Daughter of Delmar Glenn Kirkpatrick and Arline Lemons. Illinois, Deaths and Stillbirths Index, 1916-1947: Name: Glenna Jean Kirkpatrick Titles and Terms (Original): Event Date: 18 Apr 1935 Event Place: Du Quoin, Perry, Illinois Gender: Female Marital Status: Race: Age: 0 Birth Year (Estimated): 1935 Birth Date: 18 Apr 1935 Birthplace: Du Quoin, Perry, Illinois Father's Name: Delmar Glenn Kirkpatrick Father's Titles and Terms: Father's Birthplace: Franklin County Mother's Name: Arline Lemons Mother's Titles and Terms: Mother's Birthplace: Jefferson County Occupation: Residence Place: Scheller, Illinois Address: Spouse's Name: Spouse's Titles and Terms (Original): Spouse's Birthplace: Burial Date: 18 Apr 1935 Burial Place: Cemetery: Sh... Informant's Name: Additional Relatives: Digital Folder Number: 4008376 Image Number: 2092 GS Film number: 1753855 Reference ID: 723.

Forgot to send this. Arline Lemons married Delmar Glenn Kirkpatrick December 21, 1931, Franklin County, Illinois.

The Daily Commercial, Leesburg, FL, February 27, 2005 Arline L. Kirkpatrick , 94, of Mount Dora died Tuesday, February 22, 2005. She was born on January 4, 1911 in Jefferson County, Ill. She moved to Central Florida from Zanesville, Ohio in 1964. Mrs. Kirkpatrick was a retired secretary and a member of the First Baptist Church of Mount Dora. She was also a member of the Mount Dora Golf Association and the Y.M.C.A. Mrs. Kirkpatrick was preceded in death by her husband, D.G. Kirkpatrick , three infant daughters and seven brothers and sisters. She is survived by nieces nephews and many dear friends. Visitation for Mrs. Kirkpatrick will be from 4:00-7:00 PM on Monday, February 28, 2005 at the Allen J. Harden Funeral Home Chapel, Mount Dora. Graveside services will be at 11:00 AM on Saturday, March 5, 2005 at Horse Prairie Cemetery in Sesser, Ill. Arrangements handled by Allen J. Harden Funeral Home, 1800 North Donnelly Street, Mount Dora, Florida. 352-383-8178. www.allenjharden.com.

