Madison County Chancery Causes, 1794-1919, use digital images found on the
There are no restrictions.
Madison County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1794-1919 (bulk 1873-1913). (Cite style of suit and chancery index no.). Local Government Records Collection, Madison County Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.
These materials came to the Library of Virginia from the Circuit Court of Madison County in 2012; the records were not accessioned into the collection.
Records transferred to the Library of Virginia from the Circuit Court of Madison County in 2012 for processing and reformatting. Original records returned to the locality in 2015 at the request of the clerk of the Circuit Court.
A portion of the records were processed in 2008. After the remaining pre-1913 records were transferred to the Library of Virginia in 2012, the remaining unprocessed records were completed in 2014.
Digital images were generated by Backstage Library Works in 2015 through the Library of Virginia's Circuit Court Records Preservation Program.
Encoded by G. Crawford: 2015; updated by J. Taylor: August 2023.
Madison County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1794-1919, 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.
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.)
Original Madison County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1794-1919 are retained in the locality. Contact the Clerk of the Circuit court for access.
Additional Madison County Court Records can be found on microfilm at The Library of Virginia web site. Consult
The suits contains the will of Robert Beverley, Senior of Essex County. Beverly was a Virginian planter and owner of "Blandfield Plantation." In his will, Beverly freed Harry, his enslaved personal attendant after the death of Maria, Beverly's wife. He also directed that if Maria thought it "proper," then Editha, Harry's wife, should also be freed.
The suit is about a contract for substitute militia service and also discusses some generalities about the War of 1812.
William Jarrett was accused of murder by a coroner's inquest and fled the county. The coroner took posseession of Jarrett's property due to Virginia law. James P. Sims initiated the suit after the coroner took possession of Jarrett's property and sued for the title to land he previously purchased from Jarrett.
The suit referenced Mary Clark, who had boarded with William Davis and raised several enslaved youth for him.
Moses and the other plaintiffs were enslaved by John Stockdell. Stockdell's will called for the plaintiffs to be turned over to the American Colonization Society for transport to Liberia, with funds for passage provided by the estate. The executors of the will, however, continued to rent out Moses and the other plaintiffs despite no debts being owed by the estate. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Full list of plantiffs include: Peter, Jack, Harry, Walker, Robin, Simon, Joe, Ben, Thornton, Cesar, William, Braxton, Agga, Fanny, Anna, Barbara, Nelly, Lucinda, Mary, Maria, Frances, Silas, Monroe, Tabby, Edmund, Susan, Ambrose, Winn, John, Lewis, and Sarah
The suit included an extensive genealogical chart describing the familial relationships of the Clark family.
Hill and Taylor were business partners engaged in the slave trade, buying enslaved people in Virginia for the purposes of selling the enslaved people further south, specifically in Mississippi and Louisiana. After the partnership dissolved, Hill sued Taylor to recover his fair share of the profits. Hill asked the court to perform an audit of all the partnership's transactions from the time of its commencement to its dissolution. Included in the suit are lists containing the names of hundreds of enslaved people bought in Virginia and sold down south between 1830 to 1843. The lists record the names of enslaved people, the purchase price in Virginia, the sale price in Mississippi and Louisiana, the date of sale, and the names of the buyers.
The suit concerns the will of Rhoda Carpenter, a woman they believe to be under "fanatical influence of Shakers [sect]" who renounced her inheritance of an enslaved person from Thomas Shirley.
Jacob G. Weast found a substitute for Benjamin Burton in the Confederate Army ca. 1861 and was promised 500 dollars in three payments. Weast collected one payment before Burton died. Weast and Edwin P. Rosson, the co-plaintiff, sued for the remainder. The administrator contended that the debt was invalid because it concerned service for the Confederate States of America, and the only true government of Virginia was the Restored Government now back in place in Richmond. The argument failed; the court ruled in favor of Weast and Rosson.
The suit is concerned with the settlement of Charles Hume's estate. Hume died in 1860 and provided for Charles and Hay Taliaferro, two elderly enslaved men, in his will. Charles died before or shortly after Hume. There was dissent between Hay and Hume's executors as to the contents of an agreement developed between Hay and the executors regarding Hay's care and maintenance. Hay, a petitioner to the suit, claimed to have been duped by the executors into signing an agreement that was not to his benefit. A decree from the Supreme Court of Appeals in the suit seemed to imply that Hay has no standing in the suit since he was freed at the end of the Civil War.
The suit began in 1840's and continued to early 20th century. The suit contained extensive genealogical information about the Shirley family as well as the people enslaved by the family. Also included is a letterhead depicting a political cartoon relative to the 1844 Presidential race.