The state of Ohio, Lawrence County Supreme Court April Term 1847:
Hammond Howe vs Samuel Langdon > In Error
….Courthouse in Burlington 17 April 1847…
The document starts on page 63 of 587 (per the microfilm roll on familysearch.org), and page 109 in the actual ledger. Due to the old handwritten documents, there may be errors, and as with any old document, please check the original for mistakes.
By clicking this link, you will be taken to the original document on familysearch.org.
…Summoned Hammond Howe to appear on the first day of our term next to answer unto Samuel Langdon for a plea of damages $3,000 this 12 April 1845. Suit for backing the water of Symmes Creek back upon the waterwheels of plaintiffs mill, situated and lying adjacent to said creek in said township, county, and state aforesaid, Burlington 12 April 1845.
…The Sheriff made a return on the said writ in the service and figures following to wit:
I summoned Hammon Howe by reading and leaving a copy of this writ on 23 April 1845. Signed by J. Hambleton, SLC.
Afterward, on the last day of the April Term of said court in the year last aforesaid, this cause was continued by the general order of the court.
…2 June 1845, the plaintiff by his attorney J. George filed in the clerk’s office of our said court his Declaration in the words and figures following to wit:
…Samuel Langdon complains of Hammond Howe in an action on the case for that whereas the said plaintiff before and at the time of committing the said grievances by the said defendant hereafter mentioned, was and from thence and hitherto hath been and still is lawfully prosses of a certain grist mill and premises with the appurtenances, situate and being in Union Twp., Law. Co., Ohio, and by season thereof before and at the time of committing the grievances hereinafter mentioned of right ought to have had and enjoyed the benefit and advantage of the water of a certain stream, or watercourse known as Symmes Creek which during all that time of sight ought to have run and flowed and still of right ought to run a flow from said grist mill of the said plaintiff.
Yet the said defendant well knowing the premises, but continuing and wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure and prejudice the said plaintiff in this respect and to deprive him of the use and benefit and advantage of the water of the said stream or watercourse and to hinder and prevent the said plaintiff from working his said grist mill in so full ample and beneficial manner as he had theretofore done, and of right ought to have done and to injure him, the said plaintiff in the way of his trade and business of a miller to grind wheat and corn, which he during all the time aforesaid exercised and cured on and still doth exercise and carry on at the said grist mill and premises and to put him to great charge expense and trouble and inconvenience whilst the said plaintiff was so possessed of his said grist mill and premises with the appurtenances as aforesaid, and so exercised and carried on his said trade and business therein.
To wit on 7 Oct. 1844 and on divers other days and times, between that time and the time of the commencement of this suit, wrongfully and injuriousely raised a certain dam and thereby damed upper back and checked said stream of water commonly called Symmes Creek, by raising and building and making an addition to of a wood stone and direct a certain dam at a place called Howe’s Mill on said Symmes Creek, below said plaintiffs grist mill of great height (to wit) of the height of four feet and kept and continued and caused to be kept and continued, the said dam and raise or addition, across said Symmes Creek for a long space of time (to wit) from thence hitherto, and thereby during all that time afroesaid unlawfully and injurously penned back, dammed up, and turned divers large quantities of the water of said stream or water course against and over the water wheel and other machinery of said plaintiff’s grist mill, and hindered the water of the said steam or water course from flowing or running along its natual couse so swifty as it of right ought to have done and otherwise would have done from the said plaintiffs said grist mill, and therby prevented the said plaintiffs from using his said grist mill and premises as he of right ought to have done and otherwise would have done.
And by reason thereof, the water of the stream or watercourse during all or any part of that time could not, nor did run or flow from the same as the same of right ought to have done and otherwise would have done and the said plaintiff thereby is the consequence of the water being so backed, dammed and penned up, could not during that time, use his said grist mill and premises or follow use or exercise his said trade or business therein so full, large, extensive and beneficial a manner as he might have, and otherwise would have done. But was thereby during all that time deprived of the use and enjoyment of his said grist mill and premises, and of all the benefits and profits, gains and advantages which he otherwise might and would have made by carrying on his trade and business therein (to wit) at Union Township, Lawrence County, Ohio.
