A Guide to the Northampton County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1721-1912 (bulk 1873-1912) Northampton County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1721-1912 (bulk 1873-1912)

A Guide to the Northampton County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1721-1912 (bulk 1873-1912)

A Collection in
the Library of Virginia


[logo]

Library of Virginia

The Library of Virginia
800 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-8000
USA
Phone: (804) 692-3888 (Archives Reference)
Fax: (804) 692-3556 (Archives Reference)
Email: archdesk@lva.virginia.gov(Archives)
URL: http://www.lva.virginia.gov/

© 2008 By The Library of Virginia. All Rights Reserved.

Processed by: A. Judd and L. Jones

Repository
The Library of Virginia
Title
Northampton County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1721-1912
Physical Characteristics
Digital images; 50.57 cubic feet (110 boxes)
Collector
Northampton County (Va.) Circuit Court
Location
Library of Virginia
Language
English

Administrative Information

Access Restrictions

Northampton County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1721-1912, use digital images found on the Chancery Records Index available electronically at the website of the Library of Virginia.

Use Restrictions

There are no restrictions.

Preferred Citation

Northampton County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1721-1912. (Cite style of suit and chancery index no.). Local Government Records Collection, Northampton County Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Acquisition Information

These records came to the Library of Virginia in a transfer of court papers from Northampton County in 1999 under accession number 36506. Additional records were transferred to the Library of Virginia in 2008 under accession number 44020 and in 2009 under the accession number 44548.

Processing Information

Northampton Chancery was processed in two separate batches; first, the pre-1813 records were processed by Library of Virginia staff in 2007 and then Library of Virginia staff completed processing the 1813-1912 records in 2014.

Digital images were generated by Crowley Micrographics in 2008 and Backstage Library Works in 2014 through the Library of Virginia's Circuit Court Records Preservation Program.

Encoded by G. Crawford: 2008; Updated by J. Taylor: October 2023.

Historical Information

Context for Record Type: Chancery Causes are cases of equity. According to Black's Law Dictionary they are "administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of common law." A judge, not a jury, determines the outcome of the case; however, the judge is basing the decision on findings compiled and documented by Commissioners. Chancery causes are 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 document the lived experiences of free and enslaved individuals; women; children; people living with physical disabilities or mental health struggles; people living in poverty; defunct institutions and corporate entities; or those that may not have otherwise left traditional written histories.

Locality History: Northampton County was named probably for the English county, of which Obedience Robins, a prominent early resident of the Eastern Shore, was a native. The county, which originally included all of the peninsula south of Maryland and which was one of the eight shires, or counties, first enumerated in 1634, was first called Accomack. The General Assembly changed the name to Northampton County in 1643. Accomack County was created from Northampton County about 1663, but in October 1670, the General Assembly temporarily reunited the two counties as Northampton County. In November 1673, Accomack County was again separated from Northampton. The county seat is Eastville.

Scope and Content

Northampton County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1721-1912, consists of cases concerning issues of equity brought largely by residents of the county and filed in the circuit court. These cases often involve the following actions: divisions of estates or land, disputes over wills, disputes regarding contracts, debt, divorce, and business disputes. Other less prevalent issues include freedom suits, permissions to sell property, and disputes concerning trespass. Predominant documents found in these chancery causes include bills (documents the plaintiff's complaint), answers (defendant's response to the plaintiff's complaint), decrees (court's decision), depositions, affidavits, correspondence, lists of heirs, deeds, plats, wills, records involving enslaved individuals, business records or vital statistics.

Due to Northampton County's location on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, a recurrent theme across several chancery causes is naval warfare's impact upon citizens of Northampton. Examples include men impressed into the British Navy during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, as well as enslaved men fleeing to the British Navy during the Revolutionary War.

These records also contain a fairly substantial amount of information concerning enslaved Black men, women, and children. While there are several suits concerning the freedom of enslaved individuals, these cases largely represent the perspective of white enslavers and their disputes involving the sale, hiring, financial responsibilities, and legality of ownership of Black individuals.

There are several cases 1831-1832, that relate to members of the Gingaskin Indian Tribe [Accomac Indian Tribe] and specifically document attempts to hold on to their land after white officials and inhabitants terminated their reservation and later took Gingaskin land after the Southampton Rebellion [Nat Turner's Rebellion]

Arrangement

Organized by case, of which each is assigned a unique index number comprised of the latest year found in case and a sequentially increasing 3-digit number assigned by the processor as cases for that year are found. Arranged chronologically.

Arrangement of documents within each folder are as follows: Bill, Answer, and Final Decree (if found.)

Related Material

Additional Northampton County Court Records can be found on microfilm at The Library of Virginia. Consult "A Guide to Virginia County and City Records on Microfilm."

Additional unindexed post-1912 Chancery Causes may be found at the Northampton County Courthouse.

