DeaconPeach
Beer me
Cue Twilight Zone music...
Paranormal Activities
- Thread starter TWDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Cue Twilight Zone music...
OliveGardenDeac
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 30
Steelcitydeac and I want to check it out!
Here is the deed from my great grandfathers purchase. I love how descriptive things used to be.
Under Daviecountyrod.org, go to deed book 38, page 342. It lays out the land, but references trees and rocks as property corners.
Under Daviecountyrod.org, go to deed book 38, page 342. It lays out the land, but references trees and rocks as property corners.
I remember my grandparents talking of a Livengood house that was where my parents house is now, way back when. Funny how this is coming together. I've got a word document that is already a few pages long with the research.
Thanks again to you and yodeacsgo for a lot of the legwork. It's made my job much easier.
If you guys still have the subscription for Ancestry.com see if you can find any info on David Call. I tried searching for Civil War dead listings and one came up with his name from NC on ancestry.com under a civil war tab, but you have to pay to access it.
DeaconPeach
Beer me
I'll do some looking for David.
What I find interesting in the comments with Elizabeth's headstone from findagrave, is that it appears her maiden name was Call, as it lists her parents as John Call & Peggy Sheets: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=call&GSiman=1&GScid=2191414&GRid=34577574&
There were another David & Elizabeth Call in Davie County at the same time. That Elizabeth was born in May of 1835 as opposed to Dr. Hobbs' 3rd wife who was born in March 1835.
DeaconPeach
Beer me
From US Veterans Gravesites:
Name: David Call
Service Info.: PVT INFANTRY CIVIL WAR
Death Date: 18 Mar 1863
Cemetery: Nashville National Cemetery
Cemetery Address: 1420 Gallatin Road, South Madison, TN 37115
Buried At: Section E Site 319
In an index of NC men who served in the Civil War, I found:
David Call, NC 16TH Battalion Cavalry, Co. E
ORGANIZATION:
16th Cavalry Battalion [also called 75th Regiment-7th Cavalry] was formed in July, 1864, by consolidating the five North Carolina companies of the 7th Confederate Cavalry Regiment, the three North Carolina companies of the 62nd Georgia Cavalry Regiment, a nd Company C of the 12th North Carolina Cavalry Battalion. Assigned to W.P. Roberts' Brigade, the unit skirmished the Federals in Eastern North Carolina and south of the James River, then was active in the Appomattox operations. During March, 1865, it contained 315 officers and men but surrendered with only 48.
So it would appear that these are 2 different David Calls.
Name: David Call
Service Info.: PVT INFANTRY CIVIL WAR
Death Date: 18 Mar 1863
Cemetery: Nashville National Cemetery
Cemetery Address: 1420 Gallatin Road, South Madison, TN 37115
Buried At: Section E Site 319
In an index of NC men who served in the Civil War, I found:
David Call, NC 16TH Battalion Cavalry, Co. E
ORGANIZATION:
16th Cavalry Battalion [also called 75th Regiment-7th Cavalry] was formed in July, 1864, by consolidating the five North Carolina companies of the 7th Confederate Cavalry Regiment, the three North Carolina companies of the 62nd Georgia Cavalry Regiment, a nd Company C of the 12th North Carolina Cavalry Battalion. Assigned to W.P. Roberts' Brigade, the unit skirmished the Federals in Eastern North Carolina and south of the James River, then was active in the Appomattox operations. During March, 1865, it contained 315 officers and men but surrendered with only 48.
So it would appear that these are 2 different David Calls.
Bubble Boy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,815
- Reaction score
- 451
Less talk of deeds and more talk of lesbians and/or ghosts please!!!
I agree it's probably two different David Calls. It's most likely the first since the timeline is about right for his death and the remarriage of his wife. It's not vital that I get his info, but I like filling in the blanks.
DeaconPeach
Beer me
There were marriage records for Elizabeth & David Call on 8/25/1860 and for Elizabeth & Milton Hobbs on 12/27/1865. I don't know if the first record is for this Elizabeth & David or the other couple with the same names from Davie County...
