hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Hooker 21 1 Browse Search
United States (United States) 16 0 Browse Search
Andrew 10 0 Browse Search
Jes R. Anderson 10 0 Browse Search
Greenock (United Kingdom) 8 0 Browse Search
William E. Jackson 8 0 Browse Search
Goochland (Virginia, United States) 8 0 Browse Search
Chancellorsville (Virginia, United States) 8 0 Browse Search
Marye's Heights (Virginia, United States) 8 0 Browse Search
Israel Thorndike 6 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: May 9, 1863., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 28 total hits in 14 results.

1 2
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): article 15
The Thorndike will case. [From the ] An interesting case, establishing the validity of the marriage of a citizen of Massachusetts in the German free city of Frankfort on the Main, before the United States Consul, and involving quite a large amount of property, was recently decided by the full bench of the Supreme Court of this State, at Boston. It appeared that Israel Thorndike, the older, by a codicil to his will, proved in 1832 gave to his son Andrew $10,000 one-haft of which wasto maintain their claims against each other. Prior to August, 1851, Katherina Bayerl had borne to Mr. Thorndike the two children above named. At that time, while both were temporarily residing at Frankfort on the Main, the being a citizen of Massachusetts and she having her domicil at Meniz,) they entered into the civil contract of marriage before the United States Consul, and afterwards lived together as husband and wife, he recognizing both the children as his, until his death. The law of F
Katherine Thorndike (search for this): article 15
be paid to his lawful heirs. Andrew died in 1854; and Israel Thorndike, the younger brother of Andrew, claimed that he, with his brothers and sisters, and the children of such of his brothers and sisters as have died, were the lawful heirs of Andrew, and as such entitled to receive the $20,000, with the accumulation since 1854, and he had accordingly commenced an action against the trustee, under the will of Israel Thorndike, the older, to recover his share of it. On the other hand, Katherine Thorndike, a German woman, and Andress and Anna. L. Thorndike, claimed to be entitled to the whole of this sum, as the widow and children of Andrew. Under this state of things the trustee brought a bill in equity, in the nature of a bill of interpleader, and the various claimants were summoned into Court to maintain their claims against each other. Prior to August, 1851, Katherina Bayerl had borne to Mr. Thorndike the two children above named. At that time, while both were temporarily resid
were entirely certain that the marriage was invalid. Two others were equally confident that the law does not apply to foreigners, and that the marriage was valid. The case was very elaborately argued by a long array of counsel. The Court, after carefully comparing the opinions of the legal doctors, and the reasons assigned by them respectively, and minutely examining the provisions of the civil act of Frankfort respecting marriages and taking into view the facts, which were proved, that marriages celebrated in this form were quite frequent with foreigners temporarily residing in that place, and had received a certain degree of recognition, in some instances, from the Senate and the judicial tribunals there, came to the conclusion, which was expressed in an elaborate opinion by Judge Merrick, that the marriage was valid, and that the money in controversy, which now amounts to about $30,000, belongs to Andreas and Anna L. Thorndike, as children and lawful heirs of Andrew Thorndike.
Anna L. Thorndike (search for this): article 15
were entirely certain that the marriage was invalid. Two others were equally confident that the law does not apply to foreigners, and that the marriage was valid. The case was very elaborately argued by a long array of counsel. The Court, after carefully comparing the opinions of the legal doctors, and the reasons assigned by them respectively, and minutely examining the provisions of the civil act of Frankfort respecting marriages and taking into view the facts, which were proved, that marriages celebrated in this form were quite frequent with foreigners temporarily residing in that place, and had received a certain degree of recognition, in some instances, from the Senate and the judicial tribunals there, came to the conclusion, which was expressed in an elaborate opinion by Judge Merrick, that the marriage was valid, and that the money in controversy, which now amounts to about $30,000, belongs to Andreas and Anna L. Thorndike, as children and lawful heirs of Andrew Thorndike.
