A Guide to the Microfilm Edition of BLACK STUDIES RESEARCH SOURCES Microfilms from Major Archival and Manuscript Collections General Editors: John H. Bracey, Jr., and Sharon Harley Race, Slavery, and Free Blacks Series II, Petitions to Southern County Courts, 1775–1867 Part E: Arkansas (1824–1867), Missouri (1806–1860), Tennessee (1792–1868), and Texas (1830–1867) A UPA Collection from Cover: Courtesy of the Maury County, Tennessee, Archives. BLACK STUDIES RESEARCH SOURCES Microfilms from Major Archival and Manuscript Collections General Editors: John H. Bracey, Jr., and Sharon Harley RACE, SLAVERY, AND FREE BLACKS Series II, Petitions to Southern County Courts, 1775–1867 Part E: Arkansas (1824–1867), Missouri (1806–1860), Tennessee (1792–1868), and Texas (1830–1867) Edited by Loren Schweninger Senior Assistant Editor Marguerite Ross Howell A UPA Collection from 7500 Old Georgetown Road • Bethesda, MD 20814-6126 i Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Race, slavery, and free Blacks. Series II, Petitions to southern county courts, 1775–1867 [microform] / edited by Loren Schweninger ; assistant editor, Marguerite Ross Howell. microfilm reels ; 35 mm. — (Black studies research sources) Summary: Reproduces a collection of approx. 15,000 petitions assembled by the Race and Slavery Petitions Project, University of North Carolina at Greensboro from state archives in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia and Maryland, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Accompanied by a printed guide entitled: A guide to the microfilm edition of Race, slavery, and free Blacks. Series II, Petitions to southern county courts, 1775–1867. Contents: pt. A. Georgia (1796–1867), Florida (1821–1867), Alabama (1821–1867), Mississippi (1822–1867). pt. B. Maryland (1775–1866), Delaware (1779–1857), District of Columbia (1803–1865). pt. C. Virginia (1775–1867) and Kentucky (1790– 1864). pt. E. Arkansas (1824–1867), Missouri (1806–1860), Tennessee (1792–1868), and Texas (1830–1867). ISBN 1-55655-878-3 (microfilm, pt. A) ISBN 1-55655-901-1 (guide, pt. A) ISBN 1-55655-937-2 (microfilm, pt. B) ISBN 0-88692-692-0 (guide, pt. B) ISBN 1-55655-969-0 (microfilm, pt. C) ISBN 0-88692-693-9 (guide, pt. C) ISBN 0-88692-713-7 (microfilm, pt. E) ISBN 0-88692-755-2 (guide, pt. E) 1. Slavery—Southern States—History—Sources. 2. African-Americans—History— To 1863—Sources. 3. Southern States—History—1775–1865—Sources. I. Title: Petitions to southern county courts, 1775–1867. II. Schweninger, Loren. III. Howell, Marguerite Ross. IV. Race and Slavery Petitions Project. V. Title: Guide to the microfilm edition of Race, slavery, and free Blacks. VI. Series. E441 326'.0975—dc21 2002027457 CIP Copyright © 2005 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. ISBN 0-88692-755-2. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................ ix Scope and Content Note ........................................................................................... xv Source Note ................................................................................................................ xxi Editorial Note ............................................................................................................. xxi Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... xxiii Reel Index Reel 1 Arkansas 1824 ................................................................................................................. 1828 ................................................................................................................. 1831 ................................................................................................................. 1833 ................................................................................................................. 1835 ................................................................................................................. 1836 ................................................................................................................. 1839 ................................................................................................................. 1841 ................................................................................................................. 1843 ................................................................................................................. 1845 ................................................................................................................. 1846 ................................................................................................................. 1847 ................................................................................................................. 1848 ................................................................................................................. 1849 ................................................................................................................. 1850 ................................................................................................................. 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 6 Reel 2 Arkansas cont. 1851 ................................................................................................................. 1852 ................................................................................................................. 1853 ................................................................................................................. 1854 ................................................................................................................. 1855 ................................................................................................................. 1856 ................................................................................................................. 6 6 7 8 9 11 Reel 3 Arkansas cont. 1857 ................................................................................................................. 1858 ................................................................................................................. 1859 ................................................................................................................. 1860 ................................................................................................................. 1861 ................................................................................................................. 12 14 15 16 17 iii 1862 ................................................................................................................. 1867 ................................................................................................................. Missouri 1806 ................................................................................................................. 1809 ................................................................................................................. 1810 ................................................................................................................. 1813 ................................................................................................................. 1816 ................................................................................................................. 1817 ................................................................................................................. 1818 ................................................................................................................. 1819 ................................................................................................................. 1821 ................................................................................................................. 1822 ................................................................................................................. 1823 ................................................................................................................. 1824 ................................................................................................................. 1825 ................................................................................................................. 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 24 24 Reel 4 Missouri cont. 1826 ................................................................................................................. 1827 ................................................................................................................. 1828 ................................................................................................................. 1829 ................................................................................................................. 1830 ................................................................................................................. 1831 ................................................................................................................. 1832 ................................................................................................................. 1833 ................................................................................................................. 26 27 29 30 32 33 36 38 Reel 5 Missouri cont. 1834 ................................................................................................................. 1835 ................................................................................................................. 1836 ................................................................................................................. 1837 ................................................................................................................. 1838 ................................................................................................................. 1839 ................................................................................................................. 1840 ................................................................................................................. 40 41 42 45 46 47 48 Reel 6 Missouri cont. 1841 ................................................................................................................. 1842 ................................................................................................................. 1843 ................................................................................................................. 50 53 56 Reel 7 Missouri cont. 1844 ................................................................................................................. 1845 ................................................................................................................. 1846 ................................................................................................................. 1847 ................................................................................................................. 1848 ................................................................................................................. 58 62 65 66 67 iv Reel 8 Missouri cont. 1849 ................................................................................................................. 1850 ................................................................................................................. 1851 ................................................................................................................. 1852 ................................................................................................................. 70 72 75 76 Reel 9 Missouri cont. 1853 ................................................................................................................. 1854 ................................................................................................................. 1855 ................................................................................................................. 1856 ................................................................................................................. 1857 ................................................................................................................. 1858 ................................................................................................................. 1859 ................................................................................................................. 1860 ................................................................................................................. 79 81 82 83 83 85 86 86 Reel 10 Tennessee 1791 ................................................................................................................. 87 1795 ................................................................................................................. 87 1796 ................................................................................................................. 88 1806 ................................................................................................................. 88 1807 ................................................................................................................. 88 1810 ................................................................................................................. 89 1814 ................................................................................................................. 89 1815 ................................................................................................................. 89 1816 ................................................................................................................. 90 1817 ................................................................................................................. 90 1819 ................................................................................................................. 91 1820 ................................................................................................................. 91 1821 ................................................................................................................. 92 1822 ................................................................................................................. 93 1823 ................................................................................................................. 94 1824 ................................................................................................................. 96 1825 ................................................................................................................. 97 1826 ................................................................................................................. 99 1827 ................................................................................................................. 100 1828 ................................................................................................................. 102 Reel 11 Tennessee cont. 1829 ................................................................................................................. 1830 ................................................................................................................. 1831 ................................................................................................................. 1832 ................................................................................................................. 1833 ................................................................................................................. 1834 ................................................................................................................. 1835 ................................................................................................................. v 104 106 108 109 111 113 117 Reel 12 Tennessee cont. 1836 ................................................................................................................. 1837 ................................................................................................................. 1838 ................................................................................................................. 1839 ................................................................................................................. 1840 ................................................................................................................. 122 126 131 133 138 Reel 13 Tennessee cont. 1841 ................................................................................................................. 142 1842 ................................................................................................................. 146 1843 ................................................................................................................. 154 Reel 14 Tennessee cont. 1844 ................................................................................................................. 165 1845 ................................................................................................................. 170 1846 ................................................................................................................. 177 Reel 15 Tennessee cont. 1847 ................................................................................................................. 186 1848 ................................................................................................................. 192 1849 ................................................................................................................. 203 Reel 16 Tennessee cont. 1849 cont. ......................................................................................................... 204 1850 ................................................................................................................. 216 Reel 17 Tennessee cont. 1850 cont. ......................................................................................................... 222 1851 ................................................................................................................. 226 Reel 18 Tennessee cont. 1852 ................................................................................................................. 241 1853 ................................................................................................................. 254 Reel 19 Tennessee cont. 1854 ................................................................................................................. 265 1855 ................................................................................................................. 276 Reel 20 Tennessee cont. 1856 ................................................................................................................. 289 1857 ................................................................................................................. 300 vi Reel 21 Tennessee cont. 1858 ................................................................................................................. 310 1859 ................................................................................................................. 321 Reel 22 Tennessee cont. 1860 ................................................................................................................. 1861 ................................................................................................................. 1862 ................................................................................................................. 1863 ................................................................................................................. 1865 ................................................................................................................. 1866 ................................................................................................................. 1867 ................................................................................................................. 334 344 346 347 348 348 350 Reel 23 Texas 1832 1833 1835 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. 351 351 351 352 353 355 356 358 360 361 363 Reel 24 Texas cont. 1845 ................................................................................................................. 1846 ................................................................................................................. 1847 ................................................................................................................. 1848 ................................................................................................................. 1849 ................................................................................................................. 1850 ................................................................................................................. 366 368 369 372 374 376 Reel 25 Texas cont. 1851 ................................................................................................................. 1852 ................................................................................................................. 1853 ................................................................................................................. 1854 ................................................................................................................. 1855 ................................................................................................................. 379 382 384 387 389 Reel 26 Texas cont. 1856 ................................................................................................................. 390 1857 ................................................................................................................. 392 1858 ................................................................................................................. 393 vii 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. 395 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 403 Name Index ................................................................................................................. 405 Geographic Index ...................................................................................................... 525 Subject Index .............................................................................................................. 533 viii INTRODUCTION The Race and Slavery Petitions Project: The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Established in 1991, the Race and Slavery Petitions Project was designed to locate, collect, organize, and publish all extant relevant legislative petitions and a selected group of county court petitions from the fifteen slaveholding states and the District of Columbia, during the period from the American Revolution through the Civil War. The chronology was chosen to coincide with the beginnings of state governments and the end of slavery. With the establishment of state governments, the number of petitions concerning race and slavery rose dramatically, and, though slavery ended in 1865, cases continued to appear in various courts during the next few years. The Petitions Project has received financial support from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission at the National Archives (1991–2005), the National Endowment for the Humanities (1995–2005), the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (1997–2005), the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and the director of the Race and Slavery Petitions Project. In 1998, the project published a twenty-three-reel microfilm edition of relevant legislative petitions. In 1999, the project published a 450-page, frame-specific guide to the legislative edition entitled A Guide to the Microfilm Edition of Race, Slavery, and Free Blacks: Series I, Petitions to Southern Legislatures, 1777–1867 (Bethesda, Md.: University Publications of America, 1999). In 2001, the editor published The Southern Debate over Slavery: Volume 1 Petitions to Southern Legislatures, 1778–1864 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001). In 2001, the project launched its Web site with database search capabilities for the legislative petitions. In 2003, the project published a 509-page, frame-specific guide for county court petitions from Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi titled A Guide to the Microfilm Edition of Race, Slavery, and Free Blacks: Series II, Petitions to Southern County Courts, 1775–1867: Part A: Georgia (1796–1867), Florida (1821–1867), Alabama (1821–1867), Mississippi (1822–1867) (Bethesda, Md.: LexisNexis, 2003); the same year, the project published a 409-page, frame-specific guide for county court petitions from Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia titled A Guide to the Microfilm Edition of Race, Slavery, and Free Blacks: Series II, Petitions to Southern County Courts, 1775–1867: Part B: Maryland (1775–1866), Delaware (1779–1857), District of Columbia (1803–1865) (Bethesda, Md.: LexisNexis, 2003). Also in the same year, the project published a twenty-two-reel microfilm edition for Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi and a sixteen-reel microfilm edition for Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. ix In 2004, the project published a 695-page, frame-specific guide for county court petitions from Virginia and Kentucky titled A Guide to the Microfilm Edition of Race, Slavery, and Free Blacks: Series II, Petitions to Southern County Courts, 1775– 1867: Part C: Virginia (1777–1867) and Kentucky (1794–1864) (Bethesda, Md.: LexisNexis, 2004); the same year, the project published a twenty-two-reel microfilm edition for Virginia and Kentucky. In 2005, the project is publishing the current edition and plans to publish two guides and two microfilm editions of county court petitions from North Carolina and South Carolina and from Louisiana. County Petitions as a Historical Source The county court petitions in this collection offer immediate testimony on a broad range of subjects by a variety of southerners—black and white, slave and free, slaveholder and nonslaveholder, men and women. The documents include rare biographical and genealogical information about people of color; they detail how slaves, as chattel, could and often did find themselves sold, conveyed, or distributed as part of their masters’ estates; and they reveal the impact of market forces on the slave family. The emancipation and guardianship petitions present an unusually clear picture of the association between whites and free blacks, and the divorce petitions provide a unique picture of slaveholding white women. These documents give a unique view of the workings of local court systems: who approached the courts and why; how they fared; how their pleas varied in different states and locales during different time periods; and how judges and juries responded to their pleas. They illuminate, in hidden and unexpected ways, intellectual history and religious experience, containing references to debates over theology, ethics, law, social theory, and epistemology that occurred outside traditional academic, religious, and cultural institutions. The value of these documents to scholars, students, and general readers of the humanities cannot be overemphasized. They reveal not only what southerners were saying but also what they were doing; not only what happened to slaves but also how slaves responded to their condition. They show how complex political, economic, legal, social, and cultural conditions affected the lives of all southerners, black and white, female and male, slave and free. In seeking to understand the impact of slavery on the people of the South, perhaps no available primary source offers more topical, geographical, and chronological breadth, or penetrating depth of subject matter. During the fall of 1993, the editor spent fifty-one research travel days collecting documents in Tennessee, first at the Tennessee State Library and Archives in Nashville, and later in various county courthouses and local archives. At the state archives, he perused the chancery court records on microfilm for nine counties (Bradley, Coffee, Franklin, Giles, Knox, Marshall, Rhea, Smith, Sumner). An index for Smith County contained the names of every slave and free black mentioned in the chancery records; it was therefore relatively easy to go through the forty-one reels of film. For the other eight counties, however, it was necessary to scan anywhere from thirteen (Giles County) to forty-five (Sumner County) microfilm reels for relevant petitions. Also at the archives, the editor sifted through 147 boxes of flat-filed manuscript records for the Middle District Court, the appeals court for that section of x the state. Most of the cases began with a copy of the county court petition initiating the litigation. At the local level, the editor examined records in ten Tennessee counties: Bedford (county courthouse in Shelbyville), Davidson (Metropolitan Nashville–Davidson County Archives in Nashville), Dickson (countycourt house in Charlotte), Lincoln (county archives in Fayetteville), Maury (Maury County Historical Society Loose Records Project in Columbia, now called the Maury County Archives), Rutherford (county courthouse in Murfreesboro), Williamson (Williamson County Preservation of Records Archives, now called the Williamson County Archives, and county courthouse in Franklin), Washington (Archives of Appalachia at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City), Knox (county archives in Knoxville), and Hickman (county courthouse in Centerville, where no petitions were discovered). Subsequently, on trips in 1998 and 2000, the editor spent a total of six days in Memphis at the Shelby County Archives collecting relevant documents. The bulk of the Tennessee petitions contain information on buying, selling, trading, mortgaging, and distributing estate slaves, but there is a surprising diversity of other subjects covered in the documents, including interracial mixing, divorce, free blacks, slave hiring, emancipation, black children, slave mothers, emigration, female slave owners, and colonization to Liberia. There are also petitions about persons of mixed ancestry, slave insubordination, breeding blacks, selling or trading babies, African American genealogy, purchase of family members, and holding free blacks illegally in bondage. An example of this diversity can be seen in the petitions from Washington County, located in the mountains of northeastern Tennessee, where one might think there would be little documentation about slavery. In fact, a number of petitions in that county involved slaves and free persons of color. There are also a number of petitions that provide moving personal testimony about the struggles of blacks for dignity and freedom. In Dickson County, Tennessee, Fanny Gray, a woman of color, and her six children, sued by their “next friend” John Scarbrough [also spelled Scarbourough] a certain John K. Colson [also spelled Colston]. In her 1837 petition to the chancery court, she set forth the following facts: in 1825, she had been purchased by her “husband” Simon Gray, an emancipated slave; in 1834, she and her children had been emancipated by a decree of the Stewart County, Tennessee, court; in 1835, Simon had died, leaving a will; in 1836, Richard Cooly, described as “wholy insolvent,” was appointed administrator of the estate. The suit charged that Cooly conspired with John K. Colson, Wilson K. Colson [also spelled Coulston], James Scarbrough, and Joseph Smith to sell the family as slaves. The only “responsible person” among them was Smith, but he was “old and infirm and has been taken in by the affsaid Confederates sometimes indulging in the use of ardent spirits.” When two of the “confederates” took Fanny and her children to Smithfield, Kentucky, to sell, however, they were all arrested, the whites for harboring runaways and the blacks as fugitives. Bribing local authorities, the whites made their escape and returned to Tennessee, where John Colson gained administration of the estate. Returning to Kentucky, Colson filed suit to recover the family and received a judgment in his favor. He then returned to Smith County and petitioned the circuit court to grant him permission to sell the blacks. He had always regarded the family as slaves, he said, and in any event, Fanny “is a weak indolent trifling lying mischievous Negro and unfit for freedom.” When the court rejected his plea, Colson defied the order and sold Josiah and Cassandra, Fanny’s two eldest xi children, for $1,200. The final chapter came when the court, citing a $1,200 judgment against him, noted that Colson had recently died with a small estate, and that Fanny’s suit should therefore “abate.” The twenty-one-page case includes a six-page petition and fifteen pages of related documents. The citation for this case includes the following: Petition of Fanny Gray, Josiah Gray, Cassandra Gray, Martha Gray, Eveline Gray, Mary Gray, Henry Gray, and John Scarbourough to the Chancery Court of Dickson County, Tennessee, 29 July 1837; Related Documents: Order, 1 August 1837; Copy of Bill of Sale, Thomas French to Simon Gray, 12 February 1825; Copy of Registration of Bill of Sale, 17 March 1825; Copy of Order, October Term 1836; Certification of Copies, 29 July 1837; Copy of Last Will and Testament, Simon Gray, 13 February 1827; Certification of Copy, 29 July 1837; Copy of Bonds, 1 February 1836, 3 October 1836; Certification of Copies, 29 July 1837; Answers, John K. Colson, 30 September 1837; Richard Cooley, William K. Colson, 30 September 1837; John K. Colson, 27 September 1837; Complainants’ Statement, ca. September 1837; Decree, ca. 30 March 1839, found in Records of the Chancery Court, Fanny Gray, et al., v. John K. Coulston, et al., Record Book 1836–1846, pp. 214–134, Dickson County Courthouse Annex, Charlotte, Tennessee. The relatively small number of petitions collected in Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas was due to several factors. The local records of these states were either in the process of being flat-filed and organized (Missouri), had been discarded or destroyed (Arkansas), or were widely scattered in various locations (Texas). In Missouri—the northernmost southern and southernmost northern state—slavery was not as prevalent as elsewhere, and even in counties where the black population reached 25 percent, there were few relevant petitions. In addition, many of the county court records were being processed through the state archives and were not available for perusal. In Arkansas, most county records have been either discarded or destroyed by floods and fires. Indeed, Arkansas proved to be the worst state among the fourteen visited in the South with regard to extant probate and circuit court records. In Texas, on the eve of the Civil War, slaves lived in 114 of the 151 counties. It was therefore necessary to be selective about which counties to visit. During the fall of 1994 and early 1995, and in 2000, the editor spent fifty-four research travel days in these three states: twenty-one in Missouri (October 1994 and April 2000), ten in Arkansas (October–November 1994 and January 1995), and twenty-three in Texas (January–February 1995). At the Missouri State Archives in Jefferson City, the editor examined documents from Boone County, located in what was called Little Dixie, discovering a number of cases that could be added to the collection. The editor went through one thousand cases for Cole County at the State Archives, on microfiche, with little success. In the counties south of St. Louis—Jefferson (county seat Hillsboro), Ste. Genvieve (county seat Ste. Genevieve), and Cape Girardeau (Jackson)—only a small number of relevant documents were uncovered. Some of the best material came from the supreme court cases at the State Archives in Jefferson City and the St. Louis Civil Court records. In the supreme court case of Meachum v. Judy alias Julia Logan, xii John Berry Meachum, a well-known free black who purchased and freed a number of slaves, was cited for illegally holding a free black in bondage. In her petition to the St. Louis Circuit Court in 1834, Julia Logan said that she was “justly entitled to her freedom but that she is now held as a Slave by Berry Meachum a man of color in St. Louis and is bound and imprisoned in his (Meachum’s[)] house in St Louis where she is kept as she is informed and believes for the purpose of being sold and removed to some distant place.” The St. Louis court records hold a number of important civil suits, including the original plea in the Dred and Harriett Scott case. The best petitions from Arkansas came from the following collections: Pulaski County (Little Rock) Probate records housed at the Arkansas Historical Commission; Clark County circuit court records housed at the Clark County Historical Association Archives at Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia; Bradley County circuit court records housed at the county courthouse in Warren, Arkansas; and the Records of the Arkansas Supreme Court housed at the University of Arkansas—Little Rock Law Library. Various county courthouses were visited with varying degrees of success, from finding no petitions to finding a few. The counties include Greene (county seat Paragould), Mississippi County (county seats Blythville and Osceola), Crittenden (Marion), and St. Francis (Forrest City) in the northeastern portion of the state; Monroe (Clarendon), Phillips (Helena), Arkansas County (DeWitt and Stuttgart), Desha (Arkansas City), Drew (Monticello), Chicot (Lake Village), Ashley (Hamburg), and Bradley (Warren) in the southeast and toward south-central section; White (Searcy), Pulaski (Little Rock, records at the Arkansas History Commission), Saline (Benton), Hot Springs (Malvern), Clark (Arkadelphia), and Hempstead (Hope) (and Southwest Arkansas Regional Archives in Washington, Arkansas) located in a line from the central to the southwestern section of the state. After consulting with Michael Heskett, who compiled Texas County Records: A Guide to the Holdings of the Local Records Division of the Texas State Library of County Records on Microfilm (Austin, Tex.: Texas State Library, 1990), five counties were selected. Among the five only two proved to be worthwhile—Brazoria, county seat of the same name, and Jefferson, county seat Beaumont—while the others had either no antebellum records (Van Zandt and Hunt) or a scattering of documents (Comal, with county seat New Braunfels, and Grayson, with county seat Sherman). Five other counties were visited and, with one exception, they proved to be uneven with regard to extant petitions. The best among them were Nacogdoches (county seat of same name), one of the oldest counties in the state, and Travis (county seat Austin), while Guadalupe (Seguin) and Bastrop (Bastrop) contained a few relevant cases. At the East Texas History Center, Stephen F. Austin University, Nacogdoches, the San Augustine County District Court Records house very good collections, flat-filed and arranged chronologically. The 1851 petition of Charles Reese to the Brazoria Probate Court provides an example of the type of documents found in the Texas collection. To the Hon S. W. Perkins chief Justice of said county Your Petitioner Charles K. Reese Guardian of the minors Thomas R. Erwin and Harriet N. Erwin, respectfully represents to your Honor that said minors are the owners of the following slaves, a man named Isaac, a woman named Ann and their four children another woman Lucy & her child which and also a child named Nelly about seven years old. Petitioner represents that said slaves were hired out one year at public auction, but they were badly treated and were returned xiii considerably injured. He represents that on account of the number of children he believes that said man & two [women] cannot be so well hired out at public auction as they could be by agreement with the hirers. He therefore prays that your Hon Court will grant an order authorizing him to hire out said man & two women by such agreement as he may be able to make CR Reese By atty The Selection and Collection of County Court Petitions There are no previous editions or publications of petitions concerning race and slavery. The number of surviving relevant county court petitions is massive. Perhaps a quarter of a million of them are dispersed in state and local archives, libraries, and county courthouses acrosss the South. Because of their wide distribution, the cost of travel and photocopying, the limited time for collection, and, in certain counties, the large number of petitions that mention slaves, the editor adopted the following selection procedures: 1. Every major geographical region within each state is represented. In Tennessee, for example, counties were selected from Appalachia (Sullivan, Washington, McMinn, Bradley, Rhea, Knox), Cumberland Plateau (Overton, Jackson, Smith, White, Warren), Cumberland Basin (Sumner, Davidson, Rutherford, Williamson, Montgomery, Stewart), Southern Cumberland Basin (Giles, Lawrence, Lincoln, Franklin), and Mississippi River Valley (Dyer, Shelby) as well as the major urban centers of Knoxville, Nashville, and Memphis. 2. All accessible petitions written on behalf of or by slaves and on behalf of or by free blacks from the selected counties are included. 3. All accessible petitions written by slaveholding white women seeking divorce or alimony from the selected counties are included. 4. The guiding principle for the collection of all other county court petitions was to select, after a thorough canvass, documents that reflect and represent the scope of the county’s holdings. Loren Schweninger The Race and Slavery Petitions Project University of North Carolina at Greensboro SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE Series II of the microfilm edition includes all of the county petitions in the project’s collection, representing an estimated 5 percent of the extant county court petitions dealing with race and slavery in the fifteen southern states and the District of Columbia. This part of Series II consists of petitions from Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas. Listed below is an inventory of these petitions by state and county. Inventories of County Court Petitions county dates TENNESSEE total county Bedford Blount Bradley Cannon Carroll Coffee Davidson Dickson Dyer Franklin Giles Hickman Jackson Knox Lawrence Lincoln Marshall Maury 1836–1858 1849 1840–1860 1842, 1858 1851 1853, 1858 1816–1866 1837–1858 1854 1834–1861 1828–1866 1827 1817–1852 1795–1860 1851 1841–1866 1840–1850 1821–1861 25 1 32 2 1 2 162 11 1 15 73 1 4 41 1 24 27 92 county Arkansas Bradley Calhoun Chicot Clark dates 1854 1849–1860 1859 1847, 1848 1824–1853 ARKANSAS total county Crawford 1 Drew 9 Hot Spring 1 Jefferson 2 Lafayette 10 McMinn Montgomery Overton Rhea Robertson Rutherford Shelby Smith Stewart Sullivan Sumner Warren Washington White Williamson Wilson dates total 1845 1820–1856 1844–1855 1810, 1846 1841–1859 1823–1857 1842–1867 1814–1866 1825–1855 1829 1823–1861 1838–1852 1791–1862 1824–1856 1820–1862 1827–1856 1 12 3 2 4 40 78 84 5 1 59 3 57 5 172 9 Total number of petitions 1,050 xv dates 1828, 1843 1855 1846 1852, 1853 1846 total 2 1 1 2 1 county Ouachita Phillips Poinsett Pope Pulaski dates 1851 1835–1861 1856, 1857 1860 1845–1867 total 1 25 2 1 33 county Bastrop Bexar Bowie Brazoria Cass Comal Fayette Fort Bend Gillespie Grayson Grimes dates 1842–1866 1852 1844 1833–1867 1848 1858 1839, 1847 1840 1858 1865 1848 total 31 1 1 81 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 county Saline Sevier Union dates 1836–1862 1849, 1851 1850 total 23 2 1 Total number of petitions 118 TEXAS county Guadalupe Harrisburg Hill Jefferson Nacogdoches Polk Red River San Augustine Shelby Travis Walker dates 1847–1854 1838 1853 1845–1864 1837–1865 1860 1847 1835–1863 1856 1832–1865 1851 total 3 1 1 17 40 1 1 54 1 60 1 Total number of petitions 303 county Boone Cape Girardeau Cole Franklin Howard Jefferson Lafayette Lewis Lincoln Linn Madison Marion McDonald Monroe Montgomery Newton dates 1823–1860 1810–1857 1828 1853 1844 1821–1852 1838, 1854 1843 1836 1848 1836–1845 1842–1857 1849 1843, 1848 1850 1856 MISSOURI total county dates total 33 Perry 1836, 1853 2 27 Pike 1860 1 1 Platte 1852, 1853 2 1 Ray 1841 1 1 Saline 1851 1 14 Schuyler 1852 1 2 Scott 1842–1858 9 1 St. Charles 1817, 1854 2 1 St. Francis 1851 1 1 St. Louis 1806–1859 206 13 Ste. Genevieve 1825–1857 6 4 Warren 1853 1 1 Washington 1817–1850 3 2 1 Total number of petitions 340 1 xvi Amended and revivor petitions, docket pages, court orders, interlocutory decrees, and final decrees are sometimes included when the documents reveal important information about slaves or slave owners, as are other documents relating to the petitions, including subpoenas, writs, affidavits, bonds, answers, deeds, trusts, exhibits, indentures, apprenticeships, inventories, appraisals, receipts, certificates (recommendations), wills, commissioners’ reports, bills of sale, hiring contracts, trial testimony, and depositions. The specific related documents connected with a given case are listed in the Petition Analysis Record (PAR) preceding each petition. What Is a PAR? Every petition in the Series II microfilm edition is preceded by a PAR (Petition Analysis Record). PARs are created from data in the Petitions Project MicrosoftAccess/Oracle database and offer a synopsis of information. This information includes an accession number assigned by the project staff; “To Whom Addressed”; location; date; petitioner(s) and defendant(s); slaves; free people of color; abstract; related documents; result of petition; number of pages in petition and related documents; petition location, repository; and a subject list for indexing and electronic retrieval. Accession Number consist of eight digits and is found at the top of each PAR. It identifies the petition by series, state, year, and number within the year. The first digit, 21484121, indicates the series as “County Court.” The next two digits, 21484121, indicate the state of origin. The state numbering system is as follows: 01=Alabama; 02=Arkansas; 03=Delaware; 04=District of Columbia; 05=Florida; 06=Georgia; 07=Kentucky; 08=Louisiana; 09=Maryland; 10=Mississippi; 11=Missouri; 12=North Carolina; 13=South Carolina; 14=Tennessee; 15=Texas; 16=Virginia. The next three digits, 21484121, refer to the year a petition was filed. The last three digits of the year are used; e.g., 841 refers to 1841. The last two digits, 21484121, refer to the sequence of a petition within a particular year; e.g., 21 is the twenty-first petition in the year 1841. The PAR #21484121, the twenty-first county petition for 1841 from Tennessee, translates as follows. 