Thank you... I have this added information. Mary 1860 Gallatin County, IL Census, HH#1326 John C. Mercer 39 KY Helen R. Germain 38 KY David J. C. Germain 16 KY 1870 Franklin County, IL Census, Frankfort Township, HH#216/220 William B. Finney 59 TN Helen Finney 48 KY Emily Finney 18 IL John Finney 17 IL Margaret Finney 15 IL Lycurgus Hall 21 IL 1880 Franklin County, IL Census, Cave Township, HH#488/492 William R. Finney 69 TN NC SC Helin R. Finney 57 KY KY SC Edward German 11 IL KY IL gson John C. Mercer 60 KY NC SC Caroline Mercer 54 IN NC SC William T. Mercer 14 IL KY IN David B. Mercer 10 IL KY IN Laura Harrell 30 IL IN IN St. dau ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Sheila Cadwalader <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ILFRANKL] William B. & Helen Finney and Almedius Williams Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:47:31 -0400 William B Finney's first wife was Nancy McFall. William B Finney and Helen German were married 04 Feb 1864 in Franklin County, IL 10 Apr 1877 Williams, Almedeous D W* Finney*, Helen R Mercer 60/77/3TN60/66/3KY Wlliams, M/W D Mercer, James Buford, EmelineBrooks, Mary On 3/11/2014 4:35 PM, zandz wrote: > Are there any researchers in the Almedius David Washington WILLIAMS family? > Who is W. H. WILLIAMS listed below? > > Almedius Williams is the son of Marmaduke Williams. > Morgan WILLIAMS and Silas Mercer WILLIAMS are brothers of Marmaduke WILLIAMS. > > Mary > > The North Eastern Reporter contains published U.S. state appellate court case decisions for: > Illinois > Indiana > Massachusetts > New York > Ohio > > Page 617-619 The Northeastern Reporter, Volume 24 (Googlebooks.com) > April 22, 1890 - Franklin County, IL (W. H. Williams for appellants) > > Counsel for appellees claim that a freehold was involved in the case, and for that this reason the appeal was properly dismissed. On April 27, 1881, William B. FINNEY and Helen R. FINNEY, his wife, conveyed the 120 acres in controversy in the suit to the appellants, Lawrence MOORE and Margaret MOORE, his wife, the latter being the daughter of William B. FINNEY. > > The deed contained the following provisions, to wit: "The consideration of this deed is that the grantees herein shall provide for the wants of and take care of, the grantors, during their natural lives. It is further agreed that this deed is not to exclude H. R. FINNEY, wife of the said William B. FINNEY, of her rights under and by virtue of the homestead laws of this state." William B. FINNEY died intestate on May 25,1881, leaving Helen R. FINNEY in possession of said land. She continued in such possession until April 10,1887, when she married A. D. W. WILLIAMS, and moved away from the premises to the home of said WILLIAMS, where she continued to reside with him for about one year. > > The original bill in this case was filed by the appellants, Lawrence and Margaret MOORE, against Helen R. WILLIAMS and Jack ADAMS, her tenant, the appellees herein, for the purpose of extinguishing the homestead right of Helen R. Williams on the ground that she had abandoned her homestead, or, in case there was not such an abandonment, for the purpose of setting off her homestead. After answering the original bill, Helen R. WILLIAMS filed her cross-bill against the MOORES, alleging that the land had been conveyed to them in pursuance of a contract between them and her first husband and herself, by the terms of which they agreed to take care of her and her husband, and provide for their wants, during their lives, etc.; that the MOORES had wholly failed to keep their contract; and that she has been cared for and supported by her friends, and by her own efforts; and praying that an accounting be had to determine the amount due her from the MOORES on account of their failure s! o ! > to provide for her, and that they be required to pay said sum, and, in default thereof, that the same be a lien on the land, and that the land be sold, etc. After demurrer overruled, the MOORES answered the cross-bill, denying all its allegations. The decree of the circuit court found that appellee had abandoned her homestead, and ordered that all her homestead interest in the premises be extinguished, and that the appellants be invested with the title, and be put in possession, etc.; but the decree also found that the allegations of the cross-bill were sustained by the proofs, and that there was due to appellee from the MOORES the sum of $600 for failure to provide for her wants, and take care of her, from May 25,1881, to April 10,1887, and ordered that they pay her this sum within 30 days, and that the same be a lien on the land, and that in default of payment the premises be sold, etc. We pass no opinion upon the correctness or incorrectness of this decree, or of the ! ple! > adings, or of the issues made thereon. The decree further provided "th > at any of the parties to this suit may have an appeal from this decree upon entering into bond," etc. The appellee Helen R. WILLIAMS took no appeal from the decree. The MOORES, appellants here, took an appeal therefrom to the appellate court. > > The position of appellees is that the question involved in the case was whether Mrs. WILLIAMS had a homestead in the land or not; that a homestead estate is a life-estate, and therefore a freehold; and that the appeal ought to have been taken from the circuit court to this court, instead of being taken to the appellate court. If it be admitted that a freehold was thus involved, it does not follow that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to pass upon the matters submitted to it by the appeal. This suit below was a double suit. One issue was made upon the original bill and answer. The issue so made was whether Mrs. Williams had a homestead or not. The decree found this issue against her, and in favor of the MOORES. Another issue was made upon the crossbill, and the answer thereto. The issue so made was whether anything was due Mrs. Williams on an accounting, and, if so, how much. The decree found this issue in her favor, and against the MOORES. The MOORES only appealed f! ro! > m that part of the decree which found against them on the issue made by the cross-bill. They did not appeal from that part of the decree which found in their favor upon the issue made upon the original bill. It is true that the decree does not distinguish as specifically as it ought to do between the original suit and the cross-suit. But the language of the appeal-bond given by the MOORES, and the errors assigned by them in the appellate court, show clearly that they only appealed from the part of the decree requiring them to pay $600, the amount found due on the accounting prayed for in the cross-bill. The position of the decree disposing of the issue made as to the homestead on the original bill was not before the appellate court. No freehold was involved in the issue presented to the appellate court by the assignments of error. The first assignment of error is that the circuit court overruled the demurrer to the cross-bill; the second, that it did not dismiss the cros! s-b! > ill; the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh, that the decree req > uiring the payment of $600 was wrong in certain specified particulars. The appeal properly lay to the appellate court from a decree ordering the payment of a specific sum of money. Nor can it be said that an acceptance by appellants of the relief granted to them on the original bill was in any sense a waiver of their right to ask for a review of the decree granting to appellee the relief asked by her cross-bill. This court has lately held "that, although a freehold may have been involved in the suit, and in the decree therein rendered, yet, if no objection is taken to that part of the decree relating to the freehold, an appeal from or writ of error that brings up another part of the same decree, having no relation to the question of freehold, will not lie to bring the record directly from the circuit to the supreme court." > ____________________________________________________________ > The #1 worst carb EVER (avoid) > This health food causes fat gain, wild energy & blood sugar swings > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/531f73b387b3773b23bfbst02duc > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ____________________________________________________________ Never Eat This Carb Literally Never! 1 Easy Tip to Increase Fat Burning, Lower Blood Sugar http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/531fb2ff233b232fe0455st02duc