ETA: disregard the 1860 marriage date - it goes to the OTHER couple not the Elizabeth that went on to marry Dr. Hobbs.
Last edited:
DeaconCav06
Dickie Hemric
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 30,848
- Reaction score
- 4,969
Seriously. A post that starts with "This is interesting" but completely glazes over the lesbian aspect is a failure of a post.
1850 Census
Line 14?
[/IMG]
Could be. I really want to find when he died.
I'm thinking Milt Livengoods parents Bought the property from Milton Hobbs, but can't read 1800s cursive good enough to verify. I can only make out 1/4 of the words.
DeaconPeach
Beer me
1850 Census
Line 14?
[/IMG]
Looks like Dr. Hobbs' Elizabeth Call is sister to the David Call who married the other Elizabeth Call, daughter of John Call & Margaret Sheets, who died in 1922:
Which still makes us wonder just WHO was Elizabeth Call Hobbs' 1st husband & father of her daughter Susan...hopefully not her brother.
DeaconPeach
Beer me
Can you provide the link to the deeds website again & the deed #? I can give it a whirl...
WakeGal
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,633
- Reaction score
- 349
TSY - Call the lady at the bottom of this page. She could likely give you some of the family history that you are talking about. She is extremely nice and loves this - it is her hobby.
Also contact the Salisbury Ghost Walk. They have researched the history and could likely do a lot of the history research and genealogy.
Also contact the Salisbury Ghost Walk. They have researched the history and could likely do a lot of the history research and genealogy.
I'm sending you an email.
So here is my theory. The ghost is Dr Milton Hobbs and he's attached to the land. He was a huge landowner, donated quite a bit of land to the Baptist church, and I uncovered yesterday that after his death, there was a legal battle for the land. His wife was in a battle with his children from his first wife. I'm not sure if he had a will, or if somehow the land wasn't divyed out per his wishes, but that's my theory. Are wills filed at the courthouse, or where will to have to go to find it?
According to a history book I just reread, the house was actually built by ancestors of Dr Hobbs before the Revolutionary War. There is no citation, so it could be wrong, but if true...add another 60 years of history to the house.
I also learned there was a gold mine near my house at one point.
I also learned there was a gold mine near my house at one point.
Also David Call was a non-commissioned officer 1st corporal in Company G 75th NC Calvary 16th battalion during the Civil War. Date of enlistment September 3rd 1862. This was taken from "Roster of NC Troops" by JW Moore and the list of combatants from the NC general assembly.
"16th Cavalry Battalion [also called 75th Regiment-7th Cavalry] was formed in July, 1864, by consolidating the five North Carolina companies of the 7th Confederate Cavalry Regiment, the three North Carolina companies of the 62nd Georgia Cavalry Regiment, a nd Company C of the 12th North Carolina Cavalry Battalion. Assigned to W.P. Roberts' Brigade, the unit skirmished the Federals in Eastern North Carolina and south of the James River, then was active in the Appomattox operations. During March, 1865, it contained 315 officers and men but surrendered with only 48."
Methinks he probably died at the battle of Appomattox.
"16th Cavalry Battalion [also called 75th Regiment-7th Cavalry] was formed in July, 1864, by consolidating the five North Carolina companies of the 7th Confederate Cavalry Regiment, the three North Carolina companies of the 62nd Georgia Cavalry Regiment, a nd Company C of the 12th North Carolina Cavalry Battalion. Assigned to W.P. Roberts' Brigade, the unit skirmished the Federals in Eastern North Carolina and south of the James River, then was active in the Appomattox operations. During March, 1865, it contained 315 officers and men but surrendered with only 48."
Methinks he probably died at the battle of Appomattox.
Last edited:
Apparently Ms Call later Hobbs is no stranger to lawsuits over land.
This was a Civil Action, tried at the Spring Term, 1891, of the Superior Court of Davie County, before Bynum, J.
The plaintiff brought an action for possession of, and offered the deed of an administrator c. t. a. to, the land in controversy, made by virtue of a power contained in the will of David Call, executed in 1838, which power is construed in the case of Orrender v. Call, 101 N. C, 399, together with the will of David Call.
