Search

Search Constraints

Start Over You searched for: Subjects Equity--Virginia. Remove constraint Subjects: Equity--Virginia.

Search Results

Virginia Superior Court of Chancery (Lynchburg District). Records, 1815-1836

Abstract Or Scope

Records, 1815-1836, of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Lynchburg District. They consist of copies of the following chancery causes: Elizabeth C. Shelton versus George W. Johnson, 1815, which includes the will of James Johnson of Pittsylvania County; Boyd Miller versus Samuel Coleman, 1820; James C. Moorman versus William Morgan and Fielding Bradford, 1820. The records also include the petition of Dudly Callaway and wife, 1821, to remove the chancery cause Dudley Callaway and wife versus Administrator of Henry Trent from Amherst County to the Superior Court of Chancery for the Lynchburg District and an order and notice in the chancery cause of Abney M. Fackler and others versus Dabney Philips and wife and others, 1836.

1 result

Virginia Superior Court of Chancery (Lynchburg District). Records, 1815-1836

Virginia Superior Court of Chancery (Richmond District). Records, 1806-1850

Abstract Or Scope

Records, 1806-1850, of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District consist of clerks' papers (1822-1829) and documents related to chancery causes (1806, 1808, 1820, 1824-1828, 1842, 1850.)

1 result

Virginia Superior Court of Chancery (Williamsburg District). Records, 1827

Abstract Or Scope

Records, 1827, of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Williamsburg District consist of a copy of the chancery cause, Thomas Morgan and others versus Benjamin W. Ladd and others. Exhibits found in the chancery cause include the will of John Atkinson of Charles City County as well as the inventory and appraisement of his estate.

1 result

Virginia Superior Court of Chancery (Williamsburg District). Records, 1827

Content Warning

ARVAS is an aggregator of archival resources. ARVAS does not have control of the descriptive language used in our members’ finding aids.

Finding aids may contain historical terms and phrases, reflecting the shared attitudes and values of the community from which they were collected, but are offensive to modern readers. These include demeaning and dehumanizing references to race, ethnicity, and nationality; enslaved or free status; physical or mental ability; religion; sex; and sexual orientation and gender identity.

Many institutions and organizations are in the process of reviewing and revising their descriptive language, with the intent to describe materials in more humanizing, inclusive, and harm-reductive ways. As members revise their descriptive language, their changes will eventually be reflected in their ARVAS finding aids.