Pages
Categories
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
Editors
Category Archives: Chancery Court Blog Posts
Petersburg Chancery Digital Project Now Complete
16 May 2012
The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce the completion of the Petersburg chancery causes digital project. The scanning project was funded by the Circuit Court Records Preservation Program along with a $155,071 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The collection has been digitized from 1787 through 1912 and the images added to the Chancery Records Index. The most recently added suits cover the years 1889-1912.
The following are a few suits of interest found in the newly added Petersburg chancery digital images.
In chancery cause 1907-055, George E. Fisher, for, etc. vs. Virginia Passenger & Power Company, etc., the plaintiffs ask the court to take over the floundering Virginia Passenger & Power Company in order to protect their financial stake in the business. The suit contains numerous exhibits including plats (images 616, 2030, 2032), minutes from board of directors’ and stockholders’ meetings (images 1878 and 1673). In 1908-034, John F. Crowder, etc. vs. Eli Tartt, etc., the suit stems from the unhappiness of the First Baptist (Colored) Church members with their pastor Eli Tartt. The plaintiffs wanted the court to remove Tartt as pastor of the church and their bill of complaint gives an account of a church meeting that became so uncontrollable… read more »
Dear Uncle…
18 April 2012
This year marks the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812. A conflict associated with the War of 1812 was the Creek War, fought mainly in Alabama which at the time was part of the Mississippi Territory. Recently, I came across a letter dated 9 April 1814 used as an exhibit in Lynchburg Chancery Cause 1815-002, Peter Detto vs. Heirs of Caleb Tait, etc. It referenced the last and most famous battle of the Creek War, the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, fought only a couple of weeks before the letter was written. Waddy Tate, a recent Virginia emigrant to the Mississippi Territory, wrote the letter to his uncle Caleb Tate to clarify a misunderstanding concerning a deed to a lot of land in Lynchburg that was the source of the dispute in the chancery cause. Caleb believed his nephew had recorded the deed but Waddy informed his uncle that he had not because “our Judicial proceedings were all for a time suspended” because of the “Indian War.” But now that the “brave Genl. [Andrew] Jackson” had arrived, the courts were back in session and he would be sure to record the deed soon. Waddy concluded his letter by describing in a florid style General Andrew Jackson’s victory over the Creeks at Horseshoe Bend:
“General Jackson on the 27th last month attacked one [of] the strongest fortifications in the Indian Nation. He attempted to batter down their barrackcading [sic] with his cannon but it proved invulnerable. He was compelled to resort to
Also posted in Local Records Blog Posts
Tags: Alabama, Andrew Jackson, chancery, Chancery Causes, Chancery Records Index, Correspondence, Creek War, Lynchburg, War of 1812
Leave a comment
Tags: Alabama, Andrew Jackson, chancery, Chancery Causes, Chancery Records Index, Correspondence, Creek War, Lynchburg, War of 1812
Leave a comment
April Fool!
28 March 2012
Mary E. Neff opened an envelope to find a defaced photograph of her estranged husband, William E. Neff, with an eye gouged out, an ear scratched off, a rodent scrawled on his forehead, and a button attached to his ear dangling from a piece of string. The couple were in the midst of a divorce, and Mary, assuming that William had sent it, wrote to him that the purpose of the photo “is dark and mysterious to me, and I am at a loss to know the meaning, whether it is jest, insult, ridicule, or what.”
William E. Neff and Mary E. Munsey were married on 13 April 1899 and lived together as man and wife for a mere four months. By 1902, William was seeking a divorce on grounds of desertion, but it was unclear who deserted whom. William claimed that Mary refused to return home with him after a visit to her parents’ home on the evening of 13 August 1899. Mary argued that William would not agree to treat her right and just up and abandoned her.
In an attempt to make some sense out of their accusations neighbors and family members were deposed. Mary was accused of shouting that she “did not intend to raise any kids by the baldhead scoundrel” as she strode about a neighbor’s house brandishing a yardstick. Mary also fired a double barrel shotgun outside of her husband’s… read more »
The Business of Racism
22 February 2012
Business letterhead can offer a fascinating snapshot of a place or time. A striking example appeared in the Rockingham County chancery causes recently. In the case of Ridgemont Cement & Manufacturing Company vs. Manly Manufacturing Company, 1900, there is a piece of Manly Manufacturing Company letterhead dated 1 March 1895 featuring an image of stereotypical 19th-century African American caricature behind bars. Shocking to our 21st-century sensibilities, this type of advertising was very common beginning in the Victorian era. Caricatured images of African Americans and other minorities were commonly used to sell products because they capitalized on existing beliefs and, ultimately, reinforced existing prejudices.
