A Guide to the Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913 (bulk 1828-1913) Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913 (bulk 1829-1913)

A Guide to the Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913 (bulk 1828-1913)

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/

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

Processed by: C. Underwood, B. Helms, J. Porter, C. Freed, V. Brooks, and S. Bagely

Repository
The Library of Virginia
Title
Halifax County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1753-1913 (bulk 1828-1913)
Physical Characteristics
Digital images; 171.86 cubic feet (302 boxes)
Collector
Halifax County (Va.) Circuit Court
Location
Library of Virginia
Language
English

Administrative Information

Access Restrictions

Halifax Chancery (Va.) 1753-1913 use digital images found on the Chancery Records Index available electronically at the website of the Library of Virginia.

Use Restrictions

No restrictions on use.

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

These materials came to the Library of Virginia in transfer of court papers from Halifax County in 2013 under accession number 50817, and an additional item, Halifax County (Va.) Answer and Deposition from the Chancery Cause, John Watkins vs. Executor of Micajah Watkins, was purchased from Austin's Antiquarian Books in 2006 under accession number 42970.

Processing Information

Encoded by G. Crawford: 2017; updated by J. Taylor: May 2023.

Digital images were generated by Backstage Library Works through the Library of Virginia's Circuit Court Records Preservation Program in 2015.

Item previously cataloged as "Halifax County (Va.) Answer and Deposition from the Chancery Cause, John Watkins vs. Executor of Micajah Watkins" under accession 42970 has been interfiled in the cause 1807-006 with the same style of suit.

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 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, 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.

Chancery causes before 1870 contain a 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.

Due to Halifax County’s location along the border to North Carolina and within a reasonable distance to Richmond, the county was a frequent place of business for slave trading between the years 1830-1865. There are a significant number of disputes between business partners, whose work was in the slave trade. Several other cases also refer to the practice of selling enslaved people in Virginia further south. Examples can be found in cases: 1830-055, 1839-005, 1846-027, 1855-044, 1859-005, 1859-041, 1859-067, 1860-018, and 1860-1034.

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 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

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.

1770-001: Richard Perryman vs. John Elliott:

Richard Perryman contracted with John Elliot, a local physician, to cure an en enslaved woman of yaws. Perryman filed for a reimbursement of the funds used for the treatment, as he claimed the treatment had not worked.

1774-011: Robert Williams vs. Miles Gathright:

The suit refers to an unnamed girl who was born free, but sold to Robert Williams. Williams claimed that at the time of the sale, he was unaware of her free status.

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

Andrew Wade impregnated Martha Farley, Henry Farley's daughter, Wade did not intend to marry Martha because he believed he could not provide for her due to his disability. Farley promised to give Wade and enslaved man and household items if he would marry Martha. The two married, but Farley died before fulfilling his promise. Wade sued Farley's estate for the promised enslaved man and household goods.

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

Reuben Abney called for the aid of Walter Bennett, a physician, because an enslaved woman was in great distress during her labor. Both mother and child passed and Abney claimed their deaths were due to Bennett's negligence. He sued for the return of his payment to Bennett.

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

Charles Wilson joined the United States Army in 1776 to fight against Native Americans and left his estate in the hands of Thomas Lovelace. After his return, Wilson claimed Lovelace converted the land 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.:

Ann Chappell sued John Chappell, her husband, for separate maintenance because he had abandoned her. Ann accused her husband of cohabiting with Agg, an enslaved woman. Extensive information is given in depositions about Aggy.

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

A debt suit filed by Thomas Boyd, who hired Lewis, an enslaved man, from John Ragland. During the year of his hire, Lewis fell ill and passed away. Thomas Boyd wanted to recoup the cost of the time lost due to Lewis' death.

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

Isbell Dodson sued for support from John F. Dodson, her husband, and control over his property; property that he had sold to his father before abandoning his wife and moving to Georgia. John, in his answer, stated his belief that the marriage had been a plot because he had been in a state of intoxication at the time of their marriage.

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

John and Elizabeth Jennett sued 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 parents' 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. However, Mary left her marital home and sued in the chancery court, on the grounds of Alexander's abusive behavior. She sued for separation maintenance as well as 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:

Hannah Brandon and Jacob Thomas were once married, but mutually agreed to a separation; as a part of the agreement, Thomas conveyed three enslaved people to Hannah for her use during her lifetime. However, the deed did not include trustees and was therefore declared void. Hannah had remarried William Brandon, who brought suit against his wife's sons to gain ownership of the enslaved people who had been granted to Hannah.

1828-065: Caty (free person of color) vs. Susan Moore, etc.:

Caty, a free Black woman, 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.

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

The suit was filed to settle the estate of Mary Thompson, which included also settling the estate of Walter Robinson. A document included in the case file detailed Robinson's banishment to Virginia from Scotland after being convicted of homicide. However, a comment within the document mentions it was believed Robinson's first wife had actually committed the homicide, but he took the blame "to be rid of her," and therefore none of his estate should go to the descendants of that marriage.

