Tag Archives: Chancery Records Index

- Frederick Co. Chancery Goes Digital


Buggy advertisements found in Frederick County Chancery Cause Columbia Wagon Co. vs. John G. Crisman & Co., etc., 1903-058.

The Library of Virginia, in partnership with the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, is pleased to announce that the digitization of Frederick County’s historic chancery causes, 1860-1912, is now complete. Both the index and images are available to researchers via the Chancery Records Index on the LVA’s Virginia Memory site.

The Frederick County chancery collection covers the years 1745 through 1926 (with digital images posted from 1860 through 1912). The chancery, or equity cases, are a valuable source of local, state, social, and legal history and serve as a primary source for understanding a locality’s history. They often contain correspondence, property lists (including slaves), lists of heirs, and vital statistics that reveal details that help tell the story of Virginia. Cases contain useful biographical, genealogical, and historical information and document a broad spectrum of citizens—rich and poor, black and white, slave and free.

Frederick County Chancery Cause 1867-007, Administrator of Hiram A. Jordan vs. Margaret Swann, etc., tells the story of how prior to the Civil War, Catherine Jordan, a free African-American, purchased her husband, Sylvester, but never technically freed him, and their son who attempted to buy his wife. Chancery cause 1899-058, Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, etc. vs. City of Winchester, etc. chronicles a dispute over whether the city or the county controlled the court house property they read more »

- Kicking Up A Stink In Virginia Beach


Map of Virginia Beach Owned by the Norfolk and Virginia Beach Railroad and Improvement Company, Portsmouth City Chancery Cause 1911-015, A. Johnson Ackiss for etc. vs. E. H. Morrison.

Here at Out of the Box we’re still celebrating Archives Month 2013, and while getting ready for the Library of Virginia’s 30 October event “Homegrown: Celebrating Virginia’s Cultural Heritage in its Archives and Special Collections,” we’ve had many conversations about local food movements and urban farming.  Some issues that came up included land use and neighborhood development—especially when it comes to animals. Some people just don’t want a rooster or goat living next door. Livestock in the city limits is certainly not a strictly modern issue. In fact, we uncovered an early 20th-century Portsmouth City chancery cause in which a horse was causing problems in the summer resort town of Virginia Beach.

The Norfolk and Virginia Beach Railroad and Improvement Company purchased land in Princess Anne County in 1883 to create a “high order summer resort” called Virginia Beach.   The company hoped to attract refined and cultured people to purchase land to build cottages and residences. The original deeds sold by the company included seven covenants that were to be followed for the construction of buildings and use of the property.  One of the covenants forbade the building of public or private stables on the lots.   According to B. P. Holland, a real estate agent, the covenants were made “to have a high order of summer resorts and to do away with … read more »

- Buying and Selling Servants


Indenture between Patrick Larkin and Thomas Blood, 17 August 1766, Virginia Miscellany Legal Papers, 1657-1791, Private Papers Collection, Library of Virginia (Accession 24715).

Two types of immigrants came to America without paying their own passage—indentured servants and redemptioners. Indentured servants would sign a contract, called an indenture, before they sailed agreeing to serve for a period of years in exchange for passage to America. The term of service was typically between four to seven years. Redemptioners were a similar type of immigrant; however they made their agreement with the shipping merchant to be transported without paid passage. Upon landing in America, they were given a short period of time to find family or friends willing to pay all or part of their passage. If funds could not be secured, they then signed on as servants and their indentures could be sold in order to satisfy the debt.

The practice of buying and selling redemptioners and indentured servants can be found in Augusta County Chancery Cause James Kelzo, etc. vs. Samuel McChesney, 1796-008.  James Kelzo (spelled frequently as Kelso) and James Wilson of Augusta County and Samuel McChesney of Culpeper County formed a partnership to purchase and sell indentured servants.  Wilson and McChesney were to make the arrangements for selling the servants, and the partners agreed to divide the net profits equally among them.

With three men responsible for reporting accounts and divvying up profits, it wasn’t long before accusations of withholding funds landed the business partnership … read more »

- Stories of Surry Co.


Surry County (Image used courtesy of Historical Markers Database and Laura Troy.)

The Surry County Chancery Causes, 1785-1922 (bulk 1806-1917), contain valuable biographical, genealogical, and historical information and document a broad spectrum of citizens of Surry County—rich and poor, black and white, slave and free. Following are a few suits of interest found in the collection.

Chancery Cause 1830-037, Mary Pettway, etc. vs. Admr. of John Pettway Judkins, etc. is an estate settlement suit. John Pettway Judkins died without a will; therefore, the court had to determine who all was related to Judkins in order to ensure they received their fair share of his estate, including slaves. The suit contains a list of Judkins’ relatives showing how they were related to him.

