A Guide to the Grayson County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1795-1930 (bulk 1870-1912) Grayson County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1795-1930 (bulk 1870-1912)

A Guide to the Grayson County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1795-1930 (bulk 1870-1912)

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/

© 2020 By The Library of Virginia. All Rights Reserved.

Processed by: C. Freed, J. Porter, L. Jones, S. Bagley, G. Crawford, and Field Processors

Repository
The Library of Virginia
Title
Grayson County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1795-1930 (bulk 1870-1912)
Physical Characteristics
Digital images; 58.95 cubic feet (129 boxes)
Collector
Grayson County (Va.) Circuit Court
Location
Library of Virginia
Language
English

Administrative Information

Access Restrictions

Chancery Causes 1795-1899 use digital images found on the Chancery Records Index available electronically at the website of the Library of Virginia.

Chancery Causes 1900-1912 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.

Chancery Causes 1913-1930 are processed, but indexed information and digital images are not available at this time. Contact Archives Research Services for availability.

Use Restrictions

There are no restrictions on use.

Preferred Citation

Grayson County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1795-1930 (bulk 1870-1912). (Cite style of suit [and chancery index no. if available]). Local government records collection, Grayson 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 Grayson County (Va.) in 2010 under the accession number 44907.

Processing Information

Grayson County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1795-1930, were processed by field processors and C. Freed, J. Porter, L. Jones, S. Bagley, and G. Crawford and completed in 2018. At this time, there are no plans to reprocess and index the 1913-1930 records.

Digital images of Chancery Causes 1795-1899 were generated by Backstage Library Works through the Library of Virginia's Circuit Court Records Preservation Program in 2019.

Encoded by G. Crawford: August 2020; updated by C. Collins: April 2024.

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: Grayson County was named for William Grayson, a delegate to the Continental Congress from 1784 to 1787 and one of the first two United States senators from Virginia. It was formed from Wythe County by a statute adopted on 7 November 1792. The county court first met on 21 May 1793. A portion of Patrick County was added in 1810. The county seat is Independence.

Scope and Content

Grayson County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1795-1930, 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.

Commonly found surnames among the plaintiffs and defendants include Adams, Anderson, Austin, Baker, Ballard, Barton, Bedwell, Billings, Blevins, Bobbitt (also spelled Bobbett and Bobbit), Bourne (also spelled Bourn), Boyer, Brewer, Brown, Bryant, Carrico (also spelled Carico), Carson, Carter, Collins, Comer, Cornett (also spelled Cornette and Cornutt), Cox, Davis, Delp, Dickenson, Dickey, Edwards, Farmer, Fulton, Gentry, Greer (also spelled Greear), Grubb, Hackler, Hail, Hale, Halsey, Hampton, Hash, Hawkins, Isom, Jennings, Johnson, Jones, Kirby, Long, Lundy, Mallory, McBride, Moore, Murphy (also spelled Murphey), Nelson, Nuckolls (also spelled Nuckalls), Osborn (also spelled Osborne), Parks, Parsons, Peak, Perkins, Phipps, Pierce, Pool, Porter, Pugh, Reedy, Reeves, Rhudy, Ring, Roberts, Robinson, Ross, Rutherford, Sexton, Smith, Spencer, Sutherland, Taylor, Thomas, Todd, Vaughan (also spelled Vaughn), Ward, Waugh, Weaver, Williams, Wilson, Wingate, Wright, and Young.

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 Grayson 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.

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.

1810-004: Stephen Jones vs. Frederick Yost:

Stephen Jones accused Frederick Yost, a man he described as “famous for his swindling,” of failing to sell him a still per a prior agreement. Jones, who made peach brandy, picked and “beat” his peaches in anticipation of receiving a still from Yost, but was disappointed numerous times. In several instances, Jones was forced to rent a still “at [a] very extravagant price” so he did not lose his harvest.

1811-005: Frederick Idle vs. Philip Gaines:

This cause references a freedom suit filed by Hagar, an enslaved woman, in Augusta County against Philip Gaines and others. The freedom suit was appealed to the Superior Court of Chancery in Staunton. See Augusta County Chancery Cause 1815-030: Hagar (enslaved) vs. Robert Crockett, etc., Frederick Idle vs. Philip Gaines, etc., available on the Chancery Records Index. Frederick Idle, who was summoned on behalf of Gaines as part of the freedom suit, failed to appear due to what Idle described as an unexpected illness. He therefore sought to dispute a judgment issued against him because of his absence.