The defendants claim through conveyances from the heirs at law of David Call, and set up, as a ground of affirmative relief, that there was a fraudulent combination or collusive arrangement between the plaintiff and the administrator to prevent a fair competition of bidders at the administrators sale of the land, and that by reason of such collusive combination the plaintiff was enabled to buy at a grossly inadequate price. The defendants ask that the sale be declared fraudulent, and the deed executed in pursuance of it be declared void and cancelled.
There were many circumstances shown tending to prove such fraudulent combination, but as the Court directed a finding on the issues for the defendant, it is not necessary to give in full any testimony but that of the plaintiff. His wife was a daughter of Berry Call and a devisee under his will. He testified as follows: "I was present on the day of sale. Chaffin, the administrator, put up the land for sale; Cornatzer stepped up and forbid the sale, and said he had a deed; Taylor did the same; they stopped the sale; Bailey said they were going to sell the land under the will of David Call, Sr., and if any others had any exceptions, to come up; the lands were then put up; several there; I bid ten dollars on the land; no bid against me; bought the David Call land for five dollars; no other bids; it was knocked off tome; Chaffin did not know I was going to bid: I had no understanding with him.
Orrendeb V. Chaffin.
I signed Chaffin's administration bond; got him to administer; did not talk with counsel about land before sale; I had counsel before sale; got him to examine will; he was also counsel for the administrator Chaffin, and announced the terms of the sale. He said we are going to sell under the will, and asked if others had objections to state it. I paid a low price; there are 61 or 62 acres in the Dave Gall place; there are 28 acres in the Cornatzer place; there are 225 or 230 acres in the John Taylor place: the land worth $300 or $400; I sold it for $500. I got Chaffin to administer and signed his bond; don't know what commissions Chaffin got; I made no arrangements with him to get his pay."'
The issues submitted, with the responses returned by direction of the Court, were as follows:
1. Is the plaintiff the owner of the land in controversy? No.
2. What damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained?
3. Was the sale of the administrator invalid as alleged in the answer? Yes.
The plaintiff and the defendant Chaffin both asked instructions. Among the requests by plaintiff, was one that the burden was upon the defendant Conatzer to prove the fraud alleged, and also a guilty participation in the fraud on the part of the plaintiff Orrender. The Court declined to give the instruction, and directed the jury to respond to the first issue, No, and to the third issue, Yes. To the refusal of the Court to give the instructions asked, and to the ruling in directing the issues to be so found by the jur3', the plaiutff excepted, as also did the defendant Chaffin, and appealed.
Messrs. E. L. Gaither, J. B. Batchelor, John Devereux, Jr., A. E. Holton and T. B. Bailey, for plaintiff. Mr. C. B. Watson, for defendant.
Orrender V. Chaffin.
Avery, J.: The Judge who tried the cause below erred in taking the issues away from the jury and directing what their findings should be.
There is a class of cases, in which the Court may declare that in any aspect of the evidence the party charged was guilty of fraud, and there is often an admitted state of facts which the Court may tell the jury raises a presumption of fraud, and, in the absence of testimony tending to rebut the prima facie proof, the finding of the jury may be directed by the Court. Berry v. Hall, 105 N. C, 163; Woodruff v. Bowles, 104 N. C, 197; Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C, 368; Hardy v. Simpson, 13 Ired., 132: Co*ten v. McDowell, 107 N. C, 546; McLeod v. Bullard, 84 N. C, 51"»; ire v. Pearce, 68 N. C, 76. The case at bar does not fall within either of the classifications mentioned, but involves an issue the affirmative of which it is necessary to sustain by testimony satisfactory to the jury. Bobhitt v. Rodwell, 105 N. C, 236; Harding v. Long, 103 N. C, 1; Lee v. Pearce, supra.
