Preston and Others v. George W. Coons, Administrator of the Estate of Milton Duty, et al.
View original image: Page  087
[missing figure]
Preston, Braxton &
vs
George W.CoonsGeorge W Coons , adm.
of MiltonMilton Duty decd.
and others

In the St Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court in Chancery
November Term 1841

The answer of George W.CoonsGeorge W Coons administrator of
MiltonMilton Duty deceased to the bill of complaint
of Preston, Braxton & others.

and now comesGeorgeGeorge W Coons
W CoonsGeorge W Coons , administrator of MiltonMilton Duty decd. and
reserving all right and benefit of exception to
said bill of complaint, on account of the
and insufficies therein, for answer thereto,
or to so much thereof as he is advised if is necessary
for him to answer, says that true it is
that the complaintants in said bill were slaves
of the said MiltonMilton Duty deceased and were removed
from the state of MississippiMississippi to St LouisSt Louis by
said Duty sometime in the spring of 1838,
and that said Duty convinced to reside in
St LouisSt Louismost of the time afterwards
until the month of August 1838 when he
died, and that this defendant, was duly
appointed administrator of his estate, short.
by after his death, that some time afterwards
a copy of the will of said Duty was produced
before the County
and the letters of administration
originally granted to this defendant were
thereupon revoked, and this defendant
was ther appointed administrator de bonis
non with the will annexed of said Duty
and has ever since been acting in that capacity. And
this defendant further answering says, that
while the said Duty resided at St LouisSt Louis he
permitted the complainants to hire themselves
or such of them as were able to earn wages, and
that he said Duty generally received the for

View original image: Page  088
[missing figure]
then trial, and that said David CoonsDavid Coons never
received an money for the hire of the complainants
except in the absence of said
Duty, when he received from time to time
several small sums not exceeding one
hundred dollars as this defendant is informed
and verily believes. And this defendant
further states that from his knowledge of the
dealings and transactions between the said
Duty and the said David CoonsDavid Coons , he believes that
the said David CoonsDavid Coons did advance large sums
of money to said Duty during the year 1837
and 1838 on account of the pork business
in which the said Duty was then engaged
That said Duty met with a heavy
in his pork business amounting
as this defendant is informed and believes
to five or six thousand dollars. That the said
Duty shipped his pork to the
Henderson of MississippiMississippi, who sold the same
for said Duty. That said Duty did not
attend to the sales of his pork personally
to MississippiMississippi, to receive the proceeds
of the sales, and as this defendant is
informed and believes took between
three and four thousand dollars of MississippiMississippi
bank notes belonging to the said DavidDavid Coons
CoonsDavid Coons with instructions from said
David CoonsDavid Coons to exchange the same
for other funds at a discount not exceeding
fifteen percent or to return the same-
That said Duty did return the same to said
David CoonsDavid Coons on his return from MississippiMississippi. And this defendant is informed and
believes that said Duty failed to collect
any of the proceeds of the sale of his pork