 December 1834
Ordered that the Defendant John Hoofnagle be examined as a witness as prayed, saving all exceptions. Theodorick Bland, Ch

Reverse
Petition of comptes(/)

Filed 20 Decr 1834
Order 20 Decr 1834

Document 5
Order to examine John Hoofnagle. Single parchment with order on one side and filing info on reverse.

John Getz & others
vs
George Hoofnagle
& others

On the petition of Comptes

In chancery 20 Decr 1834 Ordered that the Defendant John Hoofnagle be examined as a witness as prayed saving all exceptions.

Theodorick Bland, Chr

True Copy
Test Ramsay Waters
Regl…

Reverse
Getz vs Hoofnagle
Copy order
Mayer Comm.

Document 6
Commission to Brantz Mayer. Two pages plus filing info on reverse. Most printed but handwritten additions and changes

MARYLAND, SC.
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
To Brantz Mayer
of Baltimore County, Greeting.

KNOW, That we have appointed you to be our commissioner, to examine evidences in a cause depending in our High Court of Chencery, between John Getz and Ellen his wife and Lydia Davis Complainants and George Hoofnagle, Richard Hoofnagle & Frederick F White Defendants. We therefore require you, having first taken the oath hereunto annexed, and also administered the annexed oath to the person whom you shall appoint as Clerk to attend the execution of this commission, that at such time and place as to you shall seem convenient, you cause to come before you all such evidences as shall be named and produced to you by the plaintiffs, and that you examine them on their corporal oaths, to be by you administered upon the Holy Evangely of Almighty God, touching their knowledge or remembrance of any thing that may relate to the cause aforesaid; and that you cause notice to be given to the comptes or their attorneys, of the execution of this commission, before you execute the same; and having reduced the depositions of the witnesses so taken by you, into writing, you send the same, with this our commission, close under your hand and seal, to us in our High Court of Chancery, with all convenient speed. Witness the Honorable THEODORICK BLAND, Esquire, Chancellor, this 128th day of Decr Anno Domini, 1834 Test. Ramsay Waters, Reglurlan(?)

Commissioner’s Oath
You shall, according to the best of your skill and knowledge, truly, faithfully and without partiality to any or either of the parties, take the examinations and depositions of all and every witness and witnesses produced and examined by virtue of the commission hereto annexed, upon the interrogatories now, or which may hereafter, before the said commission is closed, be produced to, and left with you, by either of the said parties. So help you God.

Sworn before me a Justice of the Peace of the State of Maryland in and for the City of Baltimore, this 24th day of December 1834. William Maifield

Clerk’s Oath
You shall truly, faithfully and without partiality to any or either of the parties in this cause, take, write down, and transcribe the depositions of and all every the witness and witnesses produced before and examined by the commissioners named in the commission hereunto annexed as far forth as you are directed and employed by the said commissioners to take, write down, and transcribe, the said depositions, or any of them. So help you God.

Reverse
Getz vs Hoofnagles etc
Commission Exparte(?)
The execution of this commission appears by certain schedules hereunto annexed.
Brantz Mayer, Commr
29th Decr 1834

The Cost of the Execution of the Commission is four Dollars
B Mayer, Commr
Recd 3d Jany 1835

Document 7
Return of the Mayer Commission written on folded parchment with Exhibit A inserted inside the folded parchment.

To the Honorable Theodorick Bland, Chancellor of the State of Maryland, the Return of Brantz Mayer Commissioner appointed to take evidence in the cause now depending in the High Court of Chancery of the State of Maryland between John Getz and Ellen his wife and Lydia Davis Complainants and George Hoofnagle, Richard Hoofnagle and Frederick F White Defendants, respectfully sheweth, that having first taken the Oath in the Commission hereto annexed, prescribed, he proceeded on the 24th Day of December to examine such witness as might be produced before him, on the interrogatories which had been filed with him, and which are hereunto annexed marked A. John Hoofnagle having been duly sworn deposed in answer to the First Interrogatory:

That he knew the late George Hoofnagle who was his father, that said George died 8 or 10 years ago leaving six children all of whom are alive, and are named: George, John, Eleanor Getz (wife of Jno Getz) Lydia Davis (widow) Richard Hoofnagle, Mary Ann White, (wife of Dr. Frederick White).

To the second Interrogatory he deposes that the said George Hoofnagle died seized of land in Anne Arundel County in the State of Maryland, that said land contains about 100 acres. And that he knows of no other land possessed by his late father.

To the third interrogatory he deposes that he does not think it would be advisable to divide this property, on account of its size, believing as he does that it could only be advantageously occupied in its entire condition, moreover, the wood lies on the back part of the estate and if the property were divided some would obtain barren land and some wooded, besides the soil is not sufficiently good to (illegible) profitable in its different parts if divided. The fences are all destroyed. The majority of the heirs wish it sold and the proceeds divided.

To the fourth interrogatory he deposes that he knows nothing more material to the interests of either party.

(illegible) whereof I have hereto set my seal this 29th Day of December in the year 1834

Brantz Mayer
Commissioner

On reverse
Exhibit A: Mayer Comm.

Inserted
Interrogatories (illegible) to John Hoofnagle in a cause depending in Chancery between Getz et al. vs Hoofnagle et al:

First: Did you know the late George Hoofnagle of Anne Arundel County? When did he die and how many children did he leave and what are their names?

