Debbie’s Introduction: McKee vs McKee in Knox County Court

I have a will from my gr —- gr grandfather Charles McKee, born 1764, Ireland, married Margaret Lockhart, and died, 1847, Knox County Ohio. Charles and Margaret and family were the first white settlers in Brown Twp. in 1809. Charles’s oldest son was Robert, born Ireland, died young in 1813, Coshocton County, Ohio, probably from wounds received in the war of 1812. Before Robert’s death, Charles and Robert had purchased two pieces of land in Richland Township – one parcel was meant for Roberts use and the other for Charles’s other sons. In 1821, Coshocton County was divided, and Richland Twp. was transferred to the new Holmes County (where a younger son Andrew (1802 – 1846) lived at the time of his death in 1846, and had bought some of that property).

I have learned from land records, that two years after the death of his son Robert McKee in 1813, Charles sold the two parcels of land (l believe a portion to Andrew) and with the money from that sale, Charles purchased other lands.

After his early death in 1813, Robert left his young wife a widow with a son Robert McKee Jr. When Charles McKee died in 1847, he left money to his family, but Robert Jr. felt he had been treated unfairly because he expected compensation for improvements that his father, Robert, had made on his portion of the land.

Robert McKee Jr. held a promissory note written and signed by Charles McKee, and witnessed by his son Andrew McKee (1802 – 1846) – both of whom had died within a year of each other so they couldn’t speak for themselves. But Samuel McKee, (1806 -1888) administrator of Charles’s estate, rejected the note, and a civil case began in the Knox County Court of Common Pleas in April, 1850, with Robert McKee Jr. as plaintiff, and Samuel McKee, estate administrator for Charles as defendant.

I made a trip to Salt Lake City to the Family History Library recently and I found court documents regarding this trial in 1850. I also found documents showing the final settlement of Charles McKee’s estate in probate court, 1856. By then Samuel had  moved from Knox County, and Alexander Mills McKee (1792 – 1874) had been appointed administrator de bonus non.

I find it interesting family history – we are stubborn Scotsmen, but good at using the new American court system! Some questions answered, but always more information needing to be found.

The Transcript: Knox County Court, 1850

In Debt. Be it remembered that on the trial of this case in the Court of Common Pleas by Knox County and the State of Ohio, at the April term A.D. 1850, the said defendant to maintain the issue on his part, that the said writing in the said declaration mentioned, was not the deed of the said Charles McKee deceased, offered to prove to the jury, by persons well acquainted with the hand writing of the deceased, that certain other signatures, which were then, by said defendant produced, were the true and genuine signatures of said Charles McKee deceased, and there and then to prove by experts, by comparison with said other signatures so by the defendant produced as aforesaid, that the signatures to the writing in said declaration mentioned, and upon which the suit was brought, was not the genuine signature of the said Charles McKee deceased. Said experts having no previous knowledge or acquaintance with the hand writing of said Charles McKee deceased. Where upon the plaintiff by his counsel objected to the admission of said testimony, which objection was sustained by the court, and said testimony overruled, and not allowed to be given to the jury, to which opinion of the court the said defendant by his counsel excepted and prayed that his bill of exceptions in that behalf might be allowed, which was accordingly done, and upon his motion the same is ordered to be made a part of the record in this case.

In Supreme Court. In error. Assignment of errors, and now comes the said Samuel McKee, administrator of Charles McKee deceased, and says that in the record and forwarding aforesaid, there is error in this to wit:
1st that said verdict is manifestly against the evidence in the case,
2nd that the court erred in overruling said motion for trial.
3rd the court erred in in excluding the testimony offered by the defendant below in regards to the comparison of hands contained in the bill of exceptions.
4th the said judgement was given in favor of the said Robert McKee where as by the laws of the land, it ought to have been given in favor of the said administrator of aforesaid.

Wherefore he prays that the said judgement be reversed, annulled and held for nothing, and that he be restored to all things he has lost by reason thereof.

The defendant in errors by his attorneys filed in our aforesaid clerk’s office his rejoinder in errors, which read in the words and figures following to wit In error. Supreme court of Ohio, for Knox County Ohio. And the said Robert McKee comes and says, that there is no error, either in the reason or means asked for a new trial.

In Knox Common Pleas. In Debt. The said defendant in the case moves the court for a new trial.
1st because the verdict is against the evidence.
2nd because the defendant discovered new testimony towards the trial of this cause.
4th because the court said in overruling evidence offered by the defendant, tending to support the issue.
5th because the court erred in the charge to the jury.
6th because the verdict should have been rendered in favor of the defendant, and against the plaintiff.