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

James M. Chappell sold four enslaved people and distributed the proceds among the participants in the suit, himself included. Osborne Meadows and the other defendants accused Chappell of deliberately selling the enslaved people at a time of year when they would bring the lowest price.

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

John V. Dismukes testified to the sale of a twenty-three enslaved people, who were carried from Virginia and sold in Georgia. Dismukes provided the names and ages of the people sold in Georgia; also included within the suit is a deed, which recorded the familial relationships of the enslaved people.

1853-030: Dicey (enslaved) vs. Exr. of Craddock Vaughn, etc.:

Dicey, a recently freed woman, was emancipated in Craddock Vaughan's will and was provided property for her support. She sued the executor of the estate in order to recover her share of the property See also Halifax County Legislative Petition of Eleanor Vaughan, 1851 and Halifax County Chancery Cause 1854-048.

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

Eleanor Vaughn and her six children, free people of color, were emancipated by the will of Craddock Vaughan and given property for their support. Eleanor and her family had moved to start a new life in Ohio. Isaac Calohan was appointed to Eleanor and her family by an Ohio court and he sued the executor of Vaughan's estate to recover their share of property in Halifax County, in order to sell it for funds to purchase land in Ohio. See also Halifax County Legislative Petition of Eleanor Vaughan, 1851 and Halifax County Chancery Causes 1853-030.

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

The suit contains numerous depositions concerning the sale Maria, an enslaved woman, and her children. At issue was the state of Maria's health at the time of sale. One of the deponents was a slave trader named Joseph Pointer who had purchased Maria for the purpose of selling her further South.

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

The suit includes correspondence and depositions which describe William Hagood's religious fervor and how it affected his soundness of mind. Correspondence included also described members of Hagood's family who moved to Mississippi due to poor economic conditions in Virginia.

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

Samuel Young was appointed the trustee for Jack and other free people of color emancipated in the will of Phillip E. Vass. They sued to receive their share of the estate given to them in Vass' will. The funds were to be used to pay for their travel either to another state or to Liberia. See also the 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.

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

Correspondence included in the case was written by James Jennett in Missouri to his brother John Jennett in Halifax County. The letter is largely focused on James' concern for John's spiritual welfare, however, there is a postscript included in the letter which passed along messages from enslaved people in Missouri to their enslaved family members in Halifax.

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

The suit was concerned with recorvering debt owed by Elisha Barksdale Jr. and involved seventy-eight inslaved people who were sold at an auction in Halifax County and taken further south to be sold again. Two families of enslaved people were sold in Mobile, Alabama. Deeds used in the suit include detailed genealogical information about enslaved people.

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

William McCormack purchased Matilda, and enslaved woman, in Montgomery County circa 1820. He then sold her to Henry and Joseph Showalter to repay a debt. afterwards, Matilda and her descendants became the center of a legal dispute between William McCormack and Anderson McCormack, his son, that lasted over thirty years. Numerous depositions contain information on Matilda's family tree as well as insight as to the economics of hiring out enslaved people and determining their value 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. Edward Womack won the bet but the James H. Edmundson refused to pay. Womack sued in chancery court and won the case.

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

The suit involved settling the accounts of a slave trading partnership between Abner C. Shelton, Francis L. Royall, and William Royall. Eliza M. Shelton, Shelton's wife entered as a party in the suit due to Shelton's death. There is correspondence included in the suit which referenced the use of Northern banks to finance the partnership, as well as references to a cholera outbreak in Louisiana and Mississippi.

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

In his will, Philip E. Vass emancipated several people he had previously enslaved and that 2,000 dollars of his estate be set aside to purchase land in North Carolina for the newly freed people. See also Halfiax County Chancery Cause 1855-040.

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

Catherine A. Crank lived in Charleston, which had by that point become a part of West Virginia. As West Virginia was within the borders of the United States, then at war with the Confederate States, she could not be served by officers of the Virginia courts.

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

Rebecca A. Spragins sued for divorce from Leonidas D. Spragins on the grounds that Leonidas was abusive. Rebecca charged that Leonidas constantly carried deadly weapons. She also implicated Leonidas in adultery, and having had multiple sexual relationships with several enslaved women. Rebecca also asked for an injunction to restrain Leonidas from selling or removing from the Commonwealth the enslaved people the Spragins owned.

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

Samuel S. Kent was an authorized agent for Halifax County to procure sustenance for the families of soldiers in the Confederate States Army, which led him to purchase one thousand bushels of wheat from Beverly West. At the time Kent filed his bill, Beverly West had died and the wheat was in the possession of Elizabeth West, his widow. Kent filed an injunction against William H. Sims to restrain Sims from removing or interfering with the wheat.

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

In an affidavit filed in the case, it was noted that several enslaved people were hired out to work for railroad contractors during the mid-1850s.