2 14 841 21 series state year # within year County Tennessee 1811 Court Gaps in the sequence of accession numbers appear occasionally. As data from the petitions were entered in the project’s database, an accession number was assigned to a particular petition. Sometimes, due to a data entry error or the discovery of a duplicate petition, an accession number had to be eliminated. Rather than reassign accession numbers to maintain a proper sequence, the project’s editors decided to tolerate occasional gaps since they do not interfere with the identification of petitions. xvii To Whom Addressed field contains the exact wording of the petition’s salutation. In the few cases in which a petitioner did not use a salutation, the “To Whom Addressed” field does not appear. Location field generally contains the county of origin of the petition; sometimes, in district or circuit court cases, the field contains the county of origin of the petitioner. Date refers primarily to the date when the petition was filed. This date usually can be found on the docket page of the case. When the filing date is not available, other dates are used: (1) dates used by the petitioner(s); (2) dates inferred from the related documents; (3) dates inferred from the contents of the petition; (4) dates assigned by the archives. Petitions for which a date could not be determined are assigned accession numbers that contain “000” in the date part of the accession number. For example, the first county court petition from the state of Mississippi for which the date is unknown bears the accession number 21000001. These petitions have been placed at the beginning of each state’s collection. Petitioners and Defendants fields are used to record information about the petitioner(s) and defendant(s). Their color, gender, and legal status are also included. In addition, the total number of petitioners is also denoted. Abstract field contains a brief summary of the main points of the petition and may include background information or particularly illustrative quotations. Related Documents field contains all documents relating to the petition, including the name of the document, the county the document comes from if different from the petition, the name of the prominent person mentioned in the document (not always the petitioner or author), and the date. For example, Affidavit, Mary Smith, Baldwin County, 11 May 1810. The letters “n.d.” indicate an undated document. Petitions related to other PARs are indicated by the following: PAR #20381402. Or, for multiple PARs: PARs #20381402, #20381404. Result of Petition field contains information about the outcome of the petition, if known (e.g., granted, rejected, dismissed, appealed, reversed, remanded). Number of Pages in Petition field consists of the docket page, the body of the petition, and signature pages. Any related documents that appear on the same page as part of the petition or docket page are not counted as related documents. In other words, if the petition or docket pages have related documents on them or parts of related documents on them, the pages are counted as petition pages and not as related document pages. Number of Pages in Related Documents do not contain any parts of the petition or docket page. Location of petition cites information concerning the location of the original petition within a county courthouse, archives, or library. Repository cites the location of the county courthouse, archives, or library. Subjects for each petition are included in the PAR. The first three subjects are ranked first, second, and third in importance. Only ranked subjects are included in the index. The other subjects (often there are a total of six or seven subjects per PAR) can be found in the future by searching the Race and Slavery Petitions Project Web site. Listed below are the five subjects most frequently ranked first in Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas. xviii TENNESSEE subject Sale of slaves Slave title dispute Distribution of slaves Debts Divorce ARKANSAS number of petitions 120 115 subject Guardianship Family, slaveholders Women and property Slave title dispute Sale of slaves 108 108 63 number of petitions 26 11 11 10 8 TEXAS MISSOURI subject number of petitions Freedom suits Slave title dispute Slaves in estate Compensation Divorce 191 28 10 10 8 xix subject number of petitions Slave title dispute Slaves in estate Guardianship Estate Hiring out 70 38 33 24 20 SOURCE NOTE LexisNexis has microfilmed the petitions in this edition of Race, Slavery, and Free Blacks, Series II: Petitions to Southern County Courts from the collection compiled by the Race and Slavery Petitions Project at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. These petitions were collected from state and local archives, libraries, and county courthouses throughout the South. The Petition Analysis Records (PARs) that precede each petition list the location of the original petition. EDITORIAL NOTE This LexisNexis microfilm edition of Race, Slavery, and Free Blacks, Series II: Petitions to Southern County Courts will consist of six parts. Within each part, the county court petitions are organized by state and within each state by date. Undated petitions will be placed at the beginning of the state’s holdings, although every effort will be made to ascertain the filing date for each document. This index contains a subject listing for each petition, as well as the names of all petitioners and defendants listed in the court cases. Due to the large number, the index will not contain the names of all slaves cited in the petitions and related documents. Slave and owner names along with slaves’ relatives and hiring and selling price data will be searchable when the county court information is transferred to the project’s Web site. Illegible names will either be put in brackets with a question mark or be excluded. xxi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to acknowledge the archivists, librarians, clerks of court, probate and superior court judges, and staff people at various locations in Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas who graciously assisted the editor in locating, photocopying, and microfilming relevant documents. In Tennessee, they included Wayne Moore, Ann Alley, and Julia Rather at the Tennessee State Library and Archives; Carol Kaplan of the Public Library of Nashville and Davidson County; John Dougan, Shelby County Archives; William Haywood, Maury County Archives; and Louise Lynch, Williamson County Archives. In Missouri, they included Director Kenneth Winn and Senior Archivist Patsy Luebbert of the Missouri State Archives; Wayne Dowdy of the Memphis/Shelby County Public Library & Information Center Archives; Mariano V. Favazza, Clerk of Court, St. Louis; and Local Records Archivists Joan Feezor and Barbara Catanzaro. In Arkansas, they included Russell Baker and Jane Hooker of the Arkansas History Commission in Little Rock; Kathryn C. Fitzhugh, Nicana Shermanand, and Susan Goldner of the University of Arkansas–Little Rock School of Law; and Joan Thurman Taunton, compiler of Abstracts of Arkansas Reports, January 1837 through January 1861. In Texas, they included Denise Johnson, an amateur historian and genealogist; Michael R. Green at the Texas State Archives; and Don Carleton, Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin. It is also a pleasure to acknowledge members of the university community who provided valuable assistance. As host institution, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) set aside two large offices for the Petitions Project complete with three hundred linear feet of shelf space, seven computers, two microfilm readers and a microfilm reader/printer, a microfiche reader, two small laser jet printers, a batch laser printer, and paid-for telephone, postal, and photocopying privileges. The university contributed two graduate research assistants each year as well as technical support for computer software and hardware. Over the years a number of graduate research assistants and project staff have checked and rechecked names and data and entered information into the project’s database. They include Tonya Blair, Chad Bowser (assistant editor), James Broomall, Jennifer Burns, Brian Candler, Sallie Clotfelter, Janie Copple, Nicole Corlew, Jennifer Dorsey (postdoctoral fellow), Denise Ettenger, Brad Foley, Melissa Garrison, Jim Giesen, Kori Graves, David Herr, Chuck Holden, Greg Houle, Marguerite Ross Howell (senior assistant editor), Mike Huber, Kate Knight, Denise Kohn, Dave MacWilliams, Ka’Mal McClarin, Lisa Marshal, Lisa Maxwell (assistant editor), Nicole Mazgaj (assistant editor), Diane Mead, Adrienne Middlebrooks, Courtney Moore, Zachary Moore, David Norton, Rebecca Parker, Fate Passmore, Brenda Rice, Patrick Richards, John Schweninger, Michael Schweninger, Julia Scaggs, Robert Shelton (assistant editor), Janice Sniker, Diana Sweatt, John xxiii Walker, Carlos Watson, Joy Watson, Laurette Wharton, Matisha Wiggs, Kellie Wilson, Jeff Winstead, and Katherine Wright. Administrators and staff members in the Office of Instructional Research and Client Services contributed many hours maintaining the Petitions Project’s database, constructing its Web site, and assisting with computer problems. They include Jim Clotfelter, Kenneth McCollum, John Major, Tom Sheriff, Walter Anthony, Soraya Trolinger, Andrew Marker, Judy Guard, Heidi Schachtschneider, Gary Thornton, Gloria Thornton, Leonard Mobley, Josh Ortiz, and Gail Lankford. Deans of Arts and Sciences Walter Beale and Timothy Johnston, history department heads Steve Lawson and William Link, Debbie Otis of Contracts and Grants, and Beverly Maddox-Britt, Charna Howson, Tisha Wallace, and Kay Canady of the Office of Research Services generously donated time and effort to solving various problems. Special thanks to John Young and Bruce Loving in the Office of Continuing Education, who came to the editor’s rescue after several software failures. In 2003, UNCG’s Jackson Library took over the Petitions Project’s database. Among those who have contributed to this process are Library Director Doris Hulbert, Tim Bucknall, Barry Miller, Dana Sally, Richard Cox, Justin Ervin, and Egemen Baykal. UNCG’s Chancellor Emeritus William E. Moran supported the Petitions Project from its inception and offered advice and counsel at crucial stages. The project could not have been completed without the foresight and generosity of Mott Foundation President Bill White. Other talented people at the foundation, including Jeanette R. Mansour, George A. Trone, and Kevin Walker, guided the director in the application process. Daniel P. Jones and Kathy A. Toavs of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Mary A. Giunta, Robert Sheldon, and Michael Meier of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission at the National Archives offered guidance, suggestions, assistance, and moral support over the years. The project’s advisory board has been especially supportive over the years. Ira Berlin, Leslie Rowland, and Darlene Clark Hine went out of their way to respond to questions and guide the editor in making decisions on editorial method at the outset; Cullom Davis examined reports and proposals, offering useful suggestions; and Richard Blackett, Barbara Fields, and Leon Litwack served the project with distinction. The editor’s wife, Patricia Jean Eames Schweninger, sustained the Petitions Project during its first three years as an unpaid assistant. xxiv REEL INDEX The following index is a listing of the petitions comprising Race, Slavery, and Free Blacks, Series II: Petitions to Southern County Courts, Part E: Arkansas (1824–1867), Missouri (1806– 1860), Tennessee (1791–1867), and Texas (1832–1867). Each entry in this index has several pieces of information. The four-digit number on the far left is the frame number at which a particular Petition Analysis Record (PAR) can be found. PARs precede each petition on the microfilm. The frame number is followed by the accession number for the petition. The accession number has been assigned by the staff of the Race and Slavery Petitions Project, and an explanation of the meaning of each of the numbers can be found in the Scope and Content Note of this guide. Next is the name of the county where the petition originated. The last part of each entry is an abstract that summarizes the nature and purpose of the petition, often with quotations from the original documents. The grammar and spelling of the original have been retained. Reel 1 Arkansas 1824 0002 (Accession # 20282401). Clark County, Arkansas. Sarah Haney writes that before her husband’s death, William McDonald [McDaniel] induced him to purchase a piece of land, using a slave boy, Abram, as down payment. The price for the land was set at $1,100; McDonald valued Abram at $600. Sarah Haney maintains that her husband “in his lifetime had been for a long time sick & debilitated so much so that his sickness had almost entirely destroyed his bodily & mental powers” and therefore was “utterly incapable & unfit to transact even common business.” She asks the court to declare the sale null and void and order McDonald to return Abram. 1828 0024 (Accession # 20282801). Crawford County, Arkansas. Israel Dodge writes that in 1825 he purchased a slave girl named Darius for $400 from Mitchell Malone, acting overseer of Alexander Mitchell. He paid $109.50 up front and executed a note to Malone for the outstanding balance. Dodge claims that, since the purchase, he has discovered that the slave is diseased and unable to work. He “expressly charges that both Mitchell & Malone both well knew of the aforesaid defects in mind & body of said Negro at the time of the sale ... & at the time said false & fraudulent representations.” Dodge therefore asks the court to declare the sale void and return his money. 1 Reel 1 Arkansas 1831 0032 (Accession # 20283101). Clark County, Arkansas. Charlotte Hemphill is seeking her rightful distribution from the estate of her late father, William Hemphill. Charlotte states that she is the minor “daughter, orphan, and heir at law” of Hemphill, who died intestate in 1825. The court originally appointed Andrew Hemphill and David Fish executors of the estate, which included a number of slaves. In the intervening years, she contends, they have repeatedly ignored the court-established settlement regarding provisions for her welfare and education. 1833 0049 (Accession # 20283301). Clark County, Arkansas. Robert Clady, a minor represented by Jessie Pearce, writes that his father Jacob Clady [Klady] died in 1825, intestate, leaving land and at least seven slaves to his widow, Hannah Clady. Hannah Clady retained possession of the slaves, dividing the remainder of the estate among Clady’s siblings. Robert, however, did not receive a share. Hannah later married Jonathan West, who then claimed possession of the slaves. Robert asserts that “the said slaves has annually earned a large sum of money and the rents and profits of the residue of said personal estate has annually amounted to a considerable sum.” As “the said Hannah & Jonathan have refused to allow or pay to your orator the said distribution share of said estate,” Robert Clady asks the court to direct such a division. Clady also requests that West be restrained from removing the said slaves “beyond the Jurisdiction of this court to parts unknown to your orator.” 1835 0062 (Accession # 20283501). Phillips County, Arkansas. In 1829, Edmund Clements borrowed $400 from Sylvanus Phillips, using as collateral five slaves with the understanding that they were a mortgage, to be returned if the debt was satisfied by a date certain. Before that date, and prior his death, Phillips sold the slaves to Benjamin Porter, thereby transferring the debt. After Phillips died, Phillips’s widow married John Burress [Burriss]. Clements disputes the legality of the sale and states that Porter refused his offer to repay the loan and claimed legal title to the slaves. Clements asks the state supreme court to overturn a lower court ruling supporting Porter’s claim. He seeks to reclaim ownership of the slaves and the children born to them. 1836 0154 (Accession # 20283601). Saline County, Arkansas. William C. Walker through his representative Samuel J. Cook writes that he is entitled to assets of the estates of his grandparents, William Walker of Green County, Kentucky, and Elizabeth Walker Moody. Upon the death of his grandfather, his estate, including land and slaves (and their increase), was divided between his father, Thomas Walker, and his aunt, Nancy Walker. They have both died leaving him sole heir. Before her death the aunt, Nancy Walker, and the slaves lived with her mother, who remarried to a George Moody. Now Elizabeth Walker Moody has also died, and William C. Walker charges that George Moody fled to Arkansas with at least eleven slaves to evade court action. Walker asks the court to sequester the slaves while the case is resolved. 1839 0213 (Accession # 20283901). Clark County, Arkansas. On 1 January 1839, Benjamin and Sarah Averett sold six slaves to Benjamin Reynolds for which they have not received payment. Despite their several requests, Reynolds still owes them the $3,000 purchase price. They ask the court to compel Reynolds to return the slaves and request that he pay $1,000 in damages. 2 Reel 1 Arkansas 0269 (Accession # 20283902). Clark County, Arkansas. On 1 January 1839, the petitioners Young and Lucy Goodwin sold Benjamin Reynolds three slaves, Milly and her children, Louisa and William, for $1,800, payable upon request. As Reynolds refuses to pay the debt, the Goodwins ask the court to compel him to return the slaves along with $600 in damages. 1841 0285 (Accession # 20284101). Phillips County, Arkansas. William Moore and E. K. Harris, executors of Jesse J. Shell’s estate, ask that the property in the estate, including sixteen slaves, be sold at public auction and that the proceeds be divided among the Shell heirs. 1843 0297 (Accession # 20284301). Crawford County, Arkansas. John Pendleton, a free man of color, has been found by a lower court to be guilty of moving into Arkansas without giving due notice of his status, or providing a security bond “in case he should at any time thereafter be unable to support himself.” Pendleton is appealing to the supreme court, asking that the case be dismissed based on errors in the lower court’s proceedings and because the “act of the legislature, upon [which] the indictment in this case was found, was unconstitutional and void.” 1845 0328 (Accession # 20284501). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Aramynta, manumitted in the last will and testament of Cyntha Robinson (deceased), seeks freedom for herself and her four children. She petitions the court to stop the sale of her children by William Woodruff, the executor of Robinson’s estate, arguing that there is enough money in the estate to pay outstanding debts. She also asserts that her youngest child, Mary, is free by virtue of having been born after Aramynta was emancipated. 1846 0364 (Accession # 20284601). Pulaski County, Arkansas. At the age of seventeen, Jessup McHenry, sole heir of his father’s estate, questions his own ability to manage such a large estate responsibly. The estate includes “lands, slaves, stock, cattle, farming utensils, goods chattels and effects of great value, which are in danger of suffering great loss and injury from want of proper care and attention.” He petitions the court to appoint a suitable guardian “to protect and guard his interests,” and suggests his friend, James McVicar, be named in that capacity. 0370 (Accession # 20284602). Clark County, Arkansas. Richard Wilson asks the court to suspend the execution of a $600 judgment against him won by William Gentry and others. Richard Wilson states that in 1843 John Wilson borrowed $600 from Gentry and Absalom Fowler, putting up a young slave named Robert as security. In 1845, Gentry sold the mortgage on the slave to Richard Wilson. Fowler, however, sued Richard Wilson for his share of the slave. The petitioner asks that the defendants be prevented from selling Robert as it is his desire to have Robert sold “to pay the aforesaid sum of six hundred dollars interest due your Orator.” In the interim, Wilson asks that Robert be hired out. 0390 (Accession # 20284603). Clark County, Arkansas. The petitioners ask the court to order the partition of the estate of Benjamin Dickinson. They claim that John Dickinson, his brother George, and sisters Martha, Zilley, and Sarah and spouses have refused to divide the estate among the heirs. The estate includes forty slaves. 3 Reel 1 Arkansas 0431 (Accession # 20284604). Clark County, Arkansas. The heirs of Isaac Cates dispute the distribution of his estate and ask the court to intervene. Following Cates’s death, John Blakeley and Peter Johnson and Isaac Cates, administrators of the estate, recklessly sold off portions of the estate, including slaves, in order to pay debts, say the heirs. All debts and claims against the estate have been settled and the petitioners ask the court to sell the rest of the estate and divide the proceeds. 0455 (Accession # 20284605). Hot Spring County, Arkansas. James Obaugh and the children of William Pond Sr. contend that slaves held in trust for their mother, Mary, were improperly sold by their father after Mary’s death. The slaves include a woman, Mariah, three children named in the trust, and four born since that time. The petition states that four of the children were sold by Pond to William Barkman, who—aware of the legal status of the slaves—hid and then resold them, depriving Mary Pond’s heirs of property that is rightfully theirs. The petitioners ask the court to call upon William Pond Sr. and William Barkman to account for the slaves and profits resulting from their sale. 0548 (Accession # 20284606). Lafayette County, Arkansas. Benjamin Ryburn asks the court to validate his claim to the slave woman, Julia. Edward Pryor, his brother-in-law, claims that Julia was a wedding gift to him when he married Martha Ann Ryburn in 1826. Benjamin Ryburn, however, believes his father, Matthew Ryburn, meant Julia to be a temporary gift. Debts in the Pryor family caused Julia to be moved around to different family members, but she had returned to Pryor’s possession when another Ryburn son forcibly took her and her children and sold them to Benjamin Ryburn. When a jury found in Ryburn’s favor in 1850, Pryor, the defendant, asked for a change of venue, asserting that Ryburn had “an undue influence over the minds” of the people in Hempstead County. The court granted a change of venue to Lafayette County, where the case is being heard. 1847 0631 (Accession # 20284701). Pulaski County, Arkansas. In this case, Ebenezer Cummins asks the court to declare “illegal, nul & void” the sale of six slaves from the estate of William Cummins to satisfy debts owed to a specific group of creditors, Adamson et al. In a suit filed in Pulaski County, Adamson and others won a ruling of $382.87 from the estate, and the slaves were levied and sold. Executor Ebenezer Cummins objected, testifying that the estate had other creditors with equal, legitimate claims. He filed a petition to quash the ruling, which was appealed by Adamson. Now Ebenezer Cummins asks that the court settle the matter so that all creditors will have a fair share of the estate. 0655 (Accession # 20284702). Chicot County, Arkansas. At issue is the estate of the late Susan Mills, widow of Ambrose Mills. The petitioners are or represent various Mills children and their spouses. They ask the supreme court to overturn a lower court ruling that upheld the sale by Susan Mills of the slave Cinthy and her daughter Sarah to John Mauldin. The Mills heirs charge that the slaves were rightfully theirs through their father’s estate and that their mother, Susan Mills was not authorized to sell them. John Mauldin, now deceased, is survived by his widow, Nancy Mauldin. 1848 0739 (Accession # 20284801). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Eliza Kellogg, one of the daughters of the late Benjamin Kellogg, requests that a guardian be appointed to represent her interests in the estate of her deceased father. The estate includes five slaves: David, Dick, and Hannah and her two children. 4 Reel 1 Arkansas 0742 (Accession # 20284802). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Katharine Kellogg requests that a guardian be appointed to represent the interests of the minor heirs of their father, Benjamin Kellogg. The estate includes five slaves—David, Dick, and Hannah and her two children. The minor heirs include Benjamin, Jonathan, Harrison, Henry, and Sophronica. 0745 (Accession # 20284803). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Mary Kellogg requests that a guardian be appointed to “take care of her property,” which was left to her by her late father, Benjamin Kellogg. The estate includes five slaves—David, Dick, and Hannah and her two children. The guardian’s report of 1857 states that Hannah and Dick were regularly hired out. 0752 (Accession # 20284804). Chicot County, Arkansas. At issue is a dispute over the Duncan Campbell estate. When Campbell died in 1845, his will named brother Samuel as executor, and stipulated that his estate, including at least eight slaves, be divided equally among Samuel and his sisters Jane Bickerstaff [Biggerstaff], Mary Campbell, and Flora Ann Campbell. The will also directed that the “yellow” slave Viney, who claims in her answer to be Campbell’s daughter, be emancipated when she turned fifteen. In 1848 a lower court ruled that Samuel Campbell had mismanaged the estate and had sold Viney to buyers in Missouri. A guardian ad litem was appointed to retrieve and represent Viney, and Cornelius Campbell was named as the estate’s administrator. Now the petitioners are suing for their shares of the Duncan Campbell estate. 1849 0831 (Accession # 20284901). Pulaski County, Arkansas. John B. Pelham asks the court to appoint him guardian of Charles J. and Isabella A. Pelham. The minors are heirs to the estate of William Pelham. 0834 (Accession # 20284902). Pulaski County, Arkansas. John Pelham, guardian of Charles and Isabella Pelham, asks permission to sell the slave Milly and her child. Milly was willed to the minors by Socrates Shepperd and has since given birth to two children, one of whom died. Pelham states that the slaves “are not as useful nor profitable as the money would be if judiciously invested ... in other slaves more proffitable to the said heirs.” 0840 (Accession # 20284903). Clark County, Arkansas. Pleasant M. Osborne [Osburn] writes that as part of a business arrangement with the late Wiley Newberry, he borrowed money, delivering as security six slaves and titles to land. Newberry’s heirs are treating the transaction as a final sale, not as a mortgage, and refuse to return the slaves and land. Osborne asks the court to compel the transfer of the property back to him. 0851 (Accession # 20284904). Bradley County, Arkansas. Edward and Catharine Barker write that Catharine’s former husband, Simeon [Simon] Hiley, now deceased, left a considerable estate, including at least five slaves, to which she should have been legal heir. Other heirs, including Alfred Turner, Hiley’s brother-in-law, are now obstructing her access to the property. The Barkers ask the court for an accounting of the Hiley estate in order to procure a more favorable estate settlement. 0872 (Accession # 20284905). Sevier County, Arkansas. Sarah Campbell and Frances, Edwin, James, and Laura Cook, children and heirs of the late William Cook of Bedford County, Virginia, contend that their sister, Mildred Hopkins, and her husband, Francis, illegally retain two slaves from their father’s estate. All debts have been paid, and the property, including “divers” slaves, has been divided up and disposed of, except for Jim, a mulatto boy, aged ten when Cook’s will was probated in 1847, and Bitt [Bett], a black girl about eight, both children of Eliza. The petitioners ask that the court “take said slaves into possession, and hold them under the order and direction of the Court.” 5 Reel 1 Arkansas 1850 0990 (Accession # 20285001). Union County, Arkansas. Ann Welch was married to Joseph Rhem until he died in 1846. Rhem left behind a considerable estate, including twenty-one slaves. She subsequently married John Welch, and together they filed suit against the administrators of the Joseph Rhem estate. Ann Welch asks that she be given her share of the dower according to the value of the estate as it is calculated under proper management. 1019 (Accession # 20285003). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Julia E., Lydia A., and Mary H. Gladish, “minors of more than fourteen years of age,” ask the court to appoint Joseph O. Ashley as their guardian. They also desire that Ashley be named guardian of their siblings, Martha I., Richard A., and Florence I., who are “minors under fourteen years of age.” The children are the heirs of the late James B. Gladish, who owned at least three slaves. Reel 2 Arkansas cont. 1851 0002 (Accession # 20285101). Sevier County, Arkansas. Bob, a man of color, petitions the Arkansas Supreme Court for his freedom, citing provisions in the will of his original owner, Elliott Brown of Virginia. The will states that upon Brown’s death, Bob would serve his grandson George Brown until Bob turned twenty-one, at which time he would be freed. George Brown moved to Arkansas where Bob was sold to a succession of owners. He is now in the possession of Isaac Jackson, who insists that he holds Bob as a slave for life. A lower court has upheld Bob’s claim to freedom. Bob now appeals to the supreme court. 0120 (Accession # 20285102). Ouachita County, Arkansas. At her death in 1824, Mary Croom of Wayne County, North Carolina, left to her daughter Sarah Coor “one negro Girl by the name of Ginne & one Cow and Calf.” It was her desire, she said in her will, that “the property so to be settled that my said Daughter shall have the benefit thereof clear from the controle and debts or engagements of her husband during her life and at her death the said property be settled on the children she may leave surviving her [p. 28].” Now in 1851 Croom’s grandson, James Vaughan, seeks to gain possession of Ginne [also spelled Ginny, Jenny, Jenney] from William Parr, who claims to have purchased her in 1828. Vaughan, representing other family members, contends that the purchase was fraudulent. Vaughan states that since the late 1820s, Ginne has given birth to eight living children: Jane, Wright, Jordan, Lucy, Tom, Jack, Caroline, and Minerva. They range in value from $300 to $800, and their labor has been worth at least $700 per year, including lawful interest. Vaughan says the estate of his sister is “entitled to the negro girl Slave Ginne and her said Issue from while in possession of the said defendant since the Death of the said testator [1824] together With the hire and proffits of the said negroes Slaves since the Death of the Said Sarah Coor [1843].” 1852 0259 (Accession # 20285201). Phillips County, Arkansas. Andrew Bagley desires to sell George, a slave belonging to the estate of William Tunstall. George is said to have a disease of the kidneys and possibly could be “valueless.” Bagley “believes it for the interest of the heirs that said negro should be sold and his value and proceeds be distributed among the heirs.” He 6 Reel 2 Arkansas has been offered “the sum of six hundred dollars for said negro and that he thinks this his full value in his present condition.” 0262 (Accession # 20285202). Jefferson County, Arkansas. The petitioners—David Carter, James Rhea, Elizabeth Rhea, and Landon Carter—represent the heirs of the late Matilda Carter. Matilda’s mother’s will, executed in 1814, stated, “I give & bequeath to my daughter Matilda M. Carter, a negro girl named Harriett.” As Matilda died shortly thereafter, the executor of the mother’s estate took possession of Harriett and then, due to ill health, he hired the defendant, Stephen Cantrell, to administer the estate. The petitioners contend that for almost forty years, Cantrell “never informed your Orators of their rights” and instead “delivered them [the slaves] nominally into the hands and ownership of his son George M. D. Cantrell.” Matilda Carter’s heirs charge that the Cantrells, “as such trustees, and under such fraudulent concealment, have converted said slaves to their own use and have applied the services, hire and profits thereof, to their own use; and have refused to deliver up to your Orators the possession of said slave[s].” The petitioners seek an injunction requiring the Cantrells to appear in court and to ensure that Harriett and her nine descendants are not removed from the county. 0272 (Accession # 20285203). Bradley County, Arkansas. James Marks seeks a divorce from his wife Sarah for a number of reasons. He said that she refused to permit him to read newspapers and books “of a literary character” after supper. In addition, a woman of considerable strength, she assaulted him on various occasions. Once she pinched him so hard that it left marks on his skin for two weeks. The property to be divided includes a slave named Washington. 1853 0288 (Accession # 20285302). Bradley County, Arkansas. The petitioners, Robert Hudson, Nicholas Barnett, and Elizabeth Barnett, heirs of George Hudson, seek to undo years of alleged mismanagement of Hudson’s estate. The mismanagement includes the hiring out and selling off of several slaves to John Cabeen and other parties. The heirs ask the court to reinstate their claim to their father’s estate by nullifying the sales and hirings executed by past guardians. 0331 (Accession # 20285303). Saline County, Arkansas. James Bratton requests that Robert Hubbert be appointed as guardian for Asa Billingsley, Ann Billingsley, and Margaret Holcom, minors under the age of fourteen. The three are heirs to the estate of Asa A. Billingsley, who owned several slaves at the time of his death. 0334 (Accession # 20285304). Saline County, Arkansas. With the resignation of James Bratton, the minor heirs of the estate of Asa A. Billingsley are without guardians. William Crowson, administrator of the estate, which includes at least six slaves, requests that the court appoint a guardian for the children. 0337 (Accession # 20285306). Jefferson County, Arkansas. Ann Rives seeks title to the slave woman Betsy, left to her by her late mother, Martha Rowlet. Rowlet acquired Betsy from her son-in-law Thomas Rives with the stipulation that at Rowlet’s death, Betsy and her future increase would be held and used to benefit the petitioner, Ann Rives. Her husband eventually regained possession of Betsy and her two children and sold them to Sam C. Roane. Now Thomas Rives and Sam Roane are dead and Ann Rives petitions the court to nullify the sale so that she and the children may benefit from the possession of three valuable slaves. 0402 (Accession # 20285307). Phillips County, Arkansas. The petitioner, John M. Hubbard, states that Levisa Pillow, now remarried and known as Levisa Dobbin, borrowed $701.33 from him. Dobbin retained sole control of her property, including five slaves—Dan, age about thirty7 Reel 2 Arkansas five; Alfred, age about fourteen; Lucinda, age about fourteen; Adeline, age eleven; and Monroe, age eight—pledging them as security against the loan. Hubbard asks that a commissioner be appointed to sell as much of Dobbin’s property as needed to cover the debt. 0448 (Accession # 20285308). Clark County, Arkansas. On 22 June 1852, Dudley Spence sold the slave Henry to James Dodd for $650, with the stipulation that he could reclaim the slave “any time within two years” by repaying the purchase price. He now seeks to reclaim Henry, but Dodd “refused to rece[i]ve the money and deliver the Negro.” Spence asserts that Dodd “sold the said negro to one Wm. P. McLure for the sum of nine hundred dollars in cash.” The petitioner claims that “the boy had belonged to your orator for a long space of time, and was a favorite family servant and the only inducement for his selling him to the said defendant was the understanding as aforesaid that the negro should be redelivered upon his repaying the amount of the purchase money.” Spence believes that he was intentionally defrauded and asks the court to validate his claim to the slave. 1854 0479 (Accession # 20285401). Saline County, Arkansas. William Crowson, executor of Asa A. Billingsley’s estate, requests permission to hire out seven slaves—four adults and three children—who belong to the heirs of the estate. 0486 (Accession # 20285402). Phillips County, Arkansas. In 1850, Edwin A. Hicks died, stipulating in his will that his property should remain in the control of his wife Lucretia for as long as she remained a widow. Now the petitioners—William and Mary E. Hutchinson, W. D. and Nancy Burnet, George Thompson, and Lucretia Hicks, in-laws and heirs-at-law of the estate— assert that their financial interests would be best served if the land and twenty-one slaves were divided. 0498 (Accession # 20285403). Phillips County, Arkansas. John M. Hubbard, guardian of his minor children, including John King Hubbard, Sarah Adeline Lucretia Hubbard, William St. John Hubbard, and Edward Lester Hubbard, under age fourteen, asks that the slaves that came into his possession in October 1852 for his children’s use be kept together for eight or ten years. There were among the slaves “some in extreme old age some of a sickly habit some children incapable of being of any avail at present by way of hire but rather a charge to the holder.” The annual income would be as much or more if the slaves were kept together. 0505 (Accession # 20285404). Phillips County, Arkansas. Edwin A. Hicks, a minor, requests that his mother, Lucretia Hicks, be named guardian of his share of his father’s estate. The estate of the late Edwin Hicks includes twenty-one slaves. 0508 (Accession # 20285405). Bradley County, Arkansas. In 1843, Louisiana slave owner Johnathan H. Koen, heavily in debt, was forced to sell eleven slaves to Charles Cappell. The following year Koen’s son-in-law, Lorenzo Lewis, purchased the slaves and returned them to Koen as a gesture of goodwill and family loyalty. Koen, however, fled with the slaves to Bradley County, Arkansas, changed his name to Kolen, and remained there until his death in 1853. When members of the family learned of Koen’s death, they filed suit to regain possession of his property, including the slaves. 0536 (Accession # 20285407). Arkansas County, Arkansas. In October 1819, Leah Machen received as a gift from her mother, Nancy Renwick of Newberry, South Carolina, title to a slave woman, Sarah, and her children. Machen and her husband, John, took the slaves to Georgia where Sarah gave birth to Celia. Later, in Alabama, Celia was illegally acquired by Isaac Payne and then sold to Henry Thompson, who claims that Celia “was openly and publicly offered for 8 Reel 2 Arkansas sale by one I. B. Payne” in the slave mart at Memphis and that he and his partner, Dr. Lewis Shanks, purchased her for $412.50. Celia is now in her mid-twenties. Machen alleges that Thompson “has received the profits and hire of the labor of the said Girl Celia from about the year 1843 up to the present time and that her services and hire per annum since he has had her in possession is worth at least the sum of one hundred and twenty five dollars.” More important to the petitioner, however, is the fact that “the said Girl Celia is a family Negro and greatly endeared and attached to the family,” and “your complainant is greatly attached to Celia and prizes her above money and that no amount of money would compensate your complainant for the loss of her.” Machen asks the court to order Thompson to return Celia. 0587 (Accession # 20285409). Phillips County, Arkansas. John Hubbard petitions to become the guardian of his four minor children—John King Hubbard, Sarah A. L. Hubbard, William St. John Hubbard, and Edward Lester Hubbard. The property, including slaves, is “undivided but the interest of each minor therein is believed to be about equal to about Twenty five hundred_ _ _ dollars.” 1855 0591 (Accession # 20285501). Saline County, Arkansas. William Crowson, on behalf of Margaret Bratton, petitions the court to stop James Bratton from hiring out slaves belonging to the Asa A. Billingsley estate. James Bratton and Margaret Billingsley married after the death of her husband, Asa Billingsley. After their marriage, the Brattons hired out the slaves to pay for the “boarding clothing and schooling” of Margaret’s children. Now James Bratton and Margaret are divorcing, and she wishes to end Bratton’s claim to her slaves. 0596 (Accession # 20285502). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Joseph O. Ashley, guardian of the six minor heirs of James B. Gladish, desires to sell three slave children, all under the age of thirteen, because “the only means he has of paying said indebtedness is by sale of said negro slaves.” He asks that “he may be directed to sell said slaves at Public or Private sale as to your Honors shall seem meet.” 0603 (Accession # 20285504). Phillips County, Arkansas. Henry C. Bonner is the administrator of the estate of John H. Rives, who died intestate in 1850. In December of 1852, “by direction of your Honorable Court,” Bonner sold Isaac, one of the slaves in the estate, to a Charles Bonner in order to pay some of the debts of the estate. As the order was never recorded, Henry Bonner asks that the court “will make an order confirming the sale of the said negro child Isaac.” 0612 (Accession # 20285505). Bradley County, Arkansas. James M. Chadwick writes that John A. Davis owes him $5,039 from past loans. As security Davis mortgaged four slaves “of copper color,” Wiley, Milla, Julia, and Alabama, “and also all the right, title and interest which the said defendant had in and to the Estate of one William Davis.” Chadwick states that Davis is unable to repay the debts. Therefore, Chadwick requests “that the deed of mortgage may be foreclosed and sale made by order of the court of the slaves therein mortgaged or so many of them as may be necesary to pay the indebteness aforesaid.” 0623 (Accession # 20285506). Saline County, Arkansas. Elizabeth Kirkpatrick, widow of Paisley Kirkpatrick, asks the court to appoint a guardian to manage the inherited property of her minor children: Hannah Ellen, Lemuel, Isabella, Joseph, and Elizabeth Catherine. Their property includes twelve slaves. 0626 (Accession # 20285508). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Almyra [Elmira] R. Duncan, administratrix of the Charles D. Duncan estate, asks the court for permission to sell part of the 9 Reel 2 Arkansas estate so that she can pay debts of the estate, which include $51 for the hire of an unnamed slave. 0632 (Accession # 20285509). Bradley County, Arkansas. The petitioner, Maria Bailey, asks the court for an injunction to stop the sale of her slave Lewis. Bailey states that Benjamin Martin recently won a decision in circuit court against her husband for $180. In the decision, the court ordered that Lewis be transferred to Martin. Bailey states that “she obtained by gift the mother of said Boy from her father, Benjamin Sanders, and that said slave was born since said gift.” Bailey maintains that Lewis is “the sole and separate property of your Complainant, and free from the debts of her said husband.” Lewis has been seized and is in the possession of the Bradley County sheriff, who “intends advertising the said slave for sale.” 0652 (Accession # 20285510). Bradley County, Arkansas. In 1843, Louisiana slave owner Johnathan H. Koen, heavily in debt, was forced to sell eleven slaves to Charles Cappell. The following year Koen’s son-in-law, Lorenzo Lewis, purchased the slaves and returned them to Koen as a gesture of good will and family loyalty. Koen, however, fled with the slaves to Bradley County, Arkansas, changed his name to Kolen, and remained there until his death in 1853. In his will he emancipated some of the slaves. In 1854, members of the family sued to regain possession of his property, including the former slaves. The petitioners, John and Martha Ann Ewell, Richard and Mary Emma Lewis, and James Yell, now seek to add a number of slaves as defendants in their case against Eli Tidwell, Koen’s executor. The new defendants include Betsy Williams and her two children, Clarissa and Hannibal; Emiline Morrow and her four children, Sally, Osbern, Rolla, and Emily; and Charles, Albert, Rasha, Mercinda, Mary Ann, Temple, and Betsy. The black defendants are, the plaintiffs assert, “slaves for life.” 0657 (Accession # 20285511). Drew County, Arkansas. Sally H. Sanders, the widow of William Sanders, asks the court to confirm her title to the slave man Jerry and to lift the levies held on him. Upon her husband’s death Sally Sanders received “a one half interest in said negro boy Jerry and fifty dollars interest in Jerry’s wife.” Her son James held the other half interest in Jerry, which he sold to Samuel Sanders, a minor, for the benefit of the petitioner, Sally Sanders. Sally, however, says that she has not received any compensation for the sale, and thus should retain the title to the slave. Now Samuel has incurred judgments for debts against him, levied upon the slave Jerry who is “in the jail of the county ... advertised for sale to satisfy the execution aforesaid issued against the said Samuel Sanders.” Sally Sanders claims that Jerry “is worth the sum of one thousand dollars and his hire per annum is worth one hundred & fifty dollars.” 0731 (Accession # 20285512). Phillips County, Arkansas. James Crary, administrator of the James Cleveland estate, tried unsuccessfully “to sell at private sale one half of the Democratic Star office” which represents the Cleveland estate interest in the business. He has obtained an inventory of the estate, which includes two slaves, and he maintains that “said office is becoming a tax and burthen to said estate in its present condition and management.” He petitions the court for permission “to sell at public sale, to the highest and best bidder, the one half interest as aforesaid in the office.” 0738 (Accession # 20285513). Phillips County, Arkansas. James Crary, administrator of the James Cleveland estate, writes that the personal property of the estate consists of one fiftyyear-old slave woman and one slave boy, values unknown, and “half of the Democratic Star printing office.” Since “the interest in the Printing office aforesaid is useless, profitless, and is likely to be an incumbrance to said estate,” Crary asks the court for permission to sell the slave woman. 