The following legal decision (from which I take only the parts I think are pertinent--and I'm not a lawyer so there may be more that would flesh out the story) adds to our knowledge of Daniel Hungerford's (SH35) family.Daniel was the son of Jonathan and Martha (Wells) Hungerford.This item may also help prove that Levi (husband of Hannah Quackenbush) was Daniel's son.More work is needed in that area.
Reference "Jackson, ex. dem. Hungerford et al., versus Eaton.(No number in original) Supreme Court of Judicature of New York, 20 Johns. 478; 1823 N.Y., January, 1823, decided."
In the section entitled "Prior History":
This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover the possession of one half of lot No. 90 in Cincinnatus.Daniel Hungerford, a soldier, who served in the Revolutionary War, was owner of the lot, and died during the war, leaving six children, of whom Levi H. was the eldest, and heir at law.It was admitted that the lessors were children of the soldier, but all younger than Levi H.The defendant offered in evidence a deed from Levi Hungerford to Daniel Hungerford, for the whole lot, dated Nov. 17, 1796, the consideration of which, as expressed, was $500.This deed was not proved or acknowledged until Sept 18, 1820, when it was proved by Isaac Burnham, one of the subscribing witnesses, before Frederick W. Atwater, a commissioner.
(A little further into the narrative...)
The plaintiff then called Levi Hungerford as a witness.The defendant objected to the introduction of this witness, but the judge permitted him to be sworn, subject to all objections.He testified that he never, 'to his knowledge, gave his brother Daniel a deed; he recollected having signed one' or two papers in relation to the lot, at the request of Robert Dickson, who married one of his sisters.(Olive)Dickson undertook to procure the lands; that the witness never received from Dickson, or any one else, any consideration for the land.On his cross-examination, the witness, on being shown the deed in question, said the signature looked like his handwriting, and that at the time he signed the papers Dickson agreed to give him part of the land when he obtained it.By direction of the judge, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for one half of the premises, subject to the opinion of the court on the foregoing case.