A Guide to the Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913 Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913 Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-001-1913-021

A Guide to the Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913

A Collection in
the Library of Virginia
Collection numbers: Chancery Records Index Numbers Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-001-1913-021


[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/

© 2009 By The Library of Virginia. All Rights Reserved.

Processed by: Sarah Nerney and field processors

Repository
The Library of Virginia
Collection numbers
Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-001-1913-021
Title
Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913
Physical Characteristics
Digital images
Collector
Westmoreland County (Va.) Circuit Court
Location
Library of Virginia
Language
English

Administrative Information

Access Restrictions

There are no restrictions.

Use Restrictions

Patrons are to use digital images of Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes 1753-001-1913-021 found on the Chancery Records Index available electronically at the website of the Library of Virginia.

Preferred Citation

Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913. (Cite style of suit and chancery index no.). Local Government Records Collection, Westmoreland County Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Acquisition Information

Digital images were generated by Backstage Library Works through the Library of Virginia's Circuit Court Records Preservation Program.

A portion of the collection was transferred to the Library of Virginia under the accession number 50772.

Historical Information

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.

Westmoreland County was named for the English county. It was formed from Northumberland County in 1653. The county seat is Montross.

Scope and Content

Westmoreland County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913 (bulk 1788-1873), are indexed into the Chancery Records Index . Cases are identified by style of suit consisting of plaintiff and defendant names. Surnames of others involved in a suit, including secondary plaintiffs and defendants, witnesses, deponents and affiants, and family members with surnames different from the plaintiff or defendant are indexed. Chancery causes often involved the following: divisions of estates or land, disputes over wills, divorces, debt, and business disputes. Predominant documents found in chancery causes include bills (plaintiff's complaint), answers (defendant's response), decrees (court's decision), depositions, affidavits, correspondence, lists of heirs, deeds, wills, business records or vital statistics, among other items. Plats, if present, are noted.

Chancery cases 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.

Related Material

See the Chancery Records Index found on the Library of Virginia web site for the chancery records of other Virginia localities.

Additional Westmoreland 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 found on the Library of Virginia web site.

Post-1913 Westmoreland County Chancery Causes available at the Westmoreland County Circuit Court Clerk's office.

Selected Suits of Interest

1789-009: Adms. of Philip Ludwell Lee vs. Spencer Carter:

The plaintiff's administrators were his brothers Richard Henry Lee and Francis Lightfoot Lee. Spencer Carter was hired by Philip Ludwell Lee to build a "Brig." Suit involved disputed wages owed to Carter for his services as a "master workman."

1839-003: Dempsey Porter Gilbert vs. Admr. of William Porter:

Several depositions involve the bad character of Lewis Mazuro, a French man. Deponents accused him of keeping a whiskey shop, tipling house, and conducting business with enslaved people. Mazuro collected large companies of enslaved people for the purpose of drinking, horse racing, card playing. Mazuro sold enslaved people that did not belong to him. The defendant in the chancery suit called these people to testify for the purpose of underming Mazuro's testimony on behalf of the plaintiff.

1839-004: James S. Rice vs. Admr. of John Yeatman:

Cause involves three enslaved people who were hired out by their owner to build a house. Testimony concerns the working habits of the three enslaved people. One named Ephraim was a runaway.

1840-002: Catherine P. Butler, etc. vs. William A. Butler, etc. and John Crenshaw and wife, etc. vs. Admr. of Elizabeth Butler, etc.:

Testimony by deponents focused on physical health of enslaved people. Example - "They (the male slaves) are able bodied men, and of as likely appearance as usual, though I have frequently heard Henry (a slave) complain of a pain in his back and breast, but I always thought it was deceit in him, as he is likely in appearance." From deposition of Zachariah W. Franklin.

1840-003: Admr. of Henry Parker vs. Eliza Jones, etc.:

Cause involves heirs of Colonel Richard H. Parker who was killed in action during the Revolutionary War. His heirs received military bounty land for his service.

1846-006: Fanny Davis vs. Samuel Davis:

Separate maintenance suit. Plaintiff accused defendant of affair with slave named Figget and had a child by her.

1847-010: Susanna Chandler, etc. vs Adms. of John Chandler:

Suit references enslaved people who escaped to the British during the War of 1812 and the enslaver being reimbursed for his loss under the Treaty of Ghent.

1852-004: Julia L. Bailey vs. John Critcher, Jr.:

The plaintiff was a former resident of Westmoreland County currently living in Henrico County. Bailey hired Critcher to manager her large estate in Westmoreland County - land and enslaved people. She owned 75 enslaved people valued at 22,000 dollars in 1850. She accused Critcher of selling slaves without her permission. She identified three slaves - Octavia, Paul, and Jenny - who were sold at auction in Richmond. In his answer, Critcher acknowledged selling Bailey's slaves but it was for the purpose of paying debts owed by her estate. He recalled hiring out a slave named Nelson who ran away to Maryland where he was captured. A man named Turner claimed Nelson and took him as his property. Critcher filed suit against turner in Maryland to get Nelson back. Critcher argued that it was Bailey who wanted the three slaves sold in Richmond. "In January 1850, the conduct of three of the said negroes, to wit, Jenny, Octavia and Paul, was such that the complainant was no longer able on account of their characters to find them homes in the neighborhood without charge. They often put their own lives in jeopardy. Sometimes slept in the swamps in the coldest nights in winter. Sometimes attempted to hang themselves. And their conduct was attempted to be corrected by the mildest and best treatment on the part of those who hired them and of the complainant herself. Yet no change could be effected. Such was the constant anxiety of mind of the complainant on their account, that she frequently begged this respondent … to sell them and relieve her of the greatest annoyance of her life." Critcher sold the three slaves in Richmond $1260.30. Richmond slave trader R.H. Dickinson was involved in the transaction.