May 4th 1850

And now at this day to wit, at the Court of Common Pleas held before the judges on the same day and year first herein before written, and at the place aforesaid, this cause comes on to be heard, on the motion for a new trial, and was argued by counsels, no consideration whereof the courts, do overruled said motions with costs. It is therefore considered by the court that the said plaintiff recover off the said defendant, as administrator of Charles McKee deceased, the said sum of two hundred dollars as aforesaid, and that the said sum of thirty seven dollars and fifty cents his damages aforesaid on by the jury aforesaid accrued and also his costs in this behalf be refunded.

In Debt. In Knox Court of Common Pleas – please be it remembered that on the trial of this case, at the April term of the court of common pleas AD 1850 of said county the said plaintiff to maintain the issue of his part that the witnesses her in after remained called and sworn and who gave evidence in the case as follows to wit.

The first witness examined was Aaron Matheny, who gave his evidence to the Jury, that Andrew McKee the subscribing witness to the note, afore which suit was brought, departed this life three or four years since, and that he heard the said Andrew McKee, speak to his father Charles McKee about the matter of the plaintiff, and Andrew said that Robert was now in a pinch, and that if he was going to do anything for him now was the time, for Robert was ??? To which the old man said, you need to not bother yourself about it. You mind your own business and I will mind mine.

Alexander McKee was the second witness called by the plaintiff, who gave evidence to the court, that the said Andrew McKee, the subscribing witness to this note, had departed this life three to four years ago and that Charles McKee, who was represented to be the maker of the said note departed this life in the spring of 1847.That letters of Administration were granted on his estate, to the said Samuel McKee on the 30th day of April AD 1848 by the court of Common pleas of said Knox county, that he is the Eldest son of the deceased and familiar with his handwriting, and acted as his agent in his business, and that he has seen Charles McKee write and sign a paper or title, about 18 months before his death, and he believes the signature of the said note to be that of the said Charles McKee, and that the body of the note, is in a different hand writing from the signature. He never heard anything about the note until a short time before the suit was brought, and that the plaintiffs father or Charles McKee, bought two quarter sections of land in Richland county intending one for interests, and the other for said Robert. Old man sold the last one and laid the money out in other lands. Witness and all the other brothers except Robert, got their portion of the old man’s lands. Robert McKee, who has been dead for many years, had some interest in a quarter of the land in Richland county, but that the title was in the name of his father the said Charles McKee and that Robert McKee the father of this, went into possession of said land in Richland county, and made improvements thereon, and departed this life in the year 1813, and some two years after his death the said Charles McKee sold the said land and received pay for the same, and never paid and parts through the administrator of the said Robert McKee deceased, or to the plaintiff who was the only heir of the said Robert McKee deceased. That he never heard the said Charles McKee promise the said Robert McKee anything for his said improvements.

Alexander Greer was the third witness, who was called and examined by the plaintiff, and gave his evidence to the court that he has seen the said Charles McKee write, that there is a strong likeness to the said Charles McKee’s handwriting, and that the signature of the note upon which suit is brought, thinks the signature to said noted is Charles McKee’s but not positive.

Simon Schultz was the fourth witness, who was called, and examined by the plaintiff, and gave his evidence to the court that he has seen Andrew McKee as a witness, looks like his, but cannot say certainly that it is the said Andrew McKee’s hand writing if he should see the signature of somebody else similar to this (that is the signature of the said Andrew McKee) he could not tell the difference between them. Witness says that he is no judge of writing, and has no opinion as to it. The note upon which suit was brought, was then read in evidence of which is the following copy.

June 15th 1844. After my decease I promise to pay Robert McKee on order the just and full sum of two hundred dollars as part of his estate. Attest Andrew McKee signed Charles McKee

Jonathan Rice was the fifth witness, who was called, and examined, by the plaintiff to maintain the issue on his part, and gave his evidence to the jury that he was acquainted with the hand writing of Andrew McKee, and thinks the signature of the said Andrew McKee, as subscribing witness to said note looks like his and gives his opinion that it is Andrews. Never has seen the said Charles McKee write his name more than once or twice, thinks there is not much similarity between the genuine signatures of the said Charles McKee, and Andrew McKee.