Second: Did or did not said George die seized of any real Estate and where is it situated? And what is its quantity?

Third: Is or is no the said Real Estate Capable of being advantageously divided without a sale? If you say it is not give your reasons for the statement.

Fourth: Do you know any thing further material for the plaintiffs in this cause?

W J Cole
Charles F Mayer

Document 8
Decree. 6 Jan 1835. three pages plus filing info on back of parchment.

John Getz and Ellen
his wife and Lydia Davis
vs
George Hoofnagle
Richard Hoofnagle
& others

In Chancery
December Term
1834

This cause standing ready for hearing and being submitted the Bill, answer. Interlocutory Decree proofs and all other proceedings were by the Chancellor read and considered.

It is thereupon this sixth day of January 1835 by Theodorick Bland Chancellor and by the authority of this Court adjudged ordered and Decreed that the Bill be taken pro confesso against the defendants George Hoofnagle Richard Hoofnagle and Frederick F White and Mary his wife.

And it is further adjudged ordered and Decreed that the Lands in the proceedings mentioned lying and being in Anne Arundel County shall be sold. That Charles F Mayer and William J Cole be and the are hereby appointed Trustees to make the said sale and that the course and manner of their proceedings shall be as follows. They shall first file with the register of this Court a Bond to the State of Maryland executed by themselves with a surety or sureties to be approved by the Chancellor in the penalty of Two Thousand dollars conditioned for the faithful performance of the trust reposed in them by this Decree or to reposed in them by any future Decree or order in the premises. They shall then proceed to make the said sale having first given Three weeks public notice inscribed in such news paper or papers as they shall deem proper of the time place manner and terms of said sale which shall be as follows. One Third of the purchase money to be paid on the ratification of the sale and the residue in six and twelve months from the day of sale with Interest from the day of sale to be secured by Bond or note with approved security. And as soon as conveniently may be after the sale the Trustees shall return to this Court a full and particular account of their proceedings relative to the said sale with an affidavit of the truth thereof and of the fairness of the sale annexed-and on the ratification of the sale and payment of the whole purchase money and not before the Trustees shall by a good Deed to be executed and acknowledged agreeably to Law convey to the purchaser or purchasers and his her or their heirs the property to him her or them sold free clear and discharged from all claim of the complainants or of the defendants and those claiming by from or under them or either of them.

And the Trustees shall bring into this Court the Bonds or notes taken on the sale together with the purchase money (when received) to be applied under the chancellors direction after deducting the costs of this suit and such commission to the Trustees as the chancellor shall think proper to allow on consideration of the skill attention and fidelity wherewith they shall appear to have discharged the trust.

And it is further adjudged ordered and Decreed that the said Defendants George Hoofnagle and Richard Hoofnagle account with the other parties to this such for the value of their use and occupation and for the rents and profits of the Land occupied and used by them as stated in the proceedings and the auditor of this Court is hereby directed to state the said account from the proceedings and proofs now in the case and from such other proofs as the parties may lay before him. An the parties are hereby authorized to take testimony in (illegible) to the said account before any Justice of the peace on giving three days notice as usual provided that all such Testimony be taken and filed in the Chancery office on or before the fourth day of April. (illegible) Theodorick Bland, Chr

On Reverse
Copd
Getz etc vs Hoofnagle & others
Decree - 6 January 1835
Recorded in Liber R W(H?) No. folio

Document 9
Small parchment about 4 inches by 8, about ½ inch of the left edge is missing
Obverse
[Jno Getz] and wife
[ ] vs
[…. Hoo]fnagle & others

I respectfully request(?) the chancellor to appoint
with me in the (illegible) in this case. William
J Cole, Esq.

Charles F Mayer
8th Jany ‘35

Reverse
Filed 8 Jany 1835

Document 10
Abstract of Getz vs Hoofnagle. Single parchment written on front, filing info on reverse.

John Getz and Ellen
his wife and Lydia
Davis
vs
George Hoofnogle
Richard Hoofnogle
Frederick F White
and Mary his wife
John Hoofnogle

Be it remembered that heretofore to wit on the 20th day of Sept 1833 came John Getz and Ellen his wife and Lydia Davis by W J Cole and Charles F Mayer Esq their solicitors into the court of Chancery of Maryland and exhibited in said court their bill of complaint in the words following -- (Insert Bill Exht--) and thereupon subpoena issued accordingly and afterwards on the 1st day of Augt 1834 one of the defendants John Hoofnagle filed in the cause his answer in the words following - (insert it) and afterwards on the 18th day of Decr 1834 the Chancellor passed in said cause an Interlocutory Decree in the words following (--insert it--) and afterwards to wit on the 20th day of Decr 1834 was filed a petition in the words following (insert) upon which petition the chancellor orders as follows (insert order 20th Decr) and thereupon on the 18th day of Decr 1834, a commission issued to Brantz Mayer of Baltimore County to examine witnesses in said cause-And afterwards on the 3d day of January 1835 the commissioner made return of said commission and of his proceedings had under the same in the words following (insert Comm)-And afterwards on the 6th day of Jany 1835 the Chancellor passed in the cause his Decree in the words following (insert it) and afterwards […] of Jany 1835 was filed the following ap[…]

Reverse
Getz vs Hoofnagles
Abstract Decr Term 1834
Recorded in Liber
R M No. folio

[Home] [Hoofnagle Records] [Surnames]

Whenever possible, all documents were transcribed from the originals