Adjunct Descriptive Data

Selected Suits of Interest

Causes of Interest are identified by local records archivists during processing and indexing. These causes are generally selected based upon guiding principles of having historical, genealogical or sensational significance; however, determining what is “of interest” is subjective, and the individual perspective and experience of the describing archivist will affect the material identified.

1737-004: Thomas Preeson and James Gibson and wife vs. Peter Bowdoin and wife

The suit was centered on the mental capacity of Hannah Preeson in the years before her death. Hannah was described as being afflicted by epilepsy and convulsions and at question was whether she had been capable of managing her estate.

1739-001: William Andrews vs. Exrs. of Michael Christian

In the suit, an infant child suffered from a sore leg and died. The physician was accused of malpractice. References were made to salivation treatment.

1747-002: Joshua Robins, by etc. vs. Arthur Robins, etc.

Arthur Robins was the father of Joshua, the plaintiff as well as Arthur, the defendant. His will was placed in a drawer prior to his death. Anna Robins, his widow, went to find the will after his death, only to find it missing. Arthur, the eldest son, planned to claim his father's entire estate according to the Law of Primogeniture.

1813-008: Walter C. Gardiner and wife, etc. vs. John Simkins

This suit concerned the property of Isaac Simkins. Isaac had been missing since 1796. His brothers and sisters wanted to divide his property. According to the depositions of Isaac's brother, Arthur Simkins as well as the deposition of James Travis, Isaac was impressed to serve on board of a British Man of War in June 1796. Arthur Simkins, Isaac's brother, heard that Isaac died shortly after he was impressed in to the British Navy.

1822-007: Margaret L. Read, by etc. vs. Sally Read

John H. Read died in Accomack County; he was survived by Sally Read, his widow, and Margaret L. Read, his daughter. Margaret was worried that Sally would sell Moses and Mary, two enslaved people to some "Southern Negro purchaser" who would remove them from Virginia. Margaret wanted an injunction to prevent Sally from selling Moses and Mary.

1823-019: Harriot B. Parker vs. Thomas Parramore and wife

After Nathaniel Darby's death, the people Darby enslaved were left to Harriot B. Parker and Mary Parramore, his nieces. Included in the will were Hamtpon, Caleb, Benjamin, and Cato, four enslaved men who had fled to the British during the Revolutionary War. Their names had never been removed from Darby's will.

1825-012: Alexander Wales Ward vs. Elizabeth Yetman, widow

John Yetman, Elizabeth Yetman's husband, was from Great Britain. He was the master of the schooner the Mary Ann . He sailed the ship to the Port of Charleston in August 1818. On the return trip in September 1818, there was a gale of wind experienced in the part of the American Coast where the schooner would have been sailing. The Mary Ann was missing and believed to have been sunk by the gale.

1825-019: William R. Custis vs. John C. Milburn etc.

William R. Custis and Thomas Copper of Accomack County hired John C. Milburn to repair the Accomack County Jail and Jailor's house. Milburn was to be paid when he finished the job, however Milburn left the job site and did not return. Copper paid laborers wages for 8 to 10 days while they waited for Mr. Milburn to return. The materials that were purchased for the job were wasted. Custis wanted to be reimbursed for the money that was lost during Milburn's absence.

1828-018: Samuel S. Williams etc. vs. Margaret Williams, etc.

Margaret Williams, the widow of John Williams, had two enslaved people included in her dower who were carried away by the British in the War of 1812. Under the Treaty of Ghent she was allowed 280 dollars for one and 390 dollars for the other. She was to receive 402 dollars, which was then in the hands of Thomas Spady. Samuel S. Williams and the other plaintiffs were afraid Margaret would squander the money if Thomas Spady gave it to her.

1829-005: Thomas James vs. Edmund James etc.

Edmund James sold Thomas James a schooner named Susan or Sukey . Thomas James claimed the schooner had rotten boards when he bought it and Edmund James was to pay for its repairs. The deposition of Thomas Dowty talked about how the schooner was blown on shore and he offered to get the boat off the shore. He describes the boat as being a pretty good boat that some timbers were good and some timbers were rotten. Stephen Kellam said he heard the schooner leaked. Victor Ewing was paid to make repairs on the vessel by Edmund James said unseaworthy and gives a description of the vessel after it was blown ashore by the gale.

1831-001: Billy Pool and wife vs. Admr. of Thomas Baker, etc.
1831-019: Gdn of Susan Baker, etc. vs. Susan Baker and others by etc.
1831-024: Luke Trower and wife, etc. vs. John Jeffry and others by etc.
1832-012: Charles West vs. Johannes Johnson
1832-014: John Jeffery and others by etc. vs. Thomas Beavans and wife
1832-017: George Press, etc. vs. Edmund Press, etc.; 1851-015: Littleton Jeffry vs. Hannah P. Waddey, widow, etc.