The plaintiff further gave evidence to the Jury to maintain the issue on his parts of the deposition of William Hutchison, whose evidence was as follows to wit. I was acquainted with both Andrew and Charles McKee, and have seen both of them write. I never saw the old man write but once, and that was his name. I have seen Andrew write frequently, that looks like his hand writing. It is very similar to his signature, as written by himself, on an order he gave to me. It is my opinion that it is his handwriting. My reason that it is similar to his hand writing on the order. I have seen Andrew McKee write frequently but never paid sufficient attention to it to state positively that the name Andrew McKee, on the paper exhibited marked “A” which was the note, is his hand writing, or not, and that he is deceased.

Aaron Matheny, was called by defendant, who gave his evidence to the jury, that he heard a conversation, between the said Charles and the said Andrew McKee. Andrew said to his father Charles that he ought to do something for Robert, he was in a pinch, and the land that was intended for Robert’s father has been sold to him. In reply Charles said, I do intend to do what is right. The conversation was in Jefferson town ship in the spring of 1844, at an election, or meeting after an election. Such of the forgoing evidence as is stated to be given to the court was given also to the Jury after the note was read in as evidence. The said defendant to maintain the issue on his part, had the witness herein after named and called and sworn, and who gave their evidence in this case as follows to wit.

J.C. Ramsey cashier of Mount Vernon Bank was the first witness examined, who gave evidence to the Jury after examining the note that he had no knowledge of Charles McKee, or makers hand writing, that he believes that both the signatures, and the subscribing witness to said note, was all in the handwriting of the same person. The hair stroke in the “k” in Charles McKee’s name has been made with two strokes, with a quill pen. Charles McKee’s signature has been written very cautiously, several dots in it, that cannot be accounted for only by taking up the pen before the strokes were made. If his signature was that of an old man, there would have been other evidence of the tumultuous swipe. If the note was made and signed by different persons, they must all have learned at the same school, or otherwise the writing is all done by the same person. This witness Ramsey on cross examination gave evidence to the Jury, thought the body of the note and signature of Charles McKee, might have been written by two different persons.

H.B. Curtis was the second witness called and examined by the defendant, who gave evidence to the Jury, that he had done business with the said Charles McKee and had frequently seen him write, and might have thoughts, that the signature of the said Charles McKee, and the body of said note were written by different persons, but having his attention called to it, and his acquaintance with the writing of the said Charles McKee thinks all the writing on the said note, must have been done at the same time, thinks on the whole the signature of Charles McKee in said note is a feigned signature, but says he excuses his opinion with great doubt, marks do not appear as tremulous, as he usually wrote more tremulously two years ago that appear in the signature of this note, The dots look rather studied, especially in Charles McKee’s signature, especially in the last one in the C. It was ten or fifteen years ago since he saw the said Charles McKee write.

William Dunbar was the third witness to was called and examined by the defendant, and who gave evidence to the jury, that he never saw either the subscribing witness, or the maker of the said note write. The note and the signature of Charles McKee, and Andrew McKee appears to him to be written with the same hand, and the same ink, and all the same hand writing. The McKee written in the body of the note, and in Charles’s signature the C? in each are likely and are both different. C in Andrews McKee’s signature. The signature of the maker and the subscribing witness to the said note may have been written by different persons. The dots in the signature of Charles McKee may have been made by an old person putting down the pen. The dots may have been made afterward, or before, or at the same time.

George R. Moore was the fourth witness called and examined by the defendant, and who gave evidence to the jury, that from the examination of the note, the signature of the subscribing witness, and the maker of the note and the note itself, are all the same hand writing. No acquaintance with the hand writing of either Charles or Andrew.

R.C. Ward was the fifth witness called and examined by the defendant, who gave evidence to the Jury that the subscribing witness, and the maker of the said note, and the body of the note, are generally similar to the style of the whole paper, the signature of Charles McKee, that might not have been made by the person that wrote the signature of the subscribing witness and the body of the note. If the witness Andrew McKee’s name was off the note, should not hesitated to say that the signature of Charles McKee and the body of the note were written by the same person, and if the makers name was off, should not hesitated to say that the body of the note and the signature of the subscribing witness were written by the same person, some doubts about the signatures of Charles McKee, which doth seem to have been made since, and if since, undoubtedly by design. A person feigning hand writing would make more difference than there is in the note, unless the hand writing was similar I should think.