Manly Manufacturing Company billed itself as “The First and Only Steel Jail Works in THE SOUTH.” Headquartered in Dalton, Georgia, the firm was originally Manly & Cooper, a foundry responsible for casting, amongst other items, the ornamental fence surrounding Thomas Jefferson’s gravesite in Charlottesville. Relocating from Philadelphia to Dalton in 1887, the company developed “Manly Portable Convict Cages,” horse-drawn, steel-wheeled cages to house prisoners working on outdoor projects. The cages became one of its best selling products.
A quick Internet search revealed that Manly Manufacturing is still in business today, 121 years later, as Manly Steel.
The Rockingham County chancery collection contains 534 Hollinger boxes or about 250 cubic feet of records. It is currently being processed for digitization.
-Vince Brooks, Senior Local Records Archivist
My Vindictive Valentine
14 February 2012
Among the character witnesses called in the divorce case of Minerva Alice Nulton and John M. Nulton included John’s widowed sister, Annie Sloat, a dry-goods merchant. In addition to her testimony concerning what she believed to be the bad character of her sister-in-law, Annie entered several items into evidence including this picture and poem that she believed Minerva had sent to her. Based on the statements the two women made about each other in this case, the poem aptly sums up the feelings between Minerva and Annie.
The case of Minerva Alice Nulton v. John N. Nulton, 1900, is part of the Frederick County Chancery Court Collection. An early accession of Frederick County chancery causes, 1745-1926, was processed in the 1990s and is available on microfilm. Additional Frederick County chancery causes , 1866-1923 (Accession 42505), were transferred to the LVA and are presently being processed. This portion will be digitally reformatted as the budget permits.
-Sam Walters, Local Records Archivist
First Scott Co. Chancery Images Have Arrived!
10 February 2012
The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that the first digital images, covering the years 1816-1857, from the Scott County chancery causes digitization project have been added to the Chancery Records Index. The Scott County chancery index covers the years 1816 through 1942 (bulk 1816-1912). The records will be scanned through 1912.
The following are a few suits of interest found in the newly added Scott County chancery digital images. In suits 1828-001, Madison Hill vs. Heirs of Joseph Johnson, and 1830-017, Joseph Jones & wife vs. Thomas M. Carter, one will find references to confrontations between Native Americans and the early settlers of Scott County. Chancery causes 1831-009, 1832-009, 1837-001, and 1852-004 concern a free African American mother’s determined effort to liberate her two children from slavery.
Additional Scott County chancery images will be available in the coming months. Stay tuned for future Out of the Box posts on this valuable and interesting collection of historic Virginia court records.
The Circuit Court Records Preservation Program (CCRP), funded through a $1.50 of the clerk’s recordation fee, is committed to efforts, like the Scott County chancery causes digitization project, that preserve and make accessible permanent circuit court records. Unfortunately, the downturn in the real estate market and the General Assembly’s diversion of CCRP funds have negatively impacted the CCRP’s budget in recent years and slowed the pace of digital chancery projects. The projects remain a high priority for the agency and it is hoped that the initiative can be resumed in full when the economy and the agency’s budget situation improve.
Petersburg Chancery Hits the Rails
6 February 2012
The latest images from the Petersburg chancery causes digitization project are now available on the Chancery Records Index. The scanning project is funded by the Circuit Court Records Preservation Program along with a $155,071 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Chancery causes for Petersburg can now be viewed online through 1888. The following is an example of an interesting suit found in this latest addition.
Petersburg chancery suit 1850-025, Chesterfield Railroad Co.] vs. Richmond & Danville Railroad Co.] and Richmond & Danville Railroad Co.] vs. Chesterfield Railroad Co.], is a rich resource for research on the history of the rail and mining industries in the Richmond area. The suit concerns a dispute between the mule and gravity powered Chesterfield Railroad Company and the steam powered Richmond & Danville Railroad Company over access to the Manchester coal yards on the James River opposite Rocketts Landing. Since 1830, the Chesterfield Railroad Company held a monopoly on transporting coal from the Midlothian mines to the James River. The railroad used gravity to transport coal-laden railcars downhill and draft animals to pull them uphill. The company emptied the railcars on James River docks in Manchester, and the mules and horses brought the empty railcars back to the mines. The Richmond & Danville Railroad emerged as a competitor to the Chesterfield Railroad Company in the late 1840s. The Richmond & Danville began building its own rail line from… read more »
Not in my Backyard!