Chancery Cause 1869-002, Enna (or Rosenna) Rowena Messersmith by etc. vs. Joseph M. Messersmith is a divorce suit that had its origins in the Civil War. Joseph served in a local Surry County unit attached to the 13th Virginia Regiment. He and Enna were married on 23 September 1862 in Surry County while Joseph was on a short furlough. Emma rarely saw her husband over the next two years. Enna informed the court that she last saw her husband in January 1864 in Petersburg. She learned from someone who served with Joseph that in the spring of 1864 Joseph went AWOL and was believed to have fled to western Virginia. Enna told … read more »

- Middlesex Co. Chancery Goes Digital!


McCarty/Tomlin/Rowan family tree, Middlesex County Chancery Cause Administrator of Manus Rowan vs. Administrator of Winnie Carey, etc., 1892-010.

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that digital images for the Middlesex County Chancery Causes, 1754-1912, are now available online through the Chancery Records Index on the LVA’s Virginia Memory site. Because they rely so heavily on the testimony of witness, chancery causes contain a wealth of historical and genealogical information and are especially useful when researching local, state, social, or legal history. They often contain correspondence, property lists (including slaves), lists of heirs, and vital statistics that are especially helpful in documenting the African American experience, family history, and Southern business and labor history. Following are a few suits of interest found in the collection.

The Middlesex County chancery causes contain many suits illustrating the experiences of African Americans in the tidewater region. In Simon Laughlin vs. Jacob Valentine, 1773-005, Laughlin sues for the recovery of funds he spent on boat and horse hire while traveling to a prison in Snow Hill, Maryland, looking for a runaway slave. In 1858, Elizabeth Thornton initiated two suits in attempt to get rid of unwanted slaves. In Elizabeth Thornton vs. Margaret Thornton, 1858-012, Thornton claimed that Jane had a “very bad disposition” and had become “almost worthless.” Jane supposedly was a “very bad girl, a notorious rouge,” and “very idle.” After successfully selling Jane, Thornton then sought to get rid … read more »

- The Lure


The Lure promotional material, Winchester (Va.) Chancery Cause Fred H. Hable and Herman H. Hable vs. the Mayor of Winchester, 1914-005.

When creating a who’s who list of the early days of film, the list is dominated by men – Cecil B. De Mille, D. W. Griffith, Louis B. Mayer. But there was an obscured hero of cinema’s early years making film alongside those males – Alice Guy-Blachè. In 1896, Guy-Blachè became the first female director, screenwriter, and producer. Regardless of gender, Guy-Blachè left a legacy of innovation in film. Her 1896 release, The Cabbage Fairy, was one of the first narrative films ever made.  Guy-Blachè experimented with hand-tint colorization and even directed with one of the first sound machines decades before The Jazz Singer was released in 1927. Among her 22 feature-length films was The Lure—a film that made an impact on the city of Winchester by sparking a censorship debate, a conflict that found its way to the local courts in the fall of 1914.

The Lure, adapted from a play by George Scarborough, follows the lives of two young women lured into prostitution and enslaved in a house of ill repute. One young woman is enticed away from a fashionable dancing school by a dashing stranger. The other young woman, working in a department store to support an invalid mother, is lured by the promise of “easy night work.”  The two ladies are shown being mistreated and suffering forced … read more »

Posted in Chancery Court Blog Posts
Also tagged in: , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment
Share |

- Impressed by a British Man of War


Impressment of American Seamen, illustration in Harper's Weekly, 1884 April. (Image used courtesy of Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Collection.)

Isaac D. Simkins, born on 13 January 1775, left Northampton County at age 21 to go to sea. Like many people leaving home on a sea voyage, he wrote his will before departing in June 1796.  He asked that his body be decently buried and lent his mother, Anne Simkins, £300 from his estate for her natural life. After her death, the remaining part of his estate would go to his brother, John Simkins, and his heirs. The will, recorded on 10 July 1797, became a point of contention in the Northampton County Chancery Cause Walter C. Gardiner & wife, etc. vs. John Simkins, 1813-008.

In an otherwise mundane estate dispute, the cause of Isaac Simkins’ death was a fascinating side-note. In a deposition, Isaac’s brother, Arthur Simkins, revealed that Isaac had been “impressed by a British Man of War” and died shortly afterwards.