In Berry v. Hall, supra, the Court say that "the fact that an inadequate price was paid is but a circumstance tending to show fraud, and at most is to be considered a badge of fraud that throws suspicion on the transaction and calls for close scrutiny. * * * Proof of gross ii adequacy of price standing alone as a circumstance, in the absence of actual fraud or undue influence, is insufficient to warrant a decree declaring the conveyance void." See also Bump, on Fraud. Con., 76, 77 and 87; Bigelow on Fraud, 136; Kerr on Fraud & M., 1S9; Potter v. Everett, 7 Ired. Eq., 158; Moore v. Reed, 2 Ired. Eq., 580,
In Oshorne v. Wilkes, 108 N. C, 671, this Court said: "Inadequacy of price is not of itself in any case sufficient ground for setting aside a conveyance as fraudulent, but is a suspicious circumstance to be considered in connection with other testimony tending to show fraud in procuring its execution. * * * If additional testimony were offered Orrender V. Chaffin.
tending to show a fraudulent combination to prevent a fair competition of bidders on the part of her husband and others, in which she participated, or of which she had notice before buying, then the jury would be justified in considering the inadequacy of the price paid for the Capps mine in connection with other badges of fraud, and with the fact that she was the wife of the debtor." In that case the Sheriff sold under execution the Capps mine, a tract of land that had once been sold for $13,000, and the wife of the judgmentdebtor bought it for five dollars. The Judge below was asked to charge that there was a presumption of fraud in the purchase of the property, but, in lieu of the instruction asked, charged the jury that if the sale was bona fide, and not made in pursuance of an arrangement between the husband, acting for the wife, and the Sheriff, to defraud creditors by getting property for a small price, it was valid, though $13,000 worth of property was bought for five dollars.
If the testimony was not such as to show fraud in law, to be declared by the Court, and did not raise a presumption that the land was sold by the administrator and bought by the plaintiff in pursuance of a collusive plan concocted by them, at a totally inadequate price, then the small sum paid by the purchaser was but a badge of fraud to be considered by the jury in connection with other suspicious circumstances in passing upon an issue as to the alleged fraudulent combination between the administrator and the plaintiff to prevent a fair competition of bidders, and to enable the latter to buy the land at the sale at a grossly inadequate price, if such issue was fairly raised by the pleadings. In this case, the plaintiff had the right guaranteed to him by the constitution, to demand that the jury should pass upon the issue involving the question of fraud, after appropriate instructions from the Court, and to pass upon the weight of the testimony, and determine whether it was sufficient to satisfy them that there was such a fraudulent combination to preOrrender V. Chaffin.
vent the property from bringing a higher price and to enable the plaintiff to buy it far below its real value. Berry v. Hall, supra. If the administrator acted in good faith, or if Orrender did not participate in any wrongful purpose on the part of Chaffin, but bought the land upon his own judgment and upon advice as to title, despite the claim of Conatzer and his openly forbidding the sale, then the right of Orrender, as a bona fide purchaser, is not impaired or vitiated, because the defendant by his own conduct at the sale enabled him to get the land at a nominal price.
Counsel for the plaintiff contended here (stating that the case was presented in the same way to the Court below), not only that the Judge was warranted in declaring that there was fraud and in taking the case out of the hands of the jury, on the ground that the price paid by the purchaser at execution sale was grossly inadequate, but that the testimony, in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to raise a presumption at least, which was not rebutted by the other evidence, that there was a collusive combination between the administrator Chaffin and the plaintiff Orrender, to cause the land to sell and enable the latter to buy at a price out of proportion to its true market value. In answer to this view of the subject we need not look beyond the testimony of Orrender himself, to which counsel referred us. Orrender concluded his testimony with this statement. "Chaffin did not know I was going to bid; I had no understanding with him." If Orrender is to be believed, there was no combination between the administrator and himself, and he had a right to demand that the jury pass upon his own statement, though the evidence of every other witness had been directly in conflict with it. It is true that there were many circumstances, mentioned by counsel that could have been collected and presented to the jury, as tending to show that Orrender's statement was not true. The facts, that he induced Chaffin to administer, signed his bond,
This was a Civil Action, tried at the Spring Term, 1891, of the Superior Court of Davie County, before Bynum, J.