Wherefore the said plaintiff saith that he is injured and hath sustained damage to the amount of $3,000. And for that whereas also, (to wit) On the 7th day of October 1844 and from thence hitherto, hath been lawfully seized of a certain tract of land described as follows (to wit): all that tract on a lot of land lying adjacent to Symmes Creek in Section 7, Township One and Range 16 in Union Township, Lawrence County, Ohio, containing about 83 acres and whereas also a certain stream of water commonly called Symmes Creek has and hath always been used to run through said section #7, aforesaid, and through said land aforesaid, of all which the said defendant was well known, but the said defendant minding and intending to injure the said plaintiff and deprive him of the use, benefit, and profits of his said land, afterward, (to wit):
On the 7 Oct. 1844, aforesaid at the township, county, and state aforesaid, and from thence hitherto to the time of the commencement of this suit, hath wrongfully and unjustly kept up, continued, and supported a certain addition to a [page 113 or 65 of 587 on online microfilm] certain mill dam, before that time wrongfully and unjustly erected and raised in and across said Symmes Creek at a place commonly called Howe’s Mill in the township, county and state aforesaid, and thereby raised the waters of the said creek (to wit) four feet above its usual and due height and caused bed? water in said creek by reason whereof the water in the said creek, overflowed, drowned the usable, pasture, wood and meadowlands of the said plaintiff part of the premises aforesaid destroyed a large quantity of corn growing on said available land, a large number of trees growing on said woodland, to wit:
50 acres of grass growing on said pasture land, and rendered his meadowlands rotten, spongy, and impossible and greatly damaged, to wit: 30 acres of grass growing therein and the waters in the said creek so raised as aforesaid wore away and burst off said banks of said creek. and wore deep and large channels from said land to the said creek, and thereby prevented this cattle of the said plaintiff depasturing on the pasture land of the said plaintiff, from going through and grazing on the whole of said pasture land and washed away and carried off large quantities of the soil of said land of the said plaintiff whereby the said plaintiff the whole benefit and profits of the said tract of land for a large time, to wit: from 7 Oct. 1844 to the time of the issuing out of the writ wherewith he now sues totally hath lost to wit: seven months to his damage $3,000.
And afterward, at the July Term 1845 on motion of the defendants, attorney S. M. Tracy, leave is given him to plead. (to wit): on 8 July 1845 filed by deft. attorney in the clerk’s office of our said court, his plea which reads in the words and figures following to wit:
“The state of Ohio, Lawrence Common Pleas. Hammond & Howe; Samuel Langdon pleads &c, and the said defendant comes and defends the wrong and injury, and says that he is not guilty in manner and form as the said plaintiff is declaring hath above thereof against him complained. And of this, he puts himself upon the country for trial &c. And the said plaintiff likewise on 7 July 1845. Signed: S. M. Tracy, Attorney for the defendant
And the said deft with leave of the court first had and obtained says actis non, because he says that the said mill dam in the first and second count of the plaintiff’s declaration mentioned upon and across said Symmes Creek, was built and constructed more than 21 years prior to the common comment of this suit. (to wit):
1 Jan. 1820 at the county of same aforesaid and that said mill dam for all that period of time has been used in the manner aforesaid that the same is now used by the said defendant. Of all which the said plaintiff afterward then and of there had noticed. And so the said defendant says that the action aforesaid of the plaintiff did not occur to the said plaintiff at any time within 21 years next before the commencement of the action aforesaid. And this, the said defendant, is ready to verify wherefore he prays judgment if the said plaintiff his action aforesaid thereof against him ought to have or maintain 8 July 1845. Signed by his attorney.
And afterward, to wit: on 9 July 1845, on motion and affidavit of defendant, this case is continued at his costs to be paid in 30 days.
And afterward (to wit:) On 20 Sept. 1845, the said plaintiff by his attorney, filed in the clerk’s office of our said court, his application to the said pleas of the said defendant in the words and figures following (to wit):
Samuel Langdon vs Hammond Howe. And the said plaintiff as to the said plea of the said defendant by him secondly above pleaded [page 115, or pg 66 of 587 on online micrfilm] saith the said plaintiff by reason of anything by the said defendant in that plea alleged ought not to be allowed, banned? from having and maintaining his action thereof against the said defendant because he saith that he said several causes of action in the said declaration accrued, and each and every one of them did occur to the said plaintiff within 21 years next prior to the commencement of this suit in manner and form as the said plaintiff hath above complained against the said defendant because the said plaintiff saith that the said addition and raise were made to the same dam across said Symmes Creek by said defendant in said declaration mentioned (to wit): on 7 Oct. 1844, aforesaid. And this the said plaintiff prays may be inquired of by the country &c. signed by plaintiff attorney.
In Oct. Term 1844, this cause is continued.
At the April Term of 1846, the following judgment was rendered by said court, in the words and figures following (to wit):
“Samuel Langdon vs Hammon Howe case damage $3000. This day came the parties with their attorneys and therefore came also a jury (to wit):
B. C. Nelson, William W. Davidson, William Gore, E. T. Chestnutwood, and John P. Hammock, jurors of the regular panel, and Isaac Delong, David Greene, George F. Wolf, Elisha B. Greene, Henry Blake, Peter W. Ghrist, and Andrew Flynn, talesmen who being duly elected, tried and sworn the truth to speak upon the issue joined between the parties heard part of the evidence in the case when the court adjourned (Fifth day of the Term).
This day the jury who were empaneled on yesterday having completed the trial of this cause upon their oaths do say, that the said Hammond Howe is guilty in manner and form as the said plaintiff Samuel Langdon hath complained against him, and they assess the damages of the said Samuel Langdon by reason of the premises is $58.47. Therefore it is considered that the plaintiff Samuel Langdon recover from the defendant Hammon Howe the said sum of $58.47, the damages aforesaid, and costs of suit for which execution may issue.
