11^, FEDERAL REPORTER. �was born in 1806, but was brought up in the family of one Davis, with whom she resided in New Orleans until 1812, when she went with them to Philadelphia. She was married in Philadelpbia to one Whitney, in 1832. Whitney died in 1838. In 1845 she married Creneral Gaines, who died in 1858. She only discovered her true parentage in 1834. Of the will imder which she took she was also ignorant until then, and for more than 30 years thereafter she was engaged in law- suits, by which she finally was able to prove the authenticity of the will of 1813, finally established. Clark died in 1813. A will executed in 1811 was probated as his last will, and Eelf and Chew, as executors, acted nnder it for many years. Among other things, Eelf and Chew appointed defendant's intestate, Hammond, to sell certain landa in Missouri. Ham- mond did so, but converted a part of the money derived from the sales to his own uaein and before April, 1819. Suit was brought to recover the sum due in April, 1819^ and judgment was rendered for Eelf and Chew in August of that year for $6,841.80, which was afiirmed on appeal in 1823, and cer- tain property was sold on execution as land belonging to Hammond in October, 1823. This land was bid in by Eelf and Chew, and was sold by them to various persons, who held possession of it for many years. No title passed, however, to Eelf and Chew at the sale oh execution, because the interest wHch Hammond had in the land was simply a New-Madrid claiœ, and no return was made as required by the act of 1822. There were other reasons also why no title passed. Hammond, it is alleged, absconded from Missouri in Decem- ber, 1824. He died in Maryland in 1842. No letters of administration were granted on his estate until 1879. The title to the land above mentioned remained in the United States until June, 1864, when it was granted by the govern- ment to Joseph Hunot or his legal representatives, or, in other words, to the representatives of Hammond. This fact was not known to complainant until 1879, when the supreme court of Missouri held that Hammond's representatives were entitled to the property, and that the representatives of Eelf and Chew obtained no title thereto whatever under the exe- ��� �
