PLEASE NOTE: I have done my best with this complex document, but there is room for others to improve. Many of the footnotes have no entries because I went as far as I could go before confusion engulfed me. Some of the script was hard to decipher. So, I pass the torch. Thanks to Marion Quednau who helped with the typing as I decoded to the best of my ability.
Sharon Oddie Brown, November 14, 2003

Further statement on the title of the late Mr. Todd [1] to lands of Madden Hill
for the opinion of James N. Ball Esq

£2.5.6

_____(?)  Wallace 64 Cap(?)

Supplement to the state of Title of the late Mr. Andrew Todd to the lands of Madden Hill County Down (required by Council) as agreed upon by the Agents Employed by the Seller of purchase ~

It is understood and believed on the part of the purchaser that James Birch [2] late of Madden Hill died about nine years ago without issue [3] ~ John Birch [4] the grandson of James the Testators and eldest son of John [5] the Brother of James [6] of Madden Hill was at the time of levying the fine in 1779 the Heir at law of James Birch [7] the Testator named in the former case and state of Title and also Heir at law of John Birch [8] his father and the Reverend George Birch of Comber [9] is the Eldest son of the said John Birch [10] the Grandson [11] who is now 30 years of age & consequently was about 3 years old when the fine was levied by James Birch [12] in 1779 and is now the Heir at Law of the Testator James [13] mentioned in the former state of Title and also of his Grand Uncle the late James Birch [14] of Madden Hill and he the late(?) George [15] has been always a resident Inhabitant of the Co. Down ---------- when at College  / and been clergyman  (part missing due to fold in paper)  Comber for 8 or 9.4. past and did not labour under any disability to prevent his claim to the lands of Madden Hill had he been inclined to make any ~

Herewith is sent a copy of the Deed of 5^th March 1781 (the original whereof is at present in the hands of purchasers Attorney) made between Andrew Crawford [16] of the 1^st part Henry Wallace [17] George Law and David McCann of the 2^nd part and the Creditor of the 1^st Andrew Crawford of the Third part which Council will please to peruse ~

(I have read it. MB)

It appears all the Creditors of ----------- Andrew Crawford have Executed the Deed except Jacob Turner [18] , John Martin [19] , Ross Thompson [20] and John Gordon [21] , Messrs. John Henderson [22] and Walter Crawford [23] , John Hamilton Corbett [24] , Joseph Wakefield [25] , John Eastly [26] and Messrs. George Samuel and Aughtry Law [27]

In addition to those parties not having signed this Deed it appears there is no Costs(?) in the Deed that the receipt of the Trustees for the purchase money shall be sufficient nor are the Creditors made parties to the Deed of the 20^th April 1781 to William Todd [28]

The Sellers Attorney makes no observations on the Deed but referred Court to it

Mr. Turner was a Creditor by Mortgage on the Lands of Lanaderg [29] for £700 with Interest and Costs as appears by the Deed of 5^th March 1781 in the copy -------

Said Mr. Turner by Deed dated 25^th May 1781 in consideration of £754.17.11 reconveyed the Mortgaged premises to Henry Wallace George Law and David McCann the Trustees of Andrew Crawford as appears by said Deed Registered in the proper Office 9^th July 1781

By the Schedule Annexed to the Deed of 5^th March 1781 it appears the Several persons who did not sign said Deed were Creditors of Mr. Crawford in the respective sums hereafter amended to --------- names but the Schedule does not state under what securities save Mr. Turner who assessed as before stated

Jacob Turner Esq. Principal and Interest due on Mortgage £
John Martin  £ - no sum annexed to his name
Messrs. Thompson and Gordon  £18.10.4
Messrs. Henderson and Crawford   £35.10.02
John Hamilton  £9.10.0
Joseph Wakefield   £4.5.7
John Cortly (or Eastly)  £5.0.0
Messrs. George Law & Aughtry Law  £92.0.18

All which said Several sums supposing they are not paid is submitted by the Sellers Agent are barred by the Statute of Limitations unless Secured by the Judgements and Kept within the Statute by payment of the Interest or some part of the principal. ~

This additional state of Title with your former opinions are laid before you to advise the purchaser Mr. Moses Whiteside [30] whether under all the Circumstances now stated with those in the Case formerly laid before you a Good and sufficient Title to the lands agreed to be sold him can be now made out to him and also whither any Search ought to be made for any claim by the said George Birch and the foot of the fine before mentioned

(NOTE: This is where the handwriting changes to that of M. Ball)

A search should be made for a claim on the foot of the Fine levied by James Birch the younger in 1779.  If there be no such claims then I am of opinion that the heir at law of John Birch who was entitled the Reversion after the death of James Birch the younger is barred and that the Title received from James Birch cannot be impeached.  But as to the Deed of 1781 from Andrew Crawford to his Trustees some difficulty arises from its not containing a Covenant by the Creditors who signed it that the Receipt of the Trustees to the Purchasers of the Premises conveyed by it should be sufficient without such Purchasers looking to the application of the June lease Money because without such Provisions it is held that a purchaser is bound to look to the application of Purchase Money when Debts are specified in the Deed creating the Just (?), and it is further held that such Debts are not barriable (?) by the Statute of Limitations, because the Statute does not attach upon Cases of Trusts, as between Trustee & ------ gave Instruction. Certainly however in the present Case after a profession of twenty five years then appears anything presumptive that the Trustees in the Deed of the 5^th of March 1781 applied the –freedom of the Lands sold by ---------- ----------- ----------- do not think a purchaser at this day runs much risque of any Trouble from the Creditors of Andrew Crawford.  But still a purchaser has a right to be indemnified against their Demands, and in point of prudence I would not recommend it to Mr. Whiteside to complete the present purchase without obtaining such Indemnity.    

M Ball
26 May 1806