3 February 2012
The latest images from the Augusta County Chancery Causes are now available on the Chancery Records Index. This latest addition of Augusta County chancery causes covering the time period from 1896 through 1902 joins the 1867-1895 causes already available online. Following are a few suits of interest found in this latest addition.
In 1898, Betty E. Arey proclaimed that a cemetery would not be built in her backyard when she and her husband brought suit against the Town of Waynesboro in R. E. Arey and wife vs. Town of Waynesboro etc., 1898-004. The Areys attempted to halt the construction of a cemetery behind their property and brought as evidence a plat showing the proximity of graves to their house, garden, and well.
In her bill for divorce, Annie B. Black wrote that she was persuaded to elope by John B. Black who later “willfully deserted and abandoned her at the youthful age of thirteen” after having only been married for two months. In Annie B. Black vs. John B. Black, 1900-054, Annie Black claimed that her husband obtained their marriage license without her presence and falsely represented her as being twenty when she was actually not yet thirteen at the time of their marriage.
In Frank H. Bailey vs. Nannie C. Bailey, 1902-004, the Baileys argue over who abandoned whom when their marriage ended in 1896. In a letter to his wife written 9 October 1900, Frank Bailey writes, “I don’t believe it was ever intended that I should live with a woman and I don’t care to… read more »
Nelson Co. Chancery Now Available
20 January 2012
The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that Nelson County Chancery Causes, 1808-1912, are now processed, indexed, and conserved; and the index is now available on the Chancery Records Index. These records contain considerable historical and genealogical information. Because the records rely so heavily on testimony from witnesses, they offer a unique glimpse of the people of Nelson County from the early 19th century through the First World War. Following are a few suits of interest found in this collection.
In chancery cause Tobias~ vs. Heirs of John Campbell, 1816-005, Tobias, a free Negro, sues for the payment of a judgment won against the administrator of John Campbell. In chancery suit Eliza A. Figures vs. Christopher T. Estes, 1838-035, Eliza Figures was hired by Estes, a tavern owner, to take care of the house business and culinary affairs, and she sued for lack of compensation. In Eliza Ann Figures vs. Dr. Matthew Figures, 1840-013, the same individual is the plaintiff suing for divorce from her husband citing cruelty, abandonment and repeated acts of adultery. Daniel M. Harris, trustee vs. Christopher T. Estes, etc., 1846-017, includes a typical item found in many of Nelson County’s pre-Civil War chancery causes – a cash valuation of slaves. The effects of the Civil War are noted in Elijah R. Walker vs. William H. Loving, 1871-079, and in chancery cause 1880-012 which consists of multiple suits involving members of the Coleman and Hamner families. Modernization within the county is a topic dealt with in J.R. & Mary E. Peebles vs. W.M. Tunstall, 1906-032, which involves a dispute… read more »
Mr. Christmas and his Flights of Fancy
21 December 2011
Former Local Records archivist Catherine OBrion was given the task of processing the chancery causes of Arlington (formerly Alexandria) County. Perhaps the most interesting case that she discovered was a suit entitled Creed M. Fulton versus the Christmas Aeroplane Company, Inc. et al. The day after Christmas in 1910, Mr. Fulton, a lawyer from D.C., filed suit against the Christmas Aeroplane Company, the company’s founder William W. Christmas, and two other individuals—Lester C. McLeod and Thomas W. Buckey. In the bill for the suit, William W. Christmas is described as the inventor of a heavier-than-air machine for the purpose of aerial navigation. According to the document, Mr. Christmas informed the complainant that the aircraft “had been actually tried and was successful and that said machine had remained in the air for sometime.”
In need of money to procure a patent and to build a practical machine for the purpose of “demonstrating the values and practicability of said invention,” all parties entered into an agreement on October 26, 1909, in Washington, D.C that would create the Christmas Aeroplane Company. According to the agreement, money for the patent would be advanced and the others would aid William Christmas in raising funds to cover the actual cost of building a machine. After $1,200 was given for the patent, it became necessary for some of the parties to advance more funds. In August 1910, it was ascertained that an additional $2,500 was needed to cover the payment of outstanding bills, to defray… read more »
