A Guide to the Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1771-1869 Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1771-1869 Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1771-001-1869-053

A Guide to the Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1771-1869

A Collection in
the Library of Virginia
Collection numbers: Chancery Records Index Numbers Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1771-001-1869-053


[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/

© 2022 By The Library of Virginia. All Rights Reserved.

Processed by: Library of Virginia staff

Repository
The Library of Virginia
Collection numbers
Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1771-001-1869-053
Title
Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1771-1869
Physical Characteristics
Digital images
Collector
Pittsylvania 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 Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes 1771-001-1869-053 found on the Chancery Records Index available electronically at the website of the Library of Virginia.

Preferred Citation

Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1771-1869. (Cite style of suit and chancery index no.). Local Government Records Collection, Pittsylvania 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 this collection was transferred to the Library of Virginia under the accession number 52142.

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.

Pittsylvania County was named in honor of William Pitt, first earl of Chatham, the English statesman. It was formed from Halifax County in 1766. The county court first met on 26 June 1767. The county seat is Chatham.

Scope and Content

Pittsylvania County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1771-1869 (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 Pittsylvania 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.

Selected Suits of Interest

1787-004: William Glass vs. Martin Armstrong, etc.:

Glass served in the North Carolina militia during the Revolutionary War. He wanted to be exempt from serving. He made an agreement with Armstrong who informed Glass he could find him a substitute. Armstrong also agreed to provide Glass with two horses in exchange for an enslaved man owned by Glass. Armstrong failed to provide a substitute to serve in the militia in Glass' place.

1790-009: Orlando Smith vs. John Sutherland, Sr.:

Smith made an agreement with Sutherland to furnish a substitute in the militia for Smith's son. Both parties accused the other of not fulfilling their end of the agreement.

1790-011: Nathan Thurman vs. Jeremiah Ward:

Thurman lost a slander suit heard in common law to Ward. Thurman accused Ward of collecting bounties on dog ears and not wolf's ears. Thurman wanted the chancery court to overturn the law court's verdict.

1794-003: John Davis vs. Griffin Haynes and wife:

Mary Haynes was an enslaved person who won her freedom from Davis in a lawsuit heard in Pittsylvania County court. She also won financial damages. According to Davis and witnesses, Haynes' attorney offered a deal to Davis: he would not have to pay damages or court costs in return for the freedom of Haynes' children and never trouble Haynes or her children regarding their freedom. Haynes did not acknowledge such an agreement. She claimed that once the court gave her freedom that here children were immediately freed as well. Haynes wanted Davis to pay the damages owed her.

1804-011: Daniel Fisher and wife vs. William Dunning, etc.:

Daniel Fisher's wife, Susanna, claimed to be the illegitimate daughter of William Dunning. She was sent to Loudoun County to live in order to avoid family embarrassment where she married Daniel Fisher. Dunning requested that they move to Pittsylvania County to take care of him in his old age. In return, he would leave them his estate when he died. Plaintiffs claimed Dunning reneged on the agreement.

1807-005: James Mitchell vs. Vincent Walker:

The defendant was a doctor who Mitchell asked to cure his enslaved people alleged to have been poisoned. Cause includes depositions from individuals who hired Dr. Walker to cure their enslaved people who suffered from poisoning. The deponents shared ingredients for medicine Walker prescribed to cure their enslaved people.

1821-017: Mary Justice, etc. vs. Exrs of George Herndon, etc.:

Freedom Suit. The Herndons joined the Society of Friends and Mr. Herndon offered to free Mary Justice. After he died, Mary stayed with his widow, Sarah Herndon, who refused to free Mary.

1822-020: Mark Anthony vs. James Arthur:

Mark Anthony, of Bedford County, sued James Arthur to prevent him from removing enslaved people fom the jurisdiction of the Pittsylvania County Court. The enslaved people had been given permission by the Court to sue for their freedom.

1828-007: Tom Butcher vs. Rice, etc.:

Tom Butcher was to be freed at 21 years of age by a manumission from Joshua Smith. After Mr. Smith died, his son-in-law, Josiah Askew, received Tom as part of his share in the division of Mr. Smith's estate. Tom was age 14 years when Josiah Askew transported Tom to North Carolina. Tom was sold a number of times and ended up the property of a Mr. Rice of Chester District, South Carolina. Tom fled to Dinwiddie County, Virginia to get his freedom papers. He was arrested in Pittsylvania County. Samuel M. Lovell wrote to Austin Billups of Dinwiddie County asking him to send money to Tom to pay the prison charges and obtain his freedom papers.

1830-015: Sarah Fowlkes vs. James Fowlkes, Jr. etc.:

James Fowlkes hired an enslaved girl named Sarah from Martha Grigg and made her his mistress. Fowlkes' wife asked him to stop hiring the girl but he would not. Mrs. Fowlkes sued for divorce and asked for alimony.

1833-014: John Fowlkes vs. Martha Griggs:

Enslaved woman named Sarah was murdered as consequence of a contract dispute between the plaintiff and defendant. The cause includes multiple depositions that gave information regarding Sarah's death, the search to find the killer, and Fowlkes' agreement with Griggs.