These suits concerned plots of land in Indian Town, Va., which belonged to the Gingaskin Indian Tribe. The Gingaskin Indian Tribe formerly held reservation land in Northampton County, however the General Assembly passed a law in 1813 to eliminate the reservation and divided the land between official members of the Gingaskin Indian Tribe. While three-fourths of individual Gingaskin owners held onto their land after 1813, most of those people were forced out after Nat Turner's insurrection in 1831 due to the fears of white inhabitants of further uprisings. See also Northampton County (Va.) Land records relating to Gingaskin Indian lands, 1795-1815

1852-010: Daniel (enslaved) etc. vs. Exr. of Nancy White and 1854-007: Daniel (enslaved) etc. vs. Admr. of Major S. Pitts etc.

Nancy White emancipated Daniel, Mary Senior, Abram (Abraham), and Leah, all enslaved individuals, in her will. They were given leave to settle outside Virginia. George Senior, Mary's son was freed in the 1852 suit and all of Leah's children were freed in the 1854 suit.

1859-012: George (enslaved) vs. Thomas Hatton Kellam, etc.

George seeks to prevent Thomas Hatton Kellam from selling him in the Southern Market. Sabra (or Sabrah), George's grandmother, was freed according to the 1800 will of Walter Hatton upon reaching the age of 31. Saraba' heirs were to be freed at age 31 as well. George wass not yet 31 years old at the time of the court case. The decree said that George could not be sold, but he could be hired out in any part of the Commonwealth until he became 31 years old and freed. According to the bill of complaint, Thomas C. Bunting and William J. Goffigon were "engaged in supplying the Southern market in part, with persons of Color in the character of slaves." George was in the custody of the Jailor of Northampton County "awaiting as he is informed and believes transportation to some slave market beyond the limits of the County of Accomac and the Commonwealth of Virginia."

1867-010: Richard B. Winder vs. Sallie M. Winder

Richard Winder married Sallie M. Custis in 1851; however, he left their home in Accomack County in November 1861. Sallie stated that the Federal Forces were "making an invasion of the County of Accomack" when he left in 1861. Richard left her at home with two young children, a large farm and a population of enslaved people. She also accused her husband of adultery. Richard wanted a divorce because he believed his wife committed adultery, allegedly occuring during the Civil War. Richard was posted at Anderson Prison in Georgia and appears to have been a resident of Libby Prison until March 1865. The witnesses were questioned about his conduct when he returned home and Sallie's conduct when he was away.

1878-005: Virginia Military Institute, for etc. vs. Exrs of John N. Brickhouse, etc.

John N. Brickhouse owed the Virginia Military Institute $164.98 for goods that were sold and delivered to him. Brickhouse and his executors had not paid the debt, so the Virginia Military Institute sued his estate in Northampton County, the location of Brickhouse's land.

1884-008: James A. Fisher for etc. vs. Admr. of John H. E. Smith, etc.

John H. E. Smith left clear instructions in his will in regards to his burial. The will starts with instructions of how he wants to be buried and instructions of how and where to build the vault for his body. Smith wanted to be buried in a metallic coffin, in a vault built entirely above ground on the highest point of land he owned. He had other instructions about his burial plot.

1886-003: Harry Fitchett and wife, etc. vs. Admr. of Ibby Jane Smith, alias Ibbie Jane Smith, etc.

Ibby Jane Smith died in 1880 at the age of either 16 or 17. She was a pensioner of the United States as the heir of her father Seth Smith, alias Scott. Smith served in the Civil War as a member of the "Colored Troops," but died in May of 1865. Since Seth and Leah, Ibby's mother, lived together while they were enslaved, Leah's family claimed that Ibby was illegitimate while Seth's family claimed that she was legitimate. The deposition of Jacob Fitchett tells how Leah brought Ibby Jane to the Freedman's Bureau at Town Fields in order to report her birth, making her his legitimate daughter.

1899-007: George Blue and wife vs. Abel Spady and wife, etc.

The suit examines the difficulties of both previously enslaved people and their free children in post-War Virginia, especially in regards to "legitimacy." As only "legitimate" children and spouses could inherit property, this case reveals the legal gray area many people of color inhabited due to the laws surrounding slavery and the family. Laws enacted to preserve control over Black bodies by the white population continued to inhibit people of color even after slavery had long since ended.

1905-012: Severn Spady vs. Ada Spady

In a deposition included in this divorce suit, Henry Cypress was asked if he remembered when the couple had separated. He stated that "they separated about Irish Potato planting time, February or March, of 1898. I remember only by the time Shelly Banks was frozen to death during the bid February Blizzard." Cypress also stated he "was a member of an investigating committee of my church when Severn Spady was disciplined on account of the separation."

1907-018: Petition of the School Board of Capeville District, No. 3, Northampton County

The Capeville District's former school building was on one-fourth acre of land which was too small for the students, so the School Board bought a two and a half acre lot. The first petition asked to have the title of the land certified and recorded. The second petition was a request to sell the one-fourth acre of land they no longer needed. The land the School Board purchased was to be used for a new High School for white students.