The colonial era Northampton County court records tell a fascinating story of a woman named Jane Webb. Born of a white mother, she was a free mulatto, formerly called Jane Williams. In 1704, Jane Webb had “a strong desire to intermarry with a certain negro slave … commonly called and known by the name of Left.” Webb informed Left’s owner Thomas Savage, a gentleman of Northampton County, of her desire to marry Left and made an offer to Savage. She would be a servant of Savage’s for seven years and would let Savage “have all the children that should be bornd [sic] upon her body during the time of [Jane’s] servitude,” but for how long the children were to be bound is not clear. In return, Savage would allow Jane Webb to marry his slave, and after Jane’s period of servitude ended, Savage would free Left. Also, neither Savage nor his heirs could claim any child born to Jane Webb and Left after her period of servitude. Savage agreed to Jane Webb’s offer, and an agreement was written and signed by both parties.

Jane Webb fulfilled her part of the agreement and served Savage for seven years. During that time, she had three children by her husband Left—Diana or Dinah Webb, Daniel Webb, and Francis Webb. After she completed her term of service in 1711, Jane Webb “in a kindly manner” demanded her husband from Savage as well as her children. Apparently, Jane Webb and Savage were at odds on how long the children she bore during her servitude were supposed to be bound to him, and Savage refused to free Left and the children. In April 1711, Savage submitted a letter to the county court of Northampton requesting that Jane Webb’s children be bound to him and his heirs, to which the court agreed.

Eleven years later, Jane Webb filed a petition with the court pleading to the justices to free her children. Webb pointed out to the court her agreement with Savage and beseeched the court that the “children being born in lawful wedlock may not be judged to servitude.” She prayed that the court would not “enslave your petitioner’s children born as aforesaid.” Thomas Savage was unable to, or refused to, appear in court to answer Webb’s petition. On one occasion, he informed the court that he was too sick to attend, and so, the case was continued until the next term, and the next term, and the next term, until it was finally dismissed by the court. Reason given? “Plaintiff’s argument dismissed as frivolous.”

In February 1725, Thomas Savage petitioned the court to have two of Jane’s children, born after Jane completed her term of service, to be bound to him. When you read the petition you will notice that part of it has been marked out. Fortunately, one can make out the words: “…the said Jane hath two children named Lisha & Abimelech the former of which hath long lived with your Petitioner but hath lately been decoyd [sic] away from your Petitioner’s house & is detaind [sic] by her said mother from your Petitioner.” Since Jane had no means to support the children, “they may be induced to take ill courses,” and for that reason, Savage argued that he, and not their mother, had the best right to the children. Savage’s action was in violation of their 1701 agreement as understood by Jane Webb; however, Savage claimed that 1701 agreement permitted him to bind any child born to Jane Webb and Left, even children born after Jane’s seven years of servitude. Savage never produced the agreement as evidence in the case, but he did provide two witnesses who informed the court that they had seen an indenture between Savage and Jane Webb in which “it was agreed that the said Jane was to serve seven years & all her children born in the lifetime of her husband Left should serve the said Savage.”

At the same time the court was hearing Savage’s petition, Jane Webb tried to win freedom for her husband and children in the chancery court. In March 1725, Webb filed her bill of complaint against Thomas Savage in which she recounted the agreement the two made and accused Savage of holding in bondage children born to her and her husband after 1711. She accused Savage of concealing the written agreement which made it difficult for her to prove her case in the previous suit. She asked the chancery court to issue a writ of subpoena to Savage “commanding him” to personally appear before the court to answer her complaint and produce the written agreement.

By July 1726, Savage had yet to respond to Jane’s complaint in the chancery court. On 12 July, the justices made their decision on Savage’s petition regarding Lisha and Abimilech. Both were bound to Savage. On that same day, Jane Webb was arrested on the charge of uttering dangerous words “tending to the breach of the peace” which was heard by several individuals. They swore “that the said Jane had declared that if all Virginia Negroes had as a good as heart as she had they would all be free.” The court ordered that she receive ten lashes “well laid” on her bare back at the whipping post and that it was to be done immediately.

