A Guide to the Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913 Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913 Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-001-1913-096

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

A Collection in
the Library of Virginia
Chancery Records Index: Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-001-1913-096


Library of Virginia

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

© 2017 By The Library of Virginia. All Rights Reserved.

Processed by: LVA staff

The Library of Virginia
Chancery Records Index
Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-001-1913-096
Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913
Physical Characteristics
Digital images
Halifax County (Va.) Circuit Court
Library of Virginia

Administrative Information

Access Restrictions

There are no restrictions.

Use Restrictions

Patrons are to use digital images of Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes found on the Chancery Records Index available electronically at the website of the Library of Virginia.

Preferred Citation

Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913. (Cite style of suit and chancery index no.). Local Government Records Collection, Halifax 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.

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.

Halifax County was named for George Montagu Dunk, second earl of Halifax, who was president of the Board of Trade from 1748 to 1761. It was formed from Lunenburg County in 1752. Halifax County regained the city of South Boston on 1 July 1995, when the latter relinquished its city status. The county seat is Halifax.

Scope and Content

Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913, 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, slave records, business records or vital statistics, among other items. Plats, if present, are noted, as are wills from localities with an incomplete record of wills or localities other than the one being indexed.

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.


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 Halifax County Court Records can be found on microfilm at The Library of Virginia. See A Guide to Virginia County and City Records on Microfilm

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

Index Terms

    Corporate Names:

  • Halifax County (Va.) Circuit Court.
  • Subjects:

  • African Americans--History.
  • Business enterprises--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Debt--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Divorce suits--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Equity--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Estates (Law)--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Land subdivision--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Slaves--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Geographical Names:

  • Halifax County (Va.)--Genealogy.
  • Halifax County (Va.)--History.
  • Genre and Form Terms:

  • Chancery causes--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Deeds--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Judicial records--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Land records--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Local government records--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Plats--Virginia--Halifax County.
  • Wills--Virginia--Halifax County.

Significant Places Associated With the Collection

  • Halifax County (Va.)--Genealogy.
  • Halifax County (Va.)--History.

Selected Suits of Interest

1770-001: Richard Perryman vs. John Elliott:

Plaintiff contracted with the defendant to cure his slave of 'yaws' but claimed it did not work.

1774-011: Robert Williams vs. Miles Gathright:

Suit references a free born girl who was sold as a slave.

1779-004: Andrew Wade vs. Exr of Henry Farley:

Wade got Farley's daughter pregnant and Farley promised to give Wade a slave and household items if he would marry the daughter which he did, but Farley never gave Wade anything.

1789-004: Harrison Irby vs. Christopher Robertson:

Irby did not want to pay Robertson 2000 pounds of tobacco that he lost to him while playing cards and drinking.

1790-026: Reuben Abney vs. Dr. Walter Bennett:

Abney called for Bennett to help a slave give birth - both the mother and child died. Bennett's answer and several depositions detail what he did; such as taking the baby's body out but leaving its head in the mother (the head was apparently cut off).

1805-035: Charles Wilson vs. Exx of Thomas Lovelace, etc:

Wilson in 1776 joined the army to fight the Indians and left his estate in the hands of Loveless, who Wilson claimed converted it to his own use, refused to give it back, and tried to get Wilson arrested as an army deserter.

1810-016: Ann Chappell by etc. vs. John Chappell etc.:

Separate maintenance suit. Ann Chappell accused her husband of cohabiting with a female slave, Aggy. She referred to her husband as the "Old Black Stud." There is mention in the depositions that Aggy was tried for abusing Ann and sentenced to 30 lashes. Aggy was also accused of killing her infant child supposedly fathered by John Chappell. Other children by Aggy were described as "yellow" in color.

1815-005: Thomas Boyd vs. John Ragland, gdn.:

Debt suit - an attempt to recoup money spent on a runaway slave, James, who died.

1815-011: Edward Carrington, etc. vs. Admr. of Isaac H. Coles, etc.:

In his 1814 will, Isaac H. Coles left his two estates, Dan River estate and Bucksin property, and the slaves that worked the properties to two different heirs. Estate dispute arose over which slaves worked at which estate. Extensive list of slaves includes names, ages, occupations, and locations.