Critcher accused Bailey's former agent John A. Parker of slandering him. Parker publicly accused Critcher of "selling 3 of her negroes without her knowledge or consent, and pocketing the money." Critcher wrote letters to local newspapers defending his honor two of which are exhibits in the chancery cause. In one of the letters, Critcher wrote that he and Parker had a physical altercation in the town of Tappahannock. Critcher pulled Parker's nose and Parker pulled a pistol on Critcher.

1853-014: Rodham Douglass, etc. vs. Elizabeth Harrison, etc.:

Suit concerns the division of enslaved property. Numerous depositions concern an enslaved woman named Ellen who is frequently referred to as "deranged." One deponent testified "she was deranged a woman as ever I saw in my life. We had to keep her everlastingly fastened to a large block." Her enslaver sold Ellen while she was fastened to a block.

1854-007: Samuel C. Tapscott, etc. vs. Ann L. Tapscott, etc.:

Genealogy chart of Tapscott family filed as an exhibit.

1854-010: Petition of the Guardian of Mary F. Carter, etc.:

Cause includes two letters dated July and September 1854 written by D.T. Wright living in St. Louis, Missouri. He was the guardian of the Carter children living in Virginia. Wright was responding to a question from the trustee of the children's slave property. The trustee wanted to know if Wright want to sell the slaves in Virginia and the funds be distributed among the heirs or have the slaves transported to Missouri. Wright informed the trustee to sell the slaves in Virginia and not transport them to Missouri. "There are several reasons why I think you had better sell them there than to have them sent here. They would naturally dislike to come to a strange place and into strange hands. Consequently, they would likely become dissatisfied and might endeavor to make their escape to Illinois which is a free state and has the name of being connected with Canada by the underground railroad. One thing is quite certain. Our slaves often make their escape. There is also something of a risk and a considerable expense in bringing them here." In the second letter, Wright references a riot that took place in St. Louis following the 1854 Congressional election. He placed blame for the riot on the Irish. See also Chancery Cause 1854-013.

1855-011: William G. Pierce vs. Admr. of Ransdell Pierce, etc.:

Cause involves the division of enslaved property. Two enslaved people, Sydnor and Susan, were not sold because they claimed to be emancipated. Their freedom suit is found on Virginia Untold

1866-003: William Fortune vs. Sally Fortune:

Divorce suit. In 1863, plaintiff broke through Union blockade to purchase goods in Maryland and bring back to Virginia. He was captured by Union troops and imprisoned in Washington, D.C. He was released after 3 days but was unable to return to Virginia due to being closely watched. He did not return until after the war. He learned that his wife and children had left his home to live with Robert Richardson in Maryland.

1867-005: James W. Bailey vs. Mary C. Mothershead:

Divorce suit. Plaintiff travelled to Northern states shortly before the Civil War. He did not return to Westmoreland County until after the war. The defendant believed he died during the war and remarried. When her husband returned he filed a habeas corpus to gain custody their child. The defendant was indicted for bigamy but had left for Maryland with her second husband before the trial began.

1868-011: Frederick Campbell, etc. vs. Charles Montague, etc.:

Plaintiffs were slaves prior to the end of the Civil War. Charles Montague claimed to be their grandfather and wanted custody of the plaintiffs who were orphans. The plaintiffs denied that Montague was their grandfather.

1894-007: Lucy R. Lewis vs. Exrs. of George W. Lewis, etc.:

Suit includes will of George W. Lewis used as an exhibit. Items bequeathed by Lewis to his heirs include a scrapbook that contained autograph letters signed by General George Washington and a sword given to Lewis' grandfather George Lewis by George Washington. George Lewis was a nephew of Washington. The sword is referenced in Washington's will.

1894-011: C.W. Walcott, etc. vs. Hugh T. Taggart, trustee, etc.:

Suit involves the establishment of the town of Colonial Beach.

1902-018: W. H. Doleman, etc. vs. J. H. Chandler, etc.:

Dispute over oyster grounds. Involves settlement of boundary dispute between Maryland and Virginia along the Potomac River.

1911-004: J.T. Kennedy vs. T.M. Arnest:

Plaintiff was upset that the defendant, a game warden fined him 10 dollars for hunting game without a license required of non-residents of the state. Kennedy argued that he was a resident of the state and should not have been fined. Offered as proof his voter registration. Game warden claimed the plaintiff registered as a voter in order to avoid paying the fine. Court sided with plaintiff.