10 Reel 2 Arkansas 0740 (Accession # 20285514). Pulaski County, Arkansas. James Swan and David Dickson petition the court for their share of the estate left by Gilbert Bardin to his wife, Charlotte, and nephews James and Elijah Swan. The estate included at least seven slaves. Elijah Swan sold his interest in the estate to Dickson for $1,000. Charlotte Bardin never settled the estate and continued to enjoy its benefits as its administratrix, say the petitioners. Upon her death in 1851, Charles Bertrand became guardian of her estate, one-third of which was left to a niece, the remainder to the Little Rock Methodist Episcopal Church in care of its trustees. Swan and Dickson charge that Charlotte Bardin did not recognize their claim to the Bardin estate and that she “had no right or authority to dispose of any portion of said real estate or slaves after her decease, or of any portion of said personal estate” except the portion of the estate to which she was justly entitled “by way of her dower.” Her will, and other deeds of manumission, also stipulated the emancipation of certain slaves to which Swan and Dickson charge “said presented deed of manumission” should be considered “void and of no effect.” 0792 (Accession # 20285515). Phillips County, Arkansas. Levisa Pillow petitions for an injunction to restrain her husband, or his creditors, from interfering with her property, asking that a receiver be appointed to manage the property. She also asks for a divorce. Prior to their marriage in 1853, Levisa Pillow and Wilson D. Dobbin signed a prenuptial agreement whereby “the joint property of the two shall be used and controlled by them mutually during the time that they may continue to live and cohabit together as Husband and wife.” At the time of the marriage, Levisa (as a feme sole) owned property worth about $40,000, consisting of “a valuable plantation, Negroes, stock farming utensils and wild Lands .... “With an income of $6,000 or $7,000 a year, the couple could support themselves in “magnificent style.” Wilson D. Dobbin had no property. Levisa, now old and feeble, alleges that she soon found her new husband to be a habitual drunkard and profligate spendthrift who, within a short time, wasted most of her estate so that she is now unable to buy supplies or to feed the thirty slaves on the plantation. She also claims that Wilson uses violent language and has, on several occasions, punched her, “bruising her person most shamefully.” 0812 (Accession # 20285516). Phillips County, Arkansas. Repeating much of the information in her original divorce suit, Levisa Dobbin states that her husband Wilson Dobbin’s behavior has deteriorated in recent months. She testifies that he struck her grown daughter a “violent blow in her face with his fist and threatened to drive her from the plantation”; he whipped slaves for petty offenses or for following Levisa’s directions; and he threatened to deprive her of a house servant and a riding horse. When she ordered the foreman to whip a black man who sneaked into her bedroom to be with the Negro girl sleeping there, she says Wilson countermanded the order and severely whipped the foreman. In fact, the husband was guilty of “many acts of cruelty toward the negroes.” Such cruelty, she believes, will cause slaves to run away. Indeed, she believes that he has actually ordered slaves to run away “rather than obey the orders of your Oratrix.” Levisa Dobbin again asks that a receiver be appointed to take care of her plantation and other property, including slaves. 1856 0853 (Accession # 20285601). Phillips County, Arkansas. As father of four minor children— John King Hubbard, Sarah A. L. Hubbard, William H. John Hubbard, and Edward Lester Hubbard—all under the age of fourteen, John Hubbard asks to become their guardian to supervise and manage their slaves. John Hubbard was first appointed guardian in 1854. 0856 (Accession # 20285604). Phillips County, Arkansas. Sarah W. Grant, administratrix of the Henry Grant estate, asks that their slaves be kept together rather than hired out separately, 11 Reel 2 Arkansas because some of them are still quite young. Toward this end, she asks the court that she have full control over the slaves, rather than hiring them out per the commissioners’ suggestion. 0867 (Accession # 20285605). Phillips County, Arkansas. Henry M. Stewart, guardian of Mary Louisa Stewart of Scott County, Illinois, asks the court for permission to sell four slaves in a private sale to Edmund St. John Martin for $1,700. The slaves—Caroline and her three children Frances, age twelve; Mary, age five; and Elizabeth, age fifteen months—were inherited by Mary Stewart, “an infant of tender years,” following the death of her father James G. Stewart. The sale would include two payments, one for $850 in cash and a note for $850 payable 1 January 1857. As his ward is a resident of a state “in which african slavery does not exist,” Henry Stewart says it would be in her best interest to sell the slaves. 0874 (Accession # 20285606). Pulaski County, Arkansas. William Drake, guardian of Richard C. Byrd, a minor, seeks permission to sell a “small Negro Girl named Matilda” to pay for Byrd’s education. Byrd inherited the slave from his father, the late Richard C. Byrd. 0879 (Accession # 20285607). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Mary Ellen Byrd, daughter of Richard C. Byrd, deceased, asks that the court replace William Drake with Charles Ayliff as her guardian. She is over the age of fourteen and believes that she is entitled to three slaves in Alabama, given to her as a gift by her late grandfather William Byrd. 0882 (Accession # 20285608). Poinsett County, Arkansas. At issue is the estate of William R. Lipscomb, deceased, who owned “a large estate both Real and personal and consisting [of] Lands negroes horses mules and other Stock and Implements Such as are generally used and employed” on a plantation. The estate includes thirty-one slaves. The petitioners, including Theophilus G., Margaret E., Sarah A. R., and Harriet N. Lipscomb, minor heirs, claim title to the entire estate. They seek a partition of the property and recommend renting the land and hiring out the slaves to pay debts against the estate. The plaintiffs are suing Colbert Coldwell, who became administrator of the estate, representing other heirs, known and “unknown,” who are making claims on the property. Reel 3 Arkansas cont. 1857 0002 (Accession # 20285701). Saline County, Arkansas. Elizabeth Kirkpatrick, widow of Paisley Kirkpatrick, who died intestate, asks the court for new commissioners “to lay off and designate by proper metes and bounds the dower of your petitioner in the lands of said estate, and slaves of said estate in accordance with the said decree of this court made at the January term thereof A.D. 1853.” She states that after her husband’s death the court acknowledged her right to a dower out of her husband’s holdings and appointed William Milliner, a son-in-law, as guardian over the minor children. Kirkpatrick claims that said commissioners assigned her “a child’s part of the slaves of said estate instead of one third of said slaves,” and “never assigned your petitioner the one third part of the land of said estate.” In addition, she contends that the court failed to issue a final order directing that even this portion of the property be transferred into her ownership. Now one of the minors claims that she is entitled to any increase among the slaves in the dower, as part of the family’s estate. Kirkpatrick disputes this claim, asserting that the dower is separate from that property left to the children. 12 Reel 3 Arkansas 0013 (Accession # 20285702). Saline County, Arkansas. The Kirkpatrick children, heirs to the estate of the late Paisley Kirkpatrick, ask the court to appoint “three disinterested and suitable persons as commissioners” to evaluate the estate and “ascertain each of your petitioners share of said slaves for life ... and to divide said slaves as near as possible into six equal lots in value.” The petitioners say that the debts incurred by Paisley Kirkpatrick have been paid off and that the estate no longer needs to be held by the administratrix, Elizabeth Kirkpatrick, their mother. 0037 (Accession # 20285703). Phillips County, Arkansas. Sarah W. Grant, administratrix of her late husband’s estate, asks that parcels of land be made available for sale to pay debts. She also asks that the slaves be kept together to work the remaining land, rather than having them hired out. 0045 (Accession # 20285704). Pulaski County, Arkansas. William Drake asks to be removed as guardian of Mary Ellen Byrd, a minor who has inherited several slaves. He asserts that during his term as guardian he never personally profited from any property belonging to his ward, and requests that Charles Ayliff now be designated in his place. 0051 (Accession # 20285705). Phillips County, Arkansas. Frances Erwin is the widow of James Erwin, who died intestate in 1857 with sizeable property holdings, including seventeen slaves. Frances Erwin asks the court to appoint a guardian for the minor heirs and “lay off and assign” to her a dower interest in one-third of the slaves. She also requests one-third of the profits from the hire of their slaves and one-third of proceeds from rental of their plantation during the period between her husband’s death and the allotment of her share of the estate. 0067 (Accession # 20285706). Phillips County, Arkansas. The petitioners, heirs, and legal representatives of the late James Erwin ask the court to require Arthur Thompson, administrator of Erwin’s estate, to turn over to them “money and personal property as he may have in his hands not needed to pay the debts and expenses.” They also ask that the slaves allotted to them be delivered, including Jobe, Vina, Eliza, Louisa, Charlott, Letty, Ben, Ann, Cloey, and Fanny and her child. 0070 (Accession # 20285707). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Amelia C. Newton, widow of Thomas W. Newton who died intestate, asks the court for a dower share in nine slaves worth between $6,000 and $8,000. The other heirs include Thomas’s children—John William, Allen, Anna, Robert, Thomas, and Charles. With the exception of John William, who is serving as the estate’s administrator, all of the children are minors. 0073 (Accession # 20285708). Pulaski County, Arkansas. To pay the debts of his deceased father’s estate, Administrator John William Newton asks to sell “the remainder (after the life estate of the widow of said deceased), in certain slaves, to wit; Henry, Pauline and Ellen.” 0085 (Accession # 20285709). Poinsett County, Arkansas. At issue is the estate of William R. Lipscomb, deceased, who owned “a large estate both Real and personal and consisting [of] Lands negroes horses mules and other Stock and Implements Such as are generally used and employed” on a plantation. He died possessed of thirty-one slaves. The petitioners, including Theophilus G., Margaret E., Sarah A. R., and Harriet N. Lipscomb, minor heirs, claimed title in a prior suit to the entire estate. In this amended petition, they admit that after “diligent inquiry and investigation” they have learned that Jordan Lipscomb is the paternal uncle of William R. Lipscomb, as was Richard Lipscomb, deceased, whose children are defendants in the suit. As such, the defendants are entitled to one-half of the estate. 0092 (Accession # 20285710). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Charles F. Robinson, brother of Littlebury Robinson, deceased, seeks guardianship over Hardy Robinson, Littlebury’s minor son 13 Reel 3 Arkansas and only surviving heir. At the time of his death, Littlebury possessed a large estate “consisting of lands, negroes, stock, household furniture &c &c.” The property has “greatly depreciated,” Charles Robinson says, and it is necessary for someone to look after the boy’s interest. 0099 (Accession # 20285711). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Paul C. Hill seeks to become guardian for his six children, ages five through twelve, who live in Wythe County, Virginia. The children own eight slaves “supposed to be worth Six Thousand One Hundred dollars.” He wants to bring the children and slaves to Arkansas. 0102 (Accession # 20285712). Phillips County, Arkansas. Sarah H. Grant is the widow of Dr. Henry Grant, who died intestate. She states that Grant died with a considerable estate— including at least seven slaves—and that she has not been assigned her dower. Therefore Sarah Grant asks the court to appoint commissioners to establish her dower and assign a guardian for the affairs of her minor children. 1858 0106 (Accession # 20285801). Phillips County, Arkansas. John Hubbard, father and guardian of his four minor children—John King Hubbard, Sarah A. L. Hubbard, William St. John Hubbard, and Edward Lester Hubbard—asks for an extension in submitting his annual guardianship report due to ill health. 0109 (Accession # 20285802). Phillips County, Arkansas. Sarah W. Grant, administratrix of the Henry Grant estate, states that her three minor children “are the owners, as heirs aforesaid, of seven negroes, three of which said negroes are little children and could not be hired out but require the care and attention of a mother.” She asks the court to allow her “to keep seven negroes under her controll and supervision until the younger of said negroes are older and better able to take care of themselves,” and agrees to furnish an accounting of the hiring out of any of the slaves. 0116 (Accession # 20285803). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Diadema [Diadenna] Collins, widow of John F. Hudson who died in 1854, seeks her share of slaves in his estate from the county sheriff, acting as “public administrator.” Hudson’s estate included land and six slaves, including a dark mulatto woman Leath [Leah] and her five children: Sam, age twelve; Green, age ten; Ann, age seven; Mary, age four; and Francis, age ten months. Diadema, who has since married Alexander Collins, owned two slaves in her own right, Malinda, age twenty, and her infant son Henry, but she never received a dower from her late husband’s estate. Now, four years later, she and her husband are petitioning for her rightful share. 0127 (Accession # 20285805). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Margaret McDonald, administratrix of the estate of Edward McDonald, deceased, asks to sell a “bad and vicious” slave named John, or Jack, a Negro man age twenty-five or twenty-six. Though the slave was purchased by her husband with her money, as his heir she can claim only one-half interest in John, who McDonald describes as “almost utterly impossible to govern or control.” She is currently housing him in the county jail to prevent him from running away. As the cause of “great trouble” and considerable expense, John should be sold as soon as possible and the money invested “otherwise,” says McDonald. (Note: John brought $1,100 when he was sold on 1 November 1858.) 0140 (Accession # 20285806). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Paul C. Hill, legal guardian of his minor children James, Nancy, Alphius, Emily, Sarah, and James, asks to sell three slaves owned jointly by the minors. The slaves include Hannah, a dark woman age eighteen; Susan, a dark mulatto girl age thirteen; and Ephraim, Hannah’s son about three years old. Hill says that 14 Reel 3 Arkansas he has been offered $2,500 for the three and “that amount of money Judiciously managed would be of greater benefit to his said Wards, than the slaves.” 1859 0144 (Accession # 20285901). Saline County, Arkansas. Thomas H. Crowson asks for authorization to hire out slaves belonging to the estate of Asa A. Billingsley. 0153 (Accession # 20285902). Saline County, Arkansas. Thomas Crowson, administrator for the estate of William Crowson, asks the court to approve the sale of slaves Mary and Cherry, who were sold at two separate auctions. On 24 December 1858, Cherry was “struck off” to Thomas Crowson for $980, and on the first Monday in January, Mary was “struck off” to L. Thompson for $1,150. The women were sold for the benefit of the estate. 0167 (Accession # 20285903). Bradley County, Arkansas. The heirs of Nimrod B. Wheeler, including his children Jane O. Camp, Nancy L. Gardner, Martha M. Stephens, and John and Benjamin Wheeler, accuse the administrator of his estate, Richard Wheeler, of perfidy. At his death [ca. 1852], Nimrod B. Wheeler possessed land, cattle, horses, and two female slaves with several children each. In October 1853, Richard Wheeler obtained letters of administration, and in January 1854, he sold the “negro woman Kitty and her three children, Sally, Hellen, and Harriet,” for $1,556, and the “negro woman Ann & her two children” for $1,900. The plaintiffs charge that Richard Wheeler, deceased, was not authorized to sell the property, and they are now suing his heirs to provide restitution. 0181 (Accession # 20285904). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Martha F. and Marzee J. Tillman, slave-owning minors over the age of fourteen, ask the court to appoint E. B. Harrell as their guardian. Their holdings include four slaves: Sam, age twenty-six, valued at $900; Dick, age thirteen, valued at $700; Fanna, a girl age fifteen, valued at $750; and Carolina, age five, valued at $300. They have no legal guardian to act on their behalf. 0186 (Accession # 20285905). Phillips County, Arkansas. Sarah Beaty, wife of the late W. O. Beaty, asks the court for her dower of “Negroes belonging to the Estate of my Deceased Husband.” Her husband had owned three “stout, healthy and likely” slaves—Jack, age forty-five; Margaret, age about fifteen; and Adeline, age about twelve. The commissioners assigned Jack to the widow, explaining that though each of the female slaves would sell for more, the service “of said Negro Man” was “fully as valuable to Mrs. Beaty during her life time, as the services of either of the other two negroes.” 0201 (Accession # 20285906). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Paul C. Hill, legal guardian of his minor children James, Nancy, Alphius, Emily, and Sarah, asks the court to confirm the sale for $1,500 of “a negro man named Jack of dark color aged twenty years and a slave for life.” Jack had been owned by his wards. Hill adds that on 17 August 1859, his son James F. Hill “departed this life.” 0206 (Accession # 20285907). Pulaski County, Arkansas. James Robinson, administrator for the estate of George W. Eason, deceased, seeks to sell a bright mulatto slave named George, age fourteen, who suffers from epilepsy. The slave has “become a burden and expense,” and as his disease progresses his “value daily become less.” George should be sold “as soon as practicable and upon the best possible terms.” 0210 (Accession # 20285908). Calhoun County, Arkansas. Mary Jane Ledlow Pennington seeks to become the guardian of her child, Adam S. H. M. Ledlow, son of her deceased husband, Adam S. Ledlow. In 1855, following her husband’s death, the court appointed Alfred 15 Reel 3 Arkansas B. Lary as guardian of the boy, then two or three years old. Pennington, since remarried, charges that her son has been taken from her, and that she has been denied visitation rights. Moreover, she charges that he is being treated in a cruel and inhumane manner, running about without proper clothing, remaining always “filthy, dirty, and unwholesome,” and associating freely and intimately with Lary’s slaves. She seeks to replace Lary as the guardian of her child. 1860 0230 (Accession # 20286001). Phillips County, Arkansas. John M. Hubbard, guardian of his minor children, including John, Sarah A., William, and Edward, asks that he be permitted to sell some of his children’s land and slaves. His children own several tracts of land, ranging in size from forty to 160 acres, including one on the Mississippi River. They also own ten slaves: Sam Long; Johnson Muroe; Mary Bird and her three children Agnes, Grat, and Morris; Isabella and her child Eveline; and Lucinda and her child Rosette. “[L]ands and negroes especially,” Hubbard explains, “have reached a higher value than it has been Known to command for Many Years previous.” 0235 (Accession # 20286002). Pulaski County, Arkansas. At the time of his death, Littlebury Robinson possessed a large estate “consisting of lands, negroes, stock, household furniture &c &c.” Shortly afterwards, in 1857, his son and heir, Hardy Robinson, age seven or eight, was taken to Mississippi along with the slaves. Now Pleasant Jordan asks the court to appoint a guardian for Robinson in Arkansas so the boy can pay the taxes on the land he owns in Pulaski County. 0238 (Accession # 20286004). Pulaski County, Arkansas. On 12 April 1859, Elisha B. Harrell was appointed guardian for Marzee Tillman, a minor owning one-half interest in four slaves: Sam, age twenty-six, valued at $900; Dick, age thirteen, valued at $700; Fanna, a girl age fifteen, valued at $750; and Carolina, age five, valued at $300. Jesse Butler and Benjamin F. Pennington acted as security on the $6,000 bond provided by Harrell. Harrell has now left the county, Butler says, “carrying with him the person and property of his said ward.” And Butler believes that Harrell will squander the estate of the minor and “unless restrained will utterly waste and exhaust the same.” Butler asks for an order releasing him from future liability on the security he signed. 0241 (Accession # 20286005). Pope County, Arkansas. Elisha B. Harrell, guardian of the property of the minor Marzee Tillman [Margie Tilman], asks the court to transfer his guardianship from Pulaski to Pope County, where he and Tillman currently reside. He posts a $16,000 bond with John McFaddin and Robert White as his securities. 0245 (Accession # 20286006). Bradley County, Arkansas. John Wheeler and his sister Nancy Gardner argue that Richard Wheeler, administrator of their father Nimrod Wheeler’s estate, defrauded them in 1854 by purchasing slaves from the estate at a discounted price. They describe the sale as that of a “negro woman Kitty and her Three children named respectively Sally, Helon [Hellen] & Harriot [Harriet] - at the reduced price of One thousand Five Hundred & Fifty six Dollars ($1556).” Richard Wheeler has since died, and his son, William Wheeler, and other heirs have taken over administration of the estate. The plaintiffs ask that the sale of Kitty, who now has five children, be declared null and void, and that they be compensated for her hire from January 1854 to the present. 0257 (Accession # 20286007). Pulaski County, Arkansas. James Robinson, administrator for the estate of George Eason, seeks to sell Hannah, a dark mulatto who “is afflicted with a certain 16 Reel 3 Arkansas disease called ‘prolapsus uteri,’” or the slippage of her uterus. She is “so depreciated in value” and of so little use that she should be sold “for the highest price that Can be obtained.” 0261 (Accession # 20286008). Saline County, Arkansas. William Beavers, administrator for the estate of Martin Camp, deceased, requests permission to deliver two slaves, Cretia and Louisa, to three minor children, heirs of the deceased. The slaves had been a gift to the minors from their grandfather, Thomas Morgan of Georgia. 0264 (Accession # 20286009). Saline County, Arkansas. William Thompson, administrator of the estate of John Thompson, deceased, asks the court’s permission to finish the crop of corn and cotton planted during the spring of 1860. Thompson writes that he has hired additional laborers and requests that the five field hands belonging to the estate be kept on the farm during the year, and that he be authorized to pay “all such sums of money as may be necessary in and about the finishing gathering &c of said Crop.” 1861 0269 (Accession # 20286101). Pulaski County, Arkansas. James Robinson, administrator of George Eason’s estate, writes that the widow, Mary Eason, is insane and afflicted with “rheumatic” problems. Robinson has sold the slave Hannah for $500, but Eason is a “great trouble and expense.” He asks the court for permission to commit her to a lunatic asylum in Nashville, Tennessee, arguing that such treatment “probably would be the means of restoring her to her sanity.” 0276 (Accession # 20286102). Saline County, Arkansas. Elizabeth Camp, widow of Martin Camp, petitions the court for permission to claim her dower from Camp’s estate. Several Camp heirs are involved in the settlement of the estate. She asks that a three-man commission be established to seek a settlement that will not break up the property. Two slaves in the estate, Crisy and Sue [Lue], belong to three minor children. 0282 (Accession # 20286103). Saline County, Arkansas. Robert J. Coleman seeks to administer the estate of Martin Camp, who died on 19 July 1860 intestate. The previous administrator, William E. Beavers, has also died, and Camp’s widow, Elizabeth, has asked Coleman to serve in this capacity. Several minors are heirs to the estate, which includes land and slaves, but with the exception of Elizabeth, the family lives in Georgia. The “unadministered Estate,” Coleman asserts, “should be immediately administered.” 0287 (Accession # 20286104). Phillips County, Arkansas. Robert Yerby, son of the late William Yerby, who died in May 1850, seeks a guardian to oversee his interests in his father’s considerable estate, consisting of “Lands, Negroes, Stock &C.” Robert’s mother, Cordelia Yerby, recently died, and Robert, over age fourteen “and therefore Competent and authorized by Law to choose some suitable person to act as his Guardian,” requests that his brother, John Yerby, be appointed to act in that capacity. 0292 (Accession # 20286105). Pulaski County, Arkansas. George Gallagher, father of minor children Maria Octavia and James, seeks to become their guardian to oversee the thirteen slaves they inherited from their deceased mother, Margaret M. Gallagher. The slaves include Scipio and his wife Mahala, worth $1,500 each, and their six children: Albert, age ten, worth about $500; William, age nine, worth about $500; Scinda, age twelve, worth about $600; Martha Ann, age four, worth $500; Margaret, age three, worth about $300; and an “Infant worth say two hundred dollars.” Also included are George and his wife Frances, worth $1,500 each, and their children, each worth $400: Maria, about seven; Little George, age five; and Prince, three years old. 17 Reel 3 Arkansas 0298 (Accession # 20286106). Saline County, Arkansas. William H. Thompson, administrator of the estate of the late John H. Thompson, presents an accounting for slaves authorized for hire. Aggy, age twenty-eight, and her son were hired for one year to Dr. James L. Isaacs for $80; Tamar, twenty-one, was hired to Richard Stockman for one year for $80; Jack, age six, was hired to Wayne Clark for one year for $160; Milly, age fifty-seven, was hired to the administrator for one year for $40; Lucy, age eight, was hired to Letitia Thompson for one year for $15; and Ephraim, age ten or eleven, was hired to S. M. Hardin for one year for $55. Thompson submits the report to the court and “prays it to be so taken by your honor; and that this report be confirmed and approved.” 0302 (Accession # 20286107). Saline County, Arkansas. Levi Dodd, appointed administrator for the estate of John R. Etherly, seeks to hire out the slaves in Etherly’s estate. Dodd asks to “hire said slaves at public hiring, or outcry,” on 1 January 1862. Two men, Handy and Tom, ages twenty-one and sixteen, were “bid off” at $202 and $210 respectively, while “Lucy Ann & three children” brought $80. 0321 (Accession # 20286108). Saline County, Arkansas. Levi Dodd, administrator of the estate of slaveholder John R. Etherly, deceased, asks for permission to sell his “personal effects.” The items should be sold as soon as possible, “first because said intestate left no white person him surviving to superintend and take care of his property and effects”; and second, the perishable property would surely “waste and be destroyed unless it be sold.” 0324 (Accession # 20286109). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Levi Dodd, administrator for the estate of Zachariah Dodd, asks permission to hire out Nancy, a slave who “is in very delicate health and unable to perform hard or constant labor.” 0327 (Accession # 20286110). Saline County, Arkansas. As guardian of the minor heirs of the late M. M. Cloud, Louisa Cloud seeks to hire out “the negro man George” at a private hiring commencing 1 January 1862. George is owned by her wards David, Sarah, Mary Jane, Tennessee, and Susanna Cloud. In the end, she hired the slave herself for $150. 0335 (Accession # 20286111). Saline County, Arkansas. Guardian for the minor heirs of Asa Billingsley’s estate, Thomas Crowson asks to hire out four “or more” slaves at a private hiring to commence on 1 January 1862. 0338 (Accession # 20286112). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Pleasant Jordan, guardian of Hardy Robinson, a slaveholding minor living in Mississippi, explains that his ward no longer owns property in Pulaski County, and requests that he be discharged as guardian. Robinson’s stepfather, Gabriel Hogan, had previously sold 120 acres of land Hardy inherited in that county to Mildred Martin. 0341 (Accession # 20286113). Saline County, Arkansas. The son and administrator of the estate of John H. Thompson, deceased, asks the court to accept the report of his hiring the estate’s seven slaves. On 1 January 1862, William H. Thompson hired two Negro women at $80 each—“which is the largest amount that said slaves could be hired for”—a black man for $150 per year; a Negro boy for $55 per year; a Negro girl for $25 per year; an old Negro woman for $30 a year; and “a small boy for his victuals and clothes.” 1862 0346 (Accession # 20286201). Saline County, Arkansas. With the death of estate administrator William Thompson, son of deceased slave owner John H. Thompson, Wayne Clark, one of the 18 Reel 3 Arkansas heirs at law, seeks to become the administrator of the estate consisting chiefly of “Negroes, horses, Cattle, Hogs.” 0349 (Accession # 20286202). Saline County, Arkansas. Wayne Clark, administrator of the estate of John H. Thompson, deceased, seeks to distribute the estate’s slave property among the rightful legatees. He observes that the times are so precarious, and the danger “of losing Negro property through Black Republican Raids & Robberies” so great, that it would be best to divide the property now, “there being no interest, that can be prejudiced or injured.” 0352 (Accession # 20286203). Saline County, Arkansas. Henry Beavers, administrator for the estate of the late William Beavers, asks the court to “grant him the privilege” of cultivating William Beavers’ farm and of keeping the “Negroes and the Stock of said deceased, together with all farming utensils.” At the time of his death, William left a large family of young children, an aged mother, and a widow, Beavers explains, and “if the negroes were hired, they would at this time go for almost nothing, because of the great inactivity of trade and commerce pervading the whole of our Community.” 1867 0359 (Accession # 20286701). Pulaski County, Arkansas. Marena M. Lefevre [various spellings], heir of the estate of her late husband William B. Lefevre, asks to be “released from all responsibility” as administrator of the estate. During the Civil War, six Negroes, valued at $5,800, “were liberated and set free.” Thirteen horses, valued at $650, were “taken by the Federal Army and others.” Lefevre says she took six mules, valued at $600, to southern Arkansas, but they, too, were confiscated by the federal army. In short, except for two wagons valued at $115, all the property inventoried and appraised in 1863 as being worth $8,533.50 was “taken from her by forces.” Missouri 1806 0375 (Accession # 21180601). St. Louis, Missouri. Joseph Tayon represents that he is the owner of the slaves named as defendants in this case. The slaves have run away and he asks that the sheriff of the District of St. Charles seize “the said negroes so running at large” and deliver them into his possession. 0389 (Accession # 21180602). St. Louis, Missouri. Joseph Tayon asserts that he is the owner of a mulatto slave named Margarite. He reports that “a controversy has heretofore existed between Margarite and a certain Francois Tayon ... in which the court, declared & set her the said Margarite free.” Joseph Tayon was not a party to that case, but he “is now ready to produce proof of his right of property in the said mulatress.” He asks that Margarite be delivered to him and declared his slave. 1809 0394 (Accession # 21180901). St. Louis District, Missouri. Cavalier and Petit are merchants from New Orleans. They inform the court that Joseph Robidoux, now deceased, secured a debt for $15,011 by mortgaging “lands, tenements, Slaves and property.” The petitioners thus ask that the heirs of Joseph Robidoux come forward and show just cause, if any, as to why said mortgage should not be foreclosed. 19 Reel 3 Missouri 1810 0401 (Accession # 21181001). St. Louis District, Missouri. Betty, a woman of color, represents that Joseph York detains her as a slave. She informs the court that she lived with Alexander Eden in the Illinois Territory in 1806 and 1807 and that she lived there for more than sixty days and was “never indentured according to Law.” Noting that Eden even declared “that she was free,” the petitioner asserts that John Murdock “without Law or right” took her to Missouri. Betty asks that counsel be assigned to her “to prosecute her claim for freedom,” that she may have “reasonable liberty” to attend her counsel, that she not be removed from the county, and that she not be punished for filing a suit. 0412 (Accession # 21181002). Cape Girardeau District, Missouri. Susannah Haux represents that Marcus Stephenson keeps her in slavery while her mother and her mother’s family are all free. Haux submits that she was removed from Bourbon County, Kentucky, before her trial to establish her freedom concluded there. She asks that she be granted “the benefit of the law as a pure person” and that she be protected until the records from Kentucky arrive in Missouri. 1813 0422 (Accession # 21181301). St. Louis County, Missouri. William Tarlton, “a black man, who is admitted by the Court here to sue in this behalf as a poor person, complains of Jacob Horine of a plea of trespass with force and arms.” Tarlton charges that the said Horine did “unlawfully beat wound and abuse, take, enslave and imprison” him. The petitioner further reveals that he was “deprived of his liberty there for a long time,” from 1 May 1813 until 24 September 1813, “without any reasonable and lawful cause, and against the laws of this Territory.” Stating that Horine committed “other outrages on him ... against the peace of the United States of America,” Tarlton cites $1,000 in damages. 1816 0444 (Accession # 21181602). St. Louis County, Missouri. Matilda, a girl of color, informs the court that Elisha Mitchel took her to live as a slave in the Indiana Territory. She has since learned that “in consequence of an ordinance of Congress for the government of the Northwestern Territory” she was “by virtue of the said ordinance entitled to her freedom.” Matilda, “being young and unacquainted with her rights and unable to resist violence and stratagem,” was seized and taken to the Missouri Territory and sold to William Christy of St. Louis. In 1809 Christy sold her to Isaac Vanbibber, in whose possession she remains. “Poor and friendless, unable to pay costs, or to give security,” the petitioner prays that she be permitted to sue as a poor person for her freedom and that an attorney be assigned to her case. 1817 0463 (Accession # 21181701). St. Charles County, Missouri. Susan, an enslaved female, maintains that her owner, James Royal, moved her from Maryland to the Indiana Territory in 1809. In 1812, Henry Hight, the administrator of Royal’s estate, removed Susan to Missouri. Citing “an ordinance of Congress passed for the Government of said Territory,” the petitioner prays “that an action may be instituted against the said Henry Hight in behalf your petitioner for the purpose of recovering her freedom if she be entitled to it.” Susan also seeks the appointment of counsel. 0481 (Accession # 21181702). St. Louis County, Missouri. Laban, a man of color, recounts that his master, William Clark, brought him from Kentucky to Illinois in 1816, where he was sold to Simon Vanordsdale. Vanordsdale then sold Laban to Risdon H. Price of St. Louis, Missouri. 20 Reel 3 Missouri Citing the Northwest Territory Ordinance, the petitioner claims that “he is entitled to his freedom and by law is free.” Laban prays “that an action may be commenced ... to enable your petitioner to obtain his freedom and Counsel learned in the law maybe appointed to manage said Cause.” 0493 (Accession # 21181704). Washington County, Missouri. Antoine E. Partenay reminds the court that he is currently involved in a suit with John H. Weber concerning “an action of Replevin for three negroes.” Partenay does not believe that he can receive a fair trial in Washington County because “John H. Weber has an undue influence over the minds of the inhabitants of said County.” The petitioner therefore prays for a change of venue. 0500 (Accession # 21181705). Washington County, Missouri. Amable Partenay is currently involved in a suit with John H. Weber “in action of Replevin for three negroes” and a suit with Andrew Henry and Jesse Blackwell. Partenay believes these said men have an “undue influence over the minds of the inhabants of the said County of Washington.” He therefore seeks a change of venue. 1818 0509 (Accession # 21181801). St. Louis County, Missouri. Winney, a woman of color, represents that her master and mistress, John and Phebe Whitesides, brought her from Kentucky to the Indiana Territory in 1795; several years later, they moved to Missouri. Since coming to Missouri, Winney has borne nine children. She contends that her residency in Indiana entitles her and her children to their freedom. However, Phebe Whitesides now claims ownership of Winney and her children, Hannah, Lewis, and Malinda; the representatives of the late Thomas Whitesides claim ownership of Winney’s son, Jerry; John Whitesides claims her son, Daniel; Robert Musick claims Winney’s daughter, Jenny; Isaac Votean claims her daughter, Nancy; John Butler claims her daughter, Lydia; and Michael Hutton claims ownership of her daughter, Sarah. Winney “prays that such order as the law directs may be made to enable her to sue for her freedom and as next friend to each of her said children to sue for their freedom.” 0546 (Accession # 21181802). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jack, a man of color, avers that his former owner, Eusebius [Eusebus] Hubbard, signed and sealed “a certain instrument in writing” whereby he became free upon Hubbard’s death. Noting that Barnabas Harris now holds him as a slave, Jack prays “such order may be taken to enable him to recover his freedom as the law directs.” 0556 (Accession # 21181803). St. Louis County, Missouri. Arch, a man of color, avers that his former owner, Eusebius [Eusebus] Hubbard, signed and sealed a certain “instrument in writing” whereby he became free upon Hubbard’s death. Noting that Barnabas Harris now holds him as a slave, Arch prays “your honor to make such order in his behalf to enable him to sue for his freedom as the law requires.” 1819 0566 (Accession # 21181901). St. Louis County, Missouri. Marie, a mulatto girl under the age of twenty-one, represents that her master, Nicholas Beaugenoux, moved her from the Missouri Territory to Clair County in the Illinois Territory in 1815. A year later, Beaugenoux returned to St. Louis, Missouri, with Marie and sold her to Auguste Chouteau. “Advised she is free and entitled to liberation,” Marie “prays that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person in your honorable court by her said mother and next friend, Margueritte a free black woman against the said Auguste P. Chouteau” to gain her freedom. 21 Reel 3 Missouri 0580 (Accession # 21181902). St. Louis County, Missouri. Milly, “a black woman who petitions as well for herself as for her two infant children, Eliza aged about 4 years and Bob aged about 2 years,” asserts that Mathias Rose illegally holds them as slaves. Milly recounts that she was brought into Missouri from “the now state then Territory of Illinois” about two years earlier. She states that “under the laws of Illinois & the ordinance of Congress she is entitled to be free.” The petitioner “prays that she & her children above named may be entitled to sue for their freedom as poor persons in this honorable court.” 0591 (Accession # 21181903). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jennings Beckwith owned a female mulatto slave named Winney, who was worth $650 and whom he planned to free at “a future day therafter.” On 21 October 1817, Beckwith sold Winney to Samuel Donner for $300 with two conditions: Winney would serve Donner until she paid him $350, and Donner could only hire out Winney until she earned and paid him the money for her freedom. Beckwith contends that Donner has not paid him the $300 owed, even though Winney has paid Donner “greatly upwards” of $300 towards her freedom. Citing Donner’s refusal to pay, the petitioner asks that Donner be subpoenaed and be compelled to pay $300, plus interest since the date of the sale. 1821 0623 (Accession # 21182101). St. Louis County, Missouri. Pelage, a woman of color under the age of twenty-one, represents that she was born in 1802, the property of Antoine Loulard of St. Louis, Missouri. While Pelage was still an infant, Loulard sold her to Francois Valois. In 1810 or 1811, Valois moved with Pelage from St. Louis to the Illinois Territory. Two years later, Valois returned to St. Louis. Pelage asserts that her residence in the Illinois Territory entitles her to freedom. She therefore “prays your honour to be permitted to Sue as a poor person” for said freedom. 0635 (Accession # 21182102). Jefferson County, Missouri. Thomas and Susan Horine, heirs of the late Jacob Horine, ask the court to appoint Thomas Maddin Sr. of Ste. Genevieve County and Josiah McClenehan of Washington County as their guardians. Jacob Horine’s estate includes slaves. 1822 0639 (Accession # 21182201). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. William Hickman informs the court that John McCabe mortgaged a “negro boy” named James in 1821 to secure a debt of $225 due to Matthias Bolinger. Bolinger then assigned the debt to Hickman. McCabe has since died. Hickman charges that neither McCabe nor his heirs have paid the debt. Hickman asks the court to sell the slave to satisfy the debt and costs of the suit. 0646 (Accession # 21182202). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. In June 1813, Nicholas Buckner conveyed nine slaves in trust to Alexander Buckner for the use and benefit of his daughters. Since that time, one slave, Letty, has been freed, and three others have died. Susan Evans, one of the said daughters, asserts that she owns an equal and undivided share of the slaves. She and her husband, James Evans, ask the court to sell the slaves and distribute the proceeds. 0654 (Accession # 21182203). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. In June 1813, Nicholas Buckner conveyed nine slaves in trust to Alexander Buckner for the use and benefit of his daughters. Since that time, one slave, Letty, has been freed, and three others have died. Adaline Shade, one of the said daughters, asserts that she owns an equal and undivided share of the slaves. She and her husband, William Shade, ask the court to sell the slaves and distribute the proceeds. 22 Reel 3 Missouri 0661 (Accession # 21182204). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Thomson Bird avers that he agreed to pay Levy Wolverton $500 for a female slave, “which slave was then in bad health.” The agreement would only be valid “if she should recover her health and become sound & well.” The slave, however, did not recover, and Bird withdrew his offer. Wolverton then sold the slave to John Bird. Wolverton has since died, and his administrators, Thomas Graves and Samuel Ravenscroft, have sued Thomson Bird for payment of $500, plus court costs. The petitioner seeks an injunction preventing Graves and Ravenscroft from proceeding with their suit. 0675 (Accession # 21182205). St. Louis County, Missouri. James H. Peck is the courtappointed attorney for Pelagie [Pelage], a woman of color currently suing for her freedom. Peck charges that Francois Vallois, defendant in the pending case, has sold Pelagie against the order of the court. Vallois sold Pelagie to John Cabanna, who is currently shipping her to New Orleans to be sold beyond the jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner asks that Vallois and Cabanna “shew cause why an attachment should not issue against them for a contempt of Court.” A related document reveals that Pelagie was born the slave of Antoine Loulard. 1823 0694 (Accession # 21182301). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. In 1821, William Sublett secured a loan from John Erwin with a slave named Milly. According to the agreement, Erwin would hold the slave until the loan was paid. Erwin asserts that Milly died in February 1822, prior to the date the debt became due. He also alleges that William moved to Illinois before paying said debt, leaving two slaves, Anthony and Moses, within the court’s jurisdiction and currently in the possession of Thomas Sublett. Erwin seeks an injunction preventing the Subletts from removing the slaves from the state. In addition, he seeks payment of the debt. 0706 (Accession # 21182302). St. Louis County, Missouri. Malinda and Nelly, “free persons of colour,” submit that Robert Wilburn held them as slaves and took them to Illinois in 1820. After five months, the petitioners prepared to sue for their freedom, whereupon Wilburn “with a view to defeat and hinder that application removed your petitioners to the State of Missouri.” Asserting that the laws of Illinois entitle them to their freedom, Malinda and Nelly “pray that they may be permitted to sue in your honorable court as a poor person to establish their right of freedom.” 0720 (Accession # 21182303). St. Louis County, Missouri. Thomas Hanly mortgaged two slaves named Peggy and Charles to John O’Fallon for $500 on 26 April 1821. O’Fallon maintains that “the said Hanly nor any person for him did not during his lifetime pay to your petitioner the said sum of money in said note of hand above mentioned ... or any part thereof,” even though “the same was long due and payable previous to the decease of said Hanly.” Citing that “the said note still remains wholly unpaid,” the petitioner prays that Andrew Elliott, administrator of Hanly’s estate, “may be summoned and required to shew cause if any he hath ... why the said mortgage shall not be foreclosed.” 