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

James Murphy immigrated from Ireland to Halifax County, where he died. Elizabeth James Murphy's mother and James Murphy were accused of adultery due to their relationship occuring while he was married to another woman. Elizabeth claimed she was entitled to James Murphy's estate because she was James Murphy's daughter, born of the affair between her mother and James Murphy. See also related chancery causes, 1851-004, 1855-030 and 1859-021.

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

Albert Satterfield sought an injuction against Patrick P. Ryan regarding gambling debts incurred as a result of placing bets on the U.S. presidential election of 1868.

1868-015: Richard Whitlow vs. Martha Whitlow:

Richard Whitlow was serving in the Confederate Army at the time, Martha Whitlow, his wife, committed adultery. See also the related chancery cause, 1869-050 for information on William, the child born of Martha's affair.

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

Jesse Ballow died in Cumberland County and was declared to have been of unsound mind. The cause contended that his will had been obtained by fraudulent means. Also included in the cause was a very detailed genealogical chart of the Ballow family tree.

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

Martha F. Medley died in Charlotte County. Her administrator indicated that financial documents relevant to the case were destroyed by Union soldiers, who occupied her administrator's home during the Civil War.

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

The suit was a large and involved estate dispute which provides numerous examples of the cruelty of enslavement on the people bound within the system. Thomas. H. Walthall, a plaintiff in the case, according to Josephus Chaffin's deposition, was a cruel overseer. Defendant, Nelson H. Pruden, had once been on trial for the murder of Serena, an enslaved woman. See also chancery cause 1875-059.

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

John W. Craddock filed an injuction against the school board trustees and township tax collector to enjoin and restrain them from selling his property for the collection of a tax which would build school houses, provide school books and funds for school expenses. Craddock claimed the tax was illegal and void due to a boundary dispute between townships.

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

Suit involves an estate dispute. Anderson Salle, Robert Salle, Grief Salle, James, Salle, and Henry Salle sued for the benefit of themselves and other legatees of Elizabeth Salle. The plaintiffs were formerly enslaved by the deceased Elizabeth Salle and freed in her last will and testament. An affidavit from the case provides genealogical information for the freed people. See also Mecklenburg Chancery Cause 1860-037.

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

Martha T. Pruden sought a divorce from Nelson Pruden, her husband. Martha ferared for both her own and her daughter's lives. At the time the suit was filed, Nelson resided with a freed woman, Mary Jennings. A warrant was issued for his arrest in July 1866, but he had fled the county to parts unknown. Martha Pruden filed an injuction against Nelson Pruden, so he could not sell or dispose of any property he had inherited when they married. See also chancery cause 1870-032.

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

Nannie C. Bruce, the widow of Thomas Bruce, described the effects the Civil War had on her life, in particular, the emancipation of the enslaved people bound to her plantation. 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.:

The suit provides detailed information about the realities of running a plantation during the Civil War. See also chancery cause 1877-039.

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

The plaintiffs were businessmen located in Clarksville, Virginia who were reliant on transportation 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 as well as keeping the rivers clear of debris and stones that made navigation difficult or impassible, while still demanding tolls from the plaintiffs. The suit also includes references to the increasing use of railroads to transport goods.

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

The case was an estate dispute that was originally filed in the 1850s. Exhibits and and depositions filed with the case contain information on the people enslaved by the Holden family including sales, their assigned value, their physical condition, and genealogical relationships.

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

The suit detailed the impact of the Civil War and its aftermath on the local economy and property values. Depositions include information related to the value of Confederate currency from May 1861 to April 1865. The deponents spoke about the fears felt by local citizens about the possibility of the federal government confiscating their property during and after the war.

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:

A. M. Overby sought a divorce from Bettie Overby, his wife and cited her "malformed" genitalia as the reason. He claimed that Bettie's medical condition made sexual intercourse impossible.

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

Laura Canada sought a divorce from James E. Canada, her husband because he had moved to Rhode Island and lived their with another woman. Documentation filed in the case include a grand jury indictment in Rhode Island for James E. Canada, which accused Canada of fraud charges as well as minting and distributing counterfeiting coins.

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

Pearl K. and Frank A. Lindsay, a disabled couple who were deaf/mute, alleged that they had entered into a sales agreement with B.P. Atkins, under the belief he wanted the land to build a house and farm. However, the couple later discoverd that Atkins was acting as Z.L. Kay's agent in order to buy the land for substantially less than it was worth. Kay had prospected on the land without any authority and found large amounts of copper; in the sale, Atkins deliberately concealed the land's true worth. The Lindsay's filed the suit for the deed of sale to be rescinded, set aside, and annulled on the grounds of fraud.

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

James H. Powell moves to West Virginia to begin a new job leaving Pauline Powell, his wife, in Virginia. Powell sent money to his wife in order for her to move to West Virginia to be with him, however, she did not respond to his request. Three years later Powell returned to Halifax and found Pauline had married another man, Killis Thaxton. The marriage certificate for Pauline and Killis was dated January 1898 and declared her marital status as widowed.