1839-009: Isaac Parsons, etc. vs. Waughs & Co.:

Included with this cause is Alfred Cornutt's petition for habeas corpus ad subjiciendum [or a writ directed to the person detaining another and commanding them to produce the body of the prisoner, or person detained] for the return of Elizabeth Cornutt, his wife, from the home of Rebecca Russell, her mother. According to Cornutt, Philip Russell, Elizabeth’s father, refused to allow Elizabeth to return home with Cornutt following a visit to the Russell’s house in 1837. After Philip died in 1839, Rebecca “threatened [Cornutt] with great personal violence” should he attempt to see Elizabeth, or the child born to Elizabeth while she resided with her parents. The habeas corpus ad subjiciendum ordered that Elizabeth and her child present themselves to the judge of Grayson County Court of Law and Chancery, but a “petition withdrawn” note on the back of the document indicates that the matter was most likely not pursued.

1863-001: James Dickey vs. Jesse A. Reeves:

Jesse A. Reeves sold James Dickey a one-sixteenth interest in a purported silver mine located at the mouth of Brush Creek (Grayson County, Va.). However, according to Dickey, the ore was “ascertained to be iron.” Dickey sued Reeves for fraud, claiming that, besides the absence of silver in the mine, Reeves could not make a good title to the interest, nor could Richard Billings, the person who sold a one-fourth interest in the mine to Reeves, provide sufficient title to the property.

1864-002: May Morgan vs Caroline Morgan:

May Morgan married Caroline Hall in March 1861 and subsequently entered the Confederate Army. On February 14, 1864, Caroline gave birth to a child, but May claimed that his extended absence, due to his military service, precluded him from being the child’s father. He therefore sought a divorce. Caroline's answer to the bill for divorce relates her experiences during the Civil War. Included in this suit is an affidavit, dated September 28, 1863, in which an unnamed prisoner in the “Jail of Grayson County” complains of insufficient bedding and the cold.

1867-015: Mathew Dickey & wife vs. Joseph Cox & wife, etc.:

This suit concerns the division of land and people enslaved by Alexander Phipps - namely Adam, Bob, Lot, Alfred, Handy, Mary, Bill, Ellen, and Ann - among his heirs. Included in the suit is a letter dated April 27, 1870, written by John M. Davis on Virginia Senate Chamber stationary. He recounts the collapse of the Supreme Court of Appeals floor and gallery into the House of Delegates chamber below and its devastating impact on those present. [The event Davis describes occurred at the Virginia State Capitol on the same day the letter was written.]

1867-020: Harvey Carrico vs. Alfred Carrico, etc.:

William Carrico and Martha Carrico, William’s wife, separated due to what Harvey Carrico, William and Martha’s son, described as “misconduct by [William].” Harvey supported Martha during the separation and stated that his father, “thus driven from horror by his own conduct,” conveyed a tract of land to him as compensation. After separating from Martha, William cohabitated with Louisa (Eliza) Fortner (Forkner) Carrico, who Harvey depicted as a “kept woman,” and therefore not entitled to any part of William’s estate. According to Harvey, Louisa never divorced Jefferson Forkner, her previous husband, but Louisa claimed to have been legally married to William in Grayson County. She also asserted that William never conveyed the land to Harvey.

1871-042: Adms. of John Long vs. Martin Van Buren Long, etc.:

This cause contains nine letters written Columbus Long between July 30, 1861, and October 6, 1861. Long wrote to his wife and other family members, relating his experiences as a soldier in the Confederate Army.

1874-018: David Sexton vs. Adms. of A. B. McMillan, etc.:

In March 1865, A. B. McMillan sold Violet and Ann, Linda, Franky, and Vina, her four children, to David Sexton for $600. Sexton never paid the purchase money and McMillan’s administrators recovered a judgment against Sexton for the debt in 1871. Sexton claimed that Violet and her children, at the time of purchase, had been emancipated by the Emancipation Proclamation and the constitution of Virginia. Since they were not enslaved when the sale occurred, argued Sexton, his purchase of them as enslaved persons was invalid, and he was therefore not indebted to McMillan’s estate for their acquisition. The judge sided with the defendants and ordered Sexton to pay the judgment.

1877-021: Rosa Smith vs. Kimbrough Smith:

Rosa Smith sought a divorce from Kimbrough Smith due to their incompatibility and their familial tie as aunt and nephew. William Rankin, Rosa’s father, was also the father of Kimbrough’s mother, though Kimbrough’s mother was the daughter of Rankin by one wife and Rosa a daughter by another. Rosa sited Virginia law, which “expressly prohibited” the intermarriage of close familial relations. See also Grayson County Chancery Cause 1875-035: Rosa Smith vs. Kimbrough Smith.

1899-072: Thomas Phipps, etc. vs J. P. Gore, etc.:

Thomas Phipps and E. T. Phipps offered a $200 reward for the capture and delivery of Lee N. Hash to the jailer of Grayson County. Hash was accused of killing W. S. Phipps, the brother of E. T. Phipps and the son of Thomas Phipps. The suit involves a dispute between the Phippses and various parties over the distribution of the reward.