Marshall vs Marshall - Partition Suit - 14 February 1794
Spelling remains the same.
Polly Marshall and Leah S.
Marshall Infts by Stephen Marshall
their next Friend - Plts
against - In Partition
Nancy Marshall - Deft
This day came the parties by their Attorneys, and thereupon came also a Jury, to wit, Severn Kellam, Joseph Moore, Zorobabel Harman, John Martin, Jabez Cheshire, Teackle Fisher, Shadrack Mears, Geo. Hannaford, John Fitchett, Salathiel Baker, David Watts and James Rookes, who being elected, tryed and sworn well and truly to try the matter in issue joined between the said parties, upon their oaths do say, that Nehemiah Marshall decd Father of the Deft Nancy Marshall was at the time of his death which happened on the 14th day of February 1784 seized in his demesne as of fee of the premisses in the Declaration mentioned. That the said Nehemiah at the time afsd departed this life Intestate leaving two children, to wit, George Beavans Marshall and the Deft Nancy Marshall and his widow Tabitha Marshall mother of the said George B. Marshall and Nancy Marshall. That afterwards, to wit, upon the 7th day of October 1787 the said Tabitha, the widow of sd Nehemiah intermarried with Stephen Marshall by whom she had issue, Polly Marshall and Leah S. Marshall the Plts aforesaid that after the marriage aforesaid and the birth of the Plts, to wit, upon the second day of March 1792 the said George B. Marshall the son of the said Nehemiah departed this life an Infant under the age of 21 years, seized in his demesne as of fee of the premisses in the Declaration mentioned. But whether the plaintiff have more right to have partition of the premisses in the Declaration mentioned as the demand or the defendant to hold the same in Severalty, we of the Jury doubt and pray the advice of the Court, & if the Court shall be of opinion that the law be for the plaintiff we find for the Plts to have partition of the premisses aforesaid as they demand & on penny damage but if for the Deft we find for the Deft to hold the same severalty. And the Court not being advised what Judgment to give in the premisses, this cause is continued until next Court.
(See the survey of the affected property here.)
Sources:
Walczyk, Gail M. Eastern Shore District 1789 - 1797. Coram NY: Peter's Row, 2004, p. 128.
© Copyright 2009-2013 by Gail M. Walczyk