Savage finally responded to Jane Webb’s bill of complaint in November 1726. He informed the court that he never consented to freeing Left and that the children born during and after Webb’s time of servitude were to be bound to him but he could not recall for how long. Once again, Savage did not produce the 1701 agreement. The court put the burden on Jane to produce the evidence on how long her children were to serve Savage. If she could not, the court would dismiss her bill. Jane appeared at the next court held in December 1726 with witnesses to give evidence on her behalf—African-American witnesses. None of the testimony exists because there was some confusion on the part of the court concerning whether the testimony of African-Americans should be admissible. The order book entry reads, “the court being divided about Negro evidence offered ordered the same to be referred to the next court.” In April 1727, the court ruled “that none such [Negro evidence] ought to be allowed.” With no evidence to support her complaint, Jane Webb realized she had no chance of winning her suit. She failed to appear in court the next time the case was heard in July 1727, and the court dismissed the case from the docket. Her husband Left remained a slave and all her children and, by now, grandchildren remained bound to Savage and his heirs.

To learn more stories like Jane Webb’s, visit the Library of Virginia’s latest exhibition You Have No Right: Law and Justice in Virginia, running 24 September 2012-18 May 2013

Information for this story was gathered from the following Northampton County Court Records found at the Library of Virginia:

Northampton County (Va.) Judgments, 1655-1816. Jane Webb versus Thomas Savage, 1723 January, Barcode number 1154682. Local Government Records Collection, Northampton Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Northampton County Chancery Causes, 1721-1816. Jane Webb versus Thomas Savage, Northampton County Chancery Cause, 1727-001. Local Government Records Collection, Northampton Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Northampton County (Va.) Criminal Causes, 1722-1799. Warrant for Jane Webb, 1726 July, Barcode number 1168307. Local Government Records Collection, Northampton Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Northampton County (Va.) Judgments, 1655-1816. Petition of  Thomas Savage, 1726, Barcode number 1154685. Local Government Records Collection, Northampton Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Northampton County Order Book No. 18, 1722-1729 (copy), Barcode number 1123591. Local Government Records Collection, Northampton Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

-Greg Crawford, Local Records Coordinator

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that digital images for Lee County Chancery Causes, 1857-1912, are now available on the Chancery Records Index. Because they rely so heavily on the testimony of witnesses, chancery causes contain a wealth of historical and genealogical information and are especially useful when researching local, state, social, and legal history. The Lee County chancery collection offers a glimpse of life in Lee County during the 19^th and early-20^th centuries by documenting the African American experience, women’s history, Southern business and labor history, and the impact the railroad’s arrival had on a region. Following are a few suits of interest found in the collection.

Lee County chancery causes contain several suits illustrating the experiences of women in the westernmost part of the commonwealth. In Mary V. Pennington by etc. vs. M. C. Parsons, etc., 1887-019, Mary Pennington sought to gain control over land gifted to her by her father. The land was being sold by her husband, William Pennington, who had become “indebted and greatly embarrassed.” In 1907, Elizabeth Smith faced a similar dilemma. Elizabeth R. Smith vs. J. K. P. Legg, etc., 1907-045, protested the sale of Smith’s land sold for a set of blacksmith tools. Elizabeth Smith did not agree to the sale, but her husband, Samuel L. Smith, “commenced to abuse her and threatened to beat her, and to kill her father B. W. Barker if she did not sign the deed,” forcing her to agree to the sale. Both suits were dismissed by the court.

The arrival of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad had significant impact on the region with suits filed by and against the company appearing several times in the chancery collection. In Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. vs. Nimrod Noe, 1891-012, the railroad attempted to halt payments Nimrod Noe received in a condemnation proceeding by claiming that Noe falsely represented the damages and losses done to his property by the arrival of the railroad. In the Petition of A. L. Loyd, Administrator, 1902-003, a settlement is sought for B. H. Loyd’s family after his death in a railroad accident. B. H. Loyd, an engineer with the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, was killed after losing control of his locomotive and colliding with another train on a foggy night.

The Lee County chancery causes are also not without their share of scandal. F. E. Parsons sued her late husband’s heirs seeking dower rights to land inherited by her husband in F. E. Parsons, widow vs. Ellen Jessee, etc., 1897-006. The heirs claimed that F. E. Parsons, nineteen at the time of her marriage, only married their sixty-year-old father to gain ownership of his property. The widow accused her husband’s children of attempting to intimidate her by circulating “false and scandalous charges,” including accusing her of having an abortion before the marriage.  In the divorce suit Lilly C. Turner vs. Richard M. Turner, 1894-082, Lilly Turner describes her husband as “living in open adultery for some time” and taking “pleasure in writing [her] about his filthy conduct.” Filed as an exhibit in the case is an 1893 letter Richard Turner sent to his wife describing the women he was having affairs with.