The plaintiff brought an action for possession of, and offered the deed of an administrator c. t. a. to, the land in controversy, made by virtue of a power contained in the will of David Call, executed in 1838, which power is construed in the case of Orrender v. Call, 101 N. C, 399, together with the will of David Call.
The defendants claim through conveyances from the heirs at law of David Call, and set up, as a ground of affirmative relief, that there was a fraudulent combination or collusive arrangement between the plaintiff and the administrator to prevent a fair competition of bidders at the administrators sale of the land, and that by reason of such collusive combination the plaintiff was enabled to buy at a grossly inadequate price. The defendants ask that the sale be declared fraudulent, and the deed executed in pursuance of it be declared void and cancelled.
There were many circumstances shown tending to prove such fraudulent combination, but as the Court directed a finding on the issues for the defendant, it is not necessary to give in full any testimony but that of the plaintiff. His wife was a daughter of Berry Call and a devisee under his will. He testified as follows: "I was present on the day of sale. Chaffin, the administrator, put up the land for sale; Cornatzer stepped up and forbid the sale, and said he had a deed; Taylor did the same; they stopped the sale; Bailey said they were going to sell the land under the will of David Call, Sr., and if any others had any exceptions, to come up; the lands were then put up; several there; I bid ten dollars on the land; no bid against me; bought the David Call land for five dollars; no other bids; it was knocked off tome; Chaffin did not know I was going to bid: I had no understanding with him.
Orrendeb V. Chaffin.
I signed Chaffin's administration bond; got him to administer; did not talk with counsel about land before sale; I had counsel before sale; got him to examine will; he was also counsel for the administrator Chaffin, and announced the terms of the sale. He said we are going to sell under the will, and asked if others had objections to state it. I paid a low price; there are 61 or 62 acres in the Dave Gall place; there are 28 acres in the Cornatzer place; there are 225 or 230 acres in the John Taylor place: the land worth $300 or $400; I sold it for $500. I got Chaffin to administer and signed his bond; don't know what commissions Chaffin got; I made no arrangements with him to get his pay."'
The issues submitted, with the responses returned by direction of the Court, were as follows:
1. Is the plaintiff the owner of the land in controversy? No.
2. What damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained?
3. Was the sale of the administrator invalid as alleged in the answer? Yes.
The plaintiff and the defendant Chaffin both asked instructions. Among the requests by plaintiff, was one that the burden was upon the defendant Conatzer to prove the fraud alleged, and also a guilty participation in the fraud on the part of the plaintiff Orrender. The Court declined to give the instruction, and directed the jury to respond to the first issue, No, and to the third issue, Yes. To the refusal of the Court to give the instructions asked, and to the ruling in directing the issues to be so found by the jur3', the plaiutff excepted, as also did the defendant Chaffin, and appealed.
Messrs. E. L. Gaither, J. B. Batchelor, John Devereux, Jr., A. E. Holton and T. B. Bailey, for plaintiff. Mr. C. B. Watson, for defendant.
Orrender V. Chaffin.
Avery, J.: The Judge who tried the cause below erred in taking the issues away from the jury and directing what their findings should be.
There is a class of cases, in which the Court may declare that in any aspect of the evidence the party charged was guilty of fraud, and there is often an admitted state of facts which the Court may tell the jury raises a presumption of fraud, and, in the absence of testimony tending to rebut the prima facie proof, the finding of the jury may be directed by the Court. Berry v. Hall, 105 N. C, 163; Woodruff v. Bowles, 104 N. C, 197; Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C, 368; Hardy v. Simpson, 13 Ired., 132: Co*ten v. McDowell, 107 N. C, 546; McLeod v. Bullard, 84 N. C, 51"»; ire v. Pearce, 68 N. C, 76. The case at bar does not fall within either of the classifications mentioned, but involves an issue the affirmative of which it is necessary to sustain by testimony satisfactory to the jury. Bobhitt v. Rodwell, 105 N. C, 236; Harding v. Long, 103 N. C, 1; Lee v. Pearce, supra.