1819-030: Isbell Dodson by etc. vs. John F. Dodson, etc.:

Isbell Dodson sues for support and control over her husband's property that he sold to his father before abandoning his wife and moving to Georgia. John F. Dodson claims that he was married while in a state of intoxication and that the marriage was a plot.

1820-040: John Jennett and wife vs. Susannah Stegall, widow, etc.:

John Jennett and wife sue for her portion of her late father's estate. Jennett claimed that Elizabeth was denied her inheritance because she was illegitimate, having been born prior to her parent's marriage.

1820-050: Mary M. Hittson vs. Alexander Hittson:

Mary Hittson inherited a portion of her first husband's estate after his death. Before marrying Alexander Hittson, Mary signed an agreement that she would regain ownership of her property after Alexander's death. Because of Alexander's alleged abuse, Mary left home. She sues in the chancery court for separate maintenance and to regain control of her property.

1822-028: William Brandon and wife vs. Exr. Of Jacob Thomas, etc. and Madison Thomas, etc. vs. William Brandon and wife:

William Brandon's wife, Hannah, was once married to Jacob Thomas. The two agreed to separate and as part of the agreement, Thomas conveyed three slaves to Hannah for her use during her lifetime. Because the deed did not include trustees, it was declared void. William Brandon brought suit against his wife's sons to gain ownership of the slaves.

1823-023: Elijah Rice, etc. vs. Admr. of Ann Foster:

In the 1810 will of Matthew Rice, free African American Lidia Epperson is left the slave Isham.

1826-020: James Vaughan vs. Thomas Keeling, etc.:

Contract dispute over a group of slaves includes names, ages, descriptions, and hiring terms for individual slaves. One slave, Milly, is referred to as an "idiot" and said to "fall into the fire and otherwise incur danger without a constant guard over her."

1828-065: Caty vs. Susan Moore, etc.:

Caty, a Free African American, purchased land from Edward Moore who promised to record the deed, which he failed to do. After Moore's death, Caty sued his heirs for ownership of the property.

1830-055: Elisha Dodson vs. Charles F. Wall:

Contract dispute over a partnership between Dodson and Wall to buy and sell slaves.

1839-003: Isaac O. Standfield vs. James M. Williams, etc.:

Suit discusses the construction of "washing machines."

1839-005: John D. Richardson, etc. vs. Thomas McCargo:

Suit concerns the dissolution of a slave trading business. Purchased slaves to sell in Mississippi. Most slaves listed have forenames and surnames.

1843-014: Admr. of Margarett Winning vs. John Coleman:

Some parties in this suit live in Scotland and portions of the estate are in Scotland. There are depositions from Scottish citizens and genealogical notes from Scottish sources.

1846-027: John B. Royall vs. Francis L. Royall:

Concerns the dissolution of slave trading business.

1851-029: Admr. of Mary Thompson vs. Admr. of Mary Winning:

Documentation includes details of Walter Robertson's pre-Rev War conviction for homicide and subsequent banishment from Virginia and the United States. Discusses heirs living in Scotland.

1852-008: James M. Chappell vs. Osborne Meadows and wife, etc.:

Estate dispute suit. Four slaves were sold by the plaintiff and have proceeds distributed among participants in suit including himself. Defendants argued that the plaintiff had no interest in the slaves. Moreover, they accused the plaintiff of selling the slaves at a time of year when they would bring the lowest price to an anonymous slave trader.

1852-027: Admr. of John Pleasant Scott vs. John Crutchfield:

Dispute over slaves. Numerous depositions related to history of slave transactions and work performed by slaves. Includes birth and death dates of slaves.

1852-029: Henry Wood vs. Charles S. Carrington, etc.:

John V. Dismukes testified to the sell of a group of slaves who were carried from Virginia and sold in Georgia. He provides their names and ages. Dismukes was an agent of Samuel V. Watkins. He carried 23 slaves from Virginia to Georgia in the fall of 1847 and sold them. Suit includes a deed concerning the transfer of said slaves. Deed records family relationships.