0727 (Accession # 21182304). Boone County, Missouri. Mark Reavis informs the court that he purchased a slave named Oney and her three children from John Sears on 31 August 1819 “at & for the price of one thousand dollars.” He contends that Sears sold the slaves with the representation “that the said negroe Woman Oney, was sound & healthy, & free from any defect.” Reavis, however, argues that Oney “was then & there sick” from a disease called “the White swelling” and that she “continued to be afflicted with said disease, in so much, that she has been of but little use or service to your Orator.” The petitioner further cites that the said Sears has obtained a judgment against him for the purchase money remaining. He therefore prays that the court “disist from the issuing executions or otherwise proceeding on the said 23 Reel 3 Missouri Judgement so wrongfully obtained” and that Sears be summoned and “make answer to all and singular the allegations in this bill Contained.” 1824 0785 (Accession # 21182401). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. William Thompson, administrator of the estate of John Whittenburgh, asserts that the intestate died “considerably indebt and no money on hand.” He informs the court that Morgan Byrne, former guardian of the minor heirs of the estate, recently obtained a judgment ordering him to sell the slaves belonging to the estate for payment of guardian expenses. Thompson argues that Byrne intended this legal action to “defraud, harass, and impoverish” Whittenburgh’s estate, charging that Robert English had replaced Bryne as guardian at the time of said suit. The petitioner prays that the order to sell said slaves will “be rescinded can[c]elled and rendered of no effect” by the court. 0795 (Accession # 21182403). St. Louis County, Missouri. John Darby of Caldwell County, Kentucky, established a trust “to secure to his said wife a secure and comfortable living both during his life and afterwards if she should survive him and to provide for and advance his said children.” This trust consisted of “a negro woman named Rachel aged about 26 years and her three children” along with sundry household furniture. The Darbys later moved to St. Louis, where John and his wife died in 1823. Martrom Lewis, husband of Elizabeth Darby Lewis and guardian of Hiram Darby, prays that “the said negroes and property may be decreed to be divided among the persons having an interest therein ... and if that be impracticable from the nature of the property and the number of the claimants, that then the said property may be decreed to be sold.” 0809 (Accession # 21182405). Boone County, Missouri. Mary Strode seeks a divorce from her husband Stephen on the grounds that he has “abandoned her ... & has never since returned to her and willfully deserts and absents himself from her ... without a reasonable cause for the space of two years.” The decree granting the divorce cites that Stephen’s property included “a negro man slave named Harry and a negro woman slave named Cynthia also one House and six head of cattle now held by said Mary Strode” and that said property should “be retained by said Mary Strode for the use and benefit of said Mary & the children of the said Mary & the said Stephen now residing with said Mary.” 1825 0824 (Accession # 21182502). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jenney, a free woman of color, reminds the court that she previously instituted a suit against Robert Musick for her freedom. The court decided in her favor. Since the ruling, Jenney has borne one child, Winnette. The petitioner reports that “Ephraim Musick the father of the said Robert seized her & her said Infant child and yet detains them in custody, depriving them of their liberty, without any charge of a criminal or supposed criminal nature ... without any just cause whatever.” Jenney seeks a writ of habeas corpus directed toward the said Musick. 0840 (Accession # 21182503). St. Louis County, Missouri. Celeste, a woman of color, asserts that her mother was a free Indian woman named Scypion. She represents that the late Joseph Tayon claimed Scypion as his slave; however, by the laws of the “Spanish government of upper Louisiana,” now Missouri, Scypion was a free woman. Celeste argues that her mother’s status entitles her and her children and grandchildren to freedom, yet Lefrenier Chouvin, administrator of the estate of Helen Chevallier, holds them in slavery, “deprived of their natural freedom, and ... subjected entirely to his will and controul.” Celeste prays that they may be permitted to sue 24 Reel 3 Missouri “for the recovery of their freedom” and that “your Petitioners may be permitted to sue as poor persons.” 0867 (Accession # 21182504). St. Louis County, Missouri. Isreal, a man of color, submits that his master, William Rector, brought him to Illinois, where they lived for eighteen months. Arguing that the laws of Illinois entitle him to freedom, Isreal prays “that he be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish his freedom aforesaid” and that counsel be assigned to him “for that purpose.” 0887 (Accession # 21182505). St. Louis County, Missouri. Isreal, a man of color, informs the court that he has filed a petition for his freedom. He further reveals that “he is in the custody of John K. Walker the sheriff of this county & ... that he is retained and advertised for sale to satisfy several Executions in the hands of the said sheriff against a certain William Rector who sets up a pretended claim to your petitioner as his slave, and that unless a special order is made by your honour to have him released from confinement he will be subject to be sold, and doomed to a lasting and ignominious slavery.” Isreal seeks a writ of habeas corpus. 0892 (Accession # 21182506). Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. Joseph Wilkinson of Calvert County, Maryland, made and published his last will and testament in 1820 and thereby devised his land and slaves in the Missouri Territory to his sons, Walter, James, and Thomas Wilkinson. James Wilkinson and his children charge that the said Walter Wilkinson obtained letters of administration for the estate in Missouri and has since kept the land and slaves for his own use. The petitioners suggest that at the time of Joseph’s death his estate in Missouri included approximately thirty slaves. They also contend that Walter Wilkinson has submitted a falsified account of the estate and has pretended to sell some or all of the estate slaves to Joseph Pratte, Robert Brown, and Charles Valle. The petitioners seek an account of the estate and onethird of the property and slaves. 0927 (Accession # 21182507). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary, “a free girl of color,” states that she is the descendant of Scypion, a free Indian woman illegally kept in slavery by Joseph Tayon, and “that your petitioner is consequently a free person according to the laws of the land.” She further avers that “she is in the custody and possession of the said Peirre Chouteau Senr ... who detains your petitioner under the pretence that she is a slave.” Mary “therefore prays to be permitted to bring her action against the said [Pierre Choteau Sr.], suing as a poor person, according to the Statute, to recover her freedom.” 0983 (Accession # 21182508). St. Louis County, Missouri. In 1810, Genevieve Charleville mortgaged a plot of land and a six-year-old mulatto slave named Philip to Pierre Chouteau. Chouteau states that he took possession of the said slave after Charleville’s death in 1822. He further reports that Charleville’s husband, Pierre Duchoquette, from whom she had been separated, has obtained a judgment against him for recovery of Philip or his value. The petitioner therefore prays that “the said Pierre may be enjoined from further proceeding against your orator upon the said Judgment and that your orator shall have such further and other relief in the Premises as to this Honorable Court shall seem meet.” 25 Reel 4 Missouri Reel 4 Missouri cont. 1826 0002 (Accession # 21182602). St. Louis County, Missouri. The petitioners, “free persons of colour,” maintain that they are the descendants of a free Indian woman, Marie Scypion, “whose mother was a free native north american Indian; that the father of said Scypion was a negro man, whose name was Scypion.” They further recount that Joseph Tayon illegally kept Marie as a slave. Contending that Pierre Chouteau Sr. illegally detains “your petitioners in slavery,” they pray that they may be permitted to sue as poor persons for their freedom and that they may be assigned counsel. 0009 (Accession # 21182603). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Fanny Waters, administratrix of the estate of Thomas Waters, secured a loan from James Brady with three slaves. Waters sold an additional six slaves to Brady to settle a suit initiated by Richard Davis against the estate. The slaves were to remain in Brady’s possession until the sum was paid in full. Charles Ramsey, administrator of Brady’s estate, notes that Fanny Waters has died and that her heirs “took the said negro slaves in this bill mentioned out of the possession of your Orator without his consent & without having paid your Orator ... the sum that was due said James from the estate of said Thomas W Waters.” Ramsey therefore prays “that said heirs shall be restrained from medling with the Estate of said deceased Thomas W Waters real or personal and that said administrator Ellis be restrained from making distribution thereon among said heirs.” He also asks that Ellis “shall be compelled to account with and pay your Orator the several sums due him.” 0030 (Accession # 21182604). St. Louis County, Missouri. Joseph Jefferson, a mulatto man, affirms that “he was born in the state or virginia from a black mother, and free white father, whose name is Thomas Jefferson, in a state of slavery.” He reports that the said Thomas Jefferson “sold your petitioner as a slave to one James McKnight, on condition that said McKnight Should not hold your petitioner in slavery any longer, than till your petitioner should arrive at the age of twenty one years of age.” He further recounts that McKnight brought him to Missouri and sold him to Timothy McKnight. The petitioner points out that William McCutchen “has held your petitioner ever since the death of said Timothy McKnight deceased, in his possession and custody as his slave.” Jefferson contends that he is now twenty-seven years of age and is “deprived of his natural freedom and personal liberty contrary to the terms of the said contract between the said James McKnight and the said Thomas Jefferson.” He therefore asks that he be permitted to sue as a poor person for his freedom. 0037 (Accession # 21182605). Jefferson County, Missouri. Reuben Smith, husband of Susan Horine Smith, seeks to exercise his marital right “to an equal moiety of the personal Estate” of his father-in-law, the late Jacob Horine. He informs the court that “the property of which he is desirous of having a division made, & to have the one half thereof delivered to him, is as follows—to wit negroes money bills notes bonds accounts bank stock and all other personal property of any and every discreption of whatever discreption it may be belonging to the estate of said Jacob Horine deceased.” He therefore prays “that by an order of your Court, the said property may be equally divided & that the one equal half part thereof may be assigned to him.” He notes that the other half of said property belongs to Susan’s minor brother Thomas. 26 Reel 4 Missouri 0062 (Accession # 21182606). St. Louis County, Missouri. Thirty-five-year-old John Merry cites that he was born after the passage of the Northwest Ordinance and “that under the operation of said ordinance he was born free and of right is free according to the laws of the land.” He charges, however, that a certain man by the surname of Pensino “claimed and held your petitioner in servitude, in the character of a slave, from his birth, untill within a few years past,” when Pensino’s son, Lewis, took possession of him. Merry further asserts that he and Lewis agreed that Lewis “should liberate & discharge your petitioner from servitude as a slave, for the consideration of the sum of four hundred and fifty Dollars.” Shortly after said agreement, Merry asserts that the said Lewis “seized your petitioner by main force, and put your petitioner into the common Jail” and then transported him to New Orleans, where he was sold to Andrew Shecksni. The petitioner reveals that he ran away after said sale and reached Illinois, where he was seized and jailed. Now held in St. Louis by Louis Menard and Clayton Tiffin, the petitioner “prays, that he may be permitted to produce the remainder of” the purchase price for his freedom and that he be permitted to sue as a poor person “for the recovery of his natural liberty and freedom.” [A portion of the petition is missing.] 1827 0076 (Accession # 21182702). St. Louis County, Missouri. Francois LaGrange, “a free man of color,” avers that his master, Pascal Cerre, sold him to Pierre Menard of Kaskaskia, Illinois, in 1815. LaGrange cites that he lived in Illinois for two or three months until Menard “sent your petitioner, on board of a boat, bound for New Orleans, to serve as a hand.” He further reports that he returned to Illinois after being “absent from Kaskaskia five or six months on said voyage” and that he lived with Menard for another two or three months until “he was sent to St Louis and sold to Pratte, Berthold, Chouteau, and Cabanne, who now hold your petitioner in bondage as a slave contrary to the laws of this land.” Asserting that his residency in Illinois entitles him to freedom, the petitioner prays “to be permitted to institute suit in the Circuit Court for his freedom, and that he may be permitted to sue as a poor person.” 0086 (Accession # 21182703). St. Louis County, Missouri. Theotiste, a woman of color, represents that she was born in Prairie Durocher, Illinois, into the possession of P. Bourbeau. She informs the court that she remained with the Bourbeau family until 1817 or 1818, when he sold her to Manuel Lisa of Missouri; after Lisa’s death, Pierre Chouteau Jr. bought Theotiste at public auction. Theotiste charges that her residency in Illinois, from her birth until 1817 or 1818, entitles her to her freedom. She therefore prays that she “be allowed and permitted to institute suit for her freedom ... and that she be permitted to sue as a poor person.” 0097 (Accession # 21182704). St. Louis County, Missouri. John Singleton, a man of color, submits that his mother, Phillis Singleton, was emancipated in Illinois prior to his birth. He recounts that he has lived as a free man in Illinois, “having been reared there from his birth to manhood,” until about six years ago when Jeptha Lamkins kidnapped him, took him to Alabama, and sold him to Zachariah Neal. Singleton cites that he sued Neal for his freedom; however, Henry Bryon took him to New Orleans and sold him before the suit was decided. The petitioner states that Robert Lewis shortly thereafter took possession of him and claimed him as his slave. Singleton reveals that he ran away, boarded the steamboat America (commanded by Alexander Scott), and sailed to St. Louis, where he was arrested and jailed as a runaway slave. Singleton charges that Scott, acting as Lewis’s agent, had him arrested and plans to return him to Lewis in New Orleans. The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus and permission to sue as a poor person for his freedom against Alexander Scott and Robert Lewis. 0107 (Accession # 21182705). St. Louis County, Missouri. Molly, “a free girl of colour,” represents that she was the slave of Frances and Colonel Elias Rector of Kentucky. She 27 Reel 4 Missouri informs the court that Rector took her to Illinois and promised to emancipate her after four years of service. He then took her to St. Louis, where she resided for three or four years before returning to Illinois. Molly maintains that Rector sold her to his brother, Stephen Rector, just before his death, and “told said Stephen in the presence of your petitioner that she your petitioner should be free at the expiration of four years from the time of said sale.” The petitioner charges that she stayed with Steven Rector for more than four years, living with him in Illinois for one year, before he sold her to John Bivens of Missouri. Molly therefore prays that she “be permitted to bring suit as a poor person, for the recovery of her natural freedom and liberty” and that counsel be assigned to her. 0114 (Accession # 21182706). Boone County, Missouri. Robert Lemon, formerly of Scott County, Kentucky, states that he sold four slaves to his son-in-law, John Spence, in May 1823 to protect them from the debts of his son, John Lemon. He reports that Spence moved the slaves to Boone County, Missouri, where he died in September 1823, leaving a widow and two children in Kentucky. Spence’s widow Betsy and brother Andrew became administrators for the intestate’s estate. The petitioner avers that he and the Spence family then moved to Boone County, Missouri, where he took possession of three of the slaves. Lemon asserts that his son Andrew and Betsy Spence “have never regarded the said negroes as the property of or belonging to the estate of John Spence decd. and have not inventoried or pretended to exercise any control whatever over them.” However, the petitioner charges that they “refuse to reconvey to your Orator the negroes afsd.” The petitioner asks the court to summon Andrew and Betsy Spence to answer the petition and to compel them “to pay to your Orator the prices named in the bill of sale for the negroes afsd. or reconvey to your Orator the negroes afsd.” 0123 (Accession # 21182707). St. Louis County, Missouri. Peter, a man of color, states that “he was born a slave in the family of William Walton and about seventeen years since was taken to the state of Illinois by and with the permission of said William Walton in which state of Illinois he continued to reside with Edward Lansford [Lunsford] who married the daughter of William Walton.” When Lansford and his wife separated, Mrs. Lansford moved to Missouri, taking Peter with her. Now in the possession of James Walton, Peter asserts that his residency in Illinois entitles him to his freedom. He therefore “prays your honor may make an order authorizing him to commence & prosecute a suit for his freedom.” 0137 (Accession # 21182708). St. Louis County, Missouri. “Milly, a free mulatto woman Harry Dick a free black man or negro, William a black negro boy aged about twelve years, David Shipman a mulatto boy aged about three or four years and an infant child of said Milly represents that your petitioners were heretofore the slaves of David Shipman, who formerly resided in Kentucky.” They cite that Shipman moved to Indiana in the fall of 1826, taking them with him, and that he emancipated them in October. They further note that Shipman and they moved to Illinois, where “your petitioners resided in the same place exercising their freedom without the control of any person” until January 1827, when Stephen Smith seized them and claimed them as his property. The Illinois Circuit Court discharged the petitioners from his custody, and they “were then free and unmolested, and continued to reside with their late master David Shipman” until early May. On the night of 4 May, “they were again seized by said Smith assisted by others and violently taken away in the nighttime, and carried by compulsion to the City of St. Louis.” Milly and the other petitioners pray “that they and each of them may be permitted to sue as paupers to establish their freedom.” 0170 (Accession # 21182710). St. Louis County, Missouri. Aspasia, “a free woman of color,” represents that “she is detained and restrained of her liberty in the custody of Sullivan Blood constable of ... St Louis.” She proclaims that “she is not thus detained and restrained of her liberty for any criminal or Supposed criminal matter.” Aspasia asks the court to issue a writ of 28 Reel 4 Missouri habeas corpus “to be directed to the Said Sullivan Blood, commanding him on a day certain, to have the body of Your Petitioner before Your Honorable court.” 1828 0186 (Accession # 21182801). St. Louis County, Missouri. Paul, a man of color, asserts that he has recently filed a suit for his freedom and that he “fears that he will not receive a fair trial in the said court in which said suit is now pending.” He contends that the judge is “prejudiced against the petitioner & his claim to freedom so that he cannot and does not expect a fair and impartial Trial.” The petitioner therefore “prays a change of Venue & that said cause may be sent & certified to some other county for trial.” 0192 (Accession # 21182802). St. Louis County, Missouri. Helen, a woman of color, has initiated a suit against Pierre Chouteau Sr. for her freedom, but she “verily beleives the Judge of this Court is prejudiced against her and her claim to freedom so that she cannot and does not expect a fair trial of her said cause.” The petitioner therefore “prays this Court to award a change of venue in said cause to some other Court and County where the cause complained of does not exist.” 0201 (Accession # 21182803). Cole County, Missouri. John Inglish has recently sued Jabash Murray for physically abusing Cato, a slave belonging to Inglish. Murray charges that Inglish has “undue influence over the minds of the inhabitants of the County of Cole.” Of the opinion that he cannot receive a fair trial, Murray petitions the court for a change of venue. 0207 (Accession # 21182804). St. Louis County, Missouri. Matilda, “a free girl of color,” states that she was born in 1807 in Prairie Durocher, Illinois. She reports that Susan Lacount [Lacompt] held her in slavery there “untill about ten years since, when she was delivered over by said Mrs. Lacount ... to Philip Rocheblave of St. Louis, as his slave.” Matilda affirms that “your petitioner is infarmed, and so believes the fact to be, that being born in the Territory, (now State) of Illinois, She is now held and detained in Slavery contrary to the law of the land.” She seeks permission to sue as a poor person for her freedom against the Rocheblaves. She also asks the court to pass orders to ensure that she is not removed from the court’s jurisdiction, that she have reasonable freedom to meet with her lawyer and attend court, and that she not be “subject to any severe treatment on account of her application for freedom.” 0221 (Accession # 21182805). St. Louis County, Missouri. Dolly, “a colored woman about 40 years of age,” informs the court that “she is now held in slavery by a certain John Young & your petitioner humbly conceiving that she is entitled to her right to freedom prays that she may be permitted to institute a suit (as a poor person) for the purpose of obtaining the same and that Counsel may be assigned her.” Dolly cites “that the ground upon which she claims her freedom is that the said John Young conveyed her to the French River mines in the North Western Territory & kept and detained her there six months contrary to the laws, usages & customs of that Country.” 0236 (Accession # 21182806). St. Louis County, Missouri. Dolly is a woman of color held in slavery by John Young. She began a suit “to establish her right to freedom,” but “the threats and declarations of the said John Young” make her fear that Young will treat her “severely” and remove her from the state before the trial of her case. Dolly asks the court to issue “a writ of Habeas Corpus” and to compel Young to give bond that he will not mistreat or remove her. 0244 (Accession # 21182807). St. Louis County, Missouri. George Relfe represents that he “was born a slave in the State of Virginia the property of one James Duff.” When Duff’s daughter married James Relfe, Duff gave George to the couple. Shortly thereafter Relfe moved to 29 Reel 4 Missouri Missouri and then to Illinois, taking seventeen-year-old George with him. While in Illinois, James Relfe “recognized your petitioner to be free” and asked him to sign a labor contract stipulating that he would work for James Relfe until he reached the age of twenty-eight. Unfortunately, George could not read and “has since learned that said writing if valid would bind him to serve said Relfe ninety nine years.” Now in Missouri, the petitioner cites that James Relfe admitted the contract was invalid and “accordingly about a year or more ago ... informed your petitioner that he was free and suffered him to go at large and act as a free man which your petitioner did for several months.” However, George charges that Relfe, “contriving how to cheat your petitioner out of the right which he had acquired,” asked his father-in-law “to reclaim your petitioner, and make sale of him.” Duff did so, through an agent, selling George to Augustus Jones, who sold him to Thompson H. Ficklin. The petitioner “upon the facts aforesaid claims his freedom and prays that he may be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish his freedom.” 0253 (Accession # 21182808). St. Louis County, Missouri. Twenty-five-year-old Susette petitions on behalf of herself and her three children, John, Angelique, and Edmund, and states that Nicholas Beauvais “held and claimed her as a slave from the time of her birth until his death, which happened sometime in the year Eighteen hundred and fourteen or fifteen.” Susette recounts that “she fell to the lot of Julie Jarrot, the daughter of said Beauvais” when Beauvais’s estate was divided among his heirs. She further notes that the Jarrots lived in Illinois, resulting in her conveyance “to the town of Cahokia in the State of Illinois.” She cites that she has been sold several times in Illinois and that she is currently detained as a slave by John Reynolds. Susette “is advised and believes that neither she nor her children, who were all, born since your petitioner was taken to the state of Illinois, can legally be held in slavery.” She therefore prays that she and her children “may sue as poor persons to establish their freedom.” 1829 0267 (Accession # 21182901). St. Louis County, Missouri. In 1827, Peter sued James Walton for his freedom. When the case came to trial, several of Peter’s witnesses failed to appear. The Waltons convinced Peter that he could prove his case on the basis of their testimony, so Peter let the case go forward instead of requesting a continuance. He lost and motioned for a new trial based on the conduct of the Waltons and the lack of crucial witnesses. Peter now petitions the circuit court again, stating that he was born in North Carolina, “the property of Wm. Walton.” He notes that Walton moved with him to Missouri around 1808; a year later, Walton gave Peter to his daughter and son-in-law, Elizabeth and Edward Lunsford [Lansford]. He informs the court that the Lunsfords took him to Illinois, where he stayed for two years. Currently held as a slave by James Walton of St. Louis, Peter “is advised and believ[es] he is entitled to his freedom.” He therefore prays “that he may be permitted to sue in forma pauperis to establish his right thereto.” 0300 (Accession # 21182902). St. Louis County, Missouri. Milly, a woman of color, states “that she was born in the State of Maryland the property of one Lee.” She declares that Lee sold her to Moses Bigsby, who moved her to Ohio, where she lived for approximately fifteen months. Milly informs the court that “she is now held in slavery by Wiley Williams in the county of St. Louis, and state of Missouri.” Advised that she is entitled to her freedom, the petitioner prays “that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish her right thereto.” 0307 (Accession # 21182903). St. Louis County, Missouri. Vincent, a man of color, states that his master, Jesse Duncan of Kentucky, hired him out in Illinois in 1815 or 1816. He reports that the said Duncan died in 1818 or 1819 and that his heirs—James, John, and Coleman Duncan— continued to hire him out in that state. Vincent informs the court that the Duncans carried him to Missouri in 1826, where they have hired him out for the past three years. The petitioner, fearful of being taken to New Orleans and sold, argues that he is entitled to his freedom. He therefore 30 Reel 4 Missouri prays that “he may be permitted to institute suit as a poor person to establish his freedom that counsel may be assigned to him & that such order may be made for his security as the Law & his case requires.” 0335 (Accession # 21182904). St. Louis County, Missouri. Vincent Duncan, a man of color, maintains that his owner, Jesse Duncan, hired him out in Illinois from 1816 until 1819. The petitioner points out that the said Jesse died in 1819 and that his heirs continued to hire him out in Illinois. In 1826, Coleman Duncan (one of Jesse’s heirs) carried Vincent into Missouri and hired him for a year to a free man of color named Jerry, otherwise known as Jerry Duncan. The petitioner argues that his years of work in Illinois entitle him to his freedom. He “therefore prays that he may by order of your honor be permitted to institute his suit for Freedom & prosecute it as a poor person.” 0342 (Accession # 21182905). St. Louis County, Missouri. Carey Ewton, “a free man of colour held in slavery,” declares that “he was born as a slave in the family of one Robertson” in 1790 in Petersburg, Virginia. He relates that he was sold in 1800 or 1801 “in & by virtue of an execution against said Robertson” to Richard Cox, who took him to Washington County, Kentucky. The petitioner points out that he was bought and sold by several men over the next twenty-eight years and taken to several states; from 1818 or 1819 until 1824 or 1825, he worked in the Fever River Lead Mines in Illinois. Carey reports that William Ewton [Ooton] eventually bought him and held him in bondage until his death in 1826 or 1827, whereupon Benjamin Wilder bought him at the estate sale. Carey Ewton argues that the years he lived and worked in Illinois entitle him to his freedom. He therefore asks the court to let him sue as a poor person for his freedom, to appoint counsel for him, and to ensure that he is allowed to prosecute his case. 0351 (Accession # 21182909). St. Louis County, Missouri. “The petition of Nicholas Jones respecfully sheweth that he is detained in custody as a slave by John W Honey and John H Gay illegally because he is entitled to his freedom. The said Nicholas says that he is entitled to his freedom because he was by his former master Trueman Tyler of Prince George’ County maryland regularly emancipated many years since ... according to the laws of the State of Mayland. The Said Nicholas prays that he may be permitted to Sue as a poor person.” [Transcription of petition.] 0368 (Accession # 21182910). St. Louis County, Missouri. Maria Whiten, a woman of color, explains “that she was born a slave in the state of Virginia and was the property of Jesse Whiten.” She reports that Whiten moved to Kentucky in 1828 and then to Illinois, taking her and her infant son, Patrick Henry, with him. She further cites that Whiten hired himself and her to Abraham Granger and “established himself with your petitioner in December 1828 in the state of Illinois.” The petitioner reveals that Jesse Whiten, “on his death bed called upon witnesses and declared that it was his desire and his last will and testament that your petitioner and her infant child should be free.” She asserts that “from the death of the said Jesse Whiten until within a few days your petitioner has resided in the state of Illinois considered to be and acting as a free woman.” Whiten informs the court that Garland Rucker recently kidnapped her and her son and now holds them as slaves in Missouri, “endeavoring to sell them as slaves.” The petitioner asks the court’s permission to press suit as a poor person for her freedom. 0378 (Accession # 21182911). St. Louis County, Missouri. Patrick Henry, an infant boy of color and represented by his mother and next friend, Maria Whiten, contends that Garland Rucker kidnapped him and his mother and is holding them as slaves. He puts forth that he was born a slave in Virginia, the property of Jesse Whiten. He further cites that they moved to Kentucky and then to Illinois, while under Whiten’s ownership. The petitioner states that before his death in February 1829, the said Whiten “called upon witnesses and declared that it was his desire and 31 Reel 4 Missouri his last will & testament that your petitioner and his mother should be free.” Patrick Henry declares that he lived as a free person in Illinois until kidnapped by Rucker. He seeks permission “to institute suit by his next friend in forma pauperis to establish his right to freedom.” 0389 (Accession # 21182913). Boone County, Missouri. Amos Barnes reports that he purchased “a certain negro boy slave” from Benjamin Cave on 21 January 1828, with the understanding “that the said slave was sound and healthy in body and mind except that said slave was frost bitten in the Toes of one foot.” He notes that he purchased the slave for $375 and sold the slave to David Williams a week later. Barnes relates that the slave died of consumption later that year and that Williams “demands of your Orator the said purchase money paid by him to your Orator.” He further cites that Cave has also filed suit to obtain the money owed for the slave, plus interest and court costs. The petitioner avers that Cave has won his suit, and he fears that he will try to collect on the judgment soon. Alleging that Cave “well knew that slave was afflicted with the said disease called the consumption and that said slave then was and ever would be of no use or value,” Barnes prays that Cave may be restrained from “all further proceedings in said Judgment until final hearing of this Cause.” 1830 0425 (Accession # 21183001). St. Louis County, Missouri. Joe, “a black man,” informs the court that his master, Coleman Duncan, allowed him to be taken from Kentucky three years ago “to Galena in Illinois where he was held as a slave & has been held as a slave till this present time.” In addition, for six or seven years in succession, James Duncan hired Joe out to work in the salt works for two or three months each fall. While in Illinois, Joe sued James Duncan for his freedom, but the suit was dismissed due to the fact that Coleman Duncan is his owner. The petitioner therefore “insists that he is free & that he is entiled to sue as a pauper for the obtainment of the judgment of the Court to that effect.” 0434 (Accession # 21183002). St. Louis County, Missouri. Matilda, a woman of color under the age of twenty-one, asserts that she was born on 16 March 1810 in Illinois to Sarah, a free woman of color. She recounts that she lived in Illinois until about two months ago, when Charles St. Vrain brought her to Missouri. Noting that St. Vrain “now holds your Petitioner in Slavery,” Matilda prays “that She may be permitted to Sue as a poor person to Establish her freedom that Counsel may be assigned to her that her mother Sarah may be appointed her next friend ... & that Such order may be made for her personal Security as her case requires & the Law provides.” 0441 (Accession # 21183003). St. Louis County, Missouri. Ralph, a man of color, relates that James Duncan hired him out in Illinois and the Michigan Territory. He further reveals that he sued Duncan for his freedom in Illinois; however, the court dismissed the suit because Coleman Duncan was Ralph’s actual owner. Ralph reports that Coleman Duncan fled the state before a suit could be filed against him and that James Duncan then kidnapped him and brought him to St. Louis. The petitioner fears that “it is the intention of said James & Coleman to take your petitioner to some place where the fact of his freedom is unknown & sell him for a slave.” He therefore prays that “he may be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish his freedom” and that he may be assigned counsel and “that such order may be made ... in his behalf as his personal safety requires.” 0464 (Accession # 21183004). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jack represents that “he was born in africa, was brought from Africa to South Carolina, was brought from South Carolina to the City of Saint Louis” by David Williamson, who sold him to Charles Collins. He further asserts that Collins sold him to a man named English and “the said English took him to Carolton in the State 32 Reel 4 Missouri of Illinois” in 1829. The petitioner reports that he resided in Illinois for twelve months before Collins took him back to St. Louis, where he now resides. Noting that “he is still held in slavery by the said Charles Collins,” Jack prays “that he may be permited to sue in forma pauperis to establish his right” to freedom. 1831 0472 (Accession # 21183101). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jonathan and Gilbert Duncan, men of color, charge that Coleman Duncan seized Gilbert and held him as a slave. They further contend that Coleman offered to sell Gilbert to Jonathan and “threatened that if Said Jonathan would not purchase Said Gilbert to take said Gilbert to Some other place & sell him as a Slave.” Believing that Coleman had a title to Gilbert, Jonathan admits that he agreed to give Coleman $100 in advance; he and Gilbert then signed a promissory note for an additional $300. The petitioners argue that Gilbert was entitled to his freedom long before these transactions were made. They assert that Coleman falsely imprisoned Gilbert and held him as a slave and that Edward Tracy and Charles Wahrendorff now hold the bond for $300. The petitioners seek an injunction preventing Tracy and Wahrendorff from suing them for payment and that “Said Bond may be delivered up & cancelled.” 0489 (Accession # 21183102). St. Louis County, Missouri. Twenty-four-year-old Nelly Richards, a woman of color, represents “that she was born in Charles County Maryland, lived there until she was fourteen years old the property of Kitty Middleton at whose death she was left free.” After Middleton’s death, Richards reports that she was sent to Middleton’s son-in-law, William Sewel, in Virginia. The petitioner submits that Sewel then moved her to Indianapolis, Indiana, “where your Petitioner was allowed freedom by the Judgment of the Court of that State.” Richard asserts, however, that Sewel then moved her to Louisville, Kentucky, and later to St. Louis, where he continues to hold her as his slave. Richards “is advised and believes that she is entitled to her freedom and therefore your petitioner prays that she may be permited to sue in forma pauperis to establish her right thereto.” 0497 (Accession # 21183103). St. Louis County, Missouri. Carey, a man of color, represents that “about nine years ago your Petitioner was the Slave of one Thomas J Hughes.” He informs the court that Hughes brought him to Galena, Illinois, “for the purpose of employing your Petitioner in the mining business there”; they returned to St. Louis after six weeks. Carey charges that “he is now held in Slavery by Benjamin Wilder” and that Wilder “talks of selling & sending your Petitioner to some distant place & your petitioner is afraid he will do so.” Arguing that his residency in Illinois entitles him to his freedom, Carey prays “that he may be permitted to institute Suit for his freedom as a poor person” and that “counsel may be assigned to him to prosecute his suit.” 0514 (Accession # 21183104). St. Louis County, Missouri. Thirty-year-old Mariquette, a woman of color, informs the court that she was born in Kaskaskia, Illinois. She further asserts that “she was purchased when an infant” and taken to Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, and that “she has continued to reside in this state from that time until now held as a slave.” Pointing out that Samuel McKinney purchased her about six or seven months ago, Mariquette maintains that “she has a claim to and is entitled to her freedom.” She therefore prays that “she may be permitted to institute suit to establish her right to freedom.” 0526 (Accession # 21183105). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jane, a woman of color, states that her former master, Colonel Richard B. Dallam of Maryland, brought her to Kentucky and manumitted her. She lived as a free woman until Dallam’s death ten or fifteen years later. The petitioner points out that Dallam’s son, William Dallam, recently brought her to St. Louis and 33 Reel 4 Missouri claims her as his slave. Jane “is confident that if she shall be allowed to institute suit for her freedom as a poor person that she will be able to establish her right thereto by legal evidence.” She therefore “prays that she may be allowed to sue as a poor person and that this honorable Court will assign her counsel to prosecute her suit for her.” 0538 (Accession # 21183106). St. Louis County, Missouri. Twenty-one-year-old Thenia, a woman of color, petitions on behalf of herself and her three-year-old mulatto daughter, Charlotte. She represents that “she was born in Kentucky, the slave of one Mr Bozier,” who gave her to his son-in-law, Jacob Weaver, while she was still a child. About four or five years ago, Weaver moved Thenia and his family to Illinois. For a short time, they lived near Waggoner’s Point and then moved to “half breed country,” where Charlotte was born. The petitioner asserts that “for several years past Mr Weaver occasionally expressed the intention of selling your petitioner, but was prevented by the opposition of his wife, in whose right he at first obtained her.” She now notes that Mrs. Weaver has recently died and that Jacob carried her and Charlotte to St. Louis, selling them to Green Crowder, a slave trader, who placed them in jail until he could take them to the “Southern market.” Thenia argues “that, by reason of her residence in Illinois as aforesaid, she & her child are entitled to their freedom.” She therefore prays that they “may be permitted to sue as poor persons, in the common form of law.” 0548 (Accession # 21183107). St. Louis County, Missouri. Tenor Washington, a woman of color, represents that she was born a slave, the property of Cage B. Gill of Virginia. She further recounts that Gill carried her to St. Louis and sold her to Henry Scott, who “by and with the consent of the said Henry your petitioner was taken in his presence” from St. Louis to Lebanon, Illinois, where she lived for over a year with Jeremiah Johnson before returning to St. Louis. She informs the court that Johnson plans to return to Illinois, so Henry Scott’s brother, John Scott, now claims her as a slave. Washington contends “that the above facts entitle her to institute suit in forma pauperis to establish her right to freedom and that your honor will make such order as the law authorises to protect her while that said suit is pending.” 0559 (Accession # 21183108). St. Louis County, Missouri. John, a person of color, informs the court that his mother Susan [Susett] was born in Missouri and was later “taken to the State of Illinois about fifteen years since and during her residence there your petitioner was born.” He represents that he was removed to Missouri shortly after his birth and was later “taken again to Illinois ... where your petitioner was sold.” John avers that William Campbell “has for seven years past and does now hold and restrain your petitioner as a slave.” He “further represents that said Campbell as he says is on his way ... with your petitioner to Washington City but he has reason to fear he may be conveying him to New Orleans for Sale.” John therefore prays that “he may be permitted to sue as a poor person that he may establish his right to his freedom.” 0583 (Accession # 21183109). St. Louis County, Missouri. Julia, a woman of color, reports that “she was born in the state of Tennissee the slave of Asa [Carrington], about twenty five years since.” She further relates that Carrington moved her to Kentucky, where he later died, and that Carrington’s widow and his son Joseph brought her to Illinois, where they established residency. The petitioner points out that “the said Joseph Carrington brought her to the city of St Louis and state of Missouri and sold her as a slave for life to one Samuel McKinney where she is now living.” Believing that “the above transactions and events entitle her to freedom,” Julia “prays she may be permitted to sue in forma pauperis to establish her right to her freedom.” 0605 (Accession # 21183110). St. Louis County, Missouri. Dunky, a woman of color, represents “that she was born in Africa from which place she was shiped by persons unknown to her, and landed at Charleston in the State of South Carolina about twenty years ago.” She further 34 Reel 4 Missouri recounts that Alcorn Beard and James Bryon brought her to Kaskaskia, Illinois, where “she was delivered to William Morrison at the place last aforesaid whom she served as an indented servant”; in September 1830, “she was delivered to Andrew Hay,” who kept her in Kaskaskia until 3 April 1831, “at which time he removed her to the city of St. Louis ... where he the said Andrew Hay holds your Petitioner in servitude.” Believing “that she is justly entitled to her freedom,” the petitioner “prays that she may be permited to prossecute for the same in the circuit court of the county of Saint Louis and State aforesaid in forma pauperis and that Stephen W Foreman & Geo D Shaw be assigned as counsel.” 0624 (Accession # 21183111). St. Louis County, Missouri. Vina, a woman of color, asserts that “she was brought some years since to the state of Missouri by a man named Mitchel and afterwards taken to the state of Illinois where she obtained her freedom and that for several years she has lived both in the state of Illinois and in the state of Missouri as a free person.” She further notes that she has lived “free” in St. Louis since 1827. Vina informs the court that an agent of Martin Mitchell had her “comited to jail as a run away slave.” The petitioner prays that “she may be permited to sue as a poor person to establish her right to freedom and that your honor will make the proper order to protect her from removal from the jurisdiction of this court while the said suit shall be pending.” 0634 (Accession # 21183113). St. Louis County, Missouri. Margaret, Henry, and Sally, “persons of colour,” represent that they are the infant children of Jane, who has also instituted a suit for freedom. They inform the court that Jane’s owner, Colonel Richard B. Dallam, freed Jane and that she lived as a free woman for ten to fifteen years in the same town and neighborhood as her former master. The petitioners assert that they were born after the date of Jane’s manumission. They further reveal that William Dallam, son of the late Col. Richard Dallam, recently brought them and their mother to St. Louis, claiming them as his slaves. The children allege that Dallam is “making preparations to carry off your petitioners to the South beyond the reach of assistance & where it will be impossble for them to assert thier right to freedom.” They therefore “pray that they may severally be permitted to sue as poor persons by thier next friend George Brown, and that your honour will assign them counsel to prosecute their suits for freedom.” 