Does anyone know the parents of these two WILLIAMS children? Mary ****************************************** 1860 Franklin Co., IL Census - 6S3E Thadius Rountree 23 NY Farner Elizabeth J. (Williams) Rountree 21 IL Housekeeper Jane G. Rountree 1 IL Charles Hathaway 28 NY House carpenter Garland A. Williams 9 IL (Who is this?) Mary F. Williams 6 IL (Who is this?) ******************************************* ____________________________________________________________ NetZero now offers 4G mobile broadband. Sign up now. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT1

BENTON -- Sean Eugene Baker, 45, died Sunday, March 9, 2014, in Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis. Services will be at 7 p.m. Saturday in Morton and Johnston Funeral Home in Benton, with the Rev. Mark Minor officiating. Visitation will be from 5 to 7 p.m. Saturday at the funeral home. Memorials may be made to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital or Hospice of the Good Samaritan. Published in The Southern Illinoisan on Mar. 12, 2014

Donald Eugene Baker, 78, died at 2:15 p.m. Sunday, March 9, 2014, in Stonebridge Senior Living Center. Services will be at 7 p.m. Saturday in Morton and Johnston Funeral Home in Benton, with the Rev. Mark Minor officiating. Visitation will be from 5 to 7 p.m. Saturday at the funeral home. Memorials may be made to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital or Hospice of the Good Samaritan. Published in The Southern Illinoisan on Mar. 12, 2014

Are there any researchers in the Almedius David Washington WILLIAMS family? Who is W. H. WILLIAMS listed below? Almedius Williams is the son of Marmaduke Williams. Morgan WILLIAMS and Silas Mercer WILLIAMS are brothers of Marmaduke WILLIAMS. Mary The North Eastern Reporter contains published U.S. state appellate court case decisions for: Illinois Indiana Massachusetts New York Ohio Page 617-619 The Northeastern Reporter, Volume 24 (Googlebooks.com) April 22, 1890 - Franklin County, IL (W. H. Williams for appellants) Counsel for appellees claim that a freehold was involved in the case, and for that this reason the appeal was properly dismissed. On April 27, 1881, William B. FINNEY and Helen R. FINNEY, his wife, conveyed the 120 acres in controversy in the suit to the appellants, Lawrence MOORE and Margaret MOORE, his wife, the latter being the daughter of William B. FINNEY. The deed contained the following provisions, to wit: "The consideration of this deed is that the grantees herein shall provide for the wants of and take care of, the grantors, during their natural lives. It is further agreed that this deed is not to exclude H. R. FINNEY, wife of the said William B. FINNEY, of her rights under and by virtue of the homestead laws of this state." William B. FINNEY died intestate on May 25,1881, leaving Helen R. FINNEY in possession of said land. She continued in such possession until April 10,1887, when she married A. D. W. WILLIAMS, and moved away from the premises to the home of said WILLIAMS, where she continued to reside with him for about one year. The original bill in this case was filed by the appellants, Lawrence and Margaret MOORE, against Helen R. WILLIAMS and Jack ADAMS, her tenant, the appellees herein, for the purpose of extinguishing the homestead right of Helen R. Williams on the ground that she had abandoned her homestead, or, in case there was not such an abandonment, for the purpose of setting off her homestead. After answering the original bill, Helen R. WILLIAMS filed her cross-bill against the MOORES, alleging that the land had been conveyed to them in pursuance of a contract between them and her first husband and herself, by the terms of which they agreed to take care of her and her husband, and provide for their wants, during their lives, etc.; that the MOORES had wholly failed to keep their contract; and that she has been cared for and supported by her friends, and by her own efforts; and praying that an accounting be had to determine the amount due her from the MOORES on account of their failure so ! to provide for her, and that they be required to pay said sum, and, in default thereof, that the same be a lien on the land, and that the land be sold, etc. After demurrer overruled, the MOORES answered the cross-bill, denying all its allegations. The decree of the circuit court found that appellee had abandoned her homestead, and ordered that all her homestead interest in the premises be extinguished, and that the appellants be invested with the title, and be put in possession, etc.; but the decree also found that the allegations of the cross-bill were sustained by the proofs, and that there was due to appellee from the MOORES the sum of $600 for failure to provide for her wants, and take care of her, from May 25,1881, to April 10,1887, and ordered that they pay her this sum within 30 days, and that the same be a lien on the land, and that in default of payment the premises be sold, etc. We pass no opinion upon the correctness or incorrectness of this decree, or of the ple! adings, or of the issues made thereon. The decree further prov! ided "th at any of the parties to this suit may have an appeal from this decree upon entering into bond," etc. The appellee Helen R. WILLIAMS took no appeal from the decree. The MOORES, appellants here, took an appeal therefrom to the appellate court. The position of appellees is that the question involved in the case was whether Mrs. WILLIAMS had a homestead in the land or not; that a homestead estate is a life-estate, and therefore a freehold; and that the appeal ought to have been taken from the circuit court to this court, instead of being taken to the appellate court. If it be admitted that a freehold was thus involved, it does not follow that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to pass upon the matters submitted to it by the appeal. This suit below was a double suit. One issue was made upon the original bill and answer. The issue so made was whether Mrs. Williams had a homestead or not. The decree found this issue against her, and in favor of the MOORES. Another issue was made upon the crossbill, and the answer thereto. The issue so made was whether anything was due Mrs. Williams on an accounting, and, if so, how much. The decree found this issue in her favor, and against the MOORES. The MOORES only appealed fro! m that part of the decree which found against them on the issue made by the cross-bill. They did not appeal from that part of the decree which found in their favor upon the issue made upon the original bill. It is true that the decree does not distinguish as specifically as it ought to do between the original suit and the cross-suit. But the language of the appeal-bond given by the MOORES, and the errors assigned by them in the appellate court, show clearly that they only appealed from the part of the decree requiring them to pay $600, the amount found due on the accounting prayed for in the cross-bill. The position of the decree disposing of the issue made as to the homestead on the original bill was not before the appellate court. No freehold was involved in the issue presented to the appellate court by the assignments of error. The first assignment of error is that the circuit court overruled the demurrer to the cross-bill; the second, that it did not dismiss the cross-b! ill; the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh, that the de! cree req uiring the payment of $600 was wrong in certain specified particulars. The appeal properly lay to the appellate court from a decree ordering the payment of a specific sum of money. Nor can it be said that an acceptance by appellants of the relief granted to them on the original bill was in any sense a waiver of their right to ask for a review of the decree granting to appellee the relief asked by her cross-bill. This court has lately held "that, although a freehold may have been involved in the suit, and in the decree therein rendered, yet, if no objection is taken to that part of the decree relating to the freehold, an appeal from or writ of error that brings up another part of the same decree, having no relation to the question of freehold, will not lie to bring the record directly from the circuit to the supreme court." ____________________________________________________________ The #1 worst carb EVER (avoid) This health food causes fat gain, wild energy & blood sugar swings http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/531f73b387b3773b23bfbst02duc