eared that Israel Thorndike, the older, by a codicil to his will, proved in 1832 gave to his son Andrew $10,000 one-haft of which waste be placed by his executors with the Massachusetts Hospital Life Thorndike should receive the interest death the principal should be paid to his lawful heirs. Andrew died in 1854; and Israel Thorndike, the younger brother of Andrew, claimed that he, with his broAndrew, claimed that he, with his brothers and sisters, and the children of such of his brothers and sisters as have died, were the lawful heirs of Andrew, and as such entitled to receive the $20,000, with the accumulation since 1854, anAndrew, and as such entitled to receive the $20,000, with the accumulation since 1854, and he had accordingly commenced an action against the trustee, under the will of Israel Thorndike, the older, to recover his share of it. On the other hand, Katherine Thorndike, a German woman, and Andna. L. Thorndike, claimed to be entitled to the whole of this sum, as the widow and children of Andrew. Under this state of things the trustee brought a bill in equity, in the nature of a bill of in
L. Thorndike (search for this): article 15
accumulation since 1854, and he had accordingly commenced an action against the trustee, under the will of Israel Thorndike, the older, to recover his share of it. On the other hand, Katherine Thorndike, a German woman, and Andress and Anna. L. Thorndike, claimed to be entitled to the whole of this sum, as the widow and children of Andrew. Under this state of things the trustee brought a bill in equity, in the nature of a bill of interpleader, and the various claimants were summoned into Court to maintain their claims against each other. Prior to August, 1851, Katherina Bayerl had borne to Mr. Thorndike the two children above named. At that time, while both were temporarily residing at Frankfort on the Main, the being a citizen of Massachusetts and she having her domicil at Meniz,) they entered into the civil contract of marriage before the United States Consul, and afterwards lived together as husband and wife, he recognizing both the children as his, until his death. The law o
Andrew Thorndike (search for this): article 15
Boston. It appeared that Israel Thorndike, the older, by a codicil to his will, proved in 1832 gave to his son Andrew $10,000 one-haft of which waste be placed by his executors with the Massachusetts Hospital Life Insurance Company so that Andrew Thorndike should receive the interest death the principal should be paid to his lawful heirs. Andrew died in 1854; and Israel Thorndike, the younger brother of Andrew, claimed that he, with his brothers and sisters, and the children of such of his biages celebrated in this form were quite frequent with foreigners temporarily residing in that place, and had received a certain degree of recognition, in some instances, from the Senate and the judicial tribunals there, came to the conclusion, which was expressed in an elaborate opinion by Judge Merrick, that the marriage was valid, and that the money in controversy, which now amounts to about $30,000, belongs to Andreas and Anna L. Thorndike, as children and lawful heirs of Andrew Thorndike.
ew died in 1854; and Israel Thorndike, the younger brother of Andrew, claimed that he, with his brothers and sisters, and the children of such of his brothers and sisters as have died, were the lawful heirs of Andrew, and as such entitled to receive the $20,000, with the accumulation since 1854, and he had accordingly commenced an action against the trustee, under the will of Israel Thorndike, the older, to recover his share of it. On the other hand, Katherine Thorndike, a German woman, and Andress and Anna. L. Thorndike, claimed to be entitled to the whole of this sum, as the widow and children of Andrew. Under this state of things the trustee brought a bill in equity, in the nature of a bill of interpleader, and the various claimants were summoned into Court to maintain their claims against each other. Prior to August, 1851, Katherina Bayerl had borne to Mr. Thorndike the two children above named. At that time, while both were temporarily residing at Frankfort on the Main, the b
1854; and Israel Thorndike, the younger brother of Andrew, claimed that he, with his brothers and sisters, and the children of such of his brothers and sisters as have died, were the lawful heirs of Andrew, and as such entitled to receive the $20,000, with the accumulation since 1854, and he had accordingly commenced an action against the trustee, under the will of Israel Thorndike, the older, to recover his share of it. On the other hand, Katherine Thorndike, a German woman, and Andress and Anna. L. Thorndike, claimed to be entitled to the whole of this sum, as the widow and children of Andrew. Under this state of things the trustee brought a bill in equity, in the nature of a bill of interpleader, and the various claimants were summoned into Court to maintain their claims against each other. Prior to August, 1851, Katherina Bayerl had borne to Mr. Thorndike the two children above named. At that time, while both were temporarily residing at Frankfort on the Main, the being a citi
were entirely certain that the marriage was invalid. Two others were equally confident that the law does not apply to foreigners, and that the marriage was valid. The case was very elaborately argued by a long array of counsel. The Court, after carefully comparing the opinions of the legal doctors, and the reasons assigned by them respectively, and minutely examining the provisions of the civil act of Frankfort respecting marriages and taking into view the facts, which were proved, that marriages celebrated in this form were quite frequent with foreigners temporarily residing in that place, and had received a certain degree of recognition, in some instances, from the Senate and the judicial tribunals there, came to the conclusion, which was expressed in an elaborate opinion by Judge Merrick, that the marriage was valid, and that the money in controversy, which now amounts to about $30,000, belongs to Andreas and Anna L. Thorndike, as children and lawful heirs of Andrew Thorndike.
1 2