1853-025: Chambers and Co. vs. John Whitt, etc.:

Chambers and Co. shipped tobacco from Halifax County to New Orleans.

1853-030: Dicey, a slave vs. Exr. of Craddock Vaughn, etc.:

Plaintiff emancipated by will of Vaughn and given property for her support. She sued executor to recover her share of property. See also Halifax County Legislative Petition of Eleanor Vaughan, 1851 and Halifax County Chancery Cause 1854-048.

1854-012: John C. Tucker vs. Nathaniel Dews and wife:

Marriage contract protecting bride's slave property used as exhibit.

1854-024: Exr. of William Carlton the Younger, etc. vs. Admr. of Elizabeth Hart, etc.:

Division of slave property found in King and Queen County. Exhibits include wills of William Carlton recorded in King and Queen County in 1812 and Isaac Carlton recorded in King and Queen County in 1824. Suit includes reference to the capture of a runaway slave named Mary and receipts for medical care of slaves.

1854-048: Isaac R. Calohan, trst. vs. Exr. of Craddock Vaughan, etc.:

Plaintiff was appointed trustee for seven former slaves (a mother named Eleanor or Ellen Vaughn and her six children) emancipated by the will of Craddock Vaughan and given property for their support. The seven former slaves had moved to start a new life in Ohio. The trustee, appointed to the former slaves by an Ohio court, sued the executor to recover the former slaves' share of property in Halifax County in order to purchase land in Gallia County, Ohio. See also Halifax County Legislative Petition of Eleanor Vaughan, 1851 and Halifax County Chancery Causes 1853-030.

1854-052: Barthus J. Crawley vs. Admr. of William B. Crawley, etc.:

William B. Crawley was in debt to plaintiff due to gambling losses. Suit includes correspondence from Crawley to his uncle in which he talks about his gambling losses. The plaintiff wanted slaves owned by Crawley family sold to repay gambling losses.

1854-055: Nathaniel Lovelace and wife, etc. vs. William Carlton, etc.:

Division of slave property found in King and Queen County. Exhibits includes will of William Carlton recorded in King and Queen County in 1812.

1855-037: Nancy Donohoe, etc. vs. Admr. of Edward Donohoe, etc.:

Suit contains numerous depositions concerning the sell of a slaves Maria and her children. At issue was the state of Maria's health at the time of sell. One of the deponents was a slave trader named Joseph Pointer who purchased Maria for the purpose of selling her in the South.

1855-038: Heirs of William R. Hagood vs. Exr. of William Hagood, etc.:

Suit includes correspondence and depositions that describe Hagood's religious fervor and how it may affected the soundness of his mind. In his correspondence, Hagood writes about the religious conversion of family and others in Danville. He also writes about family members who recently moved to Mississippi because of bad economic conditions in Virginia and how others in Danville area were planning to do the same.

1855-040: Trustee of Jack, etc. (free persons of color) vs. Exr. of Philip E. Vass:

Trustee of slaves emancipated by the will of Philip E. Vass in 1832 sued to receive the ex-slaves share of the estate given to them by Vass in his will. The funds were to be used to pay for their removal to another state or to Liberia. The slaves had successfully won their freedom in 1841 in a chancery suit filed in Halifax County (See Halifax County Chancery Cause 1841-010 Jacob, etc. vs. Exr. of Phillip E. Vass). The emancipated slaves were denied entry into North Carolina. Some of the emancipated slaves died and others had married and had children since they won their freedom. The suit alludes to some slaves wanting to remain in Virginia. If they did, could they receive their portion of Vass' estate. See also following Halifax County Legislative Petitions; Petition of Patty Daniel, 12-14-1842; Petition of Jacob, Mary, and Patsey, 12-15-1841; Petition of Philip Vass and Emily B. Haden, 02-20-1860.