William B Finney's first wife was Nancy McFall. William B Finney and Helen German were married 04 Feb 1864 in Franklin County, IL 10 Apr 1877 Williams, Almedeous D W* Finney*, Helen R Mercer 60/77/3TN60/66/3KY Wlliams, M/W D Mercer, James Buford, EmelineBrooks, Mary On 3/11/2014 4:35 PM, zandz wrote: > Are there any researchers in the Almedius David Washington WILLIAMS family? > Who is W. H. WILLIAMS listed below? > > Almedius Williams is the son of Marmaduke Williams. > Morgan WILLIAMS and Silas Mercer WILLIAMS are brothers of Marmaduke WILLIAMS. > > Mary > > The North Eastern Reporter contains published U.S. state appellate court case decisions for: > Illinois > Indiana > Massachusetts > New York > Ohio > > Page 617-619 The Northeastern Reporter, Volume 24 (Googlebooks.com) > April 22, 1890 - Franklin County, IL (W. H. Williams for appellants) > > Counsel for appellees claim that a freehold was involved in the case, and for that this reason the appeal was properly dismissed. On April 27, 1881, William B. FINNEY and Helen R. FINNEY, his wife, conveyed the 120 acres in controversy in the suit to the appellants, Lawrence MOORE and Margaret MOORE, his wife, the latter being the daughter of William B. FINNEY. > > The deed contained the following provisions, to wit: "The consideration of this deed is that the grantees herein shall provide for the wants of and take care of, the grantors, during their natural lives. It is further agreed that this deed is not to exclude H. R. FINNEY, wife of the said William B. FINNEY, of her rights under and by virtue of the homestead laws of this state." William B. FINNEY died intestate on May 25,1881, leaving Helen R. FINNEY in possession of said land. She continued in such possession until April 10,1887, when she married A. D. W. WILLIAMS, and moved away from the premises to the home of said WILLIAMS, where she continued to reside with him for about one year. > > The original bill in this case was filed by the appellants, Lawrence and Margaret MOORE, against Helen R. WILLIAMS and Jack ADAMS, her tenant, the appellees herein, for the purpose of extinguishing the homestead right of Helen R. Williams on the ground that she had abandoned her homestead, or, in case there was not such an abandonment, for the purpose of setting off her homestead. After answering the original bill, Helen R. WILLIAMS filed her cross-bill against the MOORES, alleging that the land had been conveyed to them in pursuance of a contract between them and her first husband and herself, by the terms of which they agreed to take care of her and her husband, and provide for their wants, during their lives, etc.; that the MOORES had wholly failed to keep their contract; and that she has been cared for and supported by her friends, and by her own efforts; and praying that an accounting be had to determine the amount due her from the MOORES on account of their failure so ! > to provide for her, and that they be required to pay said sum, and, in default thereof, that the same be a lien on the land, and that the land be sold, etc. After demurrer overruled, the MOORES answered the cross-bill, denying all its allegations. The decree of the circuit court found that appellee had abandoned her homestead, and ordered that all her homestead interest in the premises be extinguished, and that the appellants be invested with the title, and be put in possession, etc.; but the decree also found that the allegations of the cross-bill were sustained by the proofs, and that there was due to appellee from the MOORES the sum of $600 for failure to provide for her wants, and take care of her, from May 25,1881, to April 10,1887, and ordered that they pay her this sum within 30 days, and that the same be a lien on the land, and that in default of payment the premises be sold, etc. We pass no opinion upon the correctness or incorrectness of this decree, or of the ple! > adings, or of the issues made thereon. The decree further provided "th > at any of the parties to this suit may have an appeal from this decree upon entering into bond," etc. The appellee Helen R. WILLIAMS took no appeal from the decree. The MOORES, appellants here, took an appeal therefrom to the appellate court. > > The position of appellees is that the question involved in the case was whether Mrs. WILLIAMS had a homestead in the land or not; that a homestead estate is a life-estate, and therefore a freehold; and that the appeal ought to have been taken from the circuit court to this court, instead of being taken to the appellate court. If it be admitted that a freehold was thus involved, it does not follow that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to pass upon the matters submitted to it by the appeal. This suit below was a double suit. One issue was made upon the original bill and answer. The issue so made was whether Mrs. Williams had a homestead or not. The decree found this issue against her, and in favor of the MOORES. Another issue was made upon the crossbill, and the answer thereto. The issue so made was whether anything was due Mrs. Williams on an accounting, and, if so, how much. The decree found this issue in her favor, and against the MOORES. The MOORES only appealed fro! > m that part of the decree which found against them on the issue made by the cross-bill. They did not appeal from that part of the decree which found in their favor upon the issue made upon the original bill. It is true that the decree does not distinguish as specifically as it ought to do between the original suit and the cross-suit. But the language of the appeal-bond given by the MOORES, and the errors assigned by them in the appellate court, show clearly that they only appealed from the part of the decree requiring them to pay $600, the amount found due on the accounting prayed for in the cross-bill. The position of the decree disposing of the issue made as to the homestead on the original bill was not before the appellate court. No freehold was involved in the issue presented to the appellate court by the assignments of error. The first assignment of error is that the circuit court overruled the demurrer to the cross-bill; the second, that it did not dismiss the cross-b! > ill; the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh, that the decree req > uiring the payment of $600 was wrong in certain specified particulars. The appeal properly lay to the appellate court from a decree ordering the payment of a specific sum of money. Nor can it be said that an acceptance by appellants of the relief granted to them on the original bill was in any sense a waiver of their right to ask for a review of the decree granting to appellee the relief asked by her cross-bill. This court has lately held "that, although a freehold may have been involved in the suit, and in the decree therein rendered, yet, if no objection is taken to that part of the decree relating to the freehold, an appeal from or writ of error that brings up another part of the same decree, having no relation to the question of freehold, will not lie to bring the record directly from the circuit to the supreme court." > ____________________________________________________________ > The #1 worst carb EVER (avoid) > This health food causes fat gain, wild energy & blood sugar swings > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/531f73b387b3773b23bfbst02duc > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