0655 (Accession # 21183114). St. Louis County, Missouri. Louisa, “a girl of color aged nine years,” petitions by her next friend, Silas L. Duvall, and represents that she was born a slave in Virginia. She further explains that the said Duvall, her owner, gave her to his son-in-law, Sanford Calvert, in 1829; shortly thereafter, Calvert took her to Galena, Illinois, where they remained until the fall of 1831, at which time “the said Calvert brought your petitioner to the city of St Louis state of Missouri where she has since resided.” Louisa contends “that the above facts entitle her to freedom and that she is unlawfully held in slavery by the said Sanford Calvert.” She therefore prays “that she may be permited to sue in forma pauperis to establish her right to freedom and that your honor will make the necessary orders to prevent your petitioner from being removed from the jurisdiction of this court.” 0680 (Accession # 21183115). St. Louis County, Missouri. Anna, a woman of color, represents that Thomas Higginbottom gave her to his daughter “as a portion of what [he] intended to give her” upon her marriage to John Parkinson. The petitioner informs the court that the Parkinsons moved to Illinois in the summer of 1830, taking her with them “with the knowledge & approbation of Said Higginbottom.” Anna relates that she lived there until Higginbottom reclaimed her about July 1831. The petitioner charges that she is now being offered for sale and that Higginbottom plans to sell her “to some one who will take her to New Orleans or some distant place so as to prevent her from suing for freedom and proving her right thereto.” Currently “in the possession & under the power” of Pleasant Rose, Anna asks that “a writ of Habeas corpus may issue 35 Reel 4 Missouri requiring said Rose to bring your Petitioner before the Court” and that “she may be permitted to sue for her freedom as a poor person.” 1832 0689 (Accession # 21183201). St. Louis County, Missouri. Anson and Michael, children of color, represent that their mother Matilda obtained her freedom more than thirteen years ago, “so adjudged by the courts of Missouri under the territorial government.” They further recount that she moved to Illinois, where they were born and where they lived “free and at liberty until this day,” when they were “forcibly taken” from Illinois to St. Louis by Elijah Mitchel [Mitchell] and others. Contending that they are “now claimed as slaves,” the petitioners fear they will be removed “by force beyond the jurisdiction of this court and state.” Anson and Michael therefore “pray that they may be authorised to sue to establish their right to freedom” and that a writ of habeas corpus may issue “to prevent them being conveyed from the said jurisdiction.” 0703 (Accession # 21183202). St. Louis County, Missouri. Nathan, a child of color, petitions by his mother and next friend Lydia and asserts that his mother once was the slave of Elisha Mitchel [Mitchell]. He states that Mitchel brought his mother into Illinois in 1807, where he died in 1808. Nathan informs the court that Mitchel’s widow Jenny administered his estate in St. Clair County, Illinois, and that she attempted to claim Lydia as a slave of the estate, despite their residence in Illinois. The petitioner points out that Lydia filed a “Suit of tresspass assault & Battery & false imprisonment” against Jenny Mitchel in 1809 and won, thereby gaining her freedom. Nathan argues that he was born in Illinois after Lydia won her case and “has always been a free person & so regarded” until yesterday when Alexander Fields and others took Nathan “in the night” and transported him to St. Louis. Fearing that Fields will remove him from the court’s jurisdiction, the petitioner prays “that he may be permitted to sue as a poor person to Establish his freedom” and that other proceedings may be ordered “as will Secure the personal Safety of your Petitioner.” 0716 (Accession # 21183203). St. Louis County, Missouri. Sam, a person of color, maintains that his mother, Lydia Titus, was the slave of Elisha Mitchell [Mitchel] and that Mitchell brought Lydia into the Illinois Territory in 1807. He reveals that Mitchell died shortly thereafter and that his widow Jenny Mitchell administered the estate in St. Clair County, Illinois, attempting to claim Lydia as a slave of the estate, despite their residence in Illinois. Sam reports that his mother filed a suit for her freedom against Jenny Mitchell in 1809 and that the court granted her request. The petitioner argues that he was born after this suit and that the family has “enjoyed their freedom in the territory and state of Illinois until yesterday when they were arrested imprisoned and seized as slaves by one Alexander P Fields Elijah Mitchel & others.” Alleging that Fields, Mitchel, and others “threaten and intend immediately to remove your petitioner out of this state to prevent his asserting his right to freedom, and to hold or sell him as a slave elsewhere,” the petitioner prays that “he may be allowed to sue as a poor person” to establish his right to freedom. 0726 (Accession # 21183204). Boone County, Missouri. Tom, a man of color, represents that he made a contract to purchase his freedom for $350 from Peter Wright earlier in the year. Because “doubts was entertained as to the power & ability of your orator to make said contract,” Tom reveals that he persuaded James Wright and Mr. Field to act as his agents to complete the transaction. Charging that his agents paid the money and witnessed and received the deed, the petitioner states that Peter Wright, several days later, enticed James Wright to return the deed by offering to file it with the court and “save (said Jas. Wright & Field ... the trouble of going to Court.” Tom reports, however, that Wright concealed the deed instead and never filed it. Of the belief that Wright’s “unjust and iniquitous” actions have “deprived [him] of the evidince of his 36 Reel 4 Missouri freedom,” the petitioner prays that Wright be subpoenaed and that the court will “order & decree that said defendant deliver up to this Complainant said deed of emancipation.” 0734 (Accession # 21183205). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jack, an enslaved man, informs the court that his owner, Jack Fulton, transported him, at age nine, from Kentucky to Kaskaskia, Illinois, where he remained for a year until his owner died. He reports that Joseph Barton purchased him at the sale of Fulton’s personal estate and that he lived with Barton for nine years in Illinois and three years in Missouri. He further cites that Barton’s widow inherited him when Barton died and that he has served her, dividing his time between Illinois and Missouri. Jack now believes that Mrs. Barton sold him in April to the firm of Glasgow, Ross and Company, where William Glasgow holds him as the company’s property. The petitioner prays “your Honor to permit him under the laws of the State of Missouri to sue for his freedom.” 0748 (Accession # 21183206). St. Louis County, Missouri. Susan, a fourteen-year-old enslaved girl, attests that she was born in Kaskaskia, Illinois, around 1818 to Dunkey [Dunky], “a native African” owned by William Morrison [Morreson]. She explains that Morrison gave Susan to his daughter when she married Andrew Hay and that Hay later sold her to Lemon Parker in Galena, Illinois. The petitioner points out that Parker then brought her to St. Louis, where he holds her as a slave “well knowing her to be free.” Susan asks the court’s permission “to sue as a poor person, to establish her right to freedom.” 0757 (Accession # 21183208). St. Louis County, Missouri. Marianne, a person of color, sues by her next friend and mother, Lydia Titus, stating that Lydia was once owned by one Elisha Mitchel [Mitchell]. She informs the court that Mitchel moved to Illinois in 1807, taking Lydia with him. She further asserts that upon Mitchel’s death her mother sued and received her freedom in Illinois from Mitchel’s widow, who was the administratrix of the estate. Marianne maintains that Lydia remained in Illinois, where she had several children (including the petitioner). She insists that she and her siblings lived “in the uninterrupted injoyment of [their] liberty” until a few days ago when Alexander P. Fields and Elijah Mitchel had her arrested, imprisoned, and brought to St. Louis, where she is detained as a slave. Citing that Fields and Mitchel “threaten and intend to remove her immediately out of this state and hold or sell her as a slave,” Marianne “prays that she may be allowed to sue as a poor person” to establish her freedom. 0792 (Accession # 21183211). St. Louis County, Missouri. Leah, a woman of color, claims that Arthur Mitchel has claimed her as a slave for the past five or six years and that “she is Justly & Legally entitled to her freedom.” She recounts that Mitchel moved her from Kentucky to Ohio with his family and that he leased a farm there and “continued to employ your Petitioner in said State of Ohio on said Farm for about six months in said year 1817.” Leah further asserts that she sued for her freedom in Ohio in 1826 and was declared by the court of common pleas to be free. The petitioner informs the court that Mitchel continues to hold her and her children in slavery “in defiance of Said Judgement & discharge” and that he plans to move from Missouri and is “endeavoring to sell” her and her children. Leah therefore seeks permission “to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom,” the appointment of counsel for her, and a writ of habeas corpus to compel Mitchel to produce her and her two children Archibald and Brunette before the court. 0805 (Accession # 21183213). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mahala, a woman of color, attests that she was born in the state of Illinois and has been free since her birth. She further avers that her mother, also a free woman of color, was hired by the late Elisha Mitchel [Mitchell]. The petitioner informs the court that Martin Mitchel, who claims to be the executor of Elijah Mitchel’s estate, has had her arrested as a runaway slave belonging to the estate. She therefore prays that she be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom and that counsel be 37 Reel 4 Missouri appointed for her. Fearing that Mitchel will try to remove her to thwart her suit, Mahala also requests a writ of habeas corpus and asks the court to compel Mitchel to give bond not to remove her from the court’s jurisdiction until her suit is settled. 0823 (Accession # 21183215). St. Louis County, Missouri. Matilda, a woman of color, declares that “about thirteen years since she obtained her right to freedom by a judgement of the court in the Missouri territory” and that “from that time to this she has resided in the state of Illinois and admited to be and considered a free woman.” She informs the court that on 22 May 1822 Elijah Mitchel and others took her “by force” from Illinois and brought her to St. Louis, where they are “detaining her on the bank of the Missisippi for the purpose of conveying her out of the jurisdiction of this court by force.” She therefore “prays that she may be permitted to sue in forma pauperis to establish her right to freedom.” 0830 (Accession # 21183216). Boone County, Missouri. The heirs and distributees of William Hill are desirous that Catharine Hill, administratrix and widow of the intestate, “make distribution to them of all the money and effects in her hands belonging to said estate,” which are being unjustly held by the said Hill. They charge that the said widow sold two slaves, Dilse and her son, for $750 and refused to give them any of the proceeds arising from said sale. Noting that an estate slave named Ben “is now in possession of said Catharine,” the petitioners ask the court to order Catharine Hill to account for the hire and sale of the slaves, to distribute the estate (including funds) to the heirs, and to sell Ben and divide the proceeds among the heirs. 1833 0859 (Accession # 21183301). St. Louis County, Missouri. Milly, a woman of color, avows that she was born in Maryland, the property of a person surnamed Lee. She reports that said Lee sold her to Moses Bigsby [Bigby], that she was “by him taken to the State of Ohio, about fifteen years ago,” and that Bigsby “detained” her there for about fifteen months. Milly maintains that Wiley Williams of St. Louis now holds her in slavery, “when she is advised & believes she is entitled to her Freedom.” The petitioner therefore prays that “she may be permited to sue as a poor person to establish her right thereto.” 0867 (Accession # 21183302). St. Louis County, Missouri. In 1827, Aaron Young agreed to allow his slave, James Wilkinson, to hire himself out in order to earn $200 to purchase his freedom. During the fall of 1827 and the winter of 1828, with Young’s permission, Wilkinson worked for a Mr. Osborn [Osburn] in Illinois for four months. Afterwards in 1828, again with Young’s “assent & permission,” Wilkinson worked four months for Young’s brother in Galena, Illinois. Wilkinson paid Young the money for his freedom more than four years ago, but Young continues to hold him in slavery. Wilkinson seeks permission to sue as a poor person for his freedom and asks the court to assign him counsel. 0873 (Accession # 21183303). St. Louis County, Missouri. Nat, a man of color, claims that he lived in Clarksville, Missouri, three years ago with his master, Stephen Ruddle. Ruddle moved to Illinois, taking Nat with him, and “held him to labour as a slave upwards of two Years.” Recently, Ruddle brought Nat to St. Louis to sell him to “New Orleans traders.” Nat seeks permission to sue as a poor person against Ruddle to “establish his freedom” and asks the court to appoint counsel for him. 0892 (Accession # 21183304). St. Louis County, Missouri. Adolphe, Marcelline, and Maria Vincent petition by their next friend, Charles D. St. Vrain, and represent that they were born of Louise Vincent, a female slave in St. Louis, who belonged to the widow and heirs of Antoine Vincent Bovis. In 1829 Joshua Pahlen [Pahlin] purchased them at public sale in St. Louis and 38 Reel 4 Missouri transported them to his residence in Illinois, where they remained for twelve to fifteen months. Noting that Pahlen died three or four months ago, the minor Vincents report that they recently “returned to this State and Since their return have been claimed and held as slaves by Marie P. Leduc Esq the administrator of said Pahlen.” The petitioners ask to sue as poor persons, by their next friend, to establish their freedom. 0903 (Accession # 21183305). St. Louis County, Missouri. Harriet, a woman of color, asserts that Lucinda Carrington took her and her mother from Kentucky to Illinois when the Carringtons moved in October 1829. She further charges that Carrington kept her and her mother in Illinois until the end of December, “during all of which time the said Lucinda required Services of your Petitioner & her mother as her slaves & kept your Petitioners mother at labor as such slave in her family.” Harriet informs the court that Carrington sent them to Missouri to be hired out when the neighbors began to talk about the two slaves being free. She relates that she and her mother were returned to Illinois after working in Missouri for nine months and were kept as slaves by Mrs. Carrington for another two months before they were sold to Samuel T. McKinney. Currently held by McKinney or Thomas D. James, “a negro trader,” Harriet “prays that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person to Establish her freedom.” 0914 (Accession # 21183306). St. Louis County, Missouri. Louise Vincent affirms that she was born into slavery in Missouri, “the property of Antoine Bovis.” After Bovis’s death, she lived with Bovis’s widow and heirs until 1829, when Joshua Pahlin [Pahlen] purchased her and her three children, Adolphe, Marcelline, and Maria, for $750 at auction. She reports that at some point after the purchase, Pahlin took her and her children to Illinois, where they remained for about fifteen months. The petitioner notes that Pahlin died three or four months ago and that she and her children returned to Missouri, where Marie P. Leduc, administrator of Pahlin’s estate, has claimed them as slaves belonging to the estate. Vincent prays that “she may be permitted to bring suit under the Laws of this State as a poor person against said Leduc for her freedom.” 0940 (Accession # 21183307). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary, a woman of color, petitioned in 1827 to sue Francis Menard and Andre Landreville for freedom for herself and her three children. Mary reveals that she was born into slavery about 1800, in Kaskaskia, Illinois, and worked as a slave in Illinois until 1824, when her second owner, Francis Menard, sent her to St. Louis to Andre Landreville. From 1824 until 1827, Landreville hired her out “either for his own use and profit, or as the agent of Said Menard.” When Mary and her children sued in 1827, Landreville disclaimed all right to them, “since which time, he has not claimed or exercised any authority over your petitioner.” Mary’s lawyers repeatedly summoned Menard, but he remained in Illinois, avoiding the subpoenas. The suit finally abated after one lawyer died and the other left the state. A few days ago, two men hired by Menard tried to kidnap Mary and her oldest child, Virginia. Mary proclaims that she and her children are “entitled to their freedom from Slavery, to exercise and enjoy their natural liberty.” She asks permission to sue as a poor person to recover her and her children’s freedom. 0956 (Accession # 21183309). Boone County, Missouri. Isham Reavis moved with a female slave named Patience from Kentucky to the Illinois Territory around 1810. After two years, Reavis moved back to Kentucky with Patience, who gave birth to a son named Sanford shortly thereafter. Around 1821, Reavis moved with his slaves to Missouri. He sold Sanford to Edward Reavis, who later sold Sanford to Mark Reavis. Sanford asserts that he is entitled to his freedom because of his mother’s residence in Illinois. He asks for permission to sue as a poor person for his freedom with counsel assigned. In order to pursue his freedom suit, Sanford asks the court to ensure that Mark Reavis gives him “reasonable liberty to attend the said Circuit Court and his Counsel” and does not remove him from the court’s jurisdiction before the case is decided. Having been informed that Reavis has sold or is planning to sell him to Edward Camplin, “who 39 Reel 4 Missouri intends to take your Petitioner without this state to parts unknown,” Sanford requests the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus for himself and to require Reavis or whoever possesses Sanford to give bond “so that your Petitioner may have the full benefit and advantage of his suit.” Reel 5 Missouri cont. 1834 0002 (Accession # 21183401). Boone County, Missouri. On 17 July 1833, Sanford, a man of color, petitioned for permission to sue against Mark Reavis for his freedom. A jury at the February 1834 term of the circuit court decided in Sanford’s favor, and Reavis appealed to the state supreme court, which upheld the verdict in a May 1834 decree. Meanwhile, in March 1834, Sanford petitions the court again concerning an incident that occurred in November 1833, while his freedom suit was pending. Sanford charges that Thomas G. Berry, James Reavis, and Joel Herne, “with the connivance and consent of Mark Reavis,” assaulted and kidnapped him one November night. They “placed around your petitioners neck a rope and dragged your petitioner with force & violence out of the house ... & with said Rope choked your petitioner, & then and there with force & violence placed your petitioner upon a horse & tied him thereon.” The men then detained him in chains for thirteen or fourteen hours. Sanford asserts that the men intended to remove him from the jurisdiction of the court and to sell him as a slave, thus thwarting his freedom suit against Mark Reavis. Sanford asks permission to sue as a poor person against Thomas Berry, James Reavis, and Mark Reavis. He wishes to file a plea of trespass and charges of assault and battery and false imprisonment against them. 0022 (Accession # 21183402). Boone County, Missouri. Morgan Bryan died intestate in Kentucky in 1823 or 1824, leaving an estate that included ten slaves. Four of Bryan’s heirs charge that his wife Sarah Bryan moved the slaves from Kentucky to Missouri in 1825 without their consent. The petitioners charge that such removal, under the laws of Kentucky, resulted in Sarah Bryan’s forfeiture of all rights to the slaves. Upon her marriage to James McClelland in 1827, Bryan relinquished control of two of the slaves (Phillis and her daughter Milley) to McClelland. McClelland died in 1833 and the slaves were inventoried as part of his estate. The other eight slaves are now in the possession of Sarah McClelland, her son-in-law David Hickman, and two of her sons—John Bryan and Milton Bryan. The petitioners seek an account of the increase and hire of the slaves, a sale of the said slaves, and the distribution of the proceeds among the heirs. 0067 (Accession # 21183403). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Ann, an “infant of color,” petitions by her next friend James Loper, representing that Robert Duncan illegally holds her as a slave. Mary Ann’s mother was born free in Pennsylvania and indentured to one Mr. Page until she was twenty-eight years old. Page sold her indenture to John L. Sutton, now dead, and Mary Ann was born while her mother was under Sutton’s control. Sutton and Robert Duncan have claimed Mary Ann as a slave since her birth. Sometime in 1820, Mary Ann’s mother was sold as a slave in Louisiana. Mary Ann argues that Sutton was well aware that both she and her mother were entitled to their freedom. She asks to sue as a poor person for her freedom. 0076 (Accession # 21183404). St. Louis County, Missouri. Rachel, a twenty-year-old mulatto woman, represents that her master, J. B. W. Stockton, took her to the Michigan Territory about 40 Reel 5 Missouri five years ago and established residency in Prairie du Chien on the east side of the Mississippi River. During the two years that Rachel served the Stockton family in Michigan, she bore a son named James Henry. Stockton brought Rachel and her son to St. Louis, where they were eventually sold to William Walker, a slave trader. Fearing that Walker is planning to sell her and her son in New Orleans, the petitioner prays that she and her child “may be allowed to sue as a poor person in the St. Louis Circuit Court for freedom and that the said Walker may be restrained from carrying her or said child out of the jurisdiction of the St Louis Circuit Court till the termination of said suit.” 0093 (Accession # 21183406). St. Louis County, Missouri. In 1787, Josias William Dallam of Maryland executed a deed of manumission for seven slaves, freeing them at various times. The deed also stipulated that any future children or grandchildren born to any of those slaves were to be freed at twenty-three years old. Lemman Dutton petitions by her mother and next friend, Grace Dutton, and asserts that she is the granddaughter of Hannah, a slave mentioned in the deed, who was supposed to become free in 1800. Noting that Hannah’s daughter Grace was born circa 1792 and would have been twenty-three years old in about 1815, the petitioner avers that she was born in June 1816, after her mother accrued her right to freedom. Although Grace is now “in the enjoyment of her liberty,” John Paca of St. Louis claims Lemman as his slave through his wife, daughter of Josias William Dallam. Lemman Dutton seeks permission to sue as a poor person “to recover her freedom” and asks the court to assign counsel to her. 0111 (Accession # 21183407). St. Louis County, Missouri. Nelson Kerr, a man of color, says that his owner Matthew Kerr hired him out to work in Illinois for six months for a Mr. McAdams. Stating that he is “Justly entitled to his Freedom,” Nelson asks for permission to sue as a poor person, with counsel assigned, to establish his freedom. 0120 (Accession # 21183411). St. Louis County, Missouri. Judy, a woman of color, sues Berry Meachum for her freedom. In 1823, Judy was the slave of Benjamin Duncan in Kentucky. Duncan hired her out to work for approximately one month in Indiana, then brought her back to Kentucky. Later, Duncan sent Judy to Missouri and sold her to Berry Meachum, a free man of color. Last summer, Meachum allowed Judy to hire herself out “on paying Said Meachum twelve dollars per month.” Judy hired herself out to work in Galena, Illinois, for about one month “with the full knowledge and consent of Said Berry Meachum.” Judy insists that she is entitled to her freedom, but she “is bound and imprisoned in his Meachum’s house in St Louis where she is kept ... for the purpose of being Sold and removed to Some distant place.” She “prays that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom” and that counsel may be assigned to her. 1835 0137 (Accession # 21183501). St. Louis County, Missouri. Milly, a woman of color, represents that “she was born a slave in the state of Kentucky and as the property of Jesse Duncan.” Now the property of James Duncan, Milly avows that the said James took her from Kentucky to Galena, Illinois, and then to Missouri to “the mining region called Dubuques mines.” The petitioner further recounts that she “commenced proceedings to recover her freedom,” whereupon the said James removed her to the town of Louisiana in Missouri and “subsequently she was brought down the river Mississippi and is now in the City of St Louis.” Milly “prays that your Honor will grant her leave to sue as a poor person to recover her freedom.” 0144 (Accession # 21183503). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Farnham, now twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, was born into slavery in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. In 1830, her master sold her to Russel Farnham of St. Louis. Shortly thereafter, Farnham removed Mary to 41 Reel 5 Missouri the Lower Rapids on the Mississippi River and then to Fort Edwards for a year. The petitioner asserts that she “believes that having been held as a Slave at those places ... beyond the northern boundary of the State of Missouri & the other, in the State of Illinois ... she is informed she is now entitled to her freedom.” Now held as a slave by Samuel D. Walker, Mary Farnham prays that she may “be permitted to institute a suit as provided for by law, & that your petitioner be permitted to sue as a poor person” to establish her freedom. 0150 (Accession # 21183504). St. Louis County, Missouri. Michael Edwards, “a coloured lad,” claims that J. J. Birdsong illegally detains him in slavery. Edwards informs the court that he was born in Kaskaskia, Illinois, and insists that “he has never done any thing whereby he has forfeited his freedom.” Nonetheless, he reveals that Birdsong “has and does still detain him the said Edwards in custody against Law & right and against his will in the Common Jail of the County of St. Louis and with the intent and purpose as he ... believes, of conveying him out of this State, in order that he may sell him in some one of the more Southern states.” The petitioner therefore prays that he “be allowed to sue as a poor person for the purpose of establishing his freedom.” He further requests that counsel be assigned to him, that Birdsong be prevented from moving him out of the state, and that he not be “subject to any severity because of his application for freedom.” 0158 (Accession # 21183507). St. Louis County, Missouri. Asserting that she is a free person of color, sixteen-year-old Mary Ann charges that William Walker illegally detains her in slavery. The petitioner points out that she had been owned by James Steel of Bourbon County, Kentucky. She further recounts that Steel’s will authorized his widow Catharine to emancipate Mary Ann, which she did in 1821 when Mary Ann was two years old. She now asserts that “after the death of Catharine Steel Some of the heirs of James Steel claimed that your petitioner was a slave” and sold her as such. The petitioner prays “that a Writ of Habeas corpus may be issued by this Honorable Court directed to Said Walker requiring him to bring the body of your petitioner before Said Court and that Such proceedings may be thereupon had as her case & and the Law requires.” 0164 (Accession # 21183508). St. Louis County, Missouri. Daniel Wilson, a man of color, represents that Edmund Mellvin Sr. holds him in slavery. He asserts, however, that “he is entitled to his freedom.” He cites that Mellvin “settled permanently in the State of Illinois at which place he kept your Petitioner with him as a Slave putting him to labor there and hiring him out for wages for about a fortnight.” Wilson further recounts that he “was ordered Back to the State of Illinois where he was again hired out in that State for wages.” Arguing that his residency in Illinois entitles him to his freedom, the petitioner prays that “he may be permitted to institute suit as a poor person to establish his freedom.” 1836 0199 (Accession # 21183601). Madison County, Missouri. Lavina, “an infant under the age of twenty one years of age,” informs the court that her mother Lucinda, a mulatto woman, was born in Tennessee, the slave of Isham Harrison. She further states that Harrison moved Lucinda to Gallatin County, Illinois, where she resided for more than three years and “that by the Laws then in force in said territory she in virtue of such residence became free” and that after “said Lucinda became a free person,” she, the petitioner, “was born of the said Lucinda.” Now held in slavery by Amy Harrison, the petitioner prays “that she may be permitted to sue the said Amy Harrison as a poor person By Cornelius Campbell her next friend to establish her freedom.” 0207 (Accession # 21183602). Madison County, Missouri. Campbell, “a free person of color,” informs the court that his mother Lucinda, a mulatto woman, was born in Tennessee, the slave 42 Reel 5 Missouri of Isham Harrison. He further states that Harrison moved Lucinda to Gallatin County, Illinois, where she resided for more than three years and “that by the laws then in force in Said Territory she thereby became a free person and that afterwards gave Birth to your petitioner.” Now held in slavery by Amy Harrison, the petitioner prays “that he may be permitted to sue said Amy Harrison as a poor person by Cornelius Campbell his next friend to establish his freedom.” 0215 (Accession # 21183603). Madison County, Missouri. Isaac, “a free person of color,” informs the court that his mother Lucinda, a mulatto woman, was born in Tennessee, the slave of Isham Harrison. He further states that Harrison moved Lucinda to Gallatin County, Illinois, where she resided for more than three years and “that by reason of such residence under the laws then in force in said Territory she became a free person, and that after such residence in said Territory of Illinois as aforesaid the said Lucinda gave Birth to your petitioner.” Now held in slavery by John Miller, the petitioner prays “that he may be permitted to sue the said John Miller By Cornelius Campbell as his next friend, as a poor person to establish his freedom.” 0224 (Accession # 21183604). Madison County, Missouri. Burwell, “a free person of color,” informs the court that his mother Lucinda, a mulatto woman, was born in Tennessee, the slave of Isham Harrison. He further states that Harrison moved Lucinda to Gallatin County, Illinois, where she resided for more than three years and “that by the laws in force then in said Territory, the residence aforesaid entitled her to her freedom and that she thereby became a free person and that after the aforesaid residence of said Lucinda in said Territory she gave Birth to your petitioner.” Now held in slavery by Henry Powell, the petitioner prays “that he may be permitted to sue said Henry Powell by cornelius campbell his next friend, as a poor person to establish his freedom.” 0232 (Accession # 21183605). Madison County, Missouri. Carter, “a person of color,” informs the court that his mother Lucinda, a mulatto woman, was born in Tennessee, the slave of Isham Harrison. He further states that Harrison moved Lucinda to Gallatin County, Illinois, where she resided for more than three years and “that by reason of such residence and by the laws then in force in said Territory she became a free person and that after said residence in said Territory said [Lucinda] gave Birth to your petitioner.” Now held in slavery by Amy Harrison, the petitioner prays “that he may be permitted to sue said Amy Harrison as a poor person, by cornelius Campbell his next friend to establish his freedom.” 0240 (Accession # 21183606). Madison County, Missouri. Jane, “a free person of color,” informs the court that her mother Lucinda, a mulatto woman, was born in Tennessee, the slave of Isham Harrison. She further states that Harrison moved Lucinda to Gallatin County, Illinois, where she resided for more than three years and “that by the Laws then in force in said Territory the said Lucinda by such residence became a free person, and that after such residence the said Lucinda gave Birth to your petitioner.” Now held in slavery by Amy Harrison, the petitioner prays “that she may be permitted to sue said Amy Harrison as a poor person by cornelius Campbell her next friend to establish her freedom.” 0249 (Accession # 21183607). Madison County, Missouri. Lucinda, a mulatto woman, informs the court that she was born in Tennessee, the slave of Isham Harrison. She further states that Harrison moved her to Gallatin County, Illinois, where she resided for about three years. Lucinda argues that “by the Laws then in force in said Territory of Illinois she became a free person in virtue of said residence in said Territory.” Now held in slavery by Amy Harrison, the petitioner prays that “she may be permitted to sue the said Amy as a poor person to establish her freedom.” 43 Reel 5 Missouri 0260 (Accession # 21183608). Madison County, Missouri. Barton, “a free person of color,” informs the court that his mother Lucinda, a mulatto woman, was born in Tennessee, the slave of Isham Harrison. He further states that Harrison moved Lucinda to Gallatin County, Illinois, where she resided for more than three years and “that by the laws then in force in said Territory she thereby became a free person and that afterwards she gave birth to your Petitioner.” Now held in slavery by Amy Harrison, the petitioner prays “that he may be permitted to sue said Amy Harrison by cornelius Campbell his next friend as a poor person to establish his freedom.” 0269 (Accession # 21183609). Madison County, Missouri. Thornton, “a free person of color,” informs the court that his mother Lucinda, a mulatto woman, was born in Tennessee, the slave of Isham Harrison. He further states that Harrison moved Lucinda to Gallatin County, Illinois, where she resided for more than three years and “that by the laws then in force in said Territory she by her residence as aforesaid became a free person and after she became free the said Lucinda gave Birth to your petitioner.” Now held in slavery by Amy Harrison, the petitioner prays “that he may be permitted to sue said Amy Harrison as a poor person by Cornelius Campbell his next friend” to establish his freedom. 0278 (Accession # 21183610). Perry County, Missouri. Margaret, “a black woman,” charges that Leo Fenwick illegally holds her as a slave. Margaret declares that Martha Childs, of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, emancipated her on 1 January 1835. She further avows that Leo Fenwick carried her from Maryland to Missouri and “that he has kept her since his coming into the State as a slave ever since.” The petitioner therefore “prays leave to sue as a poor person, to establish her right to freedom.” 0311 (Accession # 21183611). St. Louis County, Missouri. Phillis, a free woman of color, informs the court that her daughter Julia recently filed a freedom suit against Robert Duncan. Although the court decided in Julia’s favor, Duncan and his wife, Sally Adams, continue to hold Julia as a slave. Phillis seeks a writ of habeas corpus on her daughter’s behalf. 0318 (Accession # 21183612). St. Louis County, Missouri. Delph, a woman of color, represents that her owner, Josiah Ramsay Sr. of Callaway County, emancipated her in 1826. Since 1827, when the deed was filed in the county clerk’s office, Delph maintains that she has “in fact gone at large, & acted as a free person ever since.” Charging that Stephen Dorris now claims her as a slave and has attempted to forcibly remove her from St. Louis, the petitioner “prays for leave to sue in the St Louis Circuit Court as a poor person, in order to establish her said right to Freedom.” 0343 (Accession # 21183613). St. Louis County, Missouri. Green Berry Logan, “an infant of color,” asserts that he is “illegally held in slavery by a certain Berry Meechum, a free man of color, and being desirous of prosecuting a suit for the recovery of his freedom, he cannot do so except by his next friend.” He therefore “prays that Judy alias Julia Logan his mother be appointed his next friend to institute and prosecute a suit for the recovery of his freedom” against the said Meechum. 0346 (Accession # 21183614). St. Louis County, Missouri. Ben claims that “he is now held in Slavery in St Louis by Dr Thomas J White for William L Woods who claims your petitioner as his Slave.” Ben explains that he was “hired to Labor ... in the State of Illinois where he was kept at Labor with the Knowledge & consent of Said Woods for the Space of Seven Weeks.” He therefore “prays that he may be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish his freedom.” 0359 (Accession # 21183617). St. Louis County, Missouri. Green Berry Logan, by his mother and next friend Judy Logan, charges that “Berry Meechum a free man of color ... holds him in 44 Reel 5 Missouri slavery.” Claiming that he was born after his mother moved to Indiana and “long after her right to freedom accrued,” Logan “prays that he may be permitted to sue as a poor person by the said Judy ... in order to establish his right to freedom.” 0366 (Accession # 21183619). Boone County, Missouri. John Wilson, administrator of Ignatius Owen, claims that the defendant, William Woodruff, is in the possession of slave named Betsey, who rightly belongs to Owen’s estate. Charging that Woodruff has no title to Betsey, the petitioner asks that Woodruff be called before the court to answer these charges. 0381 (Accession # 21183620). Lincoln County, Missouri. Eleanor Erwin charges that Francis Henry, executor of the estate of Malcolm Henry Jr., “has converted a large amount of said Estate to his own use” and that he “did embizzle and conceal a great part of the goods and chattles of said testator.” Erwin submits that Malcolm Henry Jr. left specific instructions in his will concerning the distribution of his property, which included slaves. She further charges that Francis Henry has not distributed the property according to these instructions. The petitioner therefore prays that Francis Henry be summoned and “that upon a final hearing of this cause your Honor will decree that the said Francis pay to her such sum of money as your honor shall find would have been the residue of said estate after the payment of legacies debts & expenses of said Estate if said estate had been properly managed.” 1837 0449 (Accession # 21183701). St. Louis County, Missouri. Celeste, a woman of color, represents that Alexander Papin illegally holds her in slavery, “contrary to the provisions of an ordinance passed by Congress of the United States.” She informs the court that her mother Judy was born in Virginia and taken to Louisville, Kentucky, about 1796, where William Sullivan purchased her. Around 1798, Robert Bunton bought Judy and took her to a town in the Northwest Territory, where she was held in slavery for two years or more. Afterwards, Judy was sold to William Lecompt of St. Louis, where she has remained in slavery. Noting that she was born in St. Louis, Celeste “prays that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person in order to establish her right to freedom.” 0468 (Accession # 21183702). St. Louis County, Missouri. Andrew petitions by his grandmother and next friend, a woman of color named Judy. He informs the court that the said Judy was born in Virginia about 1786 and was brought to Kentucky, where Robert Bunton purchased the tenyear-old enslaved girl. After this purchase, Bunton took Judy to Vincennes in the Northwestern Territory, where he kept her for more than two years; he later sent her to Kaskaskia and sold her to William Lecompte. Lecompte then removed her to his residence in St. Louis. Andrew, now owned by John B. Sarpy, maintains that he should be free according to “an ordinance passed by the congress of the United States on 13th day of July 1787.” The petitioner prays that he be permitted to sue as a poor person and that counsel be assigned to him in order to prove his “right to freedom.” 0485 (Accession # 21183703). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jack asserts that he was the property of Harrison Winn in Virginia “some twelve or fourteen years ago.” Shortly after that time, Winn took Jack from Virginia to Illinois, where Winn hired him out. When Winn died, he bequeathed Jack to William Thompson, who transferred him to Absalom Link, Jack’s current owner. Jack claims that his hiring out in Illinois entitles him to freedom. He therefore prays “that he may be permitted to sue as a poor person in the Circuit Court for St Louis County ... in order to prove his right to freedom and obtain the same.” 45 Reel 5 Missouri 0496 (Accession # 21183705). St. Louis County, Missouri. Judy, a woman of color, informs the court that she was born in Virginia about 1786 and was brought to Louisville, Kentucky, where William Sullivan purchased the ten-year-old enslaved girl. After this purchase, Sullivan sold her to Robert Bunton, who took her to Vincennes in the Northwestern Territory, where he kept her for more than two years; he later sent her to Kaskaskia and sold her to William Lecompte. Lecompte then removed her to his residence in St. Louis. Judy asserts that “she is now illegally held in slavery by a certain Berry Meachum, a free man of color of Saint Louis County contrary to the provisions of an ordinance passed by the congress of the United States on the 13th day of July 1787.” She therefore prays “that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person in order to establish her right to freedom.” Depositions in related documents contain differing accounts of Judy’s legal status ca. 1796. Some report that she was an indentured servant while others claim that she was held in slavery. 1838 0526 (Accession # 21183801). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. George, “a free person of colour,” informs the court that a certain Mr. Bradshaw sold him to Basel Craig in Arkansas in August 1836. George recounts that Craig transported him to various places: to a place near Jonesborough, Illinois, where he worked for eight weeks; to the Wisconsin Territory, where he performed the “usual services of a slave” for nine months; to Michigan, where he was hired out “to several different individuals” until June 1837; to Illinois again, where he was given to Craig’s brother, William Craig, to work one week near Greens Ferry; and finally to Missouri, where Basel Craig hired him out to three different men. Noting that Jacob H. Neely, one of the said three men, currently holds him in his possession, the petitioner asserts that “in consequence of the premises, [he] has become entitled to his freedom.” He “humbly prays your honor, that leave may be granted unto him to sue before your honorable court as a poor person to the end that your petitioner may establish his right to freedom.” 0544 (Accession # 21183802). Lafayette County, Missouri. Chloe, “a free person of color,” represents that Nicholas Wren once held her in slavery in Kentucky. She informs the court that Wren’s will stipulated that she should be set free in the year 1820, if his wife Elizabeth had died, or at the time of her death thereafter. Chloe contends “that a certain William Renick of Lafayette County has for many years held your Petitioner in slavery since the death of said Elizabeth Wren and still sets up claim to your petitioner contrary to her will or consent.” Citing that “in fact and truth [she] is and of right ought to be free,” the petitioner “prays your Honor to permit her to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom.” 0639 (Accession # 21183803). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Malinda Morris charges that her husband, Thomas Morris, “has been guilty of such cruel and barbarous treatment as to endanger the life of your petitioner.” In addition, she alleges that he “has committed the crime of Adultry.” Morris reports that she owned a slave named Maria and Maria’s two children, Jeph and Mahala, at the time of her marriage; she also possessed livestock, furniture, and $850 in cash. Morris seeks a divorce, restoration of her property, and an injunction preventing her husband from removing or disposing of her slaves. 0654 (Accession # 21183804). Boone County, Missouri. Jesse Dale secured a loan from Henry Barlow in October 1836 with a slave named Jesse. Barlow died intestate in 1837. Thomas Cranmer, Barlow’s administrator, charges that Dale never repaid the loan. He therefore “prays Judgement for his Debt, &c, in the mortgage Deed mentioned, and that the Equity of redemption of the said Jesse B. Dale in and to the said certain man slave in the mortgage Deed mentioned may be foreclosed, and that the said slave may be sold to satisfy the sum of money due your petitioner as administrator.” 46 Reel 5 Missouri 0663 (Accession # 21183806). St. Louis County, Missouri. Celeste, “a woman of color,” represents that she had instituted a suit for her freedom against Alexander Papin. She reports that her child Celestine also sued Papin. Celeste maintains that the previous cases were lost even though “the testimony before the Jury was in law strong and conclusive in favor of their right to Freedom.” Believing “the Judge of this court is prejudiced against the claim of her and her said child,” the petitioner “prays that the venue may be changed to some other circuit where the cause complained of may not Exist.” 0667 (Accession # 21183808). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. George, “a person of color,” informs the court that he has a suit pending for his freedom and that he is currently hired out to Jacob Neely. He claims that “last Thursday morning,” B. [Basel] Craig came to Neely’s “and attempted to seize” him. Craig also has advertised a reward of $20 to anyone who would catch and return George to him. As a result of Craig’s actions, George “has been compelled to lie out ever since last thursday morning.” He fears that he is in danger of being taken out of the jurisdiction of the court, and believes that he is especially unsafe at Neely’s as Neely resides along the Mississippi River. He asks to be taken into protective custody by the sheriff. 1839 0674 (Accession # 21183901). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. William Johnson hired out a slave named Harriet and her youngest child to Joseph Lewis in 1836. Shortly thereafter, Lewis agreed to purchase the slave and her child for $700. After a few months, Lewis discovered that Harriet and her child had a disease called “Scorfula” or the “King’s evil.” Lewis, a poor man who could not afford to institute a suit against Johnson, approached Johnson with his discovery. Johnson promised to investigate the problem and to ascertain what would be a “moraly right and honest” response. After several months of bickering, Lewis finally initiated his suit. He requests that Johnson be summoned so that he can recover his purchase money, plus damages. 0701 (Accession # 21183902). Boone County, Missouri. Young Hicks seeks compensation from William Raymond and John McGee for the services of a slave named Anderson, who was hired out to the defendants for a one-year period at $100. The defendants agreed to furnish Anderson with numerous items of clothing and “further bound themselves to treat the said boy with humanity and to return” him to Hicks on 25 December 1838. Hicks complains that the defendants “not regarding their promises and undertakings aforesaid” allowed Anderson to die while in their possession. They also never paid Hicks the hire money. Hicks asks for damages in the amount of $2,000. Depositions from two physicians, who attended Anderson, reveal that he suffered from pleurisy and died during a “cold and damp” spell in February 1838. 0719 (Accession # 21183903). St. Louis County, Missouri. Lewis, “a boy of color,” represents that his grandmother Judy was held as a slave in the Northwest Territory. He reports that Judy was an indentured servant, who was sold for life to William Lecompte. He further asserts that Judy and her daughters, Celeste and Aspisa, have all been granted their freedom by “separate and distinct juries.” Currently held in slavery by John Stacker, Lewis “prays that he may have leave by Celeste his mother and next friend to sue as a poor person in order to establish his right to freedom.” 0730 (Accession # 21183905). St. Louis County, Missouri. Seyton, “a woman of Color,” represents that “she is Justly entitled to her freedom, but yet she is held in Slavery by William Littleton.” She explains that George Hacker once owned her and took her to the southern part of Illinois around the year 1825. She further reveals that Hacker gave her to his daughter upon her marriage to the said Littleton, who kept her as a slave in Illinois and later took her to Missouri. 47 Reel 5 Missouri Believing that Littleton wants to sell her as a slave, Seyton fears that “she will be sent to a distant place where she will be unable to procure the evidence of her freedom.” She therefore prays “that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom that counsel may be assigned to her that Such orders may be made & such Legal steps taken as will Secure her personal Safety.” 0739 (Accession # 21183907). St. Louis County, Missouri. Polly Wash claims that she is entitled to her freedom because she “was hired out ... to one Capt Payne of the Steamboat Banner, as chambermaid and in that capacity of chambermaid made several trips up the Illinois river as far as Peoria, for wages at the rate of fifteen dollars a month & at one time within the jurisdiction of the state of Illinois was detained for about five weeks.” Now held by in slavery by Joseph Magehan, the petitioner prays “that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person in order to establish her freedom.” 0746 (Accession # 21183908). St. Louis County, Missouri. Andrew petitions by his mother and next friend Celeste, charging that “he is now held in slavery by a certain Peter Sarpy contrary to law.” He informs the court that the Circuit Court of St. Louis recently declared Judy, his maternal grandmother, and other family members, including Celeste, “to be free.” He submits, however, that Sarpy claims him as his slave and that he fears Sarpy will remove him from the jurisdiction of the court. Andrew therefore prays that “he may be permitted to bring suit as a poor person ... for the recovery of his freedom against the said Peter Sarpy.” He further requests that Sarpy “be compelled to give bond and security to have your petitioner forthcoming to answer and abide by the Judgement of the court in the premises.” 1840 0758 (Accession # 21184001). St. Louis County, Missouri. According to witnesses in this case, Robert Loughridge and Reuben Cranmar live beside each other, but they do not get along. The witnesses have testified that Loughridge has, on several occasions, threatened to shoot Cranmar. On 7 February 1840, Cranmar was shot in the shoulder. Witnesses have accused Perry and Hanson, two slaves hired by Loughridge, of shooting Cranmar from Loughridge’s stable and hiding the gun in the hayloft. They have reported that Loughridge was laughing about the shooting. The state has charged Perry and Hanson with shooting Cranmar and has charged Loughridge with accessory before the fact and aiding and abetting the crime. In his petition, Loughridge asserts that “the minds of the inhabitants of said County are so prejudiced against your petitioner that a fair trial Can not be had therein.” Loughridge requests a change of venue. 0788 (Accession # 21184002). Madison County, Missouri. Lucinda, “a free person of color,” represents that she lived in Tennessee with her owner, Isham Harrison, twenty-four or twentyfive years ago. She states that “whilst so in his possession, the said Harrison removed to the County of Gallatin, in the then Territory now state of Illinois taking with him your petitioner.” Lucinda points out that Harrison lived in Illinois for three or four years, “knowingly & willingly subjecting her to involuntary labour & service as a slave, contrary to & in violation of the Law then in force in said Territory.” Insisting that she is “entitled to her freedom in virtue of said residence & involuntary servitude in said Territory,” Lucinda informs the court that Amey Harrison and Caleb Cox, the administrators of Isham Harrison’s estate, continue to hold her in slavery. The petitioner therefore prays “that she may be permitted to sue them as a poor person in order to establish her right to freedom.” 0802 (Accession # 21184003). St. Louis County, Missouri. Brunetta Barnes represents that she was born to free parents but is held in slavery by Berry Meachum, a free person of color and a Baptist preacher. Barnes charges that Meachum treats her “with harshness and inhumanity to 48 Reel 5 Missouri wit by frequently & cruelly beating her.” Barnes prays the court “to grant unto your petitioner permission to sue for her freedom as a poor person.” Fearing that Meachum will remove her from Missouri as a result of her petition, the petitioner also asks the court to issue a warrant for her seizure and to compel Meachum or whoever possesses her to abide by the court’s orders. 0814 (Accession # 21184004). St. Louis County, Missouri. Sixteen-year-old Archibald Barnes petitions by his next friend, Peter Charleville, claiming that his parents “were at the time of his birth and still are free.” He insists “that he was born free: and that by no act of his own, nor by any proceedings of any authoritative tribunal has his right to his freedom been forfeited”; nonetheless, Barnes asserts that he is held in bondage by Berry Meachum, a free person of color, who treats him with “great inhumanity harshness and severity.” Barnes therefore prays that the court will “grant unto your petitioner permission to sue for his freedom as a poor person.” Fearing that Meachum “will remove him unjustly and unlawfully beyond the limits of the State of Missouri (as he has often made threats of doing) in consequence of this application to your honour,” the petitioner also asks the court to require Meachum to give bond that he will obey the court’s orders and to issue a warrant to the sheriff to bring him before the court. 0831 (Accession # 21184005). St. Louis County, Missouri. Charles was the slave of the bishop of St. Louis and “was engaged in whitewashing the House, in Painting and Plastering” a nunnery in Cahokia, Illinois. Now held in slavery by Rev. Peter Verhagen, Charles believes his history of working in Illinois entitles him to freedom. He therefore “prays that your Honor will grant him leave to Sue as a poor person, in order to establish his right to freedom.” 0864 (Accession # 21184006). St. Louis County, Missouri. Pierre, a man of color, represents that his mother Rose was born in 1768 in Canada. In 1791 John Stork took Rose to Prairie du Chien in the Northwest Territory, where she remained, “rendering service to him and his family,” until Stork’s death three years later. In 1795 Andrew Todd brought Rose to St. Louis and sold her to Pierre Joseph Didier, who later sold her and her two young sons to Auguste Chouteau. Rose gave birth to Pierre and several other children while owned by Chouteau. After Chouteau’s death, Edward Chouteau bought Pierre, later selling him to Therese Cerre Chouteau. Pierre declares that he is a free man, “first because his mother was born free, being a native of a British Province in which slavery was not tolerated, and secondly, because if his mother were born a slave, she became by her residence at Prairie du Chien a free person under the Ordinance of 1787.” Pierre prays that he may be permitted to sue as a poor person against Therese Chouteau to recover his freedom. He also asks for reasonable liberty to attend court and counsel and protection from severe treatment or removal from the court’s jurisdiction. 0875 (Accession # 21184007). St. Louis County, Missouri. Fifteen-year-old Brunetta Barnes asked and received permission from the court in July 1840 to sue for her freedom against Berry Meachum, a free man of color, and she initiated her suit. Barnes now petitions by her next friend, Peter Charleville, charging that the said Meachum sends her “to sell and deliver milk on board the several steamboats lying at St Louis wharf.” She further reveals that she visits the ships “before it is fully light” and has received “insults of the grossest character from various members of the crew of different vessels.” Barnes confides that she has asked Meachum not to send her on this errand, where she is “exposed to wanton insult,” but Meachum “has declared his determination to pay no regard to her request.” Averring that he “could easily spare her without any loss to himself,” the petitioner prays that “your honor may make an order to the effect that the said Meachum shall discontinue sending her on board the steamboats aforesaid for the purposes aforesaid or upon any other pretext whatsoever.” 49 Reel 6 Missouri Reel 6 Missouri cont. 1841 0002 (Accession # 21184101). Boone County, Missouri. In 1839, the county court ordered a public auction of the slaves belonging to the estate of Samuel Crockett and appointed Cyrus Lusk as commissioner to conduct the sale. At the sale on 1 January 1840, Nimrod Bishop purchased two slaves for $501: thirty-eight-year-old Ann and her two-year-old son Warren. After the sale, Bishop discovered that Ann was very sick with “negro Consumption with dropsy” and that she must have been ill “long before and at the time of the sale.” He called in a doctor to treat her, but she was “wholy beyond the reach or aid of any medical skill” and died after eleven months. Nimrod Bishop and John Barnes, Bishop’s security for the purchase of the slaves, claim that Cyrus Lusk knew of Ann’s illness at the time of the sale but that he fraudulently withheld the information. Bishop tried to cancel the sale, but Lusk refused and later won a suit for payment. Bishop and Barnes ask the court to stop further proceedings on Lusk’s suit, to cancel the sale, to return Warren to Lusk; and to compensate Bishop for Ann’s medical expenses. 0018 (Accession # 21184102). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. In 1826 Mary Ann and Ignatius Wathen transferred various property and rights to Nathaniel Wickliffe, who established a trust estate for Mary Ann and her children that would be administered by Johnson Ranney. Ignatius later died. Before Mary Ann married Richard Wathen, they drew up a marriage contract that set aside her trust property and the property inherited from her father to her separate use. This property includes slaves. The petitioner charges that her husband and other defendants have defrauded her of her said trust estate, and she fears that “her said separate property is greatly endangered of being sacrificed” to pay her husband’s debts. Mrs. Wathen asks the court to issue an injunction preventing any further action involving her property until the case is settled. She also asks the court to investigate the various transactions, to appoint a new trustee, and to return her property to her trust estate. 0050 (Accession # 21184103). St. Louis County, Missouri. Louis Scott, a man of color, represents that his owner, William Burd, sent him to work in Illinois for six days, “for which work your Orator verily believes his said master received payment.” Because slavery is “contrary to the laws of State of Illinois,” Scott “prays that he be permitted to sue in your honorable Court for his freedom as a poor person.” 0083 (Accession # 21184104). St. Louis County, Missouri. Twenty-three-year-old Charles, a man of color, asserts that he was born in Cahokia, St. Clair County, Illinois, where his mother was a “servant” to Joseph Troke. When Charles was eleven years old, the sheriff of St. Clair, by court order, took him as a levy against Troke and sold him to Alfred Cowles. Four years ago, Cowles sold Charles to Ebenezer Pickering, who, in turn, sold him to Samuel Christy. Samuel Christy died. His widow, Belina Christy, now holds Charles and “pretends to claim your petitioner as her property, and restrains him of his just rights, liberty & freedom.” Of the belief that he is entitled to his freedom, the petitioner prays “this honorable Court to grant him leave to sue as a poor person, in order to establish his right to freedom.” 0103 (Accession # 21184105). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Robertson, a woman of color, asserts that she has “firm grounds on which she claims her right to freedom.” She informs the 50 Reel 6 Missouri court that her owner, Amos L. Corson [Corsen], took her to Alton, Illinois, in early March 1841 and kept her there for four and a half months, “at labor in every respect as a slave” although slavery was “contrary to the Laws of Said State.” On or about 24 July 1841, Corson sent her back to Missouri, where Ringrose D. Watson now holds her in slavery. Mary Robertson therefore “prays that your Honor will grant unto your petitioner leave to Sue as a poor person in order to establish her right to freedom.” 0111 (Accession # 21184106). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jonathan, a thirty-four-year-old man of color, states that his owner, Edward Gleason, moved from Virginia to Tennessee, taking Jonathan with him. After Edward Gleason’s death, his son James D. Gleason inherited Jonathan. James Gleason moved to Illinois in 1831 and lived there until his death four years later. During that time, Gleason hired out Jonathan in St. Louis, but he also brought Jonathan to Illinois to work. In 1832, Jonathan worked for eight months on Gleason’s farm in Madison County, Illinois. In 1838, Gleason’s widow Eleanor married Aza Willoughby, but the couple separated soon after “on account of the bad conduct and habitual intemperance of the husband.” Eleanor Willoughby started divorce proceedings, but in the meantime, Joel Darrah won a suit against Aza Willoughby, and the St. Louis sheriff levied execution on Jonathan as Willoughby’s property. Jonathan is now in jail. With Eleanor Willoughby’s full consent, Jonathan asks to sue as a poor person to establish his right to freedom. 0126 (Accession # 21184107). St. Louis County, Missouri. Squire Brown states that his former owner, Henry Brown, hired him out to work in Illinois several times, for several months at a time, between 1839 and 1841. In May 1841, William C. Anderson bought Squire Brown from Henry Brown. Squire asks permission to sue as a poor person “to establish the right of your petitioner to freedom.” 0136 (Accession # 21184108). St. Louis County, Missouri. Peter, “a colored man” represents that, “in the spring of 1833,” John Richardson took him “to Dubuque in the Territory of Iowa and there [he] worked for his master in the business of mining,” for eight years, “by and with the consent and direction” of Richardson. Peter cites that the Iowa Territory “is a portion of the United States in which Slavery is not allowed by the laws of the United States, and therefore your petitioner believes he is fully entitled to his freedom.” Peter “prays the Honorable Court, that an order may be granted, allowing the petitioner to sue ... as a poor person, to establish his right to freedom; that counsel may be assigned him; that he have reasonable liberty to attend his Counsel and the Court” and that he receive protection from harsh treatment “on account of his application for freedom” and protection against removal from the court’s jurisdiction. 0144 (Accession # 21184109). St. Louis County, Missouri. On 25 February 1841, Charles, a man of color, filed a freedom suit against Belina Christy. Three days later, he was “forcibly seized in the public streets of the City of St. Louis on sunday” by two men “pretending to act under the Authority of the defendant.” They carried Charles across the Mississippi River to St. Clair County, Illinois. They tried to imprison him in the county jail, but the jailer refused to take Charles “on the ground that there was no offence alledged” against him. That night, Charles escaped from the men and returned to St. Louis. Charles “now claims the protection of this honorable Court.” He asks the court to require Belina Christy to give bond not to remove him from the court’s jurisdiction until his case is decided and to issue a warrant for his appearance before the court. In conclusion, “your petitioner states that he believes that he will be again ta[ken] out of the jurisdiction of this Court unless the said warrant issues.” 0148 (Accession # 21184110). St. Louis County, Missouri. Alsey, “a woman of color,” relates that she was born into slavery about thirty-eight years ago in Kentucky. She further recounts that her master, Zachariah Cross, gave her, at age fourteen, to his daughter and son-in-law, 51 Reel 6 Missouri Rachel and Robert Funkhauser [Funkhouser] [Funkhowser]. Alsey reports that the Funkhausers took her to Illinois, where she “continued to reside ... at the Saline & at Shawnytown” for five years. The petitioner informs the court that Cross reclaimed her after five years, because Funkhauser was “greatly involved in debt,” and that he took her back to Kentucky, eventually bringing her to Missouri where she was sold. Claiming that she is “now held in slavery and deprived of her just rights, freedom and liberty” by William Randolph, the petitioner “prays your honorable Court, to allow her to sue as a poor person in order to establish her right to freedom.” 0194 (Accession # 21184111). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Robertson won the right earlier to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom during the next court term. She now represents that she is currently imprisoned in the St. Louis County jail and that the constable is about to sell her “to satisfy executions against her pretended owner Amos L. Corsen.” Believing that such a sale will result in her removal from the court’s jurisdiction, the petitioner “prays that Your Honor will cause your petitioner to be brought up before your Honor by a warrant under the hand of your Honor” to protect her from being sold before her case is tried. 0200 (Accession # 21184112). St. Louis County, Missouri. Milton Duty brought twenty-seven slaves with him when he moved from Mississippi to St. Louis, Missouri, in March 1837. Duty died in August 1838, leaving behind a will that emancipated his slaves. Preston and the other slaves charge that the administrator of Duty’s estate, George W. Coons, is colluding with his father, David Coons, to defraud the estate by destroying or concealing documents and presenting claims for debts that Duty paid before his death. The petitioners object to the validity of several other claims made against the estate by various parties. They maintain that Coons has made no attempt to collect debts owed to the estate or to hire out the slaves to pay the debts. Instead, he has obtained permission from the county and probate courts to sell the slaves. Among other requests, Preston and the other petitioners ask the court to permit them to sue as poor people, to appoint special commissioners to examine and validate the accounts and the various claims, to settle the estate properly, and to award them their promised freedom. In the meantime, they ask for an injunction to stop Coons from selling them until the estate is settled. 0263 (Accession # 21184113). St. Louis County, Missouri. George Coons, administrator of the estate of Milton Duty, submits that there are numerous claims against the estate. He further cites that there are twenty-six slaves in the estate. Believing “the hire of the said slaves will not in any reasonable time enable him to pay the said debts,” the petitioner prays that he be permitted to sell as many slaves “as will be sufficient to pay said demands.” 0267 (Accession # 21184114). St. Louis County, Missouri. Armistead Lawless, a free person of color, owned real and personal estate in St. Louis, including three slaves. A mob attacked Lawless on 15 May 1832, destroying his property. Lawless fled to Illinois accompanied by Clayton Tiffin and Tiffin’s attorney, George Strother, now deceased. They went to a justice of the peace and had papers drawn up, which gave Tiffin control of Lawless’s property. Lawless, being illiterate and under mental stress, also signed a second unexplained document when instructed to do so. Tiffin convinced Lawless that his life was in danger and persuaded him to move to Canada, giving him a carriage and pistols. En route, Lawless decided not to leave Illinois and turned back. Tiffin and Samuel Merry took over Lawless’s property in St. Louis, hiring out or selling the slaves and renting the property, from which they are now receiving proceeds. Lawless and his two tenants in common, John W. Paulding and Hugh Lackey, ask the court to appoint a receiver to manage the disputed property until the case is settled and to require Merry and Tiffin to account for their handling of Lawless’s property since 1832. They also request that the court nullify the second document signed by Lawless, which the defendants claim is a deed of conveyance giving them full title to the property. Lawless, 52 Reel 6 Missouri Paulding, and Lackey ask the court to order Tiffin and Merry “to deliver up possession and to execute a deed of conveyance and quit claim to your orators of said lots, tenements and property in said deed.” 0312 (Accession # 21184115). St. Louis County, Missouri. In an earlier case, twenty-three-yearold Charles sued Melanie Christy for his freedom. Christy now responds by petitioning the court for a change of venue, claiming that “the Judge of the said Court has prejudices against the petitioner’s defence to the said suit.” In January 1842, Christy again petitions the circuit court for a change of venue, maintaining that “the Judge of said Court is prejudiced in said case.” 0317 (Accession # 21184116). Boone County, Missouri. William Provines informs the court that he purchased a slave named Lewis in 1840 from Cyrus Lusk, who was acting under a court order to sell the slaves in the estate of Samuel Crockett. Provines purports that he paid “a full and fair price,” believing Lewis to be sound and healthy; however, Lewis died from “an incurable hereditary disease called negro consumption” five months after the purchase. The petitioners note that Lusk has filed suit against Provines and his security, John Vanhorn, for the balance of the purchase price. Alleging that Lusk knew of Lewis’s condition at point of sale and fraudulently concealed it from Provines, the petitioners insist that the only way they can prove Lusk’s knowledge is by “a discovery on oath of the plaintiff himself.” Provines and Vanhorn ask the court to compel Lusk to “discover and set forth” his knowledge of the situation “to the end that the said petitioners may have a fair trial at law.” 0326 (Accession # 21184121). Ray County, Missouri. John, a mulatto, claims that his grandmother, “an Irish Subject of the Kingdom of Great Britian living in Ireland,” agreed to serve a seven-year indenture in return for passage to the United States. Arriving in Virginia sometime in the 1780s, the ship captain bound her to the Offutt family. She died two or three years later, “leaving two free white Children.” One of these children, Love, was “raised in a negro quarter and treated in every Respect as a slave.” Love bore “two bastard Mulatto Children” and was about to sue for her freedom when the Offutt family “run her off” to Kentucky to live with another branch of the family. In Kentucky, Love married a slave named Frank, who was freed upon his master’s death; her son John was born in 1813 or 1815. In 1818 or 1820, Love sued for and received her freedom, but the Offutts took her four children to Louisville to prevent them from suing as well. The two oldest children did eventually obtain their freedom, but John was “run off” to Missouri, where he has lived for the last eighteen to twenty years as a slave of James Offutt. John asks for permission to sue as a poor person for his freedom. Fearing that Offutt will remove him from the court’s jurisdiction if not required to give bond, the petitioner also asks for the court’s protection while his suit is pending. [Related depositions add much more detail and directly contradict this petition in important ways, such as the race of the people named.] 1842 0363 (Accession # 21184201). Scott County, Missouri. James Miller and Benjamin Hacker dispute the ownership of two slaves, Harvey and Charles. Miller insists that Hacker has “in his possession or in his power and control certain papers” that prove Miller’s ownership of the slaves in question. The petitioner “prays that this Court may be order compel the production of Said papers and documents.” 0379 (Accession # 21184202). Jefferson County, Missouri. Nancy Thurmond, the administratrix of William Rian’s estate, reports that her mother, Mary Ann Burns Rian, received two slaves from Samuel Burn’s estate around 1795. Her mother then moved to Kentucky in 1800 taking these two slaves with her. After living in Kentucky for one year, Mary Ann married William Rian. Rian moved with his family to Missouri in 1809 where he died in 1839. His estate was initially 53 Reel 6 Missouri managed by Eli Wiley. Shortly after Rian’s death, Joseph Walsh, acting on Wiley’s behalf, supervised a sale of slaves in Rian’s estate. At this sale, Walsh purchased one slave himself while Nancy Thurmond purchased five others. A court decision later rejected this sale, whereupon Thurmond took over the administration of said estate. The petitioner now asks the court to annul an earlier judgment “against the estate of Rian” obtained by Joseph Walsh. She furthermore seeks an order barring further legal action by Walsh and his codefendents “until this cause is heard and determined in equity.” 0444 (Accession # 21184204). St. Louis County, Missouri. Rose, a woman of color, was born in Montreal around 1768. John Stock took Rose as a slave to Prairie du Chien in the Northwest Territory of the United States, where she remained with Stock until his death in 1794. In 1798, Auguste Chouteau purchased Rose and her two children, Benoist and Tuissaint. While Rose was in Chouteau’s possession, she gave birth to several more children, including Pierre, the petitioner. Upon Chouteau’s death, Pierre became the property of Chouteau’s wife and then the property of Gabriel L. Chouteau. He petitions the court for permission to sue for his freedom because his mother was born free and “secondly because if his mother was born a slave, she became by her residence at Prarie Du Chein ... a free person.” 0472 (Accession # 21184206). St. Louis County, Missouri. Hardage Lane claims that he is entitled to one-third of a certain tract of land in St. Louis County. Jacques Clamorgan conveyed this land by deed to Joseph Brazean on 8 November 1803. Later that same day Brazean conveyed said land to Apauline Clamorgan, Cyprien Clamorgan, and St. Eutrope Clamorgan. Brazean’s deed stipulated that said land would pass to Apauline Clamorgan upon the death of Cyprien and St. Eutrope. Upon Apauline’s death, the property passed to her four children: Louis, Henry, Cyprien, and Louisa. Louisa’s share passed, at her death, to Alexander Freyer, who in turn sold it to Hardage Lane. Lane claims that his title to the land is not being recognized, and he asks the court to confirm his right to the land. 0500 (Accession # 21184208). St. Louis County, Missouri. Henry, Margarett and her children, and Sally Jackson are held as slaves by James V. Frazier. They claim that they are the children of Jinny Jackson, a free woman of color and the daughter of Peggy. Peggy was granted her freedom prior to Jinny’s birth and, by virtue of her status, the petitioners request permission to sue as poor persons for their freedom. 0507 (Accession # 21184209). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jinny Jackson, a woman of color, asks the court for permission to sue for her freedom. She states that her mother Pegg was the slave of Richard Dallam, who executed a deed of manumission for Pegg and her children in 1787. The petitioner bases her right to freedom on provisions made in this deed. 0524 (Accession # 21184210). St. Louis County, Missouri. Vica, “a woman of color aged about nineteen years,” recounts that she was born into slavery in North Carolina, the property of Isabella Walker. Vica points out that “she was taken from that state to the state of Mississippi, where she resided” with the said Walker until Walker’s death about 1838. She further cites that Walker’s son Felix claimed her and took her to Illinois in March 1841, leaving her with Chesley Evans, “a relation of this petitioner.” Vica alleges that Felix Walker “intended giving her freedom papers.” However, after Vica lived in Illinois four months, Walker’s son-in-law, Benjamin Dill, asked her to come to St. Louis to care for his wife. Vica went, because “she felt and continues to feel a strong affection for [her] ... with whom she was reared from early infancy.” In October 1841, the Dills returned to Mississippi, leaving Vica with John Sparr. Sparr sold her to Lyman Shaw, who sold her to Samuel Hobart on 25 April 1842. Fearful of being removed from St. Louis by Hobart, Vica insists that she is entitled to her freedom. She therefore prays that she be 54 Reel 6 Missouri permitted to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom and that Hobart be compelled to bring her into court. 0539 (Accession # 21184211). St. Louis County, Missouri. Chelsey Evans, the next friend of three-year-old Musa Ben Abel Gazen, asserts that Felix Walker took Musa and his mother Vica to Illinois in 1841, where they lived approximately seven months. Benjamin Dill, Walker’s son-inlaw, then brought Vica and her children to St. Louis and placed them with John Sparr. Sparr, “pretending to hold and to be entitled” to them, sold them to Lyman Shaw, who sold them to George Charles and Samuel Hobart. George Melody now has custody of Musa. Evans charges that Charles has tried to take possession of the child, “to separate him from his mother” and to remove him from the court’s jurisdiction. Evans believes that the child “is free and entitled to his freedom.” He therefore requests that the infant petitioner be permitted “to sue for his freedom as a poor person.” The petition reveals that “the said Vica, is the daughter of a mulatto woman by an Indian man, and that the father of your petitioner is a white man—so that the proportion of African blood in your petitioner is about one eighth.” 0551 (Accession # 21184212). St. Louis County, Missouri. Thadeus Alonzo, a ten-month-old boy, petitions by his next friend, Chelsey Evans, who informs the court that the petitioner’s mother Vica resided with her master, Felix Walker, in Illinois for several months before and after Thadeus’s birth. He cites that Walker’s son-in-law, Benjamin Dill, later brought them to St. Louis and left them with John Sparr. Evans recounts that Sparr, pretending to own Vica and Thadeus, sold them to Lyman B. Shaw, who in turn sold them to Samuel Hobart and George Charles. Noting that George Mellody now holds Thadeus, Evans contends that these multiple transactions are fraudulent and that the said infant is entitled to his freedom. He therefore prays that Thadeus Alonzo be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish his right to freedom. 0563 (Accession # 21184214). Boone County, Missouri. Elizabeth Monroe represents that her father, Daniel Monroe, died intestate “previous to the month of February Eighteen hundred & thirty four.” She states that John Copeland was appointed her guardian and that George Monroe was appointed to administer her late father’s estate and to divide the said estate among the nine heirs. The petitioner charges that $1,831.50 “from the sale of certain slaves of said intestates estate” came into the hands of her guardian and that said sum was “to be divided share & alike ... between the said Wards of said Copeland” and other distributees. Noting that she has yet to receive her share, the petitioner therefore prays that “said Copeland may be decreed to pay over to your said Oratrix ... whatever of principle and interest may be found in said Copelands hands.” 0579 (Accession # 21184215). Boone County, Missouri. William Monroe represents that his father, Daniel Monroe, died intestate “previous to the month of February Eighteen hundred & thirty four.” He states that John Copeland was appointed his guardian and that George Monroe was appointed to administer his late father’s estate and to divide the said estate among the nine heirs. The petitioner charges that $1,831.50 “from the sale of certain slaves of said intestates estate” came into the hands of his guardian and that said sum was “to be divided share and share alike ... between the said Wards of said Copeland” and other distributees. Noting that he has yet to receive his share, the petitioner therefore prays that “said Copeland may be ordered & decreed to pay over to your said Orator ... whatever of principle and interest may be found in said Copeland’s hands.” 0604 (Accession # 21184216). Boone County, Missouri. Robert Chiles seeks a divorce from his wife Celia. He submits that the said Celia has been “guilty of the crime of Adultery with certain & divers persons whose names to your orator are unknown.” He further cites that “she has very frequently offered such indignities to his person as to render his Condition intolerable so much 55 Reel 6 Missouri so that he was compelled to absent himself from his own home.” Revealing that “she has been guilty of Adultery since his separation from her and was impregnated by a negro man,” the petitioner prays that the court will “render a decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony between him & Celia and restore to him all the rights & priviledges of a single man.” 0621 (Accession # 21184218). Marion County, Missouri. Martha Wood owned property, including six slaves, prior to her marriage to Virgil Pratt on 25 August 1835. William Wright received letters of administration on Martha’s estate after her death. Wright claims that Pratt has refused to let him distribute the portion of the estate that Martha owned separately from her husband. He further charges that Pratt sold or otherwise gave possession of slaves in the estate to John Shackleford. Wright and the heirs seek a court order seizing the property in question so that it cannot be removed from the court’s jurisdiction while the matter is pending. 0647 (Accession # 21184219). St. Louis County, Missouri. Thomas Jefferson, “a man of color,” was born a slave in Virginia. He reports that his owner, Charles Drexter, transported him to St. Louis, where he resided for four years. Jefferson further represents that Dr. Samuel Prosser purchased him in 1839 and that “immediately after becoming the owner of your Petitioner” the said Prosser conveyed him to Illinois and “there held him to labor and service on his said Prosser’s farm ... for a period of about Eight months.” The petitioner cites that Prosser transported him back to Missouri, “fearing the interposition of the Authorities” in Illinois, and “there hired him out and now does and ever since has received the rewards of Petitioners labor.” Now in the possession of Milton Hopkins, “who holds Petitioner in Slavery as a hireling from said Prosser,” Jefferson “believes that he is entitled to his freedom and prays your Honor for leave to sue as a poor person ... in order to establish his right to freedom.” 1843 0670 (Accession # 21184301). St. Louis County, Missouri. James W. Kingsbury claims that Hardage Lane “wrongfully detained” two of Kingsbury’s slaves on 22 September 1843. He seeks a writ of replevin to recover twenty-two-year-old Mary and twenty-four-year-old Julia, “both slaves for life and mulattoes of great value,” and he requests damages in the amount of $2,000. The court originally ruled in Lane’s favor but changed its verdict after Kingsbury moved for a new trial. By 1853, both original parties were dead, and the case was carried to the supreme court in the names of the respective estate executors. 0697 (Accession # 21184302). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Charlotte, a woman of color, petitions on behalf of herself and her four children, Antoine, Augusta, Victorine, and Euphrasia. She asserts that she is “entitled to freedom by being born of a Negresse named Rose, who herself was born at Montreal in Canada.” She further avers that John Stork, an “Indian Trader,” took Rose to Prairie du Chien in the Northwest Territory about 1791; two years later upon Stork’s death, a trader named Andrew [Andre] Todd brought Rose to St. Louis and sold her to a priest named Didier. The petitioner submits that Didier later sold Rose to Auguste Chouteau, who has since died, and that Therese Chouteau, widow and executrix of Auguste Chouteau, held Rose and Rose’s four children until her death a few months ago. Gabriel S. Chouteau, administrator of Therese Chouteau’s estate, now claims them as slaves. Mary Charlotte asks to sue as a poor person for her and her children’s freedom. She also asks the court to pass an order that she “have reasonable liberty to attend her Counsel and the Court and that she shall not be subjected to any severity on account of her application for freedom, nor be removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court.” When the jury found for the defendant, Mary Charlotte’s attorneys filed a motion for a new trial. The court overruled the motion, so Mary Charlotte appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. In 1848, the supreme court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for further proceedings. [A set of documents covering the proceedings in the 56 Reel 6 Missouri second phase of the case (1853–1855) is attached to this petition. The circuit court transcript includes copies of this original 1843 petition, the judge’s order, the subpoena for Gabriel Chouteau, sheriff’s returns, and Chouteau’s plea. The rest of the transcript documents the circuit court proceedings through the 1855 judgment of nonsuit. Mary Charlotte appealed the judgment, and the case went to the Missouri Supreme Court for the second time.] 0794 (Accession # 21184303). Lewis County, Missouri. Six of fifteen slaves liberated in 1835 by the will of Jacob Myers ask the court to intervene in order to ensure the proper execution of Myers’s will. In addition to bestowing their freedom, a codicil in the said will directed that close to 464 acres of land in Missouri be held in trust for their use and benefit. Myers expressed that if one of the slaves, Jack, should wish to sell the land and relocate the group to another area, then Robert M. Easton and William Duncan should oblige him. However, the trustees, “with such extraordinary negligence as was wholly incompatible with the duty of trustees,” conveyed the land in question for a “pitiful sum” to Thomas Gray, who then reconveyed the land to Easton a week later for “a speculation of 700 dollars.” The petitioners allege that the trustees imposed upon “the imbecility and worthlessness of Jack” in order to secure his signature assenting to the transaction. They seek an order from the court that “the said lands be declared still clothed with the trust created by the will of Jacob Myers.” Two of the fifteen slaves have died, and the remaining seven, five of whom are minors, are named by the petitioners as party defendants. 0831 (Accession # 21184305). Monroe County, Missouri. Mary Ann Murray seeks the return of three slaves, whom she claims were “by force and against her consent taken out of her possession” by Samuel M. Pool and Jefferson Wilcoxsan. In 1837, Mary Ann’s brother, William A. Burns, set up a trust estate in three slaves “for the purpose of aiding and assisting your Oratrix in the raising and Educating of her children.” Shortly thereafter, Mary Ann Murray and her husband, Samuel, moved their family from Tennessee to Missouri, bringing the three slaves with them. On 16 April 1840, Pool and Wilcoxsan “under colors of legal process against Samuel Murray” seized property belonging to Samuel Murray, including the three slaves in Mary Ann’s trust estate. Pool, in his capacity as acting constable, then sold the slaves at public auction and distributed the proceeds among Murray’s creditors. The slaves, originally purchased for $600 by John E. Shropshire and James C. Fox, quickly made their way into the possession of James McMurtry, another of Murray’s creditors, where they now remain. Mary Ann Murray seeks the return of the slaves and compensation for their services since their seizure. 0886 (Accession # 21184306). Boone County, Missouri. On 21 December 1842, Samuel Wall mortgaged his “negro man named John of black complexion aged about twenty seven years” to Robert S. Barr, “surviving partner of Parker and Barr,” in exchange for a loan of $433. Four months later, Barr claims that Wall has failed to repay the debt. Barr asks the court to award him “Judgement for his debt and damages for detention,” as well as to order a foreclosure on the mortgage in order that John may be “sold to satisfy the said Judgement.” 0894 (Accession # 21184307). Madison County, Missouri. Samuel Britten, elected constable of Madison County in August of 1842, petitions the court to stay proceedings on a bill pending that would require him to post an additional bond as security for his position. Nathan Montgomery, trustee for Dr. Charles Hutchings, the owner of property levied on by Britten as constable, claims that Britten’s bond is insufficient to cover the value of Hutchings’s property. Britten argues that an additional bond is “an infringement upon my rights,” and he beseeches the court to “dismiss the Said Rule.” The court transcript reveals the confiscated property to be a slave named Lizzie and her six children, who are estimated to be worth $3,000. 0924 (Accession # 21184308). Madison County, Missouri. On 18 October 1841, William Ronald mortgaged a tract of land to Robert Isom, a free man of color, to secure a loan of $122. 57 Reel 6 Missouri Eighteen months later, Isom claims that Ronald has failed to repay the loan. The petitioner prays that “judgment may be rendered against” the defendant and asks the court to seize and sell the mortgaged land to satisfy his demand. 0936 (Accession # 21184310). St. Louis County, Missouri. Louis Chouteau, a man of color, represents that his mother Rose was born in Montreal, Canada. About 1791, “a certain John Storke, an Indian Trader,” took Rose to his trading post at Prairie du Chien in the Northwest Territory. Following Storke’s death in 1793 or 1794, Andrew Todd brought Rose to St. Louis and sold her to Mr. Didier, a priest and curate of St. Louis. Didier eventually sold Rose to Auguste Chouteau. After Chouteau’s death, his personal estate was sold, and Gabriel S. Chouteau bought Louis, whom he continues to hold as a slave. Louis Chouteau therefore prays “that he may be permitted to Sue as a poor person for the obtaining of his freedom, and that Your Honor will make an order that he have reasonable liberty to attend his Counsel and the Court, and that he not be subjected to any Severity on account of his application” or be removed from the court’s jurisdiction before the case is tried. Reel 7 Missouri cont. 1844 0002 (Accession # 21184401). St. Louis County, Missouri. George W. Coons, the administrator of the estate of the late Milton Duty, petitioned the court in 1841, asking to sell the estate slaves to pay debts. Duty’s twenty-seven slaves responded by filing a suit to stay the sale because Duty’s will had freed them. In this petition, Nat, one of the said slaves, states that Milton Duty purchased him and held him as a slave during Duty’s residence in Mississippi. He avers that Duty’s will freed his slaves, directing that they “be manumitted and set free and sent to the State of Missouri, if the laws of said last mentioned State would permit the same.” Nat reports that Duty moved his slaves to Missouri in 1837 and remained there until his death in 1838. The petitioner cites that the said will was admitted to probate in Warren County, Mississippi, and was recorded on 26 November 1838. On 22 June 1839, the will was recorded in St. Louis County, and George W. Coons took out letters of administration on the estate. Proclaiming that Coons “wrongfully and unjustly holds him in Slavery,” the petitioner prays that he “be permitted to prosecute this his suit for freedom as a poor person” and that counsel be appointed for him. 0059 (Accession # 21184403). Howard County, Missouri. Maria, “a woman of colour,” represents that “she is now held in slavery by Edward Atteberry administrator of Thomas Atteberry late deceased.” She claims that Thomas Atteberry, her former master, emancipated her by deed in Kentucky. She further notes that she had previously been permitted to sue as a poor person for her freedom but that she was unable to secure the proper documentation. Fearful of being sold at auction as a slave out of the jurisdiction of the court “before she can have a trial on the merits of her case,” Maria requests that the sheriff “take possession of your petitioner whenever she may be found, and bring her before your Hon. body, and to summon the person in whose possession she may be found, to be and appear before your Hon. body.” 0102 (Accession # 21184404). St. Louis County, Missouri. Hannah, “a mulatto woman aged abt nineteen years,” charges that she is held in slavery by John Pitcher, although “she verily believes that she is entitled to freedom.” The petitioner cites that Daniel Page previously owned her and that the said Page took her to Boston where she remained for about six months. She 58 Reel 7 Missouri further notes that “slavery is not allowed to exist in the state of Massachusetts, and was not permitted when she was so taken there & kept as aforesaid and that such a holding her in slavery there by the laws of said state entitled petitioner to freedom.” 