Lee County joins fifty-seven counties and cities whose chancery causes have been digitally reformatted and made available through the Library’s innovative Circuit Court Records Preservation Program, which seeks to preserve the historic records of Virginia’s Circuit Courts. 

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

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 that local police had to be called in to restore order (image 7). Crowder, the custodian of the church records, also accused Tartt of breaking open an iron safe in order to steal the records of the church (image 10). The church constitution was used as an exhibit in the suit (image 18). Chancery cause 1911-025, Frank Roberts vs. Emma Grace Roberts, is a scandalous divorce case in which plaintiff Frank Roberts claimed that his wife was impregnated by a person other than him. A letter from Mrs. Roberts’ paramour, living in Idaho at the time, was referred to in a deposition (image 19) and used as an exhibit (image 21).

The Petersburg (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1787–1912, are a nationally significant archival collection. The collection consists of approximately 270,000 leaves and 3,900 individual cases. The records illuminate the lives of numerous under-documented populations through a host of primary sources such as depositions, bills of complaint, affidavits, wills, business records, correspondence, and photographs. These records are particularly significant to historians in three ways: they enable historians to study industrial and economic development in an urban area, and the extent to which such cities provided opportunities for upward mobility, especially to minorities, in the eighteenth century; they document the lives of free African Americans in the city with the largest population of freedmen in the Mid-Atlantic states prior to 1860; and they contribute significantly to existing and future scholarship in the humanities, especially in the areas of African American, women’s, and legal history, but also with great potential in the areas of labor, immigrant, economic, and social history.

-Sherri Bagley, Local Records Archivist

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that digital images for Franklin County chancery causes, 1787-1912, are now available on the Chancery Records Index.  Digital images are available for the years 1787-1912. The complete index covers the years 1787-1929, and original records 1913-1929 are available at The Library of Virginia. Additional post-1913 records are available at the Franklin County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office. Following are a few suits of interest found in this collection.

Franklin County chancery cause 1873-050 includes a detailed report on the division of slaves (image# 10-12), including the ages of the slaves.  There are suits such as 1836-009 and 1885-027 that involve Franklin County native son and Confederate General, Jubal A. Early, who practiced law in Franklin County before and after the Civil War.  Chancery cause 1867-005 is a sad but scandalous divorce suit between James C. Smith and Lucy F. Smith.  James Smith returned home from fighting in the Civil War only to learn that his wife had been unfaithful while he was away (image# 2-3). The suit includes depositions given by Mrs. Smith’s paramours describing their secret getaways. Chancery cause 1870-006 gives details on the many difficulties women encountered while managing estates.  The plaintiff, Nancy B. Ferguson, entrusted the defendant, her nephew Thomas B. Ferguson, with running the day to day affairs of her estate which included numerous slaves.  Unfortunately, Mrs. Ferguson had a weakness for strong drink.  Her nephew took advantage of her condition to defraud her of much of her property, especially slaves.

Franklin County joins fifty counties and cities whose chancery causes have been digitally reformatted and made available through the Library’s innovative Circuit Court Records Preservation Program, which seeks to preserve the historic records of Virginia’s Circuit Courts. 

To date, The Library of Virginia has posted over 5.7 million digital chancery images. Additional localities are presently being scanned and will be posted in the coming months. However, because of reductions to the Library of Virginia’s budget in recent years, the pace of the agency’s digital chancery projects will necessarily proceed more slowly. Please know these projects remain a very 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. Please see the Chancery Records Index for a listing of the available chancery collections.

Chancery causes are cases that are decided on the basis of equity and fairness as opposed to the strictly formulated rules of common law cases.  Chancery cases are especially useful when researching local history, genealogical information, and land or estate divisions.  They are a valuable source of local, state, social, and legal history and serve as a primary source for understanding a locality’s history. Chancery causes often contain correspondence; property lists, including slaves; lists of heirs; and vital statistics, along with many other records.  Some of the more common types of chancery causes involve divisions of the estate of a person who died intestate (without a will); divorces; settlements of dissolved business partnerships; and resolutions of land disputes.

