A Guide to the Craig County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1853-1942 (bulk 1880-1912) Craig County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1853-1942 (bulk 1880-1912)

A Guide to the Craig County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1853-1942 (bulk 1880-1912)

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/

© 2010 By The Library of Virginia. All Rights Reserved.

Processed by: S. Nerney

Repository
The Library of Virginia
Title
Craig County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1853-1942 (bulk 1880-1912)
Physical Characteristics
Digital images; 42.185 cubic feet (88 boxes, 2 map cabinet items)
Collector
Craig County (Va.) Circuit Court.
Location
Library of Virginia
Language
English

Administrative Information

Access Restrictions

Chancery Causes 1853-1912 use digital images found on the Chancery Records Index available electronically at the website of the Library of Virginia.

The majority of Chancery Causes 1913-1942 are processed and indexed information is available on the Chancery Records Index, but digital images are not available at this time. Contact Archives Research Services for availability.

Some chancery causes from 1915-1933 are unprocessed. Contact Archives Research Services for availability.

Use Restrictions

There are no restrictions on use.

Preferred Citation

Craig County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1853-1942 (bulk 1880-1912). (Cite style of suit [and chancery index no. if available]). Local government records collection, Craig County Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Acquisition Information

The bulk of these records came to the Library of Virginia in a transfer of court papers from Craig County (Va.) in 2010 under the accession number 44924. Additional records were transferred to the Library in 2011 under the accession number 45448.

Processing Information

The majority of Craig County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1853-1942, were processed by S. Nerney in 2010.

Digital images for Chancery Causes 1853-1912 were generated by Backstage Library Works through the Library of Virginia's Circuit Court Records Preservation Program in 2012.

Encoded by G. Crawford: December 2010; updated by C. Collins: September 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: Craig County was named for Robert Craig, a nineteenth-century Virginia congressman. The county was formed from Botetourt, Roanoke, Giles, and Monroe (now in West Virginia) Counties in 1851, and several subsequent additions were made from Alleghany (1856), Giles (1858), Monroe (1853 and 1856), and Montgomery (1853) Counties. The county seat is New Castle.

Lost Locality Note: The courthouse was vandalized by Union troops in December 1863 and again in June 1864 during the Civil War. Deed Book A and most of the loose papers were destroyed. Pre–Civil War recorded deeds were rerecorded in Deed Books B and C. Volumes that record court orders and wills exist.

Scope and Content

Craig County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1853-1942, 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.

Some suits involve businesses tied to iron and manganese mining and manufacturing, such as the Craig City Improvement Company and Craig Giles Iron Company. There are also several acrimonious divorce suits, most of which ended after 1865.

Commonly found surnames among the plaintiffs and defendants include Abbott, Bell, Bowen, Bruffey, Caldwell, Carper, Carr, Crawford, Crowder, Eakin, Elmore (also spelled Ellmore), Francisco, Givens, Harless, Hellems, Hendrickson, Hill, Huffman, Humphreys, Hutchison (also spelled Hutcheson and Hutchinson), Hypes, Jones, Leffel, Looney, Lugar, Marshall, Martin, McCartney, McClanahan, McDaniel, McPherson, Miller, Myers, Niday, Reynolds, Ripley, Rowan, Ruble, Sarver, Scott, Smith, Starks, Surface, Taylor, Tingler, Trenor, Troutt, Walker, Watkins, Webb, and Wiley.

These records also contain 1 folder of “Orphan Chancery” which is processed but not indexed. These records contain parts, often single items, of chancery causes that could not be further identified as belonging to a certain case.

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 generally as follows: Bill, Answer, and Final Decree (if found.)

Some chancery causes from 1915-1933 are unprocessed. Contact Archives Research Services for availability.

Related Material

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

Craig County is one of Virginia's Lost Records Localities. Additional Craig County Records may be found in the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection available the Library of Virginia website.

See also: “A Guide to the I. J. Carper and Brother Ledger B, 1881-1883,” an exhibit in Craig County Chancery Cause 1905-003: Hurst, Miller, and Company, etc. vs. Charles E. Carper, etc.

See also: "A Guide to the Andrew McCartney Distillery Account Books, 1877-1895,” exhibits in Craig County Chancery Cause 1908-011: Admr. Of Andrew McCartney vs. F. B. McCartney, etc.

See also: "A Guide to the Manganese Iron and Coal Company Minute Book and Stock Certificate Books, 1889-1909," exhibits in Craig County Chancery Cause 1911-011: Kanawha Valley Bank, etc. vs. Manganese Iron and Coal Company, etc.

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.

1867-001: Ella V. Chappel by etc. vs. John W. Chappel:

Ella V. Chappel married John W. Chappel, a Union soldier, who she later learned was a horse thief using an alias.

1882-022: Sarah Wiley vs. John S. Wiley, etc.:

Sarah Wiley claimed that John S. Wiley, her son, and George P. L. Wiley, her grandson, fraudulently withheld a federal pension from her. She was awarded a pension due to the death of another son, Allen B. Wiley, who served with the Union Army during the Civil War.

1886-005: Allen Huffman vs. Mary Virginia Huffman (alias Mary Jane Huffman):

Allen Huffman sought a divorce from Mary Virginia Huffman. According to depositions included in the cause, a group formed in the neighborhood to tar and feather Mary Virginia for alleged adultery, but they were unable to find any tar.

1888-005: George Washington Banks vs. Vandarilla R. Banks:

George Washington Banks accused Vandarilla R. Banks, his wife, of committing adultery with a white man. He described both himself and Vandarilla as “very black people,” while a witness testified that Vandarilla’s latest child had blue eyes.

1896-013: John A. Caldwell vs. Craig County Improvement Co:

Several maps and depositions included in this cause contain plans championed by the Craig County Improvement Company to establish Craig City as a manufacturing center of minerals such as iron and manganese. However, John A. Caldwell, the plaintiff, alleged that the company fraudulently represented their intentions in order to inflate the price of land owned by the company in and around Craig City, some of which was purchased by Caldwell.

1899-011: John W. Shelton vs. Mollie Shelton:

John W. Shelton sought a divorce from Mollie Shelton because he believed that she had child with a white man. The depositions in this cause include a description of the child, who was said to have red hair, blue eyes, and fair skin.

1908-011: Admr. of Andrew McCartney vs. F. B. McCartney, etc.:

Andrew McCartney was a whiskey dealer and/or saloon owner. Included in the suit is a letter from Senator A. W. Glasgow, written in reply to a letter from McCartney. Senator Glasgow's letter addresses McCartney's objections to legislation that forbade the sale of less than five gallons of liquor near certain businesses in order to prevent employees from working while inebriated. The suit also contains account books that record transactions related to McCartney's liquor business.

1913-006: Wagener Bros, etc. vs. Lockey Carter (alias Lockey Scruggs), etc.
James William Carter, etc. vs. Adms. of Samuel Carter, etc.:

The legality of Lockey and Samuel Carter’s marriage is peripherally addressed in the suit, as Lockey Carter was a white woman and Samuel Carter was a Black man.

1913-009: Paris W. Compton by etc. vs. Admr. of Cornelius Compton:

It is stated in the bill that Paris W. Compton, a Black man, moved with his mother to Philadelphia so that he might have a better education than would be afforded him in Virginia.

1939-001: Russell H. Crump vs. Lorena Crump &c by etc.:

In the suit, it is mentioned that a member of the Crump family sold land to the United States government that became part of the Jefferson National Forest.