Philip Beeker ^{1 2 3 4}

   FamilySearch ID: LZN1-THS.

  Noted events in his life were:

1. Census in 1830 in , Davidson, NC, USA. ² The 1830 census recorded Philip Beeker with this household:
Free White Persons - Males - Under 5: 2
Free White Persons - Males - 20 thru 29: 1
Free White Persons - Females - 30 thru 39: 1
Free White Persons - Under 20: 2
Free White Persons - 20 thru 49: 2
Total Free White Persons: 4
Total - All Persons (Free White, Slaves, Free Colored): 4.

2. Census in 1840 in , Davidson, NC, USA. ³ The 1840 census recorded Philip Beaker with this household:
Free White Persons - Males - Under 5: 1
Free White Persons - Males - 10 thru 14: 2
Free White Persons - Males - 30 thru 39: 1
Free White Persons - Females - Under 5: 1
Free White Persons - Females - 30 thru 39: 1
Persons Employed in Agriculture: 3
No. White Persons over 20 Who Cannot Read and Write: 2
Free White Persons - Under 20: 4
Free White Persons - 20 thru 49: 2
Total Free White Persons: 6
Total All Persons - Free White, Free Colored, Slaves: 6.

3. Court: NC Supreme Court, Philip Beeker vs. John Saunders in 1846 in , Davidson, NC, USA. North Carolina Supreme Court
PHILIP BEEKER versus JOHN SAUNDERS

APPEAL from DAVIDSON COUNTY Spring Term, 1846; Settle, J. The plaintiff, on 23 April, 1841, received of the defendant, for bacon sold him, two notes then due on Alexander Shammell. The defendant guaranteed the notes to be good, and Shammell's estate was then considered to be good. The plaintiff did not, however, demand the money due on the notes until 20 July, 1842. The plaintiff gave notice to the defendant on 29 February, 1844, that he was looked to for the money. The defendant refused to pay, and the plaintiff brought this action of assumpsit upon the said guaranty. The jury found these facts in a special verdict: that the plaintiff had been guilty of laches and the defendant was discharged from his guarantee. Having pronounced judgment accordingly, the plaintiff appealed.

Mendenhall for plaintiff. No counsel for defendant.

DANIEL, J. A guaranty is a promise to answer for the payment of some debt or the performance of some duty in case of the failure of another person who is himself, in the first instance, liable to such payment or performance. Fell on Guar.. 1; Smith Mercantile Law, 277. The judge was of opinion that the laches of the plaintiff had discharged the defendant. And we concur with his Honor. It does not appear in the verdict that the plaintiff ever demanded the money due on the notes of Shammell's representatives for more than fifteen months after he had received them. Nor did he give notice to the defendant of his inability to get the money out of Shammell's estate until February, 1844, almost three years after he had received the notes upon the guaranty, and when the law demanded of him to resort to a reasonable degree of diligence, and that, too, in such time as a prudent and discreet man would in like circumstances use to collect his own debts. And if he then fails to obtain satisfaction of his principal, he is entitled to resort to his guarantor, on his first giving him notice in a reasonable time that he is looked to for payment of his guaranty. Towns v. Farrar, 9 N. C., 163; Grice v. Ricks, 14 N. C., 62. The judgment must be PER CURIAM.

Cited: Straus r. Beardsley, 79 N. C., 68.
Affirmed.

4. Court: Philip's 4 minor sons were appointed to 4 guardian households via apprentice bonds issued by the Davie County court. on 26 Feb 1849 in , Davie, NC, USA. ⁵ Children following the death of their parents, or when parents could no longer provide for them, were bonded by the county court to serve as apprentices for the new families that would care for them. The following Beekers were given apprentice bonds in Davie County, North Carolina:

26 February 1849. Philip Beeker bound to John C. Foard until the age of 2l years.
To learn: Farming, Teach him to read and write and cipher to the rule of three.
Given at freedom: Twenty-five dollars in cash and a freedom suit, in all other respects to comply with the Act of Assembly.
Signed: A. G. Carter (Chairman of Court), John C. Foard
Witness: H. R. Austin

26 February 1849. George Beeker bound to Thomas J. Deadmon until the age of 2l years.
To learn: Farming, to learn to read and write and cipher to the rule of three.
Given at freedom: A horse, saddle and bridle worth sixty dollars, a freedom suit, and in other respects comply with the Act of Assembly.
Signed: A. G. Carter (Chairman of Court), Thos J. Deadmon
Witness: H. R. Austin

26 February 1849. Henry J. Beeker bound to C. W. Bessant until the age of 2l years.
To learn: Shoe and Boot making, learn to read and write and cipher to the rule of three inclusive.
Given at freedom: A freedom suit, a set of shoe makers tools worth ten dollars and in all other matters comply with the Act of Assembly.
Signed: A. G. Carter (Chairman of Court), C. W. Bessent
Witness: H. R. Austin

26 February 1849. Solomon Beeker bound to George Deadmon until the age of 2l years.
To learn: Tanning, learn to read and write and cipher to the single rule of three inclusive.
Given at freedom: A freedom suit, a horse, saddle, and bridle worth $50 and in all other respects comply with the Act of Assembly.
Signed: A. G. Carter (Chairman of Court), George Dedmon
Witness: H. R. Austin

In the 1850 census we find Philip's daughter Barbara living in the household of widow Mary Snider.

In the 1850 census we find Philip's daughter Mary living in the household of Joseph and Anna Dedmon.

5. Note: Philip not found going through 1850 census in S. Davidson page by page, 1850, , Davidson, NC, USA.

6. After father Philip's death his 7 children petitioned the court to sell his land in 1853 in , Davidson, NC, USA. ⁶ State of North Carolina
Davidson County

In Equity
To Fall Term 1853

To The Hon. The Judges of the court of Equity of Davidson county.

This petition of John C. Beeker, Philip S. Beeker of full age, and Henry J. Beeker, Barbara M. Beeker, George W. Beeker, Solomon Beeker & Mary M. Beeker infants who sues by their next friend & brother John C. Beeker.

Hereby petitioning
Show unto your honor your petitions aforesaid that in the year 1838 Henry Beeker made a deed of conveyance in fee simple of the lands below described to the "bodily heirs of Philip Beeker" decd, that your peititioning John C. Beeker, Philip S. Beeker who are of full age, and Henry J. Beeker, Barbara M. Beeker, George W. Beeker, Solomon Beeker & Mary M. Beeker who are infants, are the only children & bodily heirs of said Philip Beeker decd and are tenants in the said land lying in the county aforesaid on the waters of Lick Creek adjoining the lands of Philip Snider, Wesley Snider, James Williams & Marshall Nance containing two hundred acres more or less.
Your petitioners would further show to your honor that, on account of the great inequality of the value of the various parts of said land, the same could not with any sort of equality justice be divided among your petitioners, and that the land is becoming from year to year of less value and the improvements getting out of repair so that it cannot be sorted out to any advantages to your petitioners, and that a sale of the same would essentially immaterally promote the interests of all the parties concerned and especially said infant petitioners.
Lo the end therefore that your petitioners may be relieved in the premises, may it prove your Honor to grant an order & decree of sale of said lands upon such terms and conditions as to your Honor may seem just and proper and all such further orders as the nature of the case may require
And as induly bound will ever pray.

D. A. Starbuck
Sol for Petitioners.

7. Court: in Dec 1853 in , Davidson, NC, USA. ⁷ WILLIAM B. LEE against JOHN C. FOARD
DECEMBER TERM 1853, Supreme Court of North Carolina

------
Where a bill sets forth that A bound himself to make a "good and sure title in the fee simple," and refers to a bond which he files, and prays may be taken as a part of the will; and it appears from that, that the obligation is "to make a good and lawful warrantee deed," any incongruity that there may be between the allegation and proof is obviated by this reference in the bill.

Where there is a devise of land to A's heirs of a certain name, it is good, though A being living, and A takes no interest therein.

If A disposes of said land, receiving money and bonds in payment there for, and dies, the purchaser may file a bill to have his bonds in the hands of A's administrator surrendered, and have an account as to the assets.
-------

BILL transmitted from the Court of Equity, of Randolph County, at Fall Term, 1853.

The following case is made by the pleadings: Philip Beeker, the intestate of the defendant Foard, contracted to sell to the plaintiff two tracts of land, lying in Davidson county, one of two hundred acres, for $600, and one of fifty acres, for $200 -- making in all $800. He received in cash $300 and took the plaintiff s notes for the remainder of the eight hundred dollars. At the same time, he executed a penal bond in the sum of $1,600, reciting the sale of the said two tracts of land, with a condition to make or cause to be made to the plaintiff, "a good and lawful warrantee deed" for the same. The said two hundred acre tract had, before the date of the said bond, been devised by Henry Beeker to his son, "Philip Beeker's heirs by the name of Beeker," and the said Philip Beeker was living at the time the said will took effect, and had at the same time seven children, all of whom were infants at the time of the bringing of the suit, except one. The several notes given for the remainder of the purchase money are in the possession of the defendant Foard, the administrator.

The bill alleges, that the title of Philip Beeker, to the tract of 200 acres, is defective, and submits to take the fifty acre tract at two hundred dollars, the price agreed on. The prayer of the bill is, that the contract may be rescinded, so far as related to the two hundred acre tract; that the notes may be surrendered up to be cancelled, and that the defendant Foard be decreed to repay the money paid, after deducting the price of the fifty acre tract. John C. Foard, and the children of Philip Becker, are made defendants.

The defendants insist that the plaintiff purchased, with full notice of the defect in the title, and agreed to buy his title and take the risk. There was replication and proofs taken in the cause. Set for hearing and removed to this Court.

No counsel for the plaintiff.
J. H. Bryan, for the defendant.

Ruling by Judge:

BATTLE J. There can be no doubt that the title of the defendant Foard's intestate to the principal tract of land sold to the plaintiff, was, at the time of the sale, and still is, defective. That tract was devised by Henry Beeker, the father of the intestate Philip, to his, Philip's heirs, by the name of Beeker. This was a good devise to his children of that name, though, he was living at the time, and took no interest in it. Ward v. Stowe 2 Dev. Eq. 509.

There was, then, an entire failure of the consideration for the money paid, and the notes given, for that tract of land. No fair pretense can be made, that the plaintiff was acquainted with the state of the title, and intended to purchase the mere chance of getting a good one. The full price, which he agreed to pay for the land, as well as the bond given by Philip Beeker, to make or cause to be made to him a good and "lawful warrantee deed" for it, upon payment of the purchase money, is directly opposed to such a supposition. The plaintiff is then clearly entitled to relief, if there be no defect in the frame of this bill.

It is said in the argument here, that there is a fatal defeat in it, to wit: that it sets out a different title which the intestate was bound to make upon the payment of the purchase money for the land, from that which is mentioned in the bond. It is insisted, that the bill alleges that the intestate was to execute a deed containing a covenant of seisin, while the bond exhibited in evidence shows that the deed was to have a covenant for quiet enjoyment only. Hence, it is contended, that there is a substantial variance between the allegation and the proof, and that consequently the bill must fail. If the premises be correct, the conclusion is legitimate; but are they correct? We understand the statement of the bill to be different from what is assumed by the counsel. The statement is, that the intestate bound himself in an obligation to make a "good and sure title in fee simple" and it then refers to the bond, and prays that it may be taken as a part of the bill. If it be admitted that "a good and sure title in fee simple" is different from "a good and lawful warrantee deed to the plaintiff or his heirs," the more extended sense of the first expression is restricted, by the reference to the bond which immediately follows. The apparent repugnancy between the allegation and the proof thus vanishes. But it is said further, that the bill ought to state the price as specified in the bond for title. It does so, so far as we can infer any statement of the price in the bond, and that is half the penalty therein mentioned. The bill states, (and in that it is sustained by the proofs and by the answer of John Beeker,) that the plaintiff was to pay eight hundred dollars for the two tracts, to wit: six hundred for the larger, and two hundred for the smaller.

Of this sum he paid three hundred and fifty dollars in cash, and gave his notes for the residue. No difficulty has arisen as to the smaller tract, but for the money and notes given for the other, the plaintiff is entitled to relief. That relief is to have his bonds, in the hands of the defendant Foard, as administrator, surrendered up, and to have an account of the assets in the hands of the said administrator, to ascertain whether there be sufficient to satisfy his claim for the money paid, after deducting the price of the small tract.

Decree accordingly.

8. Probate in 1854 in , Davidson, NC, USA. ⁶ John C. Beeker Ex Parte

In Equity
Spring Term 1854

To the Honorable the Judge of the Court of Equity in and forsaid County.

In obedience to a decree of this Court of Equity made at the Fall Term 1853 -- after due advertisement I proceeded to sell the lands mentioned in the petition, at public sale on a credit of twelve months, on the the premises, when William Cox became the purchasor, at the sum of five hundred and seventy five dollars and fifty centers - which I report to be a fair price; all of which is respectfully submitted - at office April 4th 1854.

James A. Long, C M C.

Philip married Catharine Snider, daughter of Rev. Lewis Snider Sr. and Anna Garner. (Catharine Snider was born between 1801 and 1810 in , , NC and died before 1840 in , Davidson, NC, USA.)

Philip next married Elizabeth Beula Shoultz. (Elizabeth Beula Shoultz was born in , , Pennsylvania, USA ¹.)