Charles McKee was the sixth witness called and examined who gave evidence to the Jury that he has seen his father who was charged with being the maker of the said note, write frequently – do not think the signature of said note is the signature of Charles McKee, don’t think it imitates his signature when he wrote his name, and that his father Charles McKee, made him a deed for sixty acres of land just previous to his death-left me land not deeded away- his personal property at the time of his death, was worth from one to two hundred dollars. One hundred dollars was consideration for said land, witness was to pay to one of the grand daughters of the said Charles McKee who was married to William Biggs.

William Beam was the seventh witness called and examined by the defendant, who gave evidence to the jury that upon examination of the note, thinks the body of the note-signature of the makers and the subscribing witness were all written by the same person, with the same ink- the K L and not exactly alike, but seems to be formed after the same manner- thinks the dots put in the signature of Charles McKee, were put there after the letter was made by setting the pen down. All done with the same pen and hand- signature of Charles McKee is written more slowly- imitates the others very well. No acquaintance with the hand writing of Charles McKee or Andrew McKee.

Robert Greer was the eighth witness called and examined by the defendant who gave evidence to the jury that he had seen Andrew McKee write frequently, and this note looks very much like his writing- but if it is his hand writing it is disguised- he and I clerked together frequently at the township meetings, and elections. The body of this note, and Andrew’s signature, is not like what Andrew generally wrote. I could not say that is, or is not Andrew’s handwriting. The body of the note, and the signature of Andrew is in the same hand writing. Andrew wrote sometimes fine, and sometimes worse and clumsy- would know Andrew’s hand writing if written in a different hand, if this the body of the note, and the subscribing witness is in Andrew’s handwriting it is very much disguised. If it is Andrews hand writing, I never saw any of his writing look like this.

George M Davidson was the ninth witness called and examined by the defendant, who gave evidence to the jury, that he has seen Charles McKee write frequently, cannot say whether this is his handwriting or not. Looks like Andrew McKee’s hand writing, some resemblance to it- his best impression is that the signature to this notes is not Charles McKee’s hand writing. The person that wrote the body of the note, wrote the signature of the Attesting witness. Would not like to say that the signature of the witness and the maker of the note were written by the same person.

E.W. Cotton was the tenth witness called up and examined by the defendant, and who gave evidence to the jury, that he had no doubt, that the body of the note, and the signature of the subscribing witness , were written in the same hand, and might say also that the signature of the makers- all written in the same hand- not much ease in any of the writing, on said note- all in a labored hand, the signatures of the maker and the subscribing witness, look as if they were written by the same hand. Charles McKee’s signature is not well written, as Andrew McKee’s signature in said note. Knows that there is frequently a great similarity between the hand writing of different members of the same family. On one occasion as a witness in court, he could not distinguish between his own handwriting and that of his own sons.

N.W. Goodwin was the eleventh called and examined by the defendant, and gave evidence to the jury, that the general appearance of the body, the signature of the subscribing witness to said not all look alike- no hesitation in saying that the body of the note, and the signature of the attesting witness, were written by the same person. And it did not purport to be written by different persons, he would not have the slightest doubt, but that it was all the same hand writing. If the maker of the note and the subscribing witness’ signatures, were written by different hands, they must have all learned to write at the same school, or practiced together. Andrew’s signature written more freely than Charles’s. Charles seems to have been written with an effort. But might be the hand writing of an old man.

Alexander McKee was the twelfth witness called and examined by the defendant, and gave evidence to the jury, that his father Charles McKee was about eighty-two years of age, about the date of the said note, and that Andrew McKee was about forty years of age, about the time the said note, and that Charles McKee was educated in Ireland, and Andrew McKee, received his education in this country. And Andrew lived at home with his father until he became of age.

Silas Greer was the thirteenth witness called and examined by the defendant and gave evidence to the jury, that he was acquainted with Charles McKee’s hand writing. Too much ease in the hand writing on the note to be his in his opinion. At my father’s store shortly before his death, he undertook to show how well he wrote. Wrote very tremulously- did not make such dots, as appears in the signature of the said Charles McKee to the said note. The signature of said note he thinks, cannot be Charles McKee’s. Said Charles McKee did not generally make so many hair strokes, generally wrote very heavy hand= he was in the habit of placing his pen down on the paper before commencing to write. Saw him write about two years before his death, on the counters where witness was keeping store. When he wrote thin, his writing was not generally legible, to those not acquainted with his signature either palsied some two or three years before his death. The signature looks a good deal like Andrew McKee’s. I will not say that it is not his. The “K” looks more alike than that balance.