Not a WILLIAMS....but the sellers, William B Finney and Lawrence Moore and his wife, Margaret Finney Moore are relatives of mine. On 3/11/2014 4:35 PM, zandz wrote: > Are there any researchers in the Almedius David Washington WILLIAMS family? > Who is W. H. WILLIAMS listed below? > > Almedius Williams is the son of Marmaduke Williams. > Morgan WILLIAMS and Silas Mercer WILLIAMS are brothers of Marmaduke WILLIAMS. > > Mary > > The North Eastern Reporter contains published U.S. state appellate court case decisions for: > Illinois > Indiana > Massachusetts > New York > Ohio > > Page 617-619 The Northeastern Reporter, Volume 24 (Googlebooks.com) > April 22, 1890 - Franklin County, IL (W. H. Williams for appellants) > > Counsel for appellees claim that a freehold was involved in the case, and for that this reason the appeal was properly dismissed. On April 27, 1881, William B. FINNEY and Helen R. FINNEY, his wife, conveyed the 120 acres in controversy in the suit to the appellants, Lawrence MOORE and Margaret MOORE, his wife, the latter being the daughter of William B. FINNEY. > > The deed contained the following provisions, to wit: "The consideration of this deed is that the grantees herein shall provide for the wants of and take care of, the grantors, during their natural lives. It is further agreed that this deed is not to exclude H. R. FINNEY, wife of the said William B. FINNEY, of her rights under and by virtue of the homestead laws of this state." William B. FINNEY died intestate on May 25,1881, leaving Helen R. FINNEY in possession of said land. She continued in such possession until April 10,1887, when she married A. D. W. WILLIAMS, and moved away from the premises to the home of said WILLIAMS, where she continued to reside with him for about one year. > > The original bill in this case was filed by the appellants, Lawrence and Margaret MOORE, against Helen R. WILLIAMS and Jack ADAMS, her tenant, the appellees herein, for the purpose of extinguishing the homestead right of Helen R. Williams on the ground that she had abandoned her homestead, or, in case there was not such an abandonment, for the purpose of setting off her homestead. After answering the original bill, Helen R. WILLIAMS filed her cross-bill against the MOORES, alleging that the land had been conveyed to them in pursuance of a contract between them and her first husband and herself, by the terms of which they agreed to take care of her and her husband, and provide for their wants, during their lives, etc.; that the MOORES had wholly failed to keep their contract; and that she has been cared for and supported by her friends, and by her own efforts; and praying that an accounting be had to determine the amount due her from the MOORES on account of their failure s! o ! > to provide for her, and that they be required to pay said sum, and, in default thereof, that the same be a lien on the land, and that the land be sold, etc. After demurrer overruled, the MOORES answered the cross-bill, denying all its allegations. The decree of the circuit court found that appellee had abandoned her homestead, and ordered that all her homestead interest in the premises be extinguished, and that the appellants be invested with the title, and be put in possession, etc.; but the decree also found that the allegations of the cross-bill were sustained by the proofs, and that there was due to appellee from the MOORES the sum of $600 for failure to provide for her wants, and take care of her, from May 25,1881, to April 10,1887, and ordered that they pay her this sum within 30 days, and that the same be a lien on the land, and that in default of payment the premises be sold, etc. We pass no opinion upon the correctness or incorrectness of this decree, or of the ! ple! > adings, or of the issues made thereon. The decree further provided "th > at any of the parties to this suit may have an appeal from this decree upon entering into bond," etc. The appellee Helen R. WILLIAMS took no appeal from the decree. The MOORES, appellants here, took an appeal therefrom to the appellate court. > > The position of appellees is that the question involved in the case was whether Mrs. WILLIAMS had a homestead in the land or not; that a homestead estate is a life-estate, and therefore a freehold; and that the appeal ought to have been taken from the circuit court to this court, instead of being taken to the appellate court. If it be admitted that a freehold was thus involved, it does not follow that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to pass upon the matters submitted to it by the appeal. This suit below was a double suit. One issue was made upon the original bill and answer. The issue so made was whether Mrs. Williams had a homestead or not. The decree found this issue against her, and in favor of the MOORES. Another issue was made upon the crossbill, and the answer thereto. The issue so made was whether anything was due Mrs. Williams on an accounting, and, if so, how much. The decree found this issue in her favor, and against the MOORES. The MOORES only appealed f! ro! > m that part of the decree which found against them on the issue made by the cross-bill. They did not appeal from that part of the decree which found in their favor upon the issue made upon the original bill. It is true that the decree does not distinguish as specifically as it ought to do between the original suit and the cross-suit. But the language of the appeal-bond given by the MOORES, and the errors assigned by them in the appellate court, show clearly that they only appealed from the part of the decree requiring them to pay $600, the amount found due on the accounting prayed for in the cross-bill. The position of the decree disposing of the issue made as to the homestead on the original bill was not before the appellate court. No freehold was involved in the issue presented to the appellate court by the assignments of error. The first assignment of error is that the circuit court overruled the demurrer to the cross-bill; the second, that it did not dismiss the cros! s-b! > ill; the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh, that the decree req > uiring the payment of $600 was wrong in certain specified particulars. The appeal properly lay to the appellate court from a decree ordering the payment of a specific sum of money. Nor can it be said that an acceptance by appellants of the relief granted to them on the original bill was in any sense a waiver of their right to ask for a review of the decree granting to appellee the relief asked by her cross-bill. This court has lately held "that, although a freehold may have been involved in the suit, and in the decree therein rendered, yet, if no objection is taken to that part of the decree relating to the freehold, an appeal from or writ of error that brings up another part of the same decree, having no relation to the question of freehold, will not lie to bring the record directly from the circuit to the supreme court." > ____________________________________________________________ > The #1 worst carb EVER (avoid) > This health food causes fat gain, wild energy & blood sugar swings > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/531f73b387b3773b23bfbst02duc > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