1833-024: Frances Linn, by etc. vs. Thomas Linn:

The Linns moved from Pittsylvania County to Grayson County Court House where he opened a tailor's business. Thomas Linn had and affair with one of his employees. They ran away to Philadelphia, Hiwassee District, Tennessee. The plaintiff sued her husband for divorce and custody of their three children.

1833-025: Susan E. Callaway vs. Henry Callaway:

The defendant had children by an enslaved woman named Ann. The cause includes affidavits identifying the defendant being with Ann in a building where the enslaved people lived. The cause was moved to Powhatan County by order dated 28 May 1833. See Powhatan Chancery Cause 1834-001: Henry Calloway and wife, etc. VS admx. of Francis Lewis, etc.

1838-032: Samuel Stone VS Samuel Edmundson, Jr., etc. Samuel Edmundson, Jr.:

Cause involves dispute over a enslaved runaway named Moses. Cause details circumstances surrounding Moses' efforts to be free.

1840-040: Morris Pollok vs. Reuben Hopkins:

Pollok and his brother's Robert and Allen were merchants from Scotland. Naturalization records of the Pollock family are filed as exhibits.

1846-013: William B. Banks, etc. vs. William B. Arthur, etc.:

Defendants in cause were lawyers hired to defend William Bennet in a suit instituted and prosecuted by Milly Chavis, a free woman, for the purpose of establishing her right to freedom. The freedom suit had been instituted twenty years before the start of this cause. See Pittsylvania County Chancery Causes 1822-020, 1849-037, and 1851-011.

1848-033: Francis Williams vs. Julius Allen:

Per agreement, Williams and Allen were attempting to establish a slave trading business. According to deposition, enslaved people were bought in Richmond and sold in Alabama. Zachariah L. Hooper was identified as a slave trader by Samuel Cobb. Cause also relates to the selling of enslaved people in Georgia and North Carolina. Samuel Cobb and Henry Badgett, both based in North Carolina, were named as slave traders as well.

1848-034: William Worsham vs. Samuel Stone:

Parties in cause were slave traders. They purchased enslaved people in Richmond and sold them in South Carolina.

1849-037: Admr. of James Arthur vs Milly Chavis:

Defendant was a free person seeing to establish her freedom. See also Pittsylvania County Chancery Causes 1822-020, 1846-013 and 1851-011. Defendant was owned by plaintiff.

1851-011: John Arthur vs. Una or Unita Chavis:

Freedom suit. Defendant is the daughter of Milly Chavis.

1851-031: Heir of Robert G. Tucker vs. Capt. Claiborne Tucker:

Plaintiff cites that his brother, the defendant, has sold six enslaved people to George W. Hall who sold them in Georgia. According to depositions, the defendant emancipated an ensaved man named Tom in his will. However, Tom was one of the six enslaved persons sold in Georgia.

1854-061: John A. Adams vs. Nathaniel N. Witcher:

Parties in cause formed "a co-partnership, Witcher and Adams, for the purpose of carrying on the negro trade and buying negroes in Virginia and carrying them to the South for sale." In depositions, George W. Hall is also identified as a partner in the business. Slave Sam~, in receipt, is identified as a blacksmith.

1855-038: George Hairston, etc. vs. Admx of Robert Hairston,etc. and 1855-039: Admr. of Robert Hairston v. Ruth S. Hairston:

Numerous defendants are not residents of Virginia. Peter Hairston died in North Carolina. He is the father of Ruth S. Hairston. According to cause, Ruth S. Hairston is in possession of and holds 684 enslaved people as executrix of her father's will. The enslaved people reside in North Carolina and Patrick, Henry, and Pittsylvania counties in Virginia. Heirs of Robert Hairston, Ruth's husband, are claiming 550 of those enslaved people. Other heirs reside in Henry County, Virginia. In the second cause, Robert Hairston left estates in Virginia, North Carolina, and Mississippi. He migrated from Virginia in 1841 for Mississippi and died there in 1852. His wife Ruth essentially ran his estates in Virginia and North Carolina.

1855-041: Widow of Thomas Williams vs. Isaac Motley and wife, etc. and Adms. of Francis Williams, admr vs. Robert W. Williams, etc.:

Thomas Williams and Robert W. Williams owned a slave trading business. Robert W. Williams resides in Henry County, Virginia.

1866-012: Peter R. Riggs vs. Coleman D. Bennett, etc.:

Debt suit that involves the establishment of a female seminary in the town of Chatham. At one point it was named the Female Academy of Chatham.

1866-068: Edmund Fitzgerald and wife, etc. vs. Exr of John Wilson, etc.:

In John Wilson's will, he emancipated his enslaved people after 50 years. At the time of his death, he proposed measures to give his enslaved quasi freedoms. In an opinion filed in the cause, Richard Logan argued that "slaves born during the time of the testator making his will and the testator's death will be slaves for life."