induced to examine the deeds very closely, with a
view to the discovery of some defect by which to overturn
the title, being almost convinced then it was founded
in fraud. I discovered that in the deed from
Thomas to Miller, although Miller’s name stood
in a sort of marginal note on the record book, it was
nowhere in the deed itself. I told the fact to
Talbott, the recorder, and proposed to him that he
should go to Gen. Adams’s and get the original
deed, and compare it with the record, and thereby
ascertain whether the defect was in the original or
there was merely an error in the recording. As
Talbott afterwards told me, he went to the General’s,
but not finding him at home, got the deed from his
son, which, when compared with the record, proved
what we had discovered was merely an error of the recorder.
After Mr. Talbott corrected the record, be brought
the original to our office, as I then thought and
think yet, to show us that it was right. When
he came into the room he handed the deed to me, remarking
that the fault was all his own. On opening it,
another paper fell out of it, which on examination
proved to be an assignment of a judgment in the Circuit
Court of Sangamon County from Joseph Anderson, the
late husband of the widow above named, to James Adams,
the judgment being in favor of said Anderson against
one Joseph Miller. Knowing that this judgment
had some connection with the land affair, I immediately
took a copy of it, which is word for word, letter
for letter and cross for cross as follows:
Joseph Anderson, vs. Joseph Miller.
Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court against Joseph
Miller obtained on a note originally 25 dolls and
interest thereon accrued. I assign all my right,
title and interest to James Adams which is in consideration
of a debt I owe said Adams.
his Joseph x Anderson. mark.
As the copy shows, it bore date May 10, 1827; although
the judgment assigned by it was not obtained until
the October afterwards, as may be seen by any one
on the records of the Circuit Court. Two other
strange circumstances attended it which cannot be
represented by a copy. One of them was, that
the date “1827” had first been made “1837”
and, without the figure “3,” being fully
obliterated, the figure “2” had afterwards
been made on top of it; the other was that, although
the date was ten years old, the writing on it, from
the freshness of its appearance, was thought by many,
and I believe by all who saw it, not to be more than
a week old. The paper on which it was written
had a very old appearance; and there were some old
figures on the back of it which made the freshness
of the writing on the face of it much more striking
than I suppose it otherwise might have been.
The reader’s curiosity is no doubt excited to
know what connection this assignment had with the land
in question. The story is this: Dixon sold
and deeded the land to Thomas; Thomas sold it to Anderson;
but before he gave a deed, Anderson sold it to Miller,