1855-044: George W. Tucker vs. James M. Chappell, etc.:

Tucker and Chappell were partners in a slave trading business from 1850 to 1852. Tucker sued Chappell to recover money owed to him from the business. They provide slaves to Pulliam and Davis, a slave auction business in Richmond. They also traded slaves in Georgia and South Carolina. Depositions offer insight into slave trading business.

1856-017: Gdn. of James A. Jennett, etc. vs. Gdn. of James A. Jennett, etc.:

Infant plaintiffs resided in Missouri. They were suing to get their share of the property of their father James H. Jennett located in Halifax County. Large amount of the property were slaves. The suit includes correspondence written from Missouri by James Jennett to his brother John Jennett in Halifax County. He expresses his concern for the spiritual welfare of his brother and passed along messages from his slaves in Missouri to their slave family members in Halifax County.

1856-026: Williams S. Barksdale vs. Easley, Logan, and Co.:

Suit concerns recovering debt owed by Elisha Barksdale Jr. The case involves the 78 slaves who were sold at auction in Halifax County and taken South to be sold again. Two families of slaves were sold in Mobile, AL. Depositions describe the buying and selling of slaves.Suit includes names of slaves and their family relationships.

1856-027: Anderson McCormack vs. Admr. of William McCormack, etc. and Admr. of William McCormack vs. Anderson McCormack, etc.:

Suit related to repayment of a debt. At issue was the value of a slave and her children. The suit was originally filed in Franklin County in 1824. William McCormack purchased a slave named Matilda in Montgomery County circa 1820. He sold her to Henry and Joseph Showalter for repayment of a debt. Afterwards, Matilda and her children and grandchildren became the center of controversy in a legal dispute between William McCormack and his son Anderson McCormack that lasted over thirty years. Numerous depositions related to Matilda and her children. She had a eleven children for of whom died in infancy. Depositions provide names and dates of birth of Matilda's children and grandchildren. They also provide insight into the economics of slave hiring and determining the value of slaves from birth until adulthood.

1856-048: Edward Womack vs. James H. Edmundson:

Parties in the suit wagered $100 on the outcome of the 1856 sheriff's election in Halifax County. The plaintiff won the bet but the defendant refused to pay. Plaintiff sued in chancery and won the case.

1857-010: John R. Bennett and wife vs. Francis L. Royall, etc.:

Suit involved settling the accounts of a slave trading partnership consisting of Eliza M. Shelton, Francis L. Royall, and William Royall. Eliza Shelton's deceased husband Abner C. Shelton was a partner with the Royall brothers in the slave trade prior to his death. Exhibits include correspondence related to slave trade activities. William Royall was a resident of Hamburg, S.C., the end point for a route used by slave traders that began in Alexandria, VA and included Fredericksburg, Richmond, and Colombia, SC. From Hamburg, slave traders crossed the Savannah River to sell slaves in Georgia. Hamburg was located across the Savannah River from Augusta, GA. This route was less travelled by slave traders as slave markets in Mississippi and Louisiana became more valuable in the 1820's and 1830's. The opening of the new slave markets probably prompted William Royall's decision to move from Hamburg to Richmond, VA as the new slave partnership's base of operations. Quote from a letter dated 1836 May 28 written by Francis Royall to his brother William: "I perceive from your letter that you are doing something in the way of speculation in negroes. You will find I fear that you have 'swapped the Devil for the Witch' in leaving Hamburg for Richmond." Hamburg being the "Devil" and Richmond being the "Witch." The partnership purchased slaves in Virginia and sold them in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Letter dated 1834 Jan 10 from Francis Royall to Abner C. Shelton: "William Royall has left Mississippi and returned to Lancaster with his family. He is now at J.B. Royall's house and intends to trade negroes from here to Mississippi and Louisiana. I suppose you have seen from the newspapers that Louisiana has repealed the laws prohibiting the introduction of slaves. That will be a fine market to trade in and I wish you to trade there with an increased capital as negroes are 30 or 40 per cent higher than they are in Georgia." References in letters to using Northern banks to finance partnership. One letter dated 3 April 1834 to a cholera outbreak in Louisiana and Mississippi "destroying a great number of negroes belonging to the (slave) traders. Several traders from this country have lost money this season and some to a large amount. Negroes are falling every day rapidly."