And afterward on 4 May in the year last aforesaid the defendant perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court for Lawrence County, by entering into bond in the sum of $400., in the words and figures following (to wit):
“Know all men by these present that we, Hammond Howe, Jacob Proctor, and A. J. Proctor is held and firmly bound unto Samuel Langdon in the penal sum of $400 to the payment of which will and time to be made we do by these presents jointly and severally bind our selves, our heirs, executors, and administrators sealed with our seals and dated 4 May 1846.
The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas the said Hammond Howe has failed in the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court of Lawrence County, his practices? for a writ of error supersedes upon a certain Judgment rendered in the Court of Common Pleas within, and for the said county of Lawrence at the April Term 1846 in favor of the said Samuel Langdon and against the said Hammond Howe for the sum of $58.47, costs of suit.
Now if the said Hannond Howe shall pay the condemnation money and costs in case affirmed by the Supreme Court in whole or in part and shall prosecute his writ of error to effect and pay all costs in error, or if he fails to make his plea good, then this obligation to be void otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue in law.
6 May 1846 Jacob Proctor {seal}
Approved by me 6 May 1846, Jos. Wheeler, Clerk S.C. Witness: Geo. W. Grose, James Proctor
And afterward, to wit: On 7 May 1846, our writ of error was issued by the Clerk of our Supreme County (to wit):
“The State of Ohio, Lawrence County~ss. To the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, and within and for the said county, Greetings. Because in the record and proceedings and also in the rendition of judgment in a certain action on the case which was later in our said court before you, wherein Samuel Langdon was plaintiff and Hammon Howe was defendant, an error has intertwined, as it is said to the damage of the said Hammond Howe, and we being willing that such error, if any there be, should be corrected and full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid….then without delay, you send to us distinctly and openly under the seal of your court, the original files and proceedings, together with a transcript of all judgments of said court, and all things concerning the same and this writ, at the clerk’s office of our said court on the 1 Jan next term…
{Seal} Burlington 7 May 1846 signed by Jos. Wheeler, Clerk.
……At the April Term 1846 in favor of Samuel Langdon and against Hammon Howe for the sum of $58.47, costs of suit…
…Sheriff’s return in said court as follows (to wit):
“As commanded by this writ, I have stopped all further proceedings against the said Hammond Howe and served this writ upon Samuel Langdon by copy 5 June 1846.
And now at this time (to wit): At a Supreme Court of the State of Ohio holden in and for the county aforesaid, before the judges aforesaid, and at the time and place first herein aforesaid, “Came the plaintiff in error and says that he will no further prosecute the said writ of error.”
Whereupon it is considered that the said Judgment of the said Court of Common Pleas is, and the same is hereby affirmed with costs, and it is further ordered that a special mandate issued to the Court of Common Pleas aforesaid to carry this judgment into execution.
SOURCE: familysearch.org fil #film 8198780 – Lawrence County, Ohio, Clerk of Courts Supreme Court Record 1846-1850 – page 1-437; and District Court Record 1853-1858, pages 438-688; The document starts on page 63 of 587 and page 109 in the ledger, and due to the old handwritten documents, there may be errors.
Samuel Langdon Obituary
Samuel A. Langdon is buried in Harmony Baptist Cemetery and the following is his tombstone inscription: January 26, 1763 — Aug. 9, 1861. Obit came from the Ironton Register, on Thur., August 15, 1861, and reads:
DIED In Union township, 8th instrument, SAMUEL LANGDON, in his 99th year. He had been a resident of this county for 43 years, coming from Virginia, and was over 40 years an exemplary member of the Baptist church.
Lawrence Co., Ohio Will Book # 1, p. 375 and was filed Aug. 15, 1861:
WILL OF SAMUEL A. LANGDON
In the name of the Benevolent Father of all, I, Samuel A. Langdon, of Lawrence County Ohio do make and publish this my last will and testament.
Items 1st. I gave and devise to my beloved wife in lieu of her dower my farm situated in Union Township Lawrence County Ohio in Section 7 in said Union Township, containing about 50 acres, and 7 acres in Section 5 – as long as she remains my widow and all the stock household goods furniture provisions and other goods and chattels which may belong to me at the time of my decease, as long as she remains my widow, she, however, selling so much thereof as may be sufficient to pay my just debts – at the marriage of my said wife the real estate aforesaid and such part of the said personal property or the proceeds thereof as may then remain unconsumed and unexpended I gave and devise to my three daughters Electa Jane and Caroline Tenisee and Cassa Anna Langdon and their heirs forever.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this the 10th day of June in the year 1861.
(X–his mark) Samuel A. Langdon
Signed and acknowledged by said Samuel A. Langdon as his last will and testament in our presence and signed by us in his presence.
James Langdon X – Greenville Thompson
X – Creed Dillon X – Anny Brammer
0 Comments