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

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

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