1857-020: Charles Geoghagan, etc. vs. Admr. of James Murphy, etc:

Parties in suit were relatives of James Murphy, an immigrant from Ireland who owned property in Halifax County. =

1857-023: Lafayette Allen vs. John W. Tuck, etc.:

Parties in suit were partners in the ownership of a stallion named Prophet. Business dissolution suit. Exhibits include receipts and accounts related to care of stallion.

1857-025 Creditors of Christopher Nunnillee vs. Admr of Christopher Nunnillee, etc.:

Suit involves debt and deals with topics of churches, institutions and societies and property. Exhibit A (agreement) with bill describes building of church at Republican Grove.

1859-067: Thomas Hundley vs. Benjamin W. Walker:

Concerns debts related to a slave trading business between the plaintiff and defendant. Slaves sold from Mississippi to Louisiana.

1858-016: Heirs of Philip E. Vass vs. Exr of Philip E. Vass, etc.:

In his will, Philip E. Vass calls for the emancipation of several of his slaves and that 2,000 dollars of his estate be set aside to purchase land in North Carolina to allow for the settlement of emancipated slaves. Also mentions slaves in deed.

1859-005: Heirs of Eleanor Compton vs. Admr of Eleanor Compton:

Albert L. Easley, Nathan H. Poindexter and admr of Eleanor Compton and Samuel B. Major were slave traders that took slaves to the South (specifically Georgia) and sold them for a higher price. Malvina and her child, Henry were sold to Richard Stewart in Georgia. In Poindexter's deposition, Samuel R. Edmondson was involved in slave trade. Ages for slaves John, Matt, and Sall are given-also age of unnamed infant.

1859-041: Admx of Henry Terry vs. Paul Taylor, etc.:

Suit involves debt, property and slavery. Plaintiff is identified as secret partner of Thomas McCargo, slave trader. There is one slave identified, Nelson, with an occupation-blacksmith. See also Halifax County Chancery Cause 1856-013.

1860-002: David H. Strickland vs. Heirs of George Avery, etc.:

Plaintiff is in possession of an iron foundry in the town of Meadsville. Andersons had a grist mill. The Barksdales claim title and have filed an ejectment.

1860-018: Admr of Absolem (Absalom) Pate vs. Robert Moore, surv. partner, etc.:

Cause deals with dissolution of business partnership between Pate and Moore which consisted of buying and selling slaves. Noted in the suit are slaves from North Carolina and Virginia.

1860-034: Nathaniel Barksdale vs. William Logan, Sr., exr.:

Cause highlights slave trading in the southern market specifically Mississippi and Alabama. A number of slaves are identified as the younger and the suit mentions the occupation of one slave-Davy (the miller).

1863-037: Petition of Widow of Dr. Richard Thornton:

Plaintiff petitions court to remove slaves to North Carolina. Cites Virginia's Act of Assembly passed January 27, 1863. Ages of slaves are noted in cause's bill and report. One slave has surname.

1865-002: Heirs of Thomas Dance, the elder vs. Catharine A. Crank, etc.:

Cause mentions that defendant lives in Charleston, Kanawha County, then Virginia, now West Virginia, "within the lines of the enemy," and "no process can be served on her by the officers of Virginia courts."

1866-006: Rebecca A. Spragins by, etc. vs. Dr. Leonidas D. Spragins:

Suit for divorce and separate maintenance. Plaintiff charges that she was forced to leave defendant-that her life was in great danger. Charges that defendant was constantly carrying deadly weapons such as pistols and bowie knives. Apparently, plaintiff's husband also was in possession of all her apparel. Also charges that defendant committed adultery with one of his female slaves and also a slave owned by another individual. She fears defendant will sell off and remove slaves from commonwealth and also convert all additional real and personal property to money. Plaintiff also files various amended bills.

1866-021: Samuel S. Kent vs. William H. Sims:

Plaintiff files an injunction against defendant. He enjoins and restrains defendant from removing or interfering with the one thousand bushels of wheat now in the possession of West's widow. The plaintiff is the authorized agent for Halifax County to procure sustenance for the needy families of soldiers in the Confederate States Army.