The war between Great Britain and France began in 1793 and continued until 1815. The British Navy used a brutal form of punishment called “flogging” on their sailors, prompting many British sailors to escape to American vessels. Some joined the United States Merchant Marines and others joined the United States Navy.  The British Navy used the excuse of looking for their deserted sailors as a right to board American merchant vessels to look for the deserters and contraband.  The British … read more »

- The Petition of Araminta Frances


Petition of Araminta Frances, Lunenburg County Chancery Cause 1856-042.

In court documents from Lunenburg County Chancery Cause 1856-042, the petition of Araminta Frances reveals an interesting and life-changing request.  On 10 March 1856 Araminta Frances, a free woman of color, petitioned the court asking to be enslaved.

Araminta was once the slave (along with at least two others) of James G. Richardson.  Richardson’s last will and testament, probated 9 December 1850, left the majority of his estate, including finances, property, and slaves, to his daughter, Sarah A. Richardson, two nephews, and friend John L. Coleman.  The provisions for the slaves were clearly spelled out. One negro male slave, Cezar, was to go to James G. Richardson’s nephew, James R. Walker, and John L. Coleman “to be taken care of by them and to be paid to him [Cezar] yearly by them the full amount of his yearly value.” Richardson also stipulated that “my negro child Virginia and Minty’s [presumably Araminta] child yet unborn” should be emancipated and receive the sum of $500 each or $1,000 if his daughter Sarah should die without issue. Minty (or Araminta) would be emancipated should his daughter, Sarah, die without having married. A copy of James G. Richardson’s will was included with the petition as supporting documentation for Araminta’s case.

Also included in the case was a bill passed by the General Assembly on 20 December 1855 allowing Araminta … read more »

Posted in Chancery Court Blog Posts, Local Records Blog Posts
Also tagged in: , , , , ,
Leave a comment
Share |

- Stories from the Past Revealed in Rockingham Co. Chancery Records

 

Central Mining, Manufacturing, & Land Co. Prospectus, Rockingham County Chancery Cause John E. Roller and George W. Sanderson, etc. vs. J. K. Snavely, etc., 1909-088.

The Library of Virginia, in partnership with the Rockingham County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, is pleased to announce that the indexing and digitization of Rockingham County’s historic chancery causes is now complete and available online through the Chancery Records Index on the LVA’s Virginia Memory site.

The RockinghamCounty chancery collection covers the years 1781 to 1913 and are a valuable source of local, state, social, and legal history. They often contain correspondence; property lists: including slaves; lists of heirs; and vital statistics that reveal detailed stories that help tell the story of Virginia. Cases contain useful biographical, genealogical, and historical information and document a broad spectrum of citizens—rich and poor, black and white, slave and free. (See this earlier blog post for a description of interesting suits covering the issue of slavery found in the chancery causes for the years 1781-1893.)

In addition, the economic boom of the 1880s, and subsequent bust that followed the Panic of 1893, plays out in the chancery causes. Suits 1903-128 and 1909-088 contain prospectuses laying out the grand plans of two land improvement companies that became casualties of that financial downturn. The schemes for new towns, grand hotels, and railroad lines in RockinghamCounty and other parts of the Valley collapsed along with the railroad and banking industries of the U. S., and the creditors and shareholders of the … read more »

- Don’t Bush My Stand

 

Diagram of a fishing trap, Northumberland County Chancery Cause Dolly Krentz, widow, etc. vs. Lanius B. Williams, 1902-010.

Interested in commercial fishing techniques used in Virginia’s Northern Neck around the turn of the 20th century? Take a look through the Northumberland County circuit court records.

Around 1895, Earnest Krentz and Lanius B. Williams entered into a partnership to harvest fish from the Potomac River near Hack Creek using fish traps or weirs. Krentz supplied the equipment and Williams constructed and managed the traps. Following Krentz’s death in 1900, his widow, Dolly, contracted with another person to use the equipment, and conflict arose between her and Williams over who controlled the sites that had been used while Earnest lived. She claimed that the two sites were owned by the partnership and should be divided between them. Williams countered that he alone was entitled to both locations. In the spring of 1901, Dolly sued Williams (Northumberland County Chancery Cause 1902-010, Dolly Krentz, widow, etc. vs. Lanius B. Williams) on the chancery side of the Northumberland County circuit court to prevent him from interfering with her use of the most profitable spot. After hearing from both sides and reviewing the evidence, the judge ultimately sided with Williams and dismissed Dolly’s suit.

Out of the testimony and exhibits in this suit, a detailed depiction emerges of the equipment, terms, construction designs, and customs surrounding the use of fish traps in this area. For instance, when … read more »

Posted in Chancery Court Blog Posts
Also tagged in: , , , ,
Leave a comment
Share |