0111 (Accession # 21184406). St. Louis County, Missouri. Hannah, a woman of color, reminds the court that she sought permission to sue as a poor person to establish her right to freedom ten days ago. She reveals that the court granted her prayer but dismissed her said suit “on account of some informality in the proceedings.” The petitioner informs the court that since that time John Pitcher has treated her “with great cruelty severity and oppression.” Believing that Pitcher will continue with the “same severe and oppressive treatment on account of this application,” she again asks “that she may be brought up by hon court under the seal of said Court and dealt with as directed by statute.” 0142 (Accession # 21184408). St. Louis County, Missouri. Amy Moore reports that she was hired out for two years in 1830, against her will and consent, to Mr. Marbly in Springfield, Illinois. Charging that Robert N. Moore now claims her as his slave, the petitioner maintains that her residency in Illinois entitles her to receive her freedom under the laws of that state. She therefore prays that she may be permitted to “sue as a poor Person to Establish her right to Freedom.” 0154 (Accession # 21184410). St. Louis County, Missouri. Cloe Ann Smith claims that she is held in slavery by Dr. Franklin Knox. In 1842, the wife of Knox, “with his knowledge and consent,” took Smith to Ohio for four months. Smith claims that holding her in slavery in Ohio, “by operation of the Ordinance of Congress of the year seventeen hundred and eighty-seven for the government of the territories North West of the Ohio River, and also by force of the constitution and laws of the State of Ohio, emancipated petitioner from a state of slavery.” Smith asks to sue as a poor person in order to establish her freedom. She also requests a warrant preventing Knox from selling her beyond the jurisdiction of the court. 0164 (Accession # 21184411). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jenny Brown represents that she “has good and firm grounds on which she claims her right to freedom.” She informs the court that she “is at the present time held in slavery ... by F. Steigers.” Brown reveals that she was brought into Virginia in 1813 “for the purpose of sale” and that afterwards she was sent to Missouri “and there hired out as a slave contrary to the laws.” Claiming that “in fact and in truth from the violation of the laws of the state of Virginia” she has been free the past twenty-two years, Brown “prays your Honor to allow her to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom so wrongfully taken from her.” 0177 (Accession # 21184412). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Ann Speaks, a twenty-threeyear-old woman of color, asks for a writ of habeas corpus and for the recognition and granting of her freedom. Speaks reports that she was born in “Alexandria in the District of Columbia” and was apprenticed to Susan Blunt “to learn the art & mistery of a housewife.” She later moved with Blunt to Missouri with the understanding that two years would be deducted from her ten-year contract. Speaks alleges that she is currently being held by James Quissenbury, the administrator of the estate of the late Susan Blunt, and John M. Jameson, the “keeper of the prison.” The petitioner charges that the said men admit “that she was born free of free parents and is of right free,” yet they maintain that she has not completed her term of indenture. The petitioner represents that “she is entitled to her own earnings because of the terms of her coming to this state with said Blunt ... and having served out full the term of eight years, she has performed her part of said contract.” 59 Reel 7 Missouri 0184 (Accession # 21184414). St. Louis County, Missouri. Celestine, a woman of color, represents “that she is now held in slavery ... by Madame Julia Dumont.” The petitioner recounts that her mother Sally was born in Kaskaskia, Illinois, “subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance of Congress for the government of the territories North West of the Ohio river” in 1787. She thus claims “that her said mother being thus entitled to freedom that her children, your petitioner being one, were also by law free.” Citing that she was born in St. Louis, Celestine recounts that one Madame Deroine took her, at the age of nine, to Cohokia, Illinois, where the said Deroine held her as a slave. The petitioner reveals that she was later purchased by Julia Beason, who married Charles Dumont. Believing “that she is justly entitled to freedom,” the petitioner “prays the said Court, to allow her to sue as a poor person ... in order to establish her right to freedom.” 0195 (Accession # 21184415). St. Louis County, Missouri. Andrean Paschall, a man of color, petitions for his freedom from Richard Ulrici. The petitioner claims that Gabriel Paul, his former owner, took him to Illinois, six or seven years ago. Paschall argues that the laws of the United States and of the state of Illinois entitle him to his freedom. Now held in slavery in St. Louis by Ulrici, the petitioner prays the court “to grant him leave to sue as a poor person in order to establish his right to freedom and to assign him counsell for his assistance in that behalf.” 0212 (Accession # 21184416). St. Louis County, Missouri. Martha Ann, “a free woman of colour,” informs the court that “she was born a slave the property of the late Dr John Young,” formerly of St. Louis, Missouri. She recounts that the said Young took her with him when he moved to Galena, Illinois, where he stayed for six months. She further explains that Young then moved back to Missouri and later to Alabama, where he died. Martha Ann represents that she then became the property of Sarah Young, Dr. Young’s widow, who moved back to Missouri, where she died. Citing that the administrator of Sarah Young’s estate now illegally holds her in slavery, the petitioner prays “that she may be permitted to sue the said Hiram Cordell for the recovery of her freedom by judgement of law, and may prosecute such suit as a poor person and have counsel assigned her by the Court.” 0224 (Accession # 21184417). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary, “a Negro woman aged about 32 years,” claims that James Clemens Sr. illegally holds her in slavery. She maintains that she was born in Maryland and “that she was owned & held as a slave by one Mrs Gardner.” She asserts that Gardner’s will conveyed her to Sarah Lurch “to have & to hold as a servant until she arrived at the age of twenty one years or thereabout at which time she was to be free by virtue of said will.” The petitioner points out that Sarah Lurch took her to Kentucky when the said Lurch married a certain Mr. Graves. She relates that the said Graves mortgaged her to James Clemens Jr., who “got possession of” her in 1839 or 1840. Mary therefore prays “that your honor allow her to sue as a poor person to establish her right to freedom according to the Law in such case made & provided.” 0232 (Accession # 21184418). St. Louis County, Missouri. James, the son of Martha Ann, represents that he was held in slavery illegally by Sarah Young. Insisting that his mother was free at the time of his birth, the petitioner asserts that Hiram Cordell, the administrator of Sarah Young’s estate, currently enslaves him. James therefore “humbly prays that he may be permitted to sue said Cordell for the recovery of his freedom by judgement of law, and may prosecute such suit as a poor person and have counsel assigned him by the Court.” 0245 (Accession # 21184420). St. Louis County, Missouri. While living in Mississippi, Milton Duty bought a slave named Jesse. Duty’s will, dated 6 October 1836, directed that Jesse and other slaves be manumitted upon his death. The petitioner reports that Duty moved to Missouri in March 1837 and died there in August 1838, “having made no other will.” Charging that 60 Reel 7 Missouri George W. Coons, the administrator of Duty’s estate, “wrongfully and unjustly, holds your petitioner in slavery,” Jesse prays “your Honor that he may be allowed to prosecute this his suit for freedom as a poor person, that counsel be assigned him; and that the usual orders in such cases be made in his behalf.” 0250 (Accession # 21184422). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jenny Brown, the mother of fourteenyear-old Jim Brown, avers that she “was brought into the state of Virginia for the purpose of sale by her master by reason of which she was then and is now a free person.” She represents that she was later “brought to the state of Missouri and in said state of Missouri she has been held in slavery for more than twenty years against her will during which time the said Jim was born.” Noting that the court ruled in her favor, she now asserts that her son is also entitled to his freedom. She, as his next friend, therefore “prays your Honor to permit and allow him to sue as a free person to establish his right to freedom.” 0259 (Accession # 21184424). St. Louis County, Missouri. Squire Brown informs the court that Henry Brown “had formerly owned your petitioner for some six or eight years ... & during the time he so owned your petitioner hired out your petitioner to work in the County of St Clair State of Illinois at various times between the years 1839 & 1841.” The petitioner notes that Charles R. Anderson purchased him in May 1841 and now claims him as his slave. Squire Brown therefore “prays that he may have leave to sue as a poor person in order to establish his right to freedom.” 0275 (Accession # 21184425). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Ann Speaks, a twenty-threeyear-old woman of color, is “unjustly and illegally detained” in the county jail in St. Louis by John Jameson under the orders of James Quissenburry, administrator of the estate of the late Susan Blunt. Speaks, who was “born of free parents” in Alexandria, Virginia, and bound to Blunt as an apprentice while living there, agreed to accompany Blunt to St. Louis, Missouri, in exchange for a release of two years from her term her service. Claiming that her term expired before Blunt’s death, the petitioner asserts that Quissenburry has required her to turn over her earnings to him in “compensation for said unexpired term of apprenticeship.” Speaks complains that she is being detained without warrant, that she was illegally removed from Virginia in the first place, and that she should be liberated from the indenture by Blunt’s death. She seeks a writ of habeas corpus in order to present her arguments. 0283 (Accession # 21184426). St. Louis County, Missouri. Twenty-four-year-old Mary Ann Speaks was indentured by her free mother to Susan Blunt for ten years to learn “the art and mystery of a good house wife.” Eight years into said apprenticeship, Blunt died intestate, and her administrator, James Quissenburry, claimed Speaks as a slave in Blunt’s estate. Speaks alleges that Quissenburry “without the order or authority of the St. Louis Probate Court ... has advertised your petitioner as the property of his said intestate, and intends to sell her to the highest bidder for cash at the Court House in said County on Monday the twenty first day of October instant.” Currently “held in close confinement in the Common Prison of the County aforesaid,” Speaks believes that she “will be in danger of loosing forever her freedom.” She therefore prays “that your honor will allow her to sue as a poor person for her freedom.” 0308 (Accession # 21184427). St. Louis County, Missouri. Martha Drusilla was born free in Alabama. She represents that she is “so near white, that she has not got one fourth of negro blood in her veins.” When Martha was one year old, her mother indentured her to John Cotton. Martha lived with Cotton until his death, at which time they were both living in Arkansas with Cotton’s son-in-law, Thomas Isbel. Martha lived with the Isbels until September 1844, when Thomas’s brother William took her up the Missouri River and tried to sell her in Lexington. Martha claims that Isbel “would not dare to attempt to sell her in Alabama or Arkansas, where 61 Reel 7 Missouri the facts of her being born free is well known.” William Isbel then brought Martha to St. Louis and placed her in the possession of Richmond J. Curle. The petitioner charges that Curle “intends sending your Petitioner out of the state of Missouri, and down the Mississippi river and sell her as a slave, tomorrow.” She therefore prays “that a warrant may issue as is provided by ... an act to enable persons held in slavery to sue for their freedom.” 0350 (Accession # 21184429). St. Louis County, Missouri. Preston, a man of color, represents that George W. Coons illegally detains him as a slave belonging to the estate of Milton Duty. He informs the court that he was one of the slaves owned by Milton Duty of Mississippi, but he asserts that Duty’s will directed in 1836 that Preston and his other slaves be manumitted upon his death. Preston further points out that Duty moved to Missouri with his slaves and died there in August 1838. Now held by Coons, the administrator of Duty’s estate, the petitioner prays that he be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish his right to freedom. [Part of the petition is missing.] 0356 (Accession # 21184432). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Robinson, “a woman of Colour,” asserts that she is “intitled to her Freedom.” She informs the court that she “was taken from the city of St Louis” to the state of Illinois by Amos L. Corson, “her then master and owner and kept in slavery contrary to her your petitioners will ... for the space of time at least six months.” She further recalls that she was later returned to St. Louis, where she “was kept in slavery by one Ringrose D. Watson.” Robinson declares that she “has good reason to believe and does believe she will be taken Beyond the Jurisdiction of this Court and kept in slavery unless the said Watson and Corson are restrained by this court.” The petitioner therefore “prays to be permitted to sue as a free person and to be placed under the protection of this Court.” 1845 0374 (Accession # 21184501). Madison County, Missouri. William M. McMurtrey, executor of the last will and testament of the late William McMurtrey, seeks a court order to move an “extremely ill” estate slave from the county jail to a private residence in order to “restore her to health.” Vicy [Vicey], “charged before said Justice with killing her infant child, wilfully and knowingly,” is greatly endangered “in consequence of the extreme heat, and small dimensions of said jail.” McMurtrey cites that “the opinion of at least two of our physicians” confirms that Vicy requires the kind of “indispensable care” that she cannot receive in a jail setting and avows himself that her “sufferings” deserve “the necessary care which in humanity should be given her.” He beseeches the court to allow her a transfer to the jailer’s place of residence until her recovery “may warrant her re-commitment to said Jail.” The jailer, Felix Gregory, assents to take charge of Vicy. In related documents, Catharine McMurtrey deposes that Vicy smothered her six-month-old son Stephen because “the devil had told her to put it away.” 0410 (Accession # 21184502). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Simon English informs the court that on 19 February 1845 William Ewing was “justly indebted to your petitioner” in the amount of $871, “which said debt is secured by a mortgage” on several horses and a fifty-sixyear-old slave named Timothy. English claims that Ewing has failed to repay the debt, “although often requested so to do.” The petitioner prays the court to foreclose on the mortgaged property and “that said property above described may be sold to satisfy the said debt damages and costs, that may be found due, or so much thereof as may be necessary.” 0421 (Accession # 21184505). Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. Five-year-old Allen Augustus Holliman seeks “to prove and establish” the will of the late Elizabeth Holmes, which has been rejected by the court. As “the devissee (with some small exceptions) of all and singular the real and personal Estate of the said Testator,” he asks that Robert T. Edmonson be appointed as his 62 Reel 7 Missouri next friend so that he may institute a suit to the court. A supplemental petition reveals that the said Holmes was Holliman’s aunt and that she died in 1845. It also details that Elizabeth’s brother, Thomas Holmes, challenged the will, claiming that his sister was “of unsound mind and memory” when she executed the document. The probate judge sided with Holmes. The petitioner, by his next friend Edmonson, asks the court to summon the parties interested in Holmes’s estate in order to determine the will’s validity. According to the disputed document, Elizabeth Holmes bequeathed three slaves to her nephew, the petitioner. 0440 (Accession # 21184506). St. Louis County, Missouri. On 15 April 1837, Jane McCray, a mulatto woman, purchased her freedom for $600 from William H. Hopkins, paying $500 at that time. On 1 January 1838, she paid the balance, and Hopkins wrote a note authorizing her “to go and reside in any county in the State of Illinois, & there to do and act for herself.” In the summer of 1838, Hopkins died intestate without executing a formal deed of emancipation. With the heirs’ advice and consent, McCray went to Galena, Illinois, and lived as a free woman for a month in 1844. Admitting that said heirs have never “disturbed” her, the petitioner notes that they have not given her “the papers necessary to fully emancipate her under the laws of this State.” Since she has acquired property in Missouri, McCray wishes to establish her right to freedom “according to law, beyond Controversy.” She asks that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish her right to freedom and that counsel be assigned to her. 0454 (Accession # 21184507). St. Louis County, Missouri. Sarah, a slave born in Virginia and originally owned by John Prosser, seeks permission to sue as a poor person to establish her right to freedom. Sarah explains that after Prosser’s death she was sold at administrative sale and eventually ended up in the possession of Prosser’s widow, Margaret. When Margaret and her children moved to Illinois, they brought Sarah with them and hired out her services. Eventually one of Margaret’s children, Mary Martin, took Sarah to the state of Kentucky, where she remained for a while before being returned to Margaret in Illinois. By 1841, the family relocated to St. Louis, and Margaret was hired out again to one William Waddingham. On 20 July 1845, a “person to your petitioner unknown” came to St. Louis with “an order in writing for the body of your petitioner stating that it was his intention to take [her] ... away from this city.” Sarah claims that “by depositions from the State of Illinois,” she can establish the “material facts” entitling her to her freedom. 0492 (Accession # 21184508). St. Louis County, Missouri. Malinda, a woman of color, asserts that George W. Coons illegally holds her in slavery. She explains that she was the slave of Milton Duty, formerly of Mississippi. She further insists that Duty executed his will in 1836, in which he directed that Malinda and other slaves be emancipated at his death. Malinda maintains that Duty moved to St. Louis, Missouri, in 1837, and took her and his other slaves with him; Duty died there in 1838. The petitioner charges that Duty’s administrator, George W. Coons, now holds her in slavery and “has caused her to be commited and confined in close custody in the Jail of said County without any reasonable cause therefor.” Contending that she is entitled to her freedom, Malinda prays to be permitted to “prosecute her suit for her freedom against the said Coons as administrator, as a poor person.” She also asks the court to appoint counsel for her and to order her “discharged from her present unjust illegal imprisonment.” 0506 (Accession # 21184509). St. Louis County, Missouri. Elsa Hicks, “a Mulatto Girl aged about twenty one years,” claims that James Mitchell and S. Burrell illegally detain her in slavery. Hicks was born in Virginia and owned by Mitchell, “who acquired her by marriage.” In 1834, Mitchell took Hicks to the territory of Wisconsin, where he held her as a slave for six years, contrary to a U.S. ordinance of 1787. Mitchell next brought her to St. Louis and promptly hired her out to Edward Gay. Mitchell’s brother-in-law, S. Burrell, now holds Hicks in his possession 63 Reel 7 Missouri and threatens to move her outside the jurisdiction of the court. She asks permission to sue for her freedom as a poor person. 0515 (Accession # 21184510). St. Louis County, Missouri. Rachel Steel, “a coloured woman,” seeks permission to sue as a poor person for her freedom. She explains that the late Samuel Gilbert held her in slavery in 1831 in Missouri. The said Gilbert hired her out to Russell Farnham, who was living in Keokuck, north of Missouri and “North of the line of 36 30’ north latitude.” Rachel lived there for nine months until Farnham’s death. She asserts that “by such hiring and employment your petitioner became free as she is advised.” After Farnham’s death, Thomas Taylor, husband of one of Gilbert’s granddaughters, claimed Rachel in right of his wife and now holds her as a slave. 0524 (Accession # 21184511). St. Louis County, Missouri. Elsa Hicks, a slave who currently has a freedom suit pending against S. Burrell and James Mitchell, seeks protective custody from the sheriff of St. Louis County. She alleges that “Burrell attempted to take your petitioner out of the State of Missouri on Thursday last but that the Captain of the boat learning that your petitioner was entitled to her freedom refused to take her on board of his boat.” She also complains that S. Burrell is “secreting himself for the purpose of avoiding service by the sheriff.” She fears that Burrell has agents who will attempt to take her out of the state “some time to day.” She asks to be “brought before your honor.” 0529 (Accession # 21184512). St. Louis County, Missouri. In 1841, the slaves of the late Milton Duty sued to obtain the freedom their former owner had bestowed upon them in his 1836 will. George W. Coons, the administrator of Duty’s estate, refused to emancipate them. The cases continued through 1849 as the slaves tried to obtain their liberty. One of the slaves was Jesse. On 26 March 1845, the court ruled that he “be libirated and set free from servitude and slavery.” Coons, however, refused to abide by the court’s decision and had Jesse arrested and “illegally restrained of his liberty.” In this petition, Jesse asks the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus in his behalf, to determine “the cause of his imprisonment,” and to release him from the jail. 0539 (Accession # 21184513). Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. Elizabeth Kenner Hunt seeks a divorce from Noah Hunt after four years of marriage, citing that her husband “willfully deserted and absented himself” from their home. She claims that he left her “in a delicate condition, confined to a sick bead,” and during a two-year span “never furnished or offered her any support or assistance.” She reminds the court that she is the “innocent and injured party,” and asks for a decree “touching alimony and maintenance.” In his answer, the defendant mentions a prenuptial agreement wherein he agreed to relocate to his future wife’s residence, along with his “moveable property,” including slaves, who would be kept and employed “in common with hers.” He counters that he left his wife’s home with her consent when his health demanded that he be near a doctor for a period of months. He claims that when he returned to their home, Elizabeth refused to allow him “to reside and consort with her as her lawful husband.” 0560 (Accession # 21184517). St. Louis County, Missouri. Thomas Jefferson, a thirty-two-yearold “man of color,” claims that he is unjustly held as a slave by George Co[u]lton and Jonathan Moulton. Jefferson, born a slave in Virginia, claims that his original master brought him to Missouri where he resided until the spring of 1839. There, he was purchased by James Prosser and transported to the state of Illinois, where Prosser “compelled him to labour as such on a farm.” At the expiration of eight months, Prosser carried him back to Missouri and sold him to the defendants. Jefferson seeks the court’s permission to sue for his freedom as a poor person. In his plea of trespass, Jefferson assesses the damages he has sustained at $500. 64 Reel 7 Missouri 0576 (Accession # 21184519). St. Louis County, Missouri. Caroline Bascom, “a mulatto woman of the age of twenty one years,” claims that she is entitled to her freedom but is illegally detained in slavery by John H. Ferguson, the administrator of the estate of Hiram Bascom. Caroline is the daughter of a woman named Charity, who was born in Delaware but taken to Maryland as a slave sometime between 1820 and 1822. Caroline “is informed and believes” that Maryland “liberates all slaves imported therein for sale or to reside.” In addition, Caroline was born during Charity’s residence in Maryland while Charity “was serving out her term of service after which to be free.” Caroline, petitioning while “in actual confinement in the County jail,” asks permission to sue for her freedom as a poor person. 1846 0584 (Accession # 21184601). St. Louis County, Missouri. Sarah Duncan informs the court that she married William Duncan in 1838 in Missouri. She confesses that the said William drove her from his bed in March 1846, “threatning at the same time to wash his hands in her hearts blood.” She further confides that he “called your Complainant an old bitch and an old whore and threatning to kill your Complainant and Send her to hell.” Sarah reveals that she was “the legal owner of Six negro Slaves” at the time of her intermarriage. She now “expressly charges that the Said Defendant has been endeavoring to Sell and dispose of Said negro Slaves and to appropriate the proceeds to his own use.” Fearing that he will remove from the area and leave her without means of support, the petitioner prays that an injunction be issued preventing the sale of her slaves. Sarah also seeks a divorce and such other relief as is proper. 0615 (Accession # 21184602). St. Louis County, Missouri. Dred Scott, a man of color, represents that he is “claimed as a slave by one Irene Emerson,” widow of Dr. John Emerson. Dr. Emerson bought Scott and took him to Rock Island, Illinois, where he worked for the doctor, a surgeon in the U.S. Army. Dr. Emerson left Rock Island and went to Fort Snelling on the St. Peter’s River in the Iowa Territory, taking Scott with him. After five years, when Dr. Emerson was sent to Florida, he hired Scott out to Captain Bainbridge. Dr. Emerson has died and now his widow, Irene Emerson, claims Scott as her slave. Claiming “that he is entitled to his freedom,” Dred Scott “prays your honor to allow him to sue said Irene Emerson in said Court, in order to establish his right to freedom.” 0717 (Accession # 21184605). St. Louis County, Missouri. Harriet, “a woman of color,” represents that a certain Major Talliaferro took her from Virginia to Fort Snelling in the Iowa Territory. She recounts that said Talliaferro sold her to Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army. Harriet relates that Dr. Emerson took her with him when he was transferred to Fort Jesup in Louisiana and later brought her back to Fort Snelling when he returned to the Iowa Territory. When Dr. Emerson went to St. Louis, Harriet affirms that she was left in the charge of his wife, Irene Emerson. Noting that Dr. Emerson has since died, the petitioner points out that “his widow the said Irene claims property in her as a slave.” Of the belief “that she is entitled to freedom,” the petitioner “prays your honor to allow her to sue in said Court the said Irene Emerson in order to establish her right to freedom.” 0758 (Accession # 21184606). St. Louis County, Missouri. Cloe Ann Smith currently has a “suit in Trespass in false imprisonment” pending against Franklin Knox. Smith believes that she will not get a fair trial because “the judge of the said court is prejudiced against the said plaintiffs right to recover [her freedom].” She therefore prays for a change of venue. 0762 (Accession # 21184607). Boone County, Missouri. Twenty-two heirs of the late Isaac Jacob ask the court to authorize the sale of four slaves in Jacob’s estate. Representing that they 65 Reel 7 Missouri hold the slaves collectively, the petitioners ask that the proceeds from the sale be divided among them according to their interest. 1847 0778 (Accession # 21184701). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. John Wilson died in 1839 leaving a “large estate of inheritance,” which included land and slaves. Some of the land belonging to the estate has been sold, but the estate still contains three slaves. The heirs to the estate ask that a commissioner be appointed “to make partition of said real and personal estate among the heirs of said deceased, according to their respective rights, and that if the same cannot be divided in kind that then it be ordered to be sold for the benefit of the heirs of said Estate.” 0787 (Accession # 21184702). Boone County, Missouri. Presly Allen died in 1826 in Culpepper County, Virginia, leaving an estate that included slaves. Nancy Allen, the widow, received a life estate in two of the slaves in her late husband’s estate as part of her dower. Nancy later moved these slaves and their increase out of Virginia to Missouri. The petitioners cite that Virginia law forbids “any person owning only a Life estate in any slave or slaves” from removing said slaves out of the state “without the consent of those in reversion, that such persons owning said Life estate shall forfeit every such slave so removed.” They further report that Nancy has since remarried and that she and her husband “continue to hold possession of the said slaves.” Claiming that they are the rightful owners of the slaves, the petitioners assert that they should be compensated for their value. They therefore ask that the court order a partition of the said slaves among all interested parties. 0801 (Accession # 21184703). Jefferson County, Missouri. P. H. Bunn, executor of the will of Mathew McPeake, seeks permission to sell certain several lots in the town of Hillsboro, which belong to the estate. McPeake’s estate also included slaves. 0805 (Accession # 21184704). St. Louis County, Missouri. Dred Scott, a man of color, represents that he “was purchased as a slave by one John Emerson,” a surgeon for the U.S. Army, in 1835. He further reports that Emerson took him from Missouri to Fort Snelling in the Iowa Territory, “holding your petitioner in slavery at said Fort Snelling all that time; in violation of the Act of Congress of March 6th 1820.” Noting that Emerson has died, the petitioner cites that Emerson’s widow, Irene Emerson, now claims him as his slave. Dred Scott “prays your Honorable Court to grant him leave to Sue as a poor person, in order to establish his right to freedom & that the necessary orders may be made in the premises.” 0818 (Accession # 21184706). St. Louis County, Missouri. Harriet, “a Woman of Color,” informs the court that Dr. John Emerson purchased her in 1835 and took her to Fort Snelling in the Iowa Territory, at a point “north of 36 degrees & 30 minutes north latitude.” She asserts that she was held in slavery while at Fort Snelling, “in violation of the act of Congress of March 6th 1820.” Noting that Dr. Emerson has died, Harriet represents that she is in the possession of Irene Emerson, his widow, and Alexander Sandford, administrator of his estate. Harriet Scot “therefore prays your Honorable Court to grant her leave to Sue as a poor person, in order to establish her right to freedom & that the necessary orders may be made in the premises.” 0831 (Accession # 21184708). St. Louis County, Missouri. Elsa Hicks, a twenty-three-year-old mulatto woman born into slavery in Virginia, seeks permission to sue for her freedom as a poor person. Hicks explains that James Mitchell acquired her “by marriage with one Miss Burrell,” and, around 1834, transported her to Wisconsin, “contrary to the Ordinance of [1787] passed by the Congress of the United States.” Mitchell held her in Wisconsin until about 1841, when he 66 Reel 7 Missouri brought her to St. Louis where he hired out her services to Patrick McSherry, who now detains her illegally in slavery. Hicks instituted a similar case against James Mitchell and S. Burrell in 1845. Lewis Burrell’s motion to dismiss the case, filed in 1848 on behalf of the minor Mitchell children, “who claim to be the owners” of Elsa, alleges collusion between Hicks and McSherry. Burrell characterizes McSherry as a “sham defendant,” who is attempting to enable Elsa to procure her freedom “without any serious resistance.” He claims that McSherry “has entertained and harbored her, has encouraged her in remaining as a fugitive.” He complains that it would be a “mockery” to continue the suit “when the Defendant and Plaintiff are both eager and anxious that the same judgment may be rendered.” 0845 (Accession # 21184709). St. Louis County, Missouri. Nancy, “a dark Mullato,” maintains that she was born of a free woman “in the Territory of Florida that her maternal Grandmother was an Indian woman.” Nancy reports that she was “obtained” by Captain John Page, who kept her as a free person until his death. Following “the decease of said Page,” the petitioner points out that she was taken into the possession of Aeneus McKay and then Enoch Steen, who “now holds & detains her as a slave.” The petitioner therefore “prays for leave to sue as a poor person in order to Establish her right to freedom.” Bridget Padget alleges in her deposition that Nancy “belonged to the Creek Nation of Indians” and that she became “attached to Captain Page” while she lived in Alabama around Fort Mitchell. 0861 (Accession # 21184711). Boone County, Missouri. James Kelly claims that “Samuel C. Grubb borrowed of your orator the sum of Three hundred dollars” in 1842 and that Grubb secured his payment on said debt by mortgaging a slave named Abe, whom he “was possessed of and owned or pretended to be possessed of and to own.” Grubb has since sold the slave to Samuel Young, who refuses to acknowledge the debt to Kelly. Maintaining that Grubb has yet to pay back any portion of his debt, Kelly asks that the said slave “may be decreed to be sold and the proceeds thereof applied to the payment and discharge of the aforesaid sum.” 1848 0883 (Accession # 21184801). Monroe County, Missouri. In February 1846, James McGee made and published his last will and testament, directing that three slaves, Hannah Porter and her children, Fuller and Josephine, should become the property of his wife, Polly McGee, after his death. The will also instructed that Hannah was “immediately to have her freedom” upon Polly’s death and that Hannah’s children were “to be free at the same time & under the same regulations.” The will, however, was rejected by the probate court in June 1846, rendering McGee intestate. Josephine claims that the will is a “Lawful true and genuine” document and asks that it be recognized as such by the court. Considerable testimony in depositions debates McGee’s attitude towards the emancipation of slaves, with the general consensus being that he only favored their manumission if some provision were made to transport them to Africa. 0937 (Accession # 21184802). Linn County, Missouri. John M. Davis and Thomas Allin submit that they jointly own a fourteen-fifteenths interest in two slaves, Charlotte and Price. They claim that Margaret Foster, who owns the remaining interest in the slaves, refuses to make partition of the slaves or “to suffer them to have any use or control of said slaves whatever.” They ask the court to authorize a partition of the slaves, and “if said slaves are not susceptible of partition and division,” they ask that one or both of them be sold with the proceeds divided among the three owners according to their respective rights. In her answer, Margaret Foster alleges that Charlotte and Price are the children of a slave named Dice, who was given to her by her father, John Adams, as a wedding present. She explains that Dice’s children were born while in her possession and that the slaves are now a part of the estate of her late husband, James S. Foster, who died twenty-two years ago. Several years ago, upon the advice of her father-in-law, 67 Reel 7 Missouri she sold Dice to one Benjamin Holliday. Depositions reveal that Dice had at least seven children, whose ownership depends on the outcome of this case. 0975 (Accession # 21184803). Jefferson County, Missouri. Susan McPeak, widow of Mathew McPeak, asks the court to appoint commissioners for the division and distribution of her late husband’s estate. Noting that her husband died in April 1847, the petitioner asserts that she would like to claim her dower in both Mathew’s real and personal estate. She informs the court that she has chosen not to accept the provisions of Mathew’s will, electing instead to “take a life estate in [five] slaves instead of a child’s part so that at her death her dower in the slaves may go according to the provisions of the will.” 0984 (Accession # 21184804). Jefferson County, Missouri. Francis and Sophia McBride ask the court to appoint commissioners to divide and distribute the property of Benjamin O’Fallon, U.S. Indian agent and principal partner in the Missouri Fur Company, who died in 1842 leaving his widow, Sophia, six children, and “some twelve or nine slaves.” O’Fallon’s brother, Colonel John O’Fallon, has been appointed guardian of the minor children and administrator of O’Fallon’s estate. The petitioners report that “all parties are desrious to have the dower in the slaves and other personal estate set apart and assigned.” Both O’Fallon brothers are mentioned as slaveholders in the Narrative of William Wells Brown, A Fugitive Slave. 1006 (Accession # 21184805). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Lydia Crump and Alfred Crump married in July of 1828 in Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Lydia claims that Alfred is a man “of confirmed dissipated habits, of a violent and tyranical temper” and that he has “ill treated her in various ways and on different occasions.” She tells the court that she has been compelled to flee their home and seek refuge with friends when Alfred has “drawn a Gun in an angry and threatening manner on your Petitioner.” She submits that she brought “property of considerable value” to the marriage, including a male slave named Aaron, whom she fears Alfred will try to sell “and make away with.” The petitioner seeks a divorce, an injunction against her husband, settlement of the property, and control of their five children. 1018 (Accession # 21184806). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. On 1 December 1847, Matthew English mortgaged certain property, including two male slaves, to John P. English to secure a debt of $1,200. Two months later, Matthew died intestate and letters of administration on his estate were granted to John P. English. The petitioner claims that the estate still owes him the full balance of the debt. He prays the court to order the foreclosure of the mortgaged property so that his debt may be satisfied. He also requests that Matthew English’s minor heirs be made party defendants in the suit and that a guardian be appointed to prosecute their interests. 1028 (Accession # 21184807). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jane Cotton seeks permission to sue for the recovery of her freedom, citing that James A. Little currently holds her in bondage. Cotton represents that she was born free in the territory of Illinois and that she was “brought forcibly” into Missouri where slavery was permitted by law, two years after Illinois was admitted to the union as a free state. The petitioner explains that she “was in infancy and without knowledge of her rights” and had no one to protect her. Cotton further charges that she has been held wrongfully as a slave ever since and has been “carried to Alabama thence to Arkansas” and brought back to Missouri. 1059 (Accession # 21184808). St. Louis County, Missouri. Thomas Scott, a man of color, seeks permission to sue as a poor person to establish his right to freedom. Scott claims that his owner, James Harrison, hired out his services in 1847 to St. Vrain, a trader in New Mexico, who carried Scott to New Mexico and “held him there in bondage for a period of at least five months.” He 68 Reel 7 Missouri avers that slavery “was not allowable by the laws of New Mexico at that time” and that he is therefore entitled to his freedom. 1067 (Accession # 21184809). St. Louis County, Missouri. Elsa Hicks, a mulatto woman, has a freedom suit pending against Patrick McSherry. She now contends that Lewis Burrell “assisted by other persons ... actually seized upon her at the place she was employed and gagged her and hurried her and her child off.” She claims that her abductors then placed her and her child on the steamboat Algoma “for the purpose of carrying them off to the Southern Country.” She and her child were, however, able to escape “by the interposition of a friend.” Hicks asks the court to bring her before them and to compel Burrell to give security ensuring that he will not remove her from the court’s jurisdiction. In his defense, Lewis Burrell laments “the universal Hue & cry of abolitionists,” alleging that Hicks and McSherry have conspired to cheat his sister’s children out of their property. He also traces the transfer of Elsa’s ownership within the Burrell/Mitchell families. An undated court order authorizes that Elsa and her child be received “into the establishment known as the ‘County farm,’ until the determination of the suit,” where Elsa’s labor, in the meantime, shall be applied towards her support. 1086 (Accession # 21184810). St. Louis County, Missouri. Sheriff Samuel Conway reports that he took custody of Elsa Hicks, a mulatto woman suing to recover her freedom, and put her in jail in February 1848. He further cites that the court requires him to hire her out “from time to time” during the suit, but despite his diligent efforts, he has been unable to do so. Conway claims that the health of Hicks and her child has “become impaired” by their imprisonment. He asserts that if she remains in jail until the case is tried, “the consequence will probably [be] very serious to her health & to that of the child & may be fatal to one or both of them.” He also reports that he talked with Hicks and that she denied that McSherry ever claimed her as his slave or that she ever filed a suit against him. On the contrary, she “had intended to sue a Mr. Mitchell.” Conway asks that “the court will cause some security to be given for my costs & expenses & trouble” or that he may have permission to release her if Elsa wishes to discontinue her suit. The attorney for the minor children, who claim Elsa is their property, urges the court to retain her in jail as he believes she “may again be taken & harbored & secreted by persons tinctured with abolitionism,” naming a certain Joseph Tabour, whom he believes has attempted to retain a carriage driver to “convey her” to his home. 1094 (Accession # 21184812). St. Louis County, Missouri. Peggy Perryman, a woman of color, represents that, “while visiting friends in Arkansas in the enjoyment of her freedom and civil rights,” she was “suddenly seized ... gaged and transported and finally sold into servitude” by persons to her “before unknown.” She avers that her father is a free person of color in Arkansas and her mother is an “Indian of the Black foot Tribe,” whose people are “not only free since the memory of man but are distinguished among this Tribe.” Perryman, currently restrained by Joseph Philibert, asks for permission to sue as a poor person in order to establish her right to freedom. 1105 (Accession # 21184813). Boone County, Missouri. Reuben Hatten died intestate in 1843, survived by a widow, who died shortly thereafter, and by at least thirteen children and seven grandchildren. The late Hatten owned a thirty-one-year-old mulatto slave named Silvey, and the petitioners, Hatten’s heirs at law, attest that they are “the owners of and are interested in said slave as tenants in common.” They seek a judgment of partition between them “according to their respective rights.” They submit that if “partition thereof in kind cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners thereof that the Court order said slave to be sold ... and that the proceeds arising from said sale be divided between the parties interested therein according to their respective rights.” 69 Reel 8 Missouri Reel 8 Missouri cont. 1849 0002 (Accession # 21184901). St. Louis County, Missouri. Fleming Calvert claims that the captain of the steamboat Timoleon transported Calvert’s mulatto slave Carter from St. Louis to “a Town in the State of Illinois” on 30 September 1849 without Calvert’s consent. Carter, who was worth $1,000, “hath been wholly lost and [is] of no value to said Plaintiff.” The petitioner asks for compensation for Carter’s value. Representatives for the steamboat company argued that Carter was “permitted and suffered to go at large upon the hiring of his own time or to act and deal as a free person.” Testimony in the court record furthers this line of inquiry, alleging that Carter was born free because his mother’s former owner transported her from South Carolina to Illinois where she lived from 1812 to 1818. 