John Edward Pavlak, age 42, of DuQuoin, IL, passed away on Monday, March 10, 2014 at 3:12 p.m. in Marshall Browning Hospital Emergency Room, DuQuoin, IL. John was born on August 17, 1971 in Geneva, IL, the son of Arthur Pavlak and Jacqueline (Tilley) Carter. John was a member of the Gospel Assembly Church, DuQuoin, IL. He worked as a truck driver for many years, was an avid fisherman, enjoyed camping, swimming, boating and being outdoors. Most of all John enjoyed spending time with his family, especially his children. Survivors include his mother, Jackie Carter of Mulkeytown, IL; wife, Heather Woodcock of DuQuoin, IL; one son, Logan Pavlak of DuQuoin, IL; one daughter, Katie May Pavlak of DuQuoin, IL; one brother, Phillip (Leslie) Carter of Springville, AL; two sisters, Lisa Fleming of Mulkeytown, IL and Jamie Carter of DuQuoin, IL; two nieces, Sydney Fleming and Morgan Carter; two nephews, Jacob and Jared Carter; and numerous aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends. He was preceded in death by his father, Arthur Pavlak; stepfather, Charles “Chuck” Carter; and his grandparents. Funeral services will be held at Pyatt Funeral Home, DuQuoin, IL on Friday, March 14, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. with Pastor Gaylen Holden officiating. In keeping with John’s wishes, cremation rites will be accorded following the funeral service. Friends may call at Pyatt Funeral Home, DuQuoin, IL on Thursday from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. and on Friday at the funeral home from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. Memorial donation can be made to the family of John Pavlak.