-Vince Brooks, Senior Local Records Archivist

Additional Prince Edward County chancery causes are now available on the Chancery Records Index. These additions span the years 1754 through 1883. Combined with the previously released images for Prince Edward County, the locality’s chancery causes have been digitized for the years 1754 through 1913.

Chancery cases are especially useful when researching local history, genealogical information, and land or estate divisions.  They are a valuable source of local, state, social, and legal history and serve as a primary source for understanding a locality’s history. Chancery causes often contain correspondence; property lists, including slaves; lists of heirs; and vital statistics, along with many other records.  Some of the more common types of chancery causes involve divisions of the estate of a person who died intestate (without a will); divorces; settlements of dissolved business partnerships; and resolutions of land disputes.

Here are a few of the cases you will find in the newly updated Prince Edward County chancery collection. To see more suits, go to the EAD guide and choose “Selected Suits of Interest” on the menu at the left.

 1755-001- Bridget Braithwaite by etc. v. Edward Braithwaite.  The wife sued for separate maintenance. Her husband abandoned her and was cohabiting with Joanna Sinclair, “a woman of ill fame and reputation” in the same parish and county. Bridget Braithwaite and her small children “are likely to be reduced to the utmost Distress of Indigence & poverty having nothing to support &* maintain her self & children but what she gets by her own labour which is very Little being upwards of 47 years of age and very infirm.” The court ordered an inventory of the husband’s estate.

 1779-003 –  Legts. Of Charles Rice v. Charles Chattrel, etc. The suit contains a detailed bill showing the cost of building a house.

 1805-013 – Peter Fore v. Peter Kelso, Gdn., etc. The suit is about a dispute concerning the handling of two children of an enslaved woman who was sold. Two of  her young enslaved children were to be given to another heir when they came of age. 

1805-015 – Jesse Hamlett v. Exrs. of George Moore.  A suit about a dispute over title to land. The defendants claimed the land was given to the plaintiff only on condition he “behave himself well and quit drink”

1808-011 – Samuel Carter v. Exx. of Wadill Carter. The bill contains a description of the operation of a brandy still, inherited from the father.

1810-016 –  Richard Burks v. Richard Keeling. The suit contains a detailed bill for blacksmith work.

1811-005 – George Davidson v. Exr. Of Richard  Blanton. Concerns a dispute about a  slave who tried to return to the place where she grew up.

1811-010 – John White & Wife v. Andrew Porter. The plaintiffs sue for the woman’s dower rights. The defendant says the wife is not entitled because she left her husband and went to live with a man in adultery and is doing the same with a second man. This case contains many depositions about the conduct of the woman.

1811-013 – Aaron~ v. Exr. of Andrew Baker. In this freedom suit the plaintiff alleges his owner freed him in exchange for wages he earned while hired out. Aaron wasn’t named in the owner’s will. The suit contains an interesting answer from Andrew Baker’s widow about his desire to emancipate his slaves and decision to wait to tell them for fear the slaves would find out that their freedom depended on his death.

1825-010 – Admr. of Samuel Dodson v. Francis Thackston.  The case contains correspondence describing the battle at Craney Island in the War of 1812.

1837-034 – Adms. Of Alexander Legrand, etc. v. Josiah Legrand, Comt., vs. Sarah Legrand.  This is a large suit that contains records of marriage and register of births for the Legrand family. There is also a record of enslaved African Americans born in the eighteenth century.

1843-012 – Zackariah Goodman v. Trsts. Of Appomattox Co. The case involves a proposal to construct locks to improve navigation of the Appomattox River.

1847-011 – Fanny Bowman v. Exr. Of Philip Bowman. A free African American was married to an enslaved woman owned by the Venable family. He tried to leave her property at his death.  Philip Bowman was employed to manage a corn mill owned by the Venable family. When he died, his mother sued for the property, arguing the widow was a slave and could not inherit it.  The Venable family tried to protect the widow’s interests by promising to care for her, but  later they put her in the poor house to live out her days there.

To date, The Library of Virginia has posted over 5.6 million digital chancery images. Additional localities are presently being scanned and will be posted in the coming months. However, because of reductions to the Library of Virginia’s budget in recent years, the pace of the agency’s digital chancery projects will necessarily proceed more slowly. Please know these projects remain a very 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. Please see the Chancery Records Index for a listing of the available locality chancery collections.