John Beaty was the fourteenth witness, who was called and examined by the defendant, and gave evidence to the jury that upon examination of the note, there appears to be much similarity in the body of the said note the signature of the subscribing witness, but some difference between the body of the note from the signature of the maker of the same. There appears to be a slight discrepancy in the letters in Andrew McKee’s name and the body of the note.

Eli Miller was the fifteenth witness called and examined by the defendant, and gave evidence to the jury that he had not seen Charles McKee write for a long time, could not say anything about the hand writing on the note, but thinks the signature of the maker and the body of the note, are not in the same handwriting.

It was admitted upon that the trial of this case, that all the forgoing witnesses who had been examined upon the part of the defendant, to except the said Alexander McKee, Charles McKee and William Davidson, and Silas Greer were experts and judges the hand writing. And being no others, or further evidence offered, by either said parties, thereupon the said Jury gave their verdict in favor of the said plaintiff, and against the said defendant upon the issue of the aforesaid.

Whereupon the counsel upon the said defendant moved the judges of said court for a new trial upon the evidence aforesaid, and upon the issue of the aforesaid, and for reason that the evidence was insufficient to maintain and support the plaintiff’s claims, as given as aforesaid before the jury. But the said judges overruled the said motion and gave judgment upon the said verdict of said jury against the said defendant, as administration of the said Charles McKee deceased. Where upon the said defendant made their exceptions to the said court of opinion of said judges in behalf, and in as much as the matters aforesaid defendant prayed that the said judges, could sign and seal this bill of exceptions, containing the several matters so proved and given in evidence aforesaid ascending to the statute of such ease made and provided thereupon that judges aforesaid, at the request of the said counsel for the said defendant did sign and seal this bill of exceptions pursuant to the aforesaid statute in such case made and provided.

Samuel then sued Robert back to show proof that Samuel had more evidence to prove the note was falsified.

Debbie comments – So it continues ….. In 1852 Samuel moved out of Knox County and resigned as executor of Charles McKee’s estate and Alexander took over for him. The final settlement of Charles’s estate was not untill 1859.

Charles McKee’s Estate Settle — The State of Ohio – Knox County SS.

Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit; on the 25^th day of September, A.D. 1856, Alexander McKee, Administrator de bonus non on the estate of Charles McKee, deceased, filed in the office of the Probate Court of Knox County, Ohio, his account and vouchers for the final settlement of said Estate, which after being duly advertised were on the 10^th day of December, A.D. 1856 taken up, examined, and settled. Which said settlement reads in the words and figures following, to wit;

Alexander McKee, Administrator de bonus non on the estate of Charles McKee, deceased.

In account with said Estate

Dr

To amount received from sale of Real Estate		$466.00
Interest on same		7.02
To amount received of former Administrator		28.48
Credit			501.50
By amount paid Israel Galusha	Voucher #1	$11.80
By amount paid Clerk on R. McKee’s Judgement	Voucher #2	449.05
By amount paid S. M. Vincent	Voucher #3	10.00
By amount paid S. F. Gilchrest	Voucher #4	5.41
By amount paid S. M. Vincent	Voucher #5	10.00
By amount paid Alexander McKee	Voucher #6	11.27
Probate Judges fees		3.00
Administrator on percentage		.97
			501.50

The State of Ohio – Knox County SS.

I, Alexander McKee, Administrator de bonus non on the estate of Charles McKee, deceased, do make solemn oath that the foregoing account is correct and contains a true statement of all the money or affects belonging to said Estate received and disbursed by me as such Administrator in the settlement of said Estate as I verily believe.

(signed) Alexander McKee

Sworn to by Alexander McKee before me and subscribed by him in my presence this 10^th day of December, A.D. 1856 –
L. S. Davis, Probate Judge  K.C.

Charles McKee’s Estate Settled                                            

Probate Court, December 10^th – A.D. 1856

Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit; on the 25^th day of September, A.D. 1856 – Alexander McKee, Administrator de bonus non on the estate of Charles McKee, deceased, filed in the office of the Probate Court of Knox County, Ohio, his account and vouchers for the final settlement of said Estate.  And the Court, being satisfied that due notice of such filing had been given according to law, this day took up and examined said account and vouchers, and find that said Administrator has received in aspects belonging to said Estate the sum of $501.50 – and that he has paid out in inferences and debts the sum of $501.50 – which squares the account and settles the Estate in full –
L. S. Davis, Probate Judge  K.C.