1867-006: Pamilia Wilson by, etc. vs. John Wilson, Sr., etc.:

Suit involves debt. Plaintiff charges that slave, Lucy, is "very ungovernable and is strongly suspected of burning plaintiff's dwelling." Also see chancery cause 1871-013 for the continuing saga.

1867-068: Thomas M. Clark and wife vs. Exrs of John Cobbs, etc.:

According to Carr's affidavit, various slaved in mid-1850s were hired to work for railroad contractors. One slave, Caroline, had a nickname, Tuck. Other slaves had surnames and slaves Jack and Ned were identified as blacksmiths.

1868-005: Elizabeth James Murphy aka Elizabeth James Sadler vs. Admr of James Murphy:

James Murphy was from Ireland and died in Halifax County. He and the plaintiff"s mother were accused of adultery and he was married to another woman at the time. Plaintiff is claiming that she is entitled to James Murphy's estate because she is a blood relative - in an act passed by the General Assembly on 22 March 1851. See also related chancery causes, 1851-004, 1855-030 and 1859-021.

1868-011: Albert Satterfield vs. Patrick P. Ryan:

Debt suit. Plaintiff seeks injunction against defendant regarding gambling debts as the result of placing bets on the U.S. presidential election of 1868.

1868-015: Richard Whitlow vs. Martha Whitlow:

During the Civil War, plaintiff served in the Confederate Army and defendant committed adultery. See related chancery cause 1869-050, in which defendant petitions court and gives a different account of the circumstances surrounding her child, William C.

1869-020: Admr of Frances S. Harris vs. Admr of Charles T. Harris, Sr., etc.:

Decedent, Charles T. Harris, separates from this wife in Virginia and moves to Mississippi where he dies. He owned 32 slaves in Mississippi and 16 slaves in Virginia. His widow makes claims to his estates in both states. Decedent was a Justice of the Peace for Halifax County. Amended suit deals with injunction filed against decedent's administrator. Two slaves named Mary mentioned in record indicate one is yellow and the other black. Slave Cynda had an unsound mind. Slave Dave is identified as an idiot. Decedent sold slaves Charles, and wife Hanner and children, Caroline, Eliza, and Hanner Pernettee, also slave Affa to other to pay bonds to slave traders, Easley, Logan and Company and James Young and Company.

1869-021: Heirs of Jesse Ballow vs. Exr of Jesse Ballow, etc.:

Jesse Ballow died in Cumberland County and was of unsound mind. Cause contends that his will was obtained by fraudulent means. One of plaintiffs in suit, Hudson, was originally a resident of North Carolina. Other defendants in suit resided in Cumberland and Buckingham counties. Cause includes a sale of slaves and a very detailed genealogical chart.

1869-033: Heirs of Sally Hart vs. Admr of James Lawson, etc.:

Cause involves topics of debt, migration, property and slaves. Sally (Sallie) Hart, nee Lawson, died in state of Texas. James Lawson resided in North Carolina. Sally Hart's family moved from Virginia to Missouri and then to Texas. Her oldest son, William Hart, moved to California.

1870-014: Admr of Martha F. Medley vs. Elisha Barksdale, Jr., etc.:

Deceased died in Charlotte County. Plaintiff notes that receipt was destroyed by U.S. soldiers who occupied his home in large numbers during the Civil War. They destroyed his library and some of his papers. A defendant in the suit resides in North Carolina.

1870-032: Heirs of Mary Booth vs. Nelson H. Pruden and wife:

A large, involved estate dispute involving slavery as a central theme. Plaintiff Thomas H. Walthall, according to Josephus Chaffin's deposition, was a cruel overseer. Defendant, Nelson H. Pruden, had been on trial for the murder of slave Serena. Chaffin's deposition outlines in no uncertain terms the cruelties of slavery. See also chancery cause 1875-059.