Edna L. Banister Hill daughter of John Banister and Addie Gladys Vaughn. Married Dorris Clifford Hill December 23, 1945. Edna is part of my Bradley family. Part of her ancestry is listed below. Clifford Hill is part of my Lewis and Christian families. Bob The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Edna L. Hill, 79, died Monday. Visitation 10 to 11 a.m. Thursday with funeral following at Paynic Home For Funerals in Rosewood Heights. Burial at Horse Prairie Cemetery in Sesser. Memorials to the Alzheimer's Association or Eden Village Retirement Center in Glen Carbon. Social Security Death Index: Name: Edna Hill State of Issue: Indiana Date of Birth: Tuesday June 03, 1924 Date of Death: Monday February 23, 2004 Est. Age at Death: 79 years, 8 months, 20 days Confirmation: Verified Last known residence: East Alton Madison Illinois 62024. Edna d/o John Banister and Addie Gladys Vaughn John s/o I. F. Banister and Marian McCannon Gladys d/o Rabrum Clyde Vaughn and Mary Pearl Spann Clyde s/o Thomas Wiley Vaughn and Elizabeth A. Cockrum Pear d/o Jesse Barnett Spann and Missouri Florence Bradley Jesse s/o Solomon C. Spann and Clarinda Whitlatch Florence d/o William Penn Bradley and Lenora A Harris Wm. s/o David Robert Ewing Alexander Dunn Bradley and Elizabeth Kirby/Brazier David s/o Cornelius Bradley and Mary Hogan Lenora d/o Wm. Harris and (UNK.)

The Southern Illinoisan, Tuesday, October 24, 1967 ETHEL EATON OF SESSER DIES IN MT. VERNON Ethel Eaton, 81, of Sesser died Monday night at Good Samariton Hopital, Mt. Vernon. She was born Dec. 12, 1885, the daughter of William and Harriet Boswell Eaton. She was a member of the First Baptist Church of Sesser. Miss Eaton leaves several nieces and nephews. Funeral services will be at 2 p.m. Wednesday at the Brayfield Funeral Home, Sesser. The Rev. E. A. Somers will officiate. Burial will be in Horse Prairie Cemetery, east of Sesser. Friends may call at the funeral home after 7 p.m. today.

The Southern Illinoisan, Friday, June 16, 1967 MRS. COCKRUM, FORMER SESSER RESIDENT, DIES Mrs. Grace Cockrum 74, former Sesser resident, died at 10 a.m. Thursday in the Springfield Memorial Hospital. She had been living in Auburn. She was born Sept. 4, 1892, in Benton, daughter of Monroe and Ellen Hutchins Batts. Her husband, Francis Marion Cockrum, died in 1962. Mrs. Cockrum leaves her sons, Denzil of Decatur, Marion of Auburn and Raymond of Rt. 1, Granite City; a daughter, Mr. Mildred Mabus of Sesser; a sister, Mrs. Olean Hart of Marion; nine grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. Funeral services will be at 2 p.m. Sunday in the Brayfield Funeral Chapel, Sesser, with the Rev. Wesley Odle officiating. Burial will be in Horse Prairie Cemetery northeast of Sesser. Friends may call after 4 p.m. Saturday at the funeral home.

Lendell Conner b. August 2, 1921; d. February 9, 1996, son of Isaac Conner and Addie Dethrow; married Maxine (Lewis) Rentfrow December 18, 1954. Lendell is buried at Horse Prairie Cemetery, Barren Township, FCI. The Tampa Tribune, Tampa, FL, February 11, 1996 LENDELL H. CONNER , 74, of Frostproof died Friday at the Florida Walker Hospital in Avon Park. A native of Jefferson County, Ill., he moved to this area 12 years ago from Mulkeytown, Ill. He was a miner, a farmer, attended the First Baptist Church and a member of the Masons in Sesser, Ill. He is survived by his wife, Maxine; two daughters, Patsy Sondag of Valmeyer, Ill., and Edith Greenwood of Mulkeytown, Ill.; two brothers, Wesley and Joseph, both of Benton, Ill.; and a sister, Lucille Houseworth of Ewing, Ill. Marion Nelson Funeral Home, Frostproof.

