Summary

Crosby v. Buchanan — Opinion of the Court

It seemed further, plain enough, that on the 1st of January, 1811, Samuel King had executed a deed by which, for the professed 'consideration of the sum of $10,000 to them in hand paid,' he and his wife had transferred to this same Vint four-fifths of their interest in the estate of William King, brother of the said Samuel; the remaining fifth having, as the deed declared, been conveyed by them to Allen, in the way already mentioned, as compensation to counsel, in attending to the suits to establish the rights of the heirs.
Source: Wikisource

Crosby v. Buchanan — Opinion of the Court

We have mentioned that one of the heirs of William King, of Abingdon, was his sister Hannah, married to John Allen.
Allen's character was thus testified to.
'John Allen's general character as to correctness of dealing in money matters was bad. I am not able to say whether Samuel King was an easy subject for fraud. But Allen's general character was such that he would take advantage of any man if an opportunity offered, and he would do it so smoothly that the person imposed on would consider him a friend.'
'I was well acquainted with John Allen, and knew no good of him.
Source: Wikisource

Crosby v. Buchanan — Opinion of the Court

JOHN ALLEN, HANNAH ALLEN.'
He then said that in pursuance of this agreement King did execute the deed in Kentucky, and that under it he claimed title. He then said that Allen procured from King nine of the ten notes and delivered them to him, and that the amount of these notes was included in the receipt for $11,600, stated on p. 432, as part pay of the contract between himself and Allen, of the 6th of April, 1812; and that he received the notes in good faith from Allen, supposing that Allen had obtained them fairly from King. The notes were yet unindorsed by any one.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature