Amos Hough

Same Amos? Friends in “the Redstone settlement” requested a meeting for worship and a preparative meeting from Hopewell MM in 1781. The MM sent a committee that reported back two months later, reporting it was their “sense & Judgement that it may be useful to Establish said meeting there.” After a year’s delay, Warrington & Fairfax QM granted a preparative meeting at Westland, which was first held on 11/14/1782. At that time, PMs were expected to send representatives to each MM session, but due to the distance Westland PM’s representatives only sporadically made the journey. In 1783, Westland reported to Hopewell that Friends on the east side of the Monongahela requested a separate meeting for worship. Hopewell sent a committee that reported back favorably, and Redstone meeting for worship was first held near Amos Hough’s house esouce: http://www.quaker-chronicle.info/pdfs/pp6-7.pdf

Amos Hough Born about 1755 in North Carolina

Son of Joseph Hough Sr., G2 Brother of Joseph Hough II, Sampson Hough, Barbara (Hough) Phillips, John Hough and Abraham Hough Husband of Sarah (Bivens) Hough — married before 1780 in Anson County, North Carolina

Father of Joseph Hough, Dorcas (Hough) Deason, Joel Hough, Amos Hough, Sarah Hough, Nathaniel Hough Esquire, Moses Hough, John Hough, Mary Hough and Margaret Hough Died 29 Jan 1829 in Lancaster, South Carolina Profile managers: Margaret Acree, Barbara Roesch], and Betty Malone Profile last modified 3 Dec 2018 | Created 9 Oct 2014 This page has been accessed 1,192 times.

BIRTH 1760 Bucks County, Pennsylvania, USA DEATH 29 Jan 1829 (aged 68–69) Lancaster County, South Carolina, USA BURIAL Non-Cemetery Burial, Specifically: An Unlocated Family Cemetery MEMORIAL ID 61516173 · View Source

The SC immigrant ancestor of England to PA immigrants to the William Penn Colony. His burial place is in Lancaster District, SC but the cemetery is currently unknown. He and his wife, Sarah (Bivens) had 10 children to include: Joseph md twice (1) Susanna Williams and (2) Lavinia Eliott, Dorcas md Benjamin Deason, Joel, Amos md Charity Deason, Sarah md Nathaniel Cook, Nathaniel md Emelia (Stephens), Moses md Mary Llewellyn, John H., Mary md Richmond Terrell, and Margaret md George Hilton. Reference: 1839-40 Lancaster District, SC, Sarah Hough (widow of Amos) Estate Settlement and Richmond Terrell vs Joseph and Moses Hough, pp 19-50, Decrees of the Court of Equity filed 18 June 1839, recorded June 1840.

Amos HOUGH (c 1755/60 PA-29 Jan 1829 SC), a minor in 1775 after the death of father Joseph Hough of Anson Co., NC chose Sampson Hough as his guardian on 14 April 1775,[1] suggesting Sampson was an uncle. Sampson had purchased Lane’s Creek, Anson Co., NC land on 16 May 1778 [2] from Joel McCLENDON which he sold on 12 Oct 1779 to said nephew Amos, [3]

The history of his father and probably uncle Daniel Huff comes from the Quaker records of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. One dau in SC 1880, Margaret, stated for the census that her father was born in Pennsylvania; not likely since his father was in NC by 1737. The concluded ancestors were active Quakers when they arrived in PA in 1683. By the second generation, however, they were having disagreements and these generations began to remove themselves (or be removed) from the Society of Friends for varying reasons. By the time Joseph died in North Carolina he likely had no remaining connection to the Society. Quakers did exist in SC, however. There are subtle indications that there was a background of the religion that came down in the personalities of Joseph's descendants, albeit, clearly an opinion.

By the time of Amos' grandchildren, these Houghs were firmly involved in the Baptist churches of the Moriah Association in South Carolina.

About 1780 Amos md Sarah BIVENS (c1763-Oct 1836 SC) said dau of Nathaniel and Peggy (TYLER) BIVENS. Nathaniel BIVENS died between 9 May 1816 and April, 1818. [4] In it he named his seven sons and three daus, with no dau given a surname, as: Abel; William; Sarah; John; Unity; Moses; Elijah; Lyda; Stephen; and Nathaniel. Witnesses were John Bennett, Sr., John Bennett, Jr., and William Bennett. This will was proved in April Court, 1818, by John Bennett, Jr. Sarah, as the apparent oldest dau, was probably long since md to Amos HOUGH so the lack of her md surname leaves a question. However it is a strong likelihood based on stories and family knowledge since prior to the civil war. The 1790 census showed Nathaniel Bivens in Anson Co., NC, with 3-3-3. The three females were likely the wife, Unity, and Lyda.

Census 1790[5]: Anson, North Carolina, United States. Amos Hough 1-3-3-0-0

1800 Lancaster Co., SC, p 17, Amos Hoof 21210-11110, 9 slaves. 1810[6]: Lancaster, South Carolina, United States. Amos Huff 12101-20101, 12 slaves. 1820[7]: Lancaster, South Carolina, United States. Amos Hough 000101-00001, 13 slaves.

1830 Lancaster Co., SC, p 64, Sarah Hough, no males-1 female 60 to 70. Timeline Initially they are shown in Anson County, NC but in time the boundary between NC and SC was disputed, re-assessed, disputed again until finally and officially settled in 1813. The end result was that their initial purchases became South Carolina rather than the North state. They are recorded in Lancaster and Chesterfield counties, with later instruments and censuses with the HOUGH spelling in the former and HUFF in the latter. Often the properties were purchased on "both sides" of Lynches Creek, the county boundary and recorded in either county. Additionally, in order to record the NC property into the new "South State" at Charleston a "Memorial" was required for legal ownership.

1790 Nov 16 Amos Hough received a NC Land Grant. [8]

1791 Nov 23 Amos Hough sold the Lane’s Creek land to George WHITE and soon after began purchasing property further south on tributaries of Big Lynches Creek. [9]

18 Sep 1792 Amos HOUGH of Anson Co., NC, bought 100 acres of Lancaster District land on Dead Pine Branch of Big Lynches Creek from Jacob and Mary FREE of Orangeburg Co. Witnesses were John HOUGH, Abraham HOUGH, and James McDONALD. Dead Pine was actually in Chesterfield District. [10]

12 Feb 1793 Amos HOUGH purchased 100 acres of Flat Creek land in Lancaster County from Peter ARANT of GA and Chesterfield District, SC. Witnesses were John HOUGH, John BAKER, and James McDONALD. [11]

13 Dec 1794 he added another 100a on Flat Creek purchased from Joseph HAILE with witnesses John HOUGH, Abraham HOUGH, Hugh McMANUS, James HOLLIMAN, John BAKER, James McDONALD, Edw. NARRAMORE, William DUNCAN, and William FERGUSON. [12]

As Amos aged, he divested himself of some of the property, having on 26 Sep 1825 [13] with dower consent of Sarah HUFF, sold to son Nathaniel HUFF of Chesterfield Co., SC, 105a on the South side of Great Lynches Creek, part of two tracts, for $1000. Witnesses were Moses HOUGH, John HOUGH, and B. DEASON, sons and son-in-law.

Death and Legacy Reference has been made [14] to Amos Hough's Will and Probate which this writer has not personally viewed. However, there are documents pertaining to his estate that have been viewed and are available.

One is a plat for 763 acres on Flat Creek surveyed 29 Jan 1829, assigned to son Moses [15]

Another pertained to the Admrs of Amos Hough (sons Joseph and Moses) who made a promissory note 15 Jan 1828, filed 8 Sep 1829.[16] and third record is for Moses Hough v. John Robinson and Jacob Funderburke, filed 29 Oct 1829.[17] Amos' estate continued to be managed until the death of his wife in 1836.

The will, probate and a Lancaster Co., SC Plat [18] show 708 acres of land on Flat Creek acquired, 1802 and later, by Amos, and surveyed 27 Jan 1829 by writ of Partition to make Divisions of the Real Estate of Amos HOUGH dec’d among his heirs at Law.

Partial Estate Plat of Amos Hough

Amos Hugh Estate Plat Deed Book N:352 A separate plat was later assigned to son, Moses.[19] The same year, shows the widow Sarah HOUGH was assigned 352a on Big Lynches Creek near Waxhaw Rd.

The 1828 will of Amos HOUGH along with probate papers of 1829 and estate litigation of the widow Sarah HOUGH, brought forth in 1838 by Richmond R. TERRELL, a son-in-law, help construct this HOUGH family and the neighbors with whom his children intermarried including McMANUS and DEASON.

The litigation was to “bring into Hotchpot” the entitlements of all heirs of both Amos and Sarah. This term, from the Bouvier Law Dictionary, is “used figuratively to signify the blending and mixing property belonging to different persons, in order to divide it equally among those entitled to it.”

As an aside, Camden tradition indicates Richmond TERRELL was a person very prone to bring lawsuits against his neighbors, including family. He had, according to legend, leanings toward the Loyalists during the American Revolution but came to be an established and known settler of Lancaster County with a long TERRELL history.

Decrees from the Lancaster District, SC Court of Equity contains a 21 page suit filed 18 June 1839, recorded June 1840 pertaining to the Estate of Widow Sarah HOUGH. The full package is available at Lancaster Public Library, Lancaster, SC in the Perry Belle Bennett Hough Collection. This record pertains to household items and no land is mentioned, having been distributed at or before Amos’ death.

Transcription of Richmond Terrell v. Joseph and Moses Hough [20]

The first question presented in this case, is as to the bequest to JOEL HOUGH---the Testatrix bequeathed two negroes, by name to her “son JOEL HOUGH and his afsigns forever.” The legatee died before this testatrix---In ___ Williams Execrs 757 it is said “it has been established, from the earliest periods, that unlefs the legatee survive the testator, the legacy is extinguished”---It is afterward, stated (p 760) “But this general rule may be controlled by the manifest intention of the testator, appearing upon the face of the will, that the legacy shall not lapse” I can perceive nothing in this will to take the case out of the general rule---as there is no residuary clause. The property is distributable among the next of kin of the testatrix as in cases of intestacy --

As the widow of AMOS HOUGH (dec’d) the testatrix was entitled to one third of his estate --the defendants are the Administrators of Amos Hough -- The balance due to the testatrix at the date of her will was $1600 or $1700,she bequeathed to her so MOSES HOUGH “Eight hundred and seventy dollars (which is to be collected) out of my part of the estate left me by my husband Amos HOUGH (dec’d).” The defendant Moses HOUGH insists that “on its face this bequest was manifestly intended to cover and include all the balance of her distributive share in Amos HOUGH’s Estate” It seems to me that this claim is without foundation and that the defendants must account with the next of kin of the testatrix for the balance due to her from the Estate of her husband, deducting the legacy of Eight hundred and seventy dollars---It is said that the defendants were advanced by the testatrix and the complainants contend that before the defendants receive any share of the residuum, they must “bring into hotchpot as well their advancements in the lifetime of the testatrix on their bequests under the will.” This is a misapprehension. “It has been repeated decided that the doctrine of Hotchpot does not apply to cases of partial intestacy---Suelgame vs. Suelgame 4 Des ?R 292.

It is Ordered and decreed that the defendants account for any moneys they may have _____ collected on account of debts supposed to be disparate as administrators of Amos HOUGH (dec’d) that they also account for as much of the Estate of SARAH HOUGH (dec’d) as according to the principles of the decree and not pafs by her last will and testament--- It is further Ordered that the negroes bequeathed to Joel HOUGH with their increase, be sold by the commifsioner on the first Monday of January next for one third cash the balance on a credit of twelve months secured by Bond bearing interest, a mortgage of the property and approved personal security---It is also ordered that the matters of account be referred to the commifsioner & that the report thereon as well as on the respective rights of the parties as Next of Kin of Sarah HOUGH costs to be paid out of the Estate of the testatrix. Signed; Benj. F. Dunkin Filed 13 October 1838 JH Witherspoon Jr., CELD (LS) Recorded 24 December 1838

Richmond R. TERRELL ET AL, vs. Joseph HOUGH & Moses HOUGH, Exer., et al. Deft’s Ex__ To the Report of the Commifsioner

1st Because the admr’s went beyond & anterior (?) to the 2nd Feby 1830 for the purpose of ascertaining the balance due the Testatrix from the Estate of Amos HOUGH when Complt’s only claimed the balance appearing due to her on the 1st _____ before the Ordinary of that date to wit the sum of $1671.00 and interest from that time & exprefsly disclaimed interfering with or questioning the correctnefs of that settlement:

2nd Because the Com’r should have allowed the deft’s ten per cent comifsions on the interest given on the balance due testatrix from the Estate of Amos HOUGH

3rd Because the Com’rs should have allowed the deft’s a solicitors fee signed Wright Dfsol (?); Filed and recorded 1 July 1839 J H Witherspoon Jr. C.E.L.D.

Richmond R. TERRELL and wife, et al., vs. Joseph HOUGH & Moses HOUGH Exr’s of Sarah Hough, et al. Decree

In stating an account between the parties the Com’r has __circuited the Admr’s of AMOS HOUGH with $36.06 paid to one ___ on an account & the Compl’t except to so much of the report on the grounds that it was not proved to have been paid & was barred by the Statute of limitations.

This exception is evidently founded on a misconception of facts for it appears from the report that payment was ?proved by Hon? Receipt & that the sum paid was the balance of a greater account after striking out all the items against which the statute had run.

In stating the accounts of the Admr’s of Amos HOUGH the report charges them with interest on the account of sale? From the time it becomes due and I do not understand but there is any obligation on principle to this mode – But the Bill itself sits up & ___ __ as _______ a settlement made in the Ordinary’s office in January 1830 and the deft in his first exception to the report objects that interest ought not to be carried back beyond that time, The settlement alluded to was made by the Ordinary & on looking into it will be seen but it is made up of principal only and reserves (?) the matter of interest and ___ it The Ordinary found in order that the admr’s should pay to each distributee interest in the sums respective due them from the time the money became due so that this exception is founded on a misconception of the notice of the settlement & can’t be allowed.

The deft’s claim in their 2nd exception to be entitled to ten percent ________ in the interest with which they are charged in the report on funds which they retained in their own hands – This can’t be allowed---Comsu________ are inter___ made are allowed as a compensation to the Admr’s for their ____ & ___ble in putting money to interest & can’t apply where they ????

In looking into the history of this case I am fully satisfied that the controversy between the p_____ interested in these Estates were to serious and insolvable, in too much doubt of difficulty to render it safe for the Deft’s to distribute the funds of the Estate without the authenticity of the Court -- They ought therefore to be _____ ______ for all the exp____ they have _______ incurred, the claim for the fee paid their solicitor is therefore reasonable and must be allowed ---in all other respects the report of the Court is affirmed and made the judgment of the Court & the Comr is hereby directed to pay Deft’s on their solrs the sum of Sixty Dollars which I understand is considered? To be a ______ allowance for a _____ fee. Signed; David JOHNSON, Filed 6 July 1839 J H WITHERSPOON, Jr. C.E.L.D

Richmond T. TERRELL, ET USE, ET AL vs. Joseph HOUGH and Moses HOUGH, Excrs, et al; Commissioner’s Report In obedience to the decree of the Honorable court the commrs held a reference in the above case and submit the following report; The deft’s were ordered to account for any monies they have received collected on account of debt (deft’s?) supposed to be desperate as a Admr’s of AMOS HOUGH dec’d” the deft’s as Admr’s aforesaid did receive in the year 1839 from JAMES BLACKMAN on a note supposed to be desperate the sum of $44.47 cents, they likewise submit that they have paid out the same on account of said Estate to wit to JOHN ADAMS the sum of $14. 2 January 1832, to the Ordinary on dollar and to JOHN HORN $42.06/100 on a proven account against said deceased---The two first payments were admitted, the latter objected to, a part of the acct was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and the bal $36.16/100 was within the statute, the acct was for cotton sold to intestate in 1826 which was regularly proven in July 1830 & paid by the Admr’s Moses HOUGH in August following, the Deft Moses HOUGH in his ______ state that he had paid out on account of said Estate the sum of $57.06 cents which clearly includes this account, the account was paid subsequent to their ret____ as Admr’s and settlement with the distributees & previous to this collection from BLACKMAN so that the payment was made without any ?fund in his hands for the payment of debts, the same having been ordered for distribution which fact alone would shew that the Admr’s must have been aware of the correctnefs of the account and that the payment was made in good faith---The Admr’s sustained the payment of $36.06 cs which added to the payments admitted made the sum of fifty one Dollars 56, which would leave the Estate of A HOUGH dec’d indebted to the Admr’s the sum of Six Dollars 59 cents besides Interest.

The decree of the court further orders the deft’s to “account for so much of the Estate of Sarah HOUGH dec’d as according to the principles of this decree, did not pafs by her last will and Testatment” The testatrix Sarah HOUGH was the widow of Amos HOUGH dec’d & the deft’s as Admr’s of Amos HOUGH dec’d were indebted to the testatrix on the _ January 1830 the sum of $5227.71 cents being the one third of the Estate of her husband, the sum would bear interest from the 1 January 1830 the Estate of Amos HOUGH is made up principally from this sale of his property which took place the 1st to the 5 January 1828 at 12 months credit _______ interest, the sales Bill would then fall due from the 1st to the 5 January 1829 and according to the decision in David Vs Wright 2 Hill L. R. 560 the account “ought not to be charged with interest on the sale bill from the day it became due but only from the end of the current year in which it became due.” Which would be in this case 1 January 1830---In fact the afsets in the Admr’s hand independent of the sale Bill was not sufficient to cover the debts and commifsioners (?)---the Admr’s the deft’s paid to Testatrix the sum of $100---13 January 1830 and on the 2nd Feby 1830 the sum of (?) $3456.66 ½ cents---The testatrix did purchase _______ at the sale of her husband and the cotton payment may have been her purchase at the sale of her husband as her receipt for same was immediately the settlement of the Estate by the Ordinary which was 11 Jany 1830. The Comr’s after ?costing up the interest on the aforesaid of $5227.71 and giving the proper credits for the payments aforesaid, finds that the Admr’s were indebted to Testatrix in sum of $1703.22 2 Feb 1830 as the balance of her one third of the Estate of her husband Amos HOUGH dec’d which with interest to 5 Dec 1830 the ____ letters testamentary were granted to deft’s on the Estate of Testatrix amounts to be sum of two thousand five hundred & Eighteen dollars 55 ½ cents ($2518.55 ½) the Testatrix by her will bequeath to the deft Moses HOUGH the sum of Eight hundred and seventy ($870.00) which is to be collected out of my part of the Estate left me by my husband Amos HOUGH dec'd the testatrix died a short time previous to the granting of letters Testamentary to the deft’s---By taking the bequests aforesaid from the amount due testatrix when deft’s qualified as Executors aforesaid, it would leave the sum of $1648.55 ½ due as the balance of Testatrix distributive share on the Estate of her husband, which with interest to 1 January 1839 amounts to the sum of $1889.09 ½ (?) cents from which deft’s must account with the next f kin of Testatrix as the bal due her, from the Estate of her husband, after deducting the legacy of Eight hundred and seventy dollars, with Interest from 1 Jany 1839 & which does not pafs, by the will of Testatrix, according to the principles laid down in the decree of the Honl Court ____

The Admr’s have rec’d commifsions upon the principal sum in ____ return, before the ordinary, this sum has made at Int $1086.04 which more than extinguishes the legacy to the deft Moses HOUGH, the Comr’s would submit whether or not the deft’s, would not be entitled to receive commifsions upon the Interest gained, it would at least be a fair application of the rule as the manner in which the interest has been calculated approximates nearly to annual Interest--- no question was made, on the reference before the commifsioners upon this subject. (EX: they thought they should be allowed to keep the interest made on the principal, as part of their commission?) The Testatrix by her will bequeaths “that the balance of my household & kitchen furniture together with my Blacksmith Tools and plantation tools and all my stock of horses, cattle, & hogs be sold at 12 months Credit & equally divided between my two sons John HOUGH & Nathaniel HOUGH “the plf’s insists that John HOUGH & Nathaniel HOUGH under this bequest would take, only, such articles are strictly & clearly embraced under the terms, household & kitchen Furniture & plantation Tools, and that the articles enumerated on the reference, ( see second page) would not pafs to John & Nathaniel HOUGH but composes a part of the residuum of Testatrix Estate & distributable among her next of kin.   The sale Bill amounted to $15.21.35 ¾, the property which plfts contend compares the residuum of the Estate of Testatrix & which does not pafs to John and Nathaniel HOUGH under the best to them aforesaid, amounting to $59.50 cents regarding them either as Household or Kitchen furniture r plantation tools ___

1 broad axe 1.56¼ 1 Box and Gun 1.50 1 Foot adze .75 1 Loom 6.00 1 Lot gears 2.00 2 Stands .50 do 1.37½ 1 grindstone 1.50 ____ & articles 1.50 Tin Box holding money .68¾ Lot plaines .87¼ Hammer & Pinchers 1.37½ Basket & contents 1.50 Bottles .25 Jugs & contents .18¼ Bags & Barrels 1.31¼ 1 ?log chain 3.12½ Pad Lock .12½ 1 pr Steelyards .75 Cutting Knife & Box 2.56¼ 2 Riddles (?) .68¾ 1 Lot Chains 1.87½ One Waggon 22.50 Stand in Smoke H .50 Bottle & oil .25 $ 15.31¼ Barrel & salt 3.68¾

$ 43.68 ¾ 43.68 ¾

Amount $ 59.56

The intention of the Testatrix should govern, in this case, if it could fairly be arrived at, the word “Bal” as used which would seem to imply, that her intention was to give the remainder of what may be called Household & Kitchen furniture and plantation tools in an unrestributed (?) ?sense, she ?leaving in previous clauses of her will disposed of a part of her household & kitchen furniture. The Court regards them as ______ either among the articles which a thrifty and ___ ____ would consider a convenient & necessary Plantation Tool or which a prudent housewife would regard as useful and _____. The Court is moreover sustained by the opinion of ____ GILL, MOYNER & CASTON who are farmers & who ____ according to th__ idea of what they consider their _______ plantation tools, household & Kitchen furniture regard the aforesaid articles as embraced in one or the other, & that they would pafs as such to John & Nathaniel HOUGH _____ The Court may here be regarded as travelling out of the _____ in _______ to ___ __________ what does pafs and what does not pafs but he has reported to this court in order to ascertain what does not pafs by the will of Testatrix under the bequest & which will arrive in the same result viz; that all the articles for which plff’s intend does not pafs (re 2nd page of notes of Ref) amounting to $543.15 ¼ does not pafs by the will of Testatrix except the forgoing articles amounting to $59. 56 cents ___ The Balance of $483.59 ¼ the executors must account for with the next of Kin of Testatrix.

To the sum ______ the _______ at Testatrix death, her notes & accts together with the hire of the negroes years 1837 and 1838 together with ____ makes the sum of $784.40 ½ & which composes the residuum of the Estate of Testatrix except her interest in the Estate of her husband as aforesaid, the Exr’s have made payments to the sum of $208.36 which have been admitted & sustained which leaves the bal & sum of $576.08 due by the Est to the next of Kin of Testatrix & which is the residue of her Estate except her interest as aforesaid. The only payment which has not been sustained by the Exr’s the payment of $60 dollars (?) in the cases ___ ____ _____ the deft’s in their answers submit that the Exr’s being in no default, ought properly & Equally to be allowed the same the ____ ____ the costs to be paid out of the Estate which strictly the Comr’s regard as the tax (?) costs It is true the deft’s have benefited by their proceedings to a certain extent, they are the next of Kin of the Testatrix and entitled to a distributable share of the recovery with the exception of Testatrix Interest in her husband's Estate the Exr’s seemed to be defending against their own Interest, would they as prudent Exr’s have settled the Estate under the conflicting claims of the parties, without hazarding their own safety ___ Their defence does appear to have been made in god faith __ & without any of that disposition to __gate which should match Exr’s in costs ___ yet in the other hand, ___ large recover will be had in the case $1887. 09 ½ of which, the defence was for the exclusive benefits of Deft’s added to this that the compls must pay their own _____, even with the recovery in their favour. Interrogatives were served upon Joseph H HOUGH of the of deft’s, to answer whether or not he had borrowed money from the Testatrix since the death of Amos HOUGH ___ See Interrogatives & anser His sol (?solicitor) objected to his answering because the reference as closed except for a particular matter & for he advised _____ that he would be given Testimony against himself ___ The Com’r did not regard the reference as closed the objections are ______ removed by the answer of Joseph HOUGH who _____ that the ____ testatrix anything at the death, the money___ ______ _____ testatrix any thing at the death. The money _ ____ __ would __ _____ times had been returned and that ?if upon a _____ settlement he was indebted to her she had freely and voluntarily given ____ him, his answer is ____ sustained by the testimony of deft FEREBY HOUGH who was present when the Testatrix said to Joseph “that if there was anything due from him to her upon a _____ settlement she freely gave it to him. The testatrix stated as he (?) reason that it had been reported that she had loaned him a good ____ of money & She wished him to be clear of that report, she did not ____ Joseph to be troubled about it after her death.” No time was fixed when the money was loaned neither any amount, the deft Jos HOUGH also relies upon the Statute of the____tatrix?? Which together with the testimony and his answer should be a good ___ to any recovery against him.

The court was further ordered to report upon the respective rights of the parties as next of Kin of SARAH HOUGH dec’d___ ____ __ distributed (?) of the residuum to wit John Hough, Joseph Hough, Amos Hough, Nathaniel Hough and Moses Hough each one tenth, George Hilton in right of his wife Margaret one tenth; the children of Dorcas Deason dec’d one tenth; viz Sarah Deason, Amos Deason, Eliza Newton wife of Wm Newton, Elanor McManus wife of Hugh McManus, Rebecca Deason, Fereby Deason, B. C. Deason & Wm Deason – the children of Joel Hough dec’d viz Hollis Hough, Eliza and Martha Hough one tenth and the children of Sarah Cook dec’d, viz; Charles and Amos Cook and Unity Weaver wife of Jonathan Weaver, one tenth.

The Com’r therefore reports that $937.76 ½ of the sale bill of Testatrix property pasfs to John & Nathaniel HOUGH under the bequest to them in the will of Testatrix – that the sum of $1887.09 ½ as aforesaid is the balance due Testatrix from the estate of her husband after deducting the legacy of eight hundred and seventy dollars to deft Moses HOUGH which added is $576.08 ¼ cents, the residuum of her estate after the payment of debt etc makes the sum of two thousand four hundred and sixty three dollars 17 ¾ cents (2,463.17) 1 January 1839 which does not pafs by the last will and testament of Sarah HOUGH dec’d and from which defendant must account with interest from 1 January 1839 with the next of kin of Testatrix Sarah HOUGH as state aforesaid to wit: to Compl’t RICHMOND R TERRELL in right of his wife MARY 246.317;to the other complainants the children of Dorcas DEASON dec’d aforesaid, the like sum of $246.317 cents to John HOUGH $247.317 cents to Nathaniel HOUGH $246.317 cents – to Amos Hough $246.317 to GEORGE HILTON in right of his wife (sic), $246.317/10 to the children of Sarah COOK dec’d aforesaid $246.317/00 to the Def’t Moses HOUGH $246.317.10 cents with interest on the aforesaid sums respectively from1 January 1839 –

The testimony taken by the Com’r in the reference, together with a statement (paper A) showing the manner in which the accounts have been made up, is herewith reported, all of which is respectfully submitted. 18 Jun 1838, J H Witherspoon, Jr. C.E.L.D., Filed 18 Jun 1839

R R TERRELL et al vs. Joseph HOUGH et al; Comp’t files the following exception:

Because the Exu’s erred in allowing a credit to the Admr’s of Amos HOUGH dec’d for H____ account for $36.56 the same being out of the date when paid by them & besides there was no evidence that the admr’s did pay it. Clint___ ___ __. Filed and recorded 1 July 1839, Recorded 11 Jun 1840 by J H WITHERSPOON C.E.L.D.

Acknowledgements In memory of Perry Belle (Bennett) Hough of Lancaster, SC (898 SC - 1970 SC) for her vast contributions to Lancaster, SC history, and specifically to the Hough and McManus families, among others.

Thank you to Betty Malone for starting this profile.

Sources ↑ 1775 Anson Co., NC, Joseph Hough, Sr., estate settled. Amos Hough, Guardianship records (p 102, May W. McBee, Abstracts of Anson County Court Minutes, 1771-1777.) ↑ Anson Co., NC, DB 1:71 ↑ Anson Co., NC, DB 4:224 ↑ Anson Co., NC Wills, Book 2, p8-9 typewritten transcription in the Wadesboro, NC Courthouse, NC ↑ "United States Census, 1790," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHK1-GJV : accessed 3 December 2018), Amos Hough, Anson, North Carolina, United States; citing p. 197, NARA microfilm publication M637, (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 7; FHL microfilm 568,147. ↑ "United States Census, 1810," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XH2Y-M4Q : accessed 3 December 2018), Amos Huff, Lancaster, South Carolina, United States; citing p. 398, NARA microfilm publication M252 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 61; FHL microfilm 181,420. ↑ "United States Census, 1820," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHL7-7W4 : accessed 3 December 2018), Amos Hough, Lancaster, South Carolina, United States; citing p. 16, NARA microfilm publication M33, (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 118; FHL microfilm 162,021. ↑ Anson Co., NC, DB 2:489 ↑ Anson Co., NC, DB 2:469 ↑ Chesterfield Co., SC, DB B:307 ↑ Chesterfield Co., SC, DB B:308 ↑ Lancaster Co., SC, DB B:308 ↑ Lancaster Co., SC DB M:253 ↑ Hough Granville W., 1992-5 update of 1976 Bicentennial Series of Hough and Huff Families of the U.S., Courtesy Trustees for Granville W. Hough, and Max Huff, Custodian of the GWH Library ↑ 1828-1829 Lancaster Co, SC, DB N:449 ↑ 1829 Lancaster Co, SC, Boxes 1041-1085. ↑ 1829 Lancaster Co., SC, Boxes 1432-1441 ↑ Lancaster Co., SC, DB N:352 Plat ↑ Lancaster Co., SC. DB N:449 Plat ↑ Richmond Terrell v Joseph and Moses Hough, Admrs of the Estate of Sarah Hough 1838-1840, Decree of Court of Equity, Commissioner's Report, p 19-50; Signed 18 Jun 1838, J. H. Witherspoon, Jr. C.E.L.D., Filed 18 Jun 1839 Research of the late Mrs. Harold Hough, Camden Historian, 1407 Broad St, Camden, SC 29020. Hough Granville W., 1976 Bicentennial Series of Hough and Huff Families of the U.S., 1850-1880, Courtesy Trustees for the late Granville W. Hough. Huff, Max, "The Huff-Hough-Hoff Journal," current Custodian Granville W. Hough Library including unpublished updates 1992-1995. Amos Eagle Elliston Roesch, Barbara Breece, John and Hannah Hough of England and Pennsylvania ~ Migrations of their Carolina Sons Northwest and Southwest 1683-c1900, Dec 2015

Hough descendants

Parent: Joseph Hough

Amos Hough family Name Date of Birth Date of Death Married Amos Hough (c)1760 01/29/1829 Sarah Bivens 1763 10/1836 Children were: Roesch, Barbara, Descendants of Amos and Sarah (Bivens) Hough of North Carolina and South Carolina - circa 1760 - 1997, 1997, Call Number: CS71.H837 1997, Library of Congress Number; 97-182721, and emails in Terry Hough files. Joseph Hough (c)1781 1851 Md. Susannah Williams Nathaniel Hough (c)1785/90 Joel Hough b. 1829 Moses Hough 1799 04/30/1885 Md. Mary Lewallen John Hough (c)1800 11/03/1852 Md. Mary "Polly" Belk Margaret Hough after 1880 Md. George Hilton Mary Hough 1802 after 1870 Md. Richmond R Terrell Sarah Hough before 1840 Md. Nathaniel Cook