Kenneth R. Wooters, 73 of Sandoval, passed Sunday, March 9, 2014 away at his home. The Sutherland-Garnier Funeral Home in Centralia is assisting the Wooters Family with arrangements, where friends may inquire for further information.

Charles E. Jones 89-year-old McLeansboro native, Charles E. Jones of Urbana, IL died Dec. 2.  A veteran of WW II, he was elected Hamilton County Circuit Judge in 1954 and was re-elected in 1958 and 1964. In 1964, he was elected as at-large judge for the 12 counties of the Second Judicial Circuit. In 1971, he was assigned by the Illinois Supreme Court to the 37-county 5th District Appellate Court. In 1974, he was elected an Appellate Judge for that court, where he served until April 30, 1987. When he retired from the bench, he had served as a judge in Illinois for 32 1/2 years.  Following his retirement, he became a trustee in bankruptcy matters for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Benton, IL for 12 years. During that period, he also served as an arbitrator for the National Association of Securities Dealers through its Chicago office. Survivors include his wife, Doris; a son, Paul Burt Jones and wife, Chely; and his granddaughter, Caroline Roxanne; and his daughter, Sarah Winifred Olenick and her husband Robert. A graveside service for Charles E. Jones will be 2 p.m. Saturday, March 15 at the IOOF Cemetery at McLeansboro. The Harre Funeral Home of McLeansboro is in charge of all the arrangements.

Metamora- Noah C. Johnson, 17 of Metamora formerly of West Frankfort, IL joined God's kingdom on Monday, December 5, 2011. He was born on March 17, 1994 in Murphysboro,IL a son of Chris and Molly Whittenborn Johnson. Survivors include his father and mother, Chris (Molly) Johnson of Metamora; one brother, Nicholas Johnson of Metamora; maternal grandparents, Duane (JoAnn) Whittenborn of Herrin, IL; paternal grandparents, John (Kim) Tate of Benton, IL; great-grandmother, Louise Elliott of Metropolis, IL; aunts and uncles, Michael Johnson, Chad (Kristen) Whittenborn, Amy (Rich) Pisoni, Cassie (J.P.) Champion, Erin Moore, Molly Tate; cousins, Luke, Max, Joel, Rachel, Cameryn, Vince, Gabi, Taylor, Madison; special friends, Tori, Adam, Marcus, Tyler, Sam. He was preceded in death by his maternal grandmother, Diane Whittenborn. Noah was a senior at Metamora High School where he was number #37 on the football team where he played special teams and wide receiver. Noah's interests included weight lifting, baseball, hunting, fishing, vacationing and spending time with friends and family. Noah was a loving son, brother, grandson, nephew and cousin and a friend to all. Memorial services will be held at 11:00a.m. on Saturday, December 10, 2011 at Parker-Reedy Funeral Home in West Frankfort, IL. Pastor Mark Westman will officiate. Visitation will be held on Saturday from 10-11 at Parker-Reedy Funeral Home in West Frankfort. Cremation has been accorded. Local arrangements are by Argo-Ruestman-Harris Funeral Home in Eureka, IL.

SESSER -- Modena Pearl (Veach) Scott, 100, passed away at 2:20 a.m. Monday, March 10, 2014, in Countryside Manor in Mount Vernon. She was born Jan. 10, 1914, in Barren Township, Franklin County, the daughter of Everett and Bertha (Jones) Veach. She married Alfred L. Scott. They had one daughter, Mona Leah. Mrs. Scott is survived by one sister, Mary Przybyl of Shelbyville; and numerous nieces, nephews and friends. She was preceded in death by her husband; her daughter; her parents; three sisters, Leora Eubanks, Wanda Coffman and Mildred Junkins; and her only brother, Joseph Veach. Mrs. Scott lived most of her life in Chicago, where she was employed by Saks Fifth Avenue for many years. Following retirement, she resided in Sesser. She was a devoted homemaker, an excellent cook and hostess and loved reading books from the Sesser library. There will be no services, per her request. Interment will be in Maple Hill Cemetery in Sesser. Brayfield-Gilbert Funeral Home in Sesser is in charge of arrangements. Published in The Southern Illinoisan on Mar. 11, 2014 - See more at: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/thesouthern/obituary.aspx?n=modena-scott&pid=170114543#sthash.fXD80nF9.dpuf

There are two new counties added to this IL Counties page. Edwards, and Wabash http://ilahgp.genealogyvillage.com/ Susan D