1871-081: John W. Craddock vs. Board of School Trustees for School District of Mt. Carmel Township:

Plaintiff files injunction against school board trustees and township tax collector to enjoin and restrain them from selling his property for the collection of a tax "to provide school houses, school books and for current school expenses." Plaintiff claims tax is illegal and void due to boundary dispute between townships and have now levied his saddle for sale.

1874-009 William G. Pringle vs. Admr of Daniel B. Easley, etc.:

Cause deals with contract dispute. Suit involves War of 1812 and Mexican War land warrants amounting to 1920 acres. 880 acres were in Iowa and 1040 acres were in Minnesota. See Administrator of Alexander Yuille's answer for details of land warrants. Suit also contains agreement and list of land warrants.

1874-010: Legatees of Elizabeth Salle vs. Exr of Elizabeth Salle, etc.:

Suit involves estate dispute. Some of the defendants reside in City of Richmond and Mecklenburg County. Plaintiffs were formerly the slaves of the deceased, Elizabeth Sallie of Mecklenburg County and were emancipated by her last will and testament. See document "A.S.", filed with amended bill, for additional relationship information and also information on emancipated slaves. See also Mecklenburg Chancery Cause 1860-037.

1875-059: Martha T. Pruden by, etc. vs. Nelson Pruden:

Deals with Divorce/Separate Maintenance. Plaintiff fears her life is in danger. Defendant is beyond cruel to both her and their daughter. He resides with a freed woman, Mary Jennings, and is guilty of adultery. A warrant was issued for his arrest in July 1866 but he has fled the county to "parts unknown." Plaintiff files injunction against defendant so as not to dispose of any of his property which he inherited from the plaintiff when they married. In a deposition from 1872, a witnees stated that the defendant was living in Isle of Wight County. See also chancery cause 1870-032.

1876-057: John G. Smith and wife, etc. v. Admr of Alexander Yuille, etc.:

"Some years before the war, Alexander Yuille removed from the county of Halifax, Va. to the state of Mississippi-leaving in Virginia his evidences of debt and considerable estate of different kinds." He had a cotton plantation with his brother-in-law. Yuille bought a plantation in Mississippi. His market was in New Orleans. He furnished large means in his lifetime to his brother-in-law to speculated in northwestern lands (which belonged to their partnership) located in 45 counties in the states of Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota. Most of Yuille's slaves were in Mississippi. Slaves were returned to Virginia. The main defendant resides in the City of Richmond. See also chancery cause 1878-068.

1878-043: Widow of Thomas Bruce, etc. vs. Exr of James C. Bruce, etc.:

Plaintiff describes the personal effects of the late Civil War in running a large plantation - in particular, the emancipation of its slaves. She references the importance of her children's education and her own health (requiring the constant attention of a physician.) Also, plans to rent out her plantations and move to Richmond. See also chancery cause 1881-028 which includes wills of plaintiff's husband and deceased defendant.

1878-068: Heirs of Elijah D. Hundley and James A. Henderson vs. Admr of Elijah J. Hundley, etc.:

Suit involves estate dispute dealing with migration, property and slavery. Elijah D. Hundley also had property in Mississsippi. Mary J. Henderson (formerly Hundley) owned one slave. Dr. William H. Henderson, her husband, was not a resident of Virginia. Heirs of Mary Jane Henderson reside in North Carolina. One of the plaintiffs was the superintendent of his father's cotton plantation in Mississippi. Slaves Israel and Sylvanus worked on the plantation. Also, small corn crop was grown and used on plantation. Excellent insight into running a plantation during the Civil War. See also chancery cause 1877-039.

1880-086: Clayton Yancey and wife vs. Alexander Overby, etc.:

Includes a letter dated 12 June 1860 written by Alexander Overby to his mother Synthy Overby. At the time, Alexander was living in Marshall County, Alabama. He informs his mother of his experience in Alabama.

1880-087: Petition of the Guardian of Fanny Mills:

Application to change the name of Fanny Mills to Fanny Mills Ould.