In Berry v. Hall, supra, the Court say that "the fact that an inadequate price was paid is but a circumstance tending to show fraud, and at most is to be considered a badge of fraud that throws suspicion on the transaction and calls for close scrutiny. * * * Proof of gross ii adequacy of price standing alone as a circumstance, in the absence of actual fraud or undue influence, is insufficient to warrant a decree declaring the conveyance void." See also Bump, on Fraud. Con., 76, 77 and 87; Bigelow on Fraud, 136; Kerr on Fraud & M., 1S9; Potter v. Everett, 7 Ired. Eq., 158; Moore v. Reed, 2 Ired. Eq., 580,
In Oshorne v. Wilkes, 108 N. C, 671, this Court said: "Inadequacy of price is not of itself in any case sufficient ground for setting aside a conveyance as fraudulent, but is a suspicious circumstance to be considered in connection with other testimony tending to show fraud in procuring its execution. * * * If additional testimony were offered Orrender V. Chaffin.
tending to show a fraudulent combination to prevent a fair competition of bidders on the part of her husband and others, in which she participated, or of which she had notice before buying, then the jury would be justified in considering the inadequacy of the price paid for the Capps mine in connection with other badges of fraud, and with the fact that she was the wife of the debtor." In that case the Sheriff sold under execution the Capps mine, a tract of land that had once been sold for $13,000, and the wife of the judgmentdebtor bought it for five dollars. The Judge below was asked to charge that there was a presumption of fraud in the purchase of the property, but, in lieu of the instruction asked, charged the jury that if the sale was bona fide, and not made in pursuance of an arrangement between the husband, acting for the wife, and the Sheriff, to defraud creditors by getting property for a small price, it was valid, though $13,000 worth of property was bought for five dollars.
If the testimony was not such as to show fraud in law, to be declared by the Court, and did not raise a presumption that the land was sold by the administrator and bought by the plaintiff in pursuance of a collusive plan concocted by them, at a totally inadequate price, then the small sum paid by the purchaser was but a badge of fraud to be considered by the jury in connection with other suspicious circumstances in passing upon an issue as to the alleged fraudulent combination between the administrator and the plaintiff to prevent a fair competition of bidders, and to enable the latter to buy the land at the sale at a grossly inadequate price, if such issue was fairly raised by the pleadings. In this case, the plaintiff had the right guaranteed to him by the constitution, to demand that the jury should pass upon the issue involving the question of fraud, after appropriate instructions from the Court, and to pass upon the weight of the testimony, and determine whether it was sufficient to satisfy them that there was such a fraudulent combination to preOrrender V. Chaffin.
vent the property from bringing a higher price and to enable the plaintiff to buy it far below its real value. Berry v. Hall, supra. If the administrator acted in good faith, or if Orrender did not participate in any wrongful purpose on the part of Chaffin, but bought the land upon his own judgment and upon advice as to title, despite the claim of Conatzer and his openly forbidding the sale, then the right of Orrender, as a bona fide purchaser, is not impaired or vitiated, because the defendant by his own conduct at the sale enabled him to get the land at a nominal price.
Counsel for the plaintiff contended here (stating that the case was presented in the same way to the Court below), not only that the Judge was warranted in declaring that there was fraud and in taking the case out of the hands of the jury, on the ground that the price paid by the purchaser at execution sale was grossly inadequate, but that the testimony, in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to raise a presumption at least, which was not rebutted by the other evidence, that there was a collusive combination between the administrator Chaffin and the plaintiff Orrender, to cause the land to sell and enable the latter to buy at a price out of proportion to its true market value. In answer to this view of the subject we need not look beyond the testimony of Orrender himself, to which counsel referred us. Orrender concluded his testimony with this statement. "Chaffin did not know I was going to bid; I had no understanding with him." If Orrender is to be believed, there was no combination between the administrator and himself, and he had a right to demand that the jury pass upon his own statement, though the evidence of every other witness had been directly in conflict with it. It is true that there were many circumstances, mentioned by counsel that could have been collected and presented to the jury, as tending to show that Orrender's statement was not true. The facts, that he induced Chaffin to administer, signed his bond,