68
 

HISTORY  AND BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD
 

AVilliam Heister, in fee, who and others, claiming
under them, intruded upon said lands and kept
the complainants, the infants, out of possession.
The bill further states that Upton Lawrence and
Elizabeth his yvife, only child of Jonathan Hager,
the 30unger, in 1810 instiluted an action of eject¬
ment in ^\'asllington County against the said Joim,
Gabriel and A\'illiam Heister, for the recovery of
the said fourteen hundred acres, in which a ver¬
dict was found on tbe opinion of the Court and
judgment rendered for Defendant, but the  said
judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals
and on a second trial a verdict was found and
judgment rendered for plaintiff, from which the
defendants  appealed,  but while the  said  appeal
was pending, the said parties finding that if tiie
said land should be eventually recovered by  the
said Lawrence and wife, it would still be subject
to the trust vested by the will of the said Rosannah,
entered into a compromise of the said suit and
appeal with a view to defraud the Complainants,
the basis of which was to divide the said property
and perfect the said deeds from Daniel Heister
and wife to William Heister, and from him to said
Daniel, by an ex post facto act of the Legislature,
and applied to the Legislature for the enactment
of a statute for that purpose, and in anticipation
thereof, in December 180G, all the said confeder¬
ates executed a deed of said property to Roger B.
Taney and Elie Beatty. to lay the same off in Lots
and sell the same, for more conveniently carrying
the said compromise into eff'ect. and finally suc¬
ceeded  in obtaining an act   (referred to in the
bill,) suited in terms to the object of their conspir¬
acy, and the said suit was reversed by consent in
the Court of Appeals, reinstated in the  County
Court docket, and there entered agreed; and that
the  said trustees proceeded to  sell some of the
propertv and divide the residue i)etween the par¬
ties to said compromise, who afterwards sold out
to others, who purchased with full notice of the
Complainants'  claim.    That  the said John,  Ga¬
briel and William Heister are dead, leaving certain
persons mentioned in the bill, including the absent
Defendants, their heirs or devisees,  or claiming
titles to said property under them.    The bill fur¬
ther states, that all the I)efendants above enumer¬
ated in the title of this suit, do not reside in the
State, and  f)ra3"s that the defendants may be di¬
vested of all title to the said property and com¬
pelled  to  convey the same to the complainants,
and that the trustees under the will of the said
 

Rosannah Heister may be compelled to carry the
said trust into effect by a sale of the same, that
the Complainants may take the said property or
proceeds of the sale at their election, that the
Defendants may account with Complainants for
the rents, issues and profits of said property, and
prays general relief.

hi Chancery, Jan. 25, 1832.
Elizabeth Lawrence,
vs.
Christian Hager the elder, Robert Hicks and
Magdalena his wife. Christian Hager the young¬
er, Upton Lawrence Hager and Catherine
Hager, Samuel Heister, David Beaver and
Catherine his wife, Ellen Davi'-i, Abraham Lan-
des and Rachel his wife, Reoecca and Joseph
Vanderslice, Mary Leah, John and Henry
Heister, Jonathan, Elizabeth, William and
Charles Heister, Frederick, John, Mary and
William Shultze, Isaac, Catharine E., William
Daniel I., and John P. Heister, Edward Climer
and ilaria his wife, Rebecca Eckart, Juliana
and Jonathan- ililler and James R. Riley, and
others.

The object of the bill filed in this cause is to
be put in possession of, and to be paid the rents,
issues and profits of fourteen hundred acres.of
land and other real estate, in Washington County,
in the State of j\Iaryland, which descended to the
Complainants. The Bill states, that Jonathan
Hager the elder, died intestate in 1775, leaving
fyvo Children, Jonathan Hager, Jr., father of the
Complainant, who was his heir, and a daughter
named Rosanna, afterwards married to Daniel
Heister & who died without issue. That he intend¬
ed to have made a will, devising seven hundred
acres of land, in Washington County, to the said
Rosanna in tail remainder in fee, to the said Jona¬
than Hager the younger, but never perfected it,
and after his death, the said Daniel Heister pre¬
vailed upon the said Jonathan Hager, Jr., to agree
in writing, that upon his arrival at age, he would
convey fourteen hundred acres of the said land
to the said Rosanna. That in 1776 the said
.Tonathan Hager, Jr., .enlisted in the American
Army, was taken prisoner by the British, carried
to Halifax and attained the age of twenty years
while there in 17T?. immediately after which, the
said Daniel Heister arrived there, prevailed upon
him to convey the said fourteen hundred acres,
not to the said Rosanna but to himself in fee,
but the said deed being defective, the said Daniel