1880-095: George D. Elder, etc. vs. Roanoke Navigation Company, etc.:

Plaintiffs were businessmen located in Clarksville, Virginia who were reliant on transportation on the on the Dan, Barrister, Staunton, and Roanoke Rivers for their business. They accused the defendants of doing a poor job of maintaining locks and dams and keeping the rivers clear of debris and stones that made navigation difficult and in some place impassable. Yet, the defendants continued to demand the collection of tolls from the plaintiffs. The suit references the increasing use of railroads to transport goods.

1881-001: William P. Jones and wife vs. Admr. of Robert Faulkner, etc.:

Estate dispute case. Numerous references to slaves. Questions in depositions focused on the average price for hiring slaves between 1840 and 1860. Detailed genealogical information concerning the Faulkner, Jones, Redd, Macon, and Halliburton families.

1882-047: Admr. of William B. Wills vs. Exr. of Thomas L. Spragins, etc.:

Estate dispute case. Division of slaves and slave hire accounts used as exhibits. The suit includes a letter that details the ages and health conditions of slaves.

1882-062: Jesse Brandon, etc. vs. Sarah Holden, etc.:

Estate dispute that was originally filed in the 1850's. Exhibits and depositions related to slaves used as exhibits. They describe the sell, value, physical condition, and family relationships of slaves. Individuals in the suit resided in North Carolina. Depositions reference two free African Americans named Stanfield Byrd, a ditcher, and Thomas Day of Milton, NC who was a cabinet maker and undertaker.

1883-040: Admr. of Henry Coleman Hamilton vs. Admr. of John Coleman, etc. and Patrick H. Hamilton vs. Edward T. Hamilton, etc.:

Suit details the impact of the Civil War and its aftermath on the local economy and property values. Depositions related to the value of Confederate money. One deposition includes an exhibit showing the price of gold as compared with Confederate money from May 1861 to April 1865. Deponents spoke of fears felt by local citizens that the Federal Government would confiscate their property (real and personal) during and after the Civil War. Deponents also gave the names of individuals who served in the Confederate army.

1883-041: M.W. Fourqurean vs. Admr. of Lucy Boxley, etc.:

Lucy Boxley died in 1851. The suit involved the distribution of her estate which included slaves. Depositions and exhibits record the names, ages, family relationships, and value of slaves. One deponent, Isaac Banks, was a slave of Colonel W.L. Fourqurean. He was asked questions about the sale and value of slaves.

1891-009: George T Yuille, etc. vs. Admr. of Alexander Yuille

Suit includes extensive list of slave names, including family groupings and ages.

1898-073: A.M. Overby vs. Bettie Overby:

cDivorce case, the husband cites his wife "malformed" female organs as the grounds for his right to request a divorce. His wife's medical condition made it impossible for them to have normal marital relations.

1901-008: Laura Canada vs. James E. Canada:

Divorce suit. Wife Laura Canada seeks divorce from her husband who lived with another woman and left his wife to move to Rhode Island. Court documentation supports her assertion that he left for Rhode Island because there is a grand jury indictment in Rhode Island for James E. Canada. The indictment accuses Canada of fraud charges and minting and distributing counterfeiting coins.

1901-028: Pearl K. Lindsay etc., vs. Z.L. Kay, etc.:

A disabled couple that could not hear or speak entered into a sales agreement with the defendants to sale land thought to be rich in copper and mineral rights. The couple claims the defendants mined the land without authority and pretended to want to buy the land for farming purposes. The attorney memo states the purpose of the suit is to rescind and set aside and annulled the deed of bargain and sale from Pearl and husband Frank to B.P. Atkins and Z.L. Kay. There are additional charges that Kay attempted to commit fraud in an effort to obtain the mineral rich land at a cheap price.

1901-036: James H. Powell vs Pauline Powell alias Pauline Thaxton:

Divorce case. James H. Powell moves to West Virginia to begin a new job leaving his young wife Pauline Powell in Virginia. Powell sends money to his wife for her to move with him to West Virginia, she does not respond to his request. Three years later Powell returns to Halifax and finds his wife has married another man one Killis Thaxton. Pauline's marriage certificate states she married Killis Thaxton in January 1898 and declares her marital status as widowed.