0027 (Accession # 21184902). McDonald County, Missouri. Silvia, a woman of color, maintains that she is a free woman “held in slavery against her will” by Joel Kirby and William B. Holmes. She claims that she was “taken unlawfully” by Kirby in 1834 to “the territory ceded by France ... under the name of Louisiana.” She attests that she was neither guilty nor convicted of any crime before or during the year he detained her. Through violation of an act of Congress, she claims that “she became free & now is a free woman & entitled to Judgement of liberation.” Silvia asks for permission to sue for her freedom as a poor person. 0045 (Accession # 21184903). Jefferson County, Missouri. Martha S. Huskey seeks a divorce from Silas Huskey, her husband of fifteen years. She complains that Silas sold most of his property, including two tracts of land and a slave girl, in April 1848 and “went to parts unknown in company with Elizabeth Nash,” his paramour. Before his departure, he “was very harsh and tyrannical towards complainant”; he returned the following summer, only to recommence his abusive behavior. He convinced her to relinquish her dower, lied to her about his intentions to reconcile with her, and openly cohabited with Nash. He finally deserted her permanently, leaving her on a piece of worthless land with only $3.75 and a slave named Thomas with which to support herself and five children. Noting that Thomas has since “run off,” the petitioner seeks a divorce and asks that the court order the sheriff to take charge of Thomas “and apply the hire thereof to the support of complainant & family during the pendency of this Suit.” In addition, the petitioner requests an injunction to prevent Silas from selling Thomas and “the few articles of personal property” she has left. 0054 (Accession # 21184904). Jefferson County, Missouri. Amanda C. Cooly, administratrix of the estate of the late Lawson Cooley, asks the court to approve the hire of a slave in the estate. She reports that she hired out Loyd in October 1849 for a two-month period “at and for the price and sum of Twelve Dollars.” She explains that she “thought it proper to pursue this course” because the court would not convene in time to condone her plan by order. 0063 (Accession # 21184905). St. Louis County, Missouri. Nelly Duty, a slave emancipated by the will of the late Milton Duty, represents that John F. Darby, administrator of said estate, illegally holds her in slavery. Citing that she is “a poor person wholly without property,” Nelly asks permission to bring her suit for freedom as a poor person. She also asks for reasonable liberty to attend court and her counsel and “that she be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the court nor subjected to any severity on account of her application for her freedom.” 70 Reel 8 Missouri 0074 (Accession # 21184906). St. Louis County, Missouri. Ellen Duty, a slave emancipated by the will of the late Milton Duty, represents that John F. Darby, administrator of said estate, illegally holds her in slavery. Citing that she is “a poor person wholly without property,” Ellen “prays for leave to sue as a poor person for her freedom.” She also asks that “she may have reasonable liberty to attend her counsel and the court” and “that she be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court on account of this her application for her freedom.” 0085 (Accession # 21184907). St. Louis County, Missouri. Preston Duty, a slave emancipated by the will of the late Milton Duty, represents that John F. Darby, administrator of said estate, illegally holds him in slavery. Citing that he is “wholly without property,” Preston prays for “leave to sue as a poor person, for his freedom.” He also asks that “he may have reasonable liberty to attend his counsel and the court” and “that he be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the court nor subjected to any severity on account of this application for his freedom.” 0096 (Accession # 21184908). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary Duty, a slave emancipated by the will of the late Milton Duty, represents that John F. Darby, administrator of said estate, illegally holds her in slavery. Citing that she is “a poor person, wholly without property,” Mary prays for “leave to sue as a poor person for her freedom.” She also asks that “she may have reasonable liberty to attend her counsel and the court” and “that she be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the court, nor subjected to any severity on account her application for freedom.” 0108 (Accession # 21184909). St. Louis County, Missouri. Lucina Duty, a slave emancipated by the will of the late Milton Duty, represents that John F. Darby, administrator of said estate, illegally holds her in slavery. Citing that she is “a poor person, wholly without property,” Lucina prays for “leave to sue as a poor person, for her freedom.” She also asks that “she may have reasonable liberty to attend her counsel and the court” and “that she be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the court nor subjected to any severity on account of this her application for her freedom.” 0115 (Accession # 21184910). St. Louis County, Missouri. Caroline Duty, a slave emancipated by the will of the late Milton Duty, represents that John F. Darby, administrator of said estate, illegally holds her in slavery. Caroline prays for “leave to sue as a poor person for her freedom.” She also asks that “she may have reasonable liberty to attend her counsel and the court” and “that she be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court nor subject to any severity on account of this her application for her freedom.” 0127 (Accession # 21184911). St. Louis County, Missouri. Harry Duty, a slave emancipated by the will of the late Milton Duty, represents that John F. Darby, administrator of said estate, illegally holds him in slavery. Citing that he is “a poor person wholly without property,” Harry prays “for leave to sue as a poor person for his freedom.” He also asks that “he may have reasonable liberty to attend his counsel and the court” and “that he be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the court nor subjected to any severity on account of this application for his freedom.” 0139 (Accession # 21184912). St. Louis County, Missouri. Jordan Duty, a slave emancipated by the will of the late Milton Duty, represents that John F. Darby, administrator of said estate, illegally holds him in slavery. Citing that he is “a poor person, wholly without property,” Jordan prays “leave to sue as a poor person, for his freedom.” He also asks that “he may have reasonable liberty to attend his counsel and the court” and “that he be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the court, nor subjected to any severity on account of his application for freedom.” 71 Reel 8 Missouri 0152 (Accession # 21184913). Boone County, Missouri. John Stemmons mortgaged three slaves to Philips Crow on 29 November 1847 to secure the payment of a debt “in the sum of four hundred dollars with interest thereon.” Stemmons had previously mortgaged the slaves to W. Woodson “to secure payment to him of six hundred and fifty one dollars.” Crow now claims that Stemmons has not paid any part of the debt. He asks the court to foreclose on the mortgage and to order that the slaves be sold to satisfy the debt. 1850 0166 (Accession # 21185001). Washington County, Missouri. Thomas C. and Noah George Dugan claim, by their brother and guardian, Jeremiah Dugan, that Thomas Livingston “wrongfully detains” their ten-year-old slave, Toney, alias Jeremiah. They seek the “immediate possession” of the slave. In a related case, Livingston sued Jeremiah Dugan the following year to recover medical expenses incurred by Toney, who contracted rheumatism while the suit was pending and Toney was in Livingston’s custody “under a claim of right then in contoversy.” The circuit court found in Dugan’s favor; Livingston appealed to the supreme court, which reversed the decision and remanded the case. 0190 (Accession # 21185002). Montgomery County, Missouri. Moses Hughes complains that Josiah Whiteside “took and received into his possession” four slaves that belong to him. Hughes claims that he has sustained damages to “the full value of the slaves,” which he estimates at $1,300, as well as their hire. He asks the court to order Whiteside to “restore said negroes to him,” or be compelled to compensate him for their full value plus hire. The transcript of the court record reveals that Moses Hughes had died before the suit was commenced and that his administrator, John M. Townley, tried to “continue” the suit in his own name. Whiteside claims that the slaves in controversy were possessed by Hughes’s son, John F. P. Hughes, for several years prior to the suit. He further contends that he purchased the said slaves legally on 1 April 1850 at a sheriff’s sale, after they were seized to satisfy a judgment against the younger Hughes. 0219 (Accession # 21185003). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Fourteen petitioners join in a suit as creditors of the estate of the late William Mahon; these include physicians, county officials, and various merchants, who have “respectively obtained allowances against the Estate,” amounting to an aggregate of $379.55. Mahon’s estate, which includes a tract of land and three slaves, is insufficiently solvent to discharge its debts. Claiming that Mahon manumitted the three slaves before his death and that the debts were “contracted before and were in existence before” the slaves’ manumission, the petitioners allege that the slaves are “liable to be sold to pay the debts notwithstanding said deed of manumission.” They ask the court to order Jefferson W. Limbaugh, public administrator for the county, to sell the slaves in order that the proceeds may be applied to the payment of the debts. 0240 (Accession # 21185004). Jefferson County, Missouri. Samuel Ray, “a coloured free man,” claims that Francis Smith “wrongfully” seized thirteen of his slaves on 1 May 1850. Ray determines the value of his loss to be $3,500, “for which he asks judgment.” Smith’s answer reveals that Ray became indebted to Colonel John Smith in his efforts to purchase his wife and children from Smith, who held them in slavery. Ray agreed to give Smith $1,400, but was only able to pay $500 at the time of purchase. Captain James M. White replaced Ray’s original security, and, in order to assist him, furnished Ray with goods “from time to time to sell as a merchant.” As Ray’s debt “swelled to twenty large odd hundred dollars,” White’s executors, “in a spirit of great liberality,” discounted Ray’s debt and Ray mortgaged several slaves to them in order to secure the remainder. Three years passed, and still owing the balance, Ray “voluntarily came forward” and delivered up the slaves. White’s executor, “not being willing to hold the 72 Reel 8 Missouri negroes in perpetual bondage,” applied to the defendant to “take the negroes for the shortest possible time,” after which Smith “covenanted” to manumit them. 0250 (Accession # 21185005). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. David H. Davis, administrator of the estate of the late Lewis Painter, seeks to protect the intestate’s interest in the estate of Wilson Painter, Lewis’s brother. Wilson Painter, who died in 1845 without a will, wife, or children, was “partners in trade” with two other brothers, John and Mason, “doing an extensive business in Cape Girardeau.” Davis contends that, at the time of his death, Wilson was entitled to a share in “Town Lots Houses Slaves a Warf Boat Tan yard, Goods Wares and Merchandise Claims in action money and other property.” Davis alleges that this partnership has “expired” and that John and Mason now control the entirety of the property. He asks that the court compel the surviving brothers to account for this property, as well as the firm’s profits, and to order a partition of the real estate. 0258 (Accession # 21185006). Jefferson County, Missouri. “M Frissell respectfully sheweth that he is the lawful owner of and entitled to the services of a negro slave named Henry about twenty three years old, about five feet ten inches high of a color a shade lighter than black slow of speech and of a rather soft voice with a scar from a recent sore upon one of his knees not recollected which and petitioner states that said slave has escaped from service in this state as he verily believes. That said slave escaped from service about the 29th day of October last.” [Transcription] 0262 (Accession # 21185007). St. Louis County, Missouri. Joseph Garneau seeks damages in the amount of $400 from Nicholas Herthel, a German cigar shop proprietor, who “unlawfully enticed” his slave Plato away from his service. Garneau further argues that Herthel then took Plato and “induced, used & employed” him to “descend into the vault of a privy ... for the purpose of cleaning the same.” Plato was “overpowered by said noxious gases & forthwith died from the effects thereof.” Depositions reveal that three “negroes” were killed in the “accident” and that two white men were rescued using ropes and poles, but later died. One of the “negroes,” Reuben, was expressly employed by Robert White, the owner of the building and proprietor of a tavern therein, to complete the job and is described by White as “like the common run of niggers.” It is unclear whether he was a slave. Plato was a “baker by trade” and often drove Garneau’s bread cart. One eyewitness described the scene: “I could look down by the candles stuck in the sides of the vault & see the black faces.” Another recounted: “We didn’t try then to get the negroes out—we couldn’t see them—about daylight they were taken out.” 0298 (Accession # 21185009). St. Louis County, Missouri. Margaret Davis, a free person of color, claims that Granville Blakey and Alfred B. McAffee, partners in the firm of Blakey & McAffee, wrongfully detain her twelve-year-old slave named Patsy. She asks the court to order the defendants to return Patsy and to pay her damages in the amount of $50. “In case that may not be had,” she asks for $500, the value of the slave, plus damages. Related documents reveal that Patsy is Margaret’s daughter and that Margaret attempts to claim Patsy under “the general principle that five years adverse possession of chattels will confer a title.” Margaret, who was manumitted by Oliver Bennett along with her young son Gilead in 1842, has had possession of her daughter since birth, although an 1835 bill of sale shows that Augustus Evans is Patsy’s actual owner. According to depositions, Evans, who asks to be named a party defendant in the suit, did not assert his right to title until 1850. The supreme court opinion, written by William Scott, contains the statement: “[A] negro under our laws cannot hold slaves: It is against their policy and in its tendency is subversive of all the police laws for the government of slaves.” Two other justices dissented from this statement. 73 Reel 8 Missouri 0326 (Accession # 21185010). Jefferson County, Missouri. Philip Pipkin, public administrator for Jefferson County, reminds the court that a previous order required him to hire out four slaves belonging to the estate of Dr. Lawson Cooley. He reports that he has fulfilled this duty “for the price and sum in the aggregate” of $95.75. However, Cooley’s brother-in-law, A. L. Jarrett, claims three of the slaves as his property in trust for his nieces. Jarrett referred Pipkin to the trust deed, which Pipkin accepts as “clear and indisputable.” Now satisfied that the Cooley estate has no claim to three of the slaves, Pipkin avers that “it would be improper in me to retain the proceeds of their hire.” He asks the court to discharge him from the management “of said negroes as the property of said estate” and to release him from “accountability to said estate for their hire.” He also asks the court to make an order for the hire of the fourth slave, Loyd, “up to the 1st of Jany 1851.” 0332 (Accession # 21185012). St. Louis County, Missouri. Mary asserts that she and her two young sons, Samuel and Edward, are free people of color, who are unlawfully held as slaves by Louncelot Calvert. She explains that James Bond [Bonde] brought her from Kentucky to the free state of Ohio when she was still a child and where she lived for more than a year as a slave in his family. She returned to Kentucky with Bond, who then allowed Bryson Stilwell to bring her to Missouri. Once in Missouri, she was transferred to and from five different men, “all negro and slave traders and dealers.” She reveals that during her time in Missouri, where her sons were born, these men have subjected her to cruel treatment such as “confinement in their negro yards or Jails and while in said yards or jails refusing to let her see her husband.” Mary asks for permission to prosecute her suit for freedom as a poor person. Depositions from Bond’s neighbors in Ohio include references to another slave living with the family in Ohio between 1840 and 1842, as well as testimony from men who either identify themselves as abolitionists or admit to voting for “abolitionist candidates.” 0367 (Accession # 21185014). Boone County, Missouri. Joel Hayden, John and Nancy Harris, and the Harrises’ eleven children request a division of twenty-four slaves they hold together as tenants in common. Hayden owns “four undivided fifths of the slaves,” while the Harrises are entitled to the “remaining undivided fifth part of the slaves during their natural lives.” The Harris children are “each entitled absolutely in remainder to said fifth of said slaves.” They ask the court to authorize a division of the slaves, “if the same can be made in kind,” or that the slaves be sold and the proceeds divided according to the interest of the parties. The sheriff’s report notes that one of the infant slaves died before the sale took place and two infants were born, and deems it “an act of cruelty to sell the mothers without their Infants.” In a supplemental petition, John and Nancy Harris ask that a trustee be appointed “to take charge of their said interest” in $9,294, the proceeds arising from the sale of twenty-six slaves, who were sold at public auction on 7 November 1850. As petitioners in a previous suit that sought a partition of the slave property, they report, however, “that they never anticipated such a proceeding as would change the character of said interest but expected partition to be made in kind of said slaves, which was not done, but converted to money.” Noting that they are “old and infirm,” the petitioners ask that the appointed trustee take their share of the money and “purchase them slaves to be holden for them during their natural lives, and for their said children in remainder.” 0406 (Accession # 21185015). St. Louis County, Missouri. Edward Milligan claims that he purchased a slave named Harriett for $365 from John Dunn in 1849. Dunn gave Milligan’s wife, Maria Milligan, a bill of sale for this purchase, which also acted as a warranty on the slave. Reporting that Dunn “represented Said Slave as being entirely Sound Except the two middle fingers on the left hand,” Edward argues that Harriett’s hands and feet were both unsound. Edward sold the slave after discovering her “deformity,” but “the slave did not fetch more than three hundred dollars solely in Consequence of the unsoundness or deformity that existed in her 74 Reel 8 Missouri feet.” He asks the court for damages in the amount of $65, which is the difference in cost between the purchase and sale price of Harriett. 1851 0428 (Accession # 21185101). Marion County, Missouri. The heirs of Isaac B. Gibbons maintain that he owned eighteen slaves in 1829. They further attest that these slaves were to be divided equally among his said heirs upon his death. The petitioners charge that Moses Gentry came into possession of Nancy and Patrick, two of Gibbons’s said slaves, in 1831. They allege that this sale was illegal because of a trust executed by Gibbons in 1829. Noting that Gibbons died in 1848, the heirs complain that Gentry now refuses to relinquish Nancy or her children to them. The heirs ask the court to order Gentry to return the slaves to them. In addition, they seek compensation for the value of the slaves’ hires over the past three years. 0508 (Accession # 21185102). St. Francois County, Missouri. Martha A. Barksdale became the owner of a male slave named Jefferson upon the division of her mother’s estate. She claims that John P. Appleberry “got possession of said Slave since which time he refuses to return” him to Barksdale. She asks the court to order Appleberry either to return the slave or to pay her $800 for the value of the slave. 0536 (Accession # 21185103). Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. Elvy Le Compte purchased a thirty-five-year-old slave named Lewis from William Varnier for $608 during the summer of 1850. On 31 December 1850, Le Compte authorized Toussaint Lahay to sell Lewis at “a Southern Market.” Henry Crane purchased Lewis for $375 in New Orleans on 18 January 1851. Although Lahay guaranteed that Lewis was “sound in body and mind,” Crane found Lewis to have a “vicious” character and a “diseased” body. Moreover, Crane alleges that Lewis was “addicted to the habit of running away.” Lewis’s poor health led to his death on 15 April 1851. Crane argues that he has incurred $240 in medical, travel, and burial expenses on account of Lewis. The petitioner prays that Le Compte and Lahay be ordered to pay him $615 in compensation. 0594 (Accession # 21185104). Saline County, Missouri. John Brown, administrator of the estate of the late James Brown, seeks $1,200 in damages for the illegal detention of three slaves belonging to James Brown’s estate. The petitioner alleges that Rufus W. Finley took possession of the said slaves on or about 3 November 1851, “without leave, wrongfully, unlawfully and clandestinely & in violation of the legal rights of plaintiff.” In his answer, Rufus Finley, son-in-law of the late Brown, claims that the twenty-five-year-old enslaved woman and her two young sons were a gift to his wife from her father. 0617 (Accession # 21185105). St. Louis County, Missouri. Fleming Calvert, trustee for Mary Ann Calvert, contends that “he the plaintiff is injured and has sustained damages in the sum of One thousand dollars for which he prays judgment against” Samuel Rider and John H. Allen. In an amended petition, Calvert alleges that the said Allen, owner of the steamboat Timoleon, and the said Rider, the boat’s “master and commander,” illegally transported a slave belonging to Mary Ann out of the state of Missouri. Carter, a twenty-three-year-old “dark chocolate mulatto,” is now “wholly lost to the plaintiff.” The Calverts seek damages in the amount of $1,000, Carter’s alleged value. The court transcript reveals that at the 1849 November Term of the circuit court, the Calverts successfully recovered judgment for $1,000 from the steamboat company. They recover $800 here. Allen and Rider appealed the decision, and the supreme court’s opinion hinged on whether a slave owner “can maintain an action at common law against those who were concerned in removing the slave from the State.” The defendants’ answers and several depositions concern whether Carter was “allowed by plaintiff to go at large on the hiring of his own time.” 75 Reel 8 Missouri 0660 (Accession # 21185106). Boone County, Missouri. Elijah Winn died intestate in 1848, leaving a widow Sarah and various heirs at law. At the time of his death, Winn owned several slaves. Noting that the numerous heirs “own and hold said several slaves, as tenants in Common,” the petitioners request a “Judgment of Partition, and that the said named slaves, may be divided between the parties interested in the same, according to their respective rights.” Winn’s heirs urge “if it shall appear, that Partition thereof cannot be made, without great prejudice to the owners, that then the same may be sold, and the proceeds divided between the parties interested therein according to their respective rights.” 0704 (Accession # 21185108). St. Louis County, Missouri. Gabriel, “a free person of color,” asserts that he “was the slave of a man named Michael Wiles in the state of Missouri” in the spring of 1850. Gabriel informs the court that Wiles transported him to “the Territory of California,” where the said Wiles resided for “three months or more.” The petitioner further declares that Wiles “kept your petitioner with him and in his employ as his slave.” Citing that the territory of California is a “free territory and by its law forbidding slavery therein,” Gabriel asserts that he “became free by his residence there, and is in consequence a free person and as such entitled to his freedom.” The petitioner therefore “prays the Court for leave to sue for his freedom as a poor person” against the said Michael Wiles. 0711 (Accession # 21185109). Jefferson County, Missouri. Philip Pipkin, administrator of the estate of Lawson Cooley, informs the court that “the hire of Loyd a negro man belonging to estate of deceased expired on the 1st of January last.” He further reports that “he did during the vacation of your court hire from said date to the 20th March 1851 the said negro boy at and for the price & sum of Thirty dollars.” Pipkin prays “the court to approve his administration in this behalf.” 0720 (Accession # 21185115). Boone County, Missouri. William C. Robnett and others claim that they have rights to the estate of the late John J. Cotton. They inform the court that Cotton owned at least five slaves at the time of his death. They ask the court to partition the slaves in Cotton’s estate according to their various interests. If a fair partition is not possible, the heirs request that the slaves be sold and the proceeds be divided among them. 0778 (Accession # 21185116). Marion County, Missouri. Mary H. Borren made her will in 1824, whereby she “devised to her two sons (the plaintiffs) in trust for her daughter, Celia W. Stone, two negro Slaves, Hampton and Nancy, during her natural life, with their increase, and then to the heirs of her body forever.” After Borren’s death, Nancy gave birth to a child named Jim; Celia gave Jim to Charles H. Borrer, who died in 1850. Stone’s trustees and brothers, Samuel A. Borren and William R. Borren, claim that Borrer’s administrators have yet to return Jim to them. They ask the court to order said administrators to deliver Jim to them and “in case the said negro is not returned or delivered to them, they ask judgment, for the value of said negro boy Jim being seven hundred dollars.” The petitioners also seek “judgment for the sum of four hundred dollars for the hire of said negro boy Jim.” 1852 0814 (Accession # 21185201). Schuyler County, Missouri. Titus and Ellen Shropshire join their children, Randolph, Mary Jane, Wilson, and Josephine, in claiming that they are free persons of color, manumitted on 25 June 1846 by their former owner, Elizabeth Shropshire. Elizabeth died in 1849, and the Shropshires allege that the administrator of her estate, Richard Caywood, along with the estate’s heirs, “claim to hold and do hold your petitioners in Slavery.” They ask the court for permission to sue as poor persons in order to establish their right to freedom. After receiving permission, the petitioners filed an amended bill asking “for a Judgment declaring said 76 Reel 8 Missouri instrument by which they were set free to be good and effectual for that purpose.” Depositions reveal that the petitioner Ellen came into Elizabeth Shropshire’s possession as a bequest from her father, Charles M. Hall, upon his death in 1840. Titus was purchased by Shropshire from the proceeds of the sale of a slave named Jacob, also a bequest from Hall. The circuit court ruled that Titus was indeed a free man, but upheld that his wife and children should remain in servitude. The petitioners appealed and the supreme court reversed and remanded the case. 0868 (Accession # 21185202). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Heirs of Louis [Lewis], Wilson, Hiram, and Mason Painter claim that John Painter, prior to 1830, entered into partnership with his four brothers, now deceased. The Painter brothers specialized “in Tanning in Saddling in Merchandising, in Commission and Grocery business on Board of Warf Boat, in the purchase of Land and city Lots, and the erecting of Houses thereon, and in buying Selling and Trading in general.” Over time, the partnership acquired real and personal property, including slaves, and changed its company name several times. By 1852, John Painter is the only surviving partner in the business. Harrison H. M. Williams joins the petitioners as public administrator of the county, asserting that he has “taken charge of” the estates of the deceased partners. The plaintiffs together seek a judgment for partition of the firm’s shared property and distribution of the property among the entitled heirs. 0884 (Accession # 21185203). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. The heirs of John B. Young and the heirs of Mary A. Shaner claim that they jointly own a slave family, consisting of Clair and her two children. The heirs ask the court to authorize the sale of the slaves in order “to make partition of the proceeds among said parties according to their respective rights.” Henry Shaner also seeks compensation “for raising said slaves, for clothing, keeping paying taxes, &c., from the time said slaves were born till the present.” John Byrd originally owned Clair; in 1818 he conveyed her to his widowed daughter, Sarah Byrd Young. Sarah Young later married Henry Shaner, and upon her death, she willed Clair and her increase to her two sons, Robert M. and John B. Young. Robert died in 1828, leaving his interest in the slaves to his half-sisters, Mary A. and Catharine Shaner. Around 1847, Mary A. Shaner died. 0897 (Accession # 21185204). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Caroline Minor claims that Edgar Mason is indebted to her in the sum of $1,466.01 “for the price of negroes sold by said plaintiff, in the State of Tennessee, and for negro hire there.” Minor claims that Mason has “refused and neglected” to pay her. She therefore prays “judgment for the said sum of fourteen hundred & Sixty Six Dollars and One cent, being the balance due her, and accruing interest.” 0908 (Accession # 21185205). Jefferson County, Missouri. Benjamin and Mary Boucher married in 1823 and lived together “in peace and quietness for many years.” Recently, however, Mary abandoned Benjamin and has remained away from their home “for the space of two years.” Following unsuccessful attempts to reconcile, the petitioner reveals that the couple agreed to a division of their common property, roughly worth about $1,500. In said division, Mary received a “negro woman & girl valued at $600.” The docket page cites that a divorce was granted on 3 December 1853. 0915 (Accession # 21185206). Jefferson County, Missouri. Elizabeth Burns reports that her brother, Daniel Eastwood, died possessed of an estate that consisted of land and eight slaves. She attests that “all of said slaves are hers and her brother Leonards in equal shares as the sole heirs of their brother Daniel.” The petitioner asserts that the administrator of her late brother’s estate, Benjamin Johnston, is currently in possession of the slaves and that her brother Leonard is not a resident of Missouri. She asks the court to partition the land and slaves “according to the rights above set forth” and for permission to sell the slaves if an equitable partition cannot be made. 77 Reel 8 Missouri 0925 (Accession # 21185207). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. The heirs of George Camster [Campster] claim that his estate consists of five slaves and 232 arpens of land west of the town of Cape Girardeau. They ask the court to appoint commissioners to make a partition of the estate between his children and his widow, Martha, who is now married to Woodson Parrott and who is now entitled to one-third of the estate absolutely. 0936 (Accession # 21185208). Platte County, Missouri. John W. Freeland seeks a divorce from his wife, Rebecca Eldridge Freeland, whom he married in 1845. John claims that he and Rebecca lived together for five years, during which time Rebecca treated him with “great indignity and inhumanity.” She then abandoned their home “without any cause whatever on his part.” John now believes that she is residing outside of the state of Missouri. He seeks an order of publication and a decree to dissolve their matrimonial bonds. In her bill of exceptions, Rebecca presented a copy of the couple’s 1850 separation agreement, wherein she and John divided their property, including a seventeen-year-old slave named Mary and Mary’s elevenmonth-old daughter, Samantha. 0950 (Accession # 21185209). St. Louis County, Missouri. Henry Lohre represents that “he is a mulatto, that he was born a slave being the property of Benjamin Horine.” He further charges that he is being illegally held as a slave by Gaius Duty of Vicksburg, Mississippi. Lohre asserts that Horine legally manumitted him when he turned twenty-one. He is now twenty-nine and “has not been claimed as a slave or as the property of said Horine” since he turned twenty-one. Lohre believes that Duty or his agents and attorneys “by force and violence” will remove him out of the state “to prevent his suing for his freedom.” Lohre asks the court for permission to sue for his freedom as a poor person. In his answer, Gaius Duty claims that Lohre, also known as Harry, is a slave who has “eluded the search of defendant.” Now that he has possession of “Harry,” Duty “intends to have him sent home to his owner.” Duty adds that “Harry” is worth $700. 0964 (Accession # 21185210). St. Louis County, Missouri. George Johnson insists that he is a free man born of “free colored parents in the free city of Brownsville, in the free state of Pennsylvania.” Now held as a slave by Reuben Bartlett, Johnson asserts that he has lived until now “never having owed service or belonged to any person whatever.” He asks for permission to sue as a poor person for his freedom, with free access to counsel, and the court’s protection from being removed outside the court’s jurisdiction. In his answer, Reuben Bartlett claims that he purchased George Johnson from one A. B. McAfee on 7 September 1852. 0973 (Accession # 21185213). Boone County, Missouri. When Joseph Schooling died in 1831, his widow, Susana, took possession of three slaves as her dower. The petitioners, children of Schooling with a reversionary interest in the slaves, “have good reason to believe” that Susana and her new husband, William Taylor, will dispose of the slaves, or convey them away to unnamed parties. They seek an injunction against the defendants in order to protect their own interest in the slaves. In his answer, James Booth contends that he purchased one of the children of Eda, a slave whose title is currently in controversy, for $195, believing the girl to be Taylor’s “absolute property.” 78 Reel 9 Missouri Reel 9 Missouri cont. 1853 0002 (Accession # 21185302). Platte County, Missouri. William L. Layson, by his guardian Mary Layson, seeks the return of a slave named James Washington, who is “wrongfully and illegally detained” by William Rogers, Layson’s uncle by marriage. Layson explains that he purchased Washington from his grandmother, Hannah Layson, for the price of $1 in January 1848. The bill of sale, which contained “one reservation only,” stipulated that his grandmother would retain the “use and benefit” of Washington’s services during her lifetime. Hannah Layson died on 5 October 1852. The petitioner reports that although he has made a “special demand” for Washington’s return, Rogers has not complied. Layson seeks a judgment “for said slave Washington specifically” and damages for his detention “equal to the value of the annual labor of said slave from the 5th day of October 1852 till the rendition of Judgment in this cause at the rate of seventy five dollars a year.” 0033 (Accession # 21185303). St. Louis County, Missouri. John L. Blaine informs the court that Thomas O’Flaherty, a representative of a firm “in liquidation” called Connolly, Hogan & Co., sold him a fourteen-year-old slave named Aaron in 1844. Blaine later sold the slave to William C. Taylor. In 1851, Thomas J. and Margaret Thompson brought suit against Taylor for the recovery and possession of Aaron. The court ruled in favor of the Thompsons, and Blaine, without suit, compensated Taylor in the amount of $600 “in discharge of his liability to said Taylor.” Now, Blaine claims that “at the time of the conveyance aforesaid there was a title to said slave paramount to the title of said defendant ... and adverse to his or their title & so defendant’s covenant therein was broken.” He seeks compensation from O’Flaherty in the amount of $350. 0052 (Accession # 21185305). St. Louis County, Missouri. Oliver H. Jones, administrator of the estate of the late Nathan Jones, seeks delivery of a slave named Lewis, who is currently being held illegally by Nathaniel Covington. Jones explains that John Howdeshell [Howdeschell] sold two slaves to Nathan Jones on 10 September 1838, “in partial payment of” a debt he owed to Sarah Jones, his adopted daughter and the petitioner’s wife. The slaves did not change physical possession, however, because Howdeshell owned their mother, Caroline, and did not want to separate the family. Howdeshell has died, and Lewis is now in the possession of the defendant. Jones asks the court to order Covington to return Lewis, or, in default thereof, to compensate him in the sum of $900, Lewis’s alleged value. In his answer, Covington contends that he legally hired Lewis from the estate of John Howdeshell, but that Lewis “was decoyed away or eloped from the defendant.” Covington alleges that Lewis is actually in the petitioner’s possession and has been since the commencement of the suit. 0080 (Accession # 21185307). St. Louis County, Missouri. James H. Johnston contracted with the steamboat Arabia to transport him and his twelve slaves from Paducah, Kentucky, to St. Louis for the sum of $14. Johnston claims that the second mate of the steamboat, without leave or his consent, ordered Johnston’s mulatto slave Napoleon to “help take wood on said Steam boat & work in piling & securing the same board.” While so engaged, Napoleon “became & was lost to the Plaintiff by drow[n]ing in the Mississippi River, & was never delivered at St. Louis.” Johnston contends that, “owing to the carelessness & wrongful conduct of Defendant,” he has suffered damages in the amount of Napoleon’s value. He therefore asks the court for a judgment of $1,000. 79 Reel 9 Missouri 0137 (Accession # 21185308). Warren County, Missouri. Philo Gillett, widower of Mary Ann Debo Gillett, seeks a partition of the slaves in his late wife’s estate. He explains that Mary Ann, at the time of their marriage, was entitled to a slave named Matilda, who belonged to the estate of her first husband, Valentine Debo, who died in 1836. Mary Ann paid the debts of the estate and kept Matilda in her possession without administration. By the time of Mary Ann’s death in 1847, Matilda had borne seven children, six of whom survived. Administration on Valentine’s estate did not occur until 1850, when James Green obtained letters and recovered and took possession of the slaves. Gillett avers that he is now entitled to an “undivided half of said negro woman Matilda” and a “moiety of the slaves now undisposed of by the Administrator.” Naming his stepdaughter Elvira and her husband, Beverly Camp, as defendants, he asks the court to distribute the slaves “according to the rights of the parties as heretofore mentioned.” 0154 (Accession # 21185310). Franklin County, Missouri. The children of Ann and John A. Roberts ask the court to secure their interest in twenty-one slaves belonging to their late father’s estate. They complain that their mother’s second husband, Isaac Stoner, has misappropriated Ann’s dower, which originally included seven slaves allotted to her by court order. Six slaves have been born since the allotment, increasing the value of Ann’s inheritance to $4,000. The petitioners allege that Stoner “is acting as if he possessed a full title in the aforesaid dower,” instead of a life interest. He has sold eight of the slaves, four of them to the firm of McAffee and Blakey, “negro traders” in St. Louis; has taken two of them out of the state; and may “sell and dispose of the remaining slaves.” They ask the court to protect their “remainder and reversion in the same” by sequestering the slaves, compelling Stoner to give security for their forthcoming, and enjoining the defendants from removing them outside the jurisdiction of the court. In a related document, William A. Patton asks to be named a party defendant, producing a bill of sale that vests in him the title to seven of the slaves in controversy. 0168 (Accession # 21185311). St. Louis County, Missouri. Thornton Kinney seeks a writ of habeas corpus and the opportunity to reestablish his freedom, a state “prized beyond life itself.” Kinney, whose father was a slave, explains that his mother, Amy Kinney, was a free woman of color “of Indian descent.” After completing an apprenticeship, he obtained freedom papers, which he took to “the Colony of Liberia on the continent of Africa.” When they became “worn and mutilated,” he threw them away. Kinney returned to his native land and has worked on “divers Steam Boats running on the Ohio & Mississippi” since 1837. While aboard the steamer Caddo, the captain “declared that he intended to hold him as a slave,” whereupon he was confined to the jail of a Negro trader and “placed” up for sale. Narrowly escaping, he “commenced his old occupation going up and down the Mississippi.” Kinney married a former slave, who was able to purchase her freedom, and together they bought her youngest child and are “labouring” to buy others. Rearrested “as a runaway slave” belonging to John F. Hatcher, Kinney assures the court that he can produce “incontrovertible evidence” from his Virginia acquaintances that establishes his right to freedom. He asks the court to protect him from the “chains of slavery, fastened by strangers, who feel not for him, but only desire to ‘put money in their purses.’” 0183 (Accession # 21185312). Perry County, Missouri. John Logan, husband of Rosannah W. Searcey Logan, took control of his wife’s property in 1844, as the result of their marriage contract. This property included six slaves. Robert L. Phillips and Henry L. Caldwell, administrators of the estate of John Logan, maintain that the slaves rightfully belonged to John Logan after Rosannah’s death. They further claim that Henry S. Caldwell and Robert C. Waters, executors of Rosannah’s estate, refuse to deliver the slaves to them. They therefore ask “Judgement for the possession of said slaves and also for the value of their Services or wages as damages.” 80 Reel 9 Missouri 1854 0196 (Accession # 21185401). Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. Twenty-three-year-old Julie, “a mulattress,” claims that “she is illegally and wrongfully held in slavery ... by one Melanie Calliott.” Julie maintains that she was born of free parents in Illinois, “and by the constitution and laws of which said State she was declared free.” She therefore prays “leave to sue as a poor person in order to establish her right to freedom.” 0213 (Accession # 21185402). St. Charles County, Missouri. John M. Luckett claims that Rodham F. Kenner “without leave and wrongfully” took a slave family from his possession on 15 January 1854. Luckett seeks damages in the amount of $600 for fifty-year-old Melissa [Malissy] and her two children, eleven-year-old Aron [Aaron] and ten-year-old Eli [Ely]. Depositions reveal that Melissa originally belonged to John Luckett’s mother and is currently claimed by Nathaniel Triplett, John’s stepfather. Triplett alleges that John sold him Melissa around 1820 for $300. Her two children have been born since that time. The defendant presented an 1853 deed of trust from Triplett, which conveyed the slave family to him “ for and in consideration of the natural love and affection which he hath for his stepson ... & his wife Alsay Luckett.” The said deed stipulated that the said slaves should be held “for the sole separate and exclusive use and benefit of Alsay Luckett ... during her said husbands life and at his or her death to revert to said Triplett.” 0241 (Accession # 21185406). Lafayette County, Missouri. Marquis W. Withers claims that the steamboat El Paso illegally and without his permission carried his slave Ann from Lexington, Missouri, to St. Louis, Missouri, on 8 November 1853. Ann is now “lost to plaintiff,” and Withers asserts that the steamboat El Paso is liable. He seeks compensation in the amount of $900, the value of the slave. Depositions reveal that Ann, also known as Adeline, Angeline, and sometimes by the surname Tilford, ran away from Withers’s home and boarded the boat for St. Louis. When she was apprehended in St. Louis, she told authorities that her name was Adeline Tilford and that she belonged to a man named Tilford, who lived in Kentucky. The ship’s captain, Henry Thornburg[h], offers the following opinion on the inherent difficulty in discovering stowaway fugitive slaves: “Where there is a negro crew on board a boat, I think it possible that a negro might be concealed without the knowledge of the officers, but it is not probable.” The captain assures the court that he took pains to track down Withers once Ann was lodged in jail, where she delivered a child, who died shortly thereafter. 0318 (Accession # 21185407). St. Louis County, Missouri. Louisa, “a woman of colour,” reports that she was once “owned and possessed as a slave by Mount St. Mary’s College” in Maryland. She further relates that the college was at that time indebted to one Francis B. Jamison, “the former President thereof.” Louisa asserts that Jamison and the college agreed that she would serve him for five years and then be given her freedom. She informs the court that said agreement “was entered in writing upon the books of the said College”; however, she cites that “she was further informed by the Sisters of Charity that the said books had been burned and destroyed or so defaced that no record of that date could be found.” The petitioner represents that, despite having moved to Missouri, the said Jamison “has continued to claim and hold her, and now claims her as a slave.” Louisa therefore “prays for leave to sue as a poor person in order to establish her right to freedom.” 0326 (Accession # 21185408). Boone County, Missouri. Nancy Hubard, a minor, petitions by her next friend, Eusebus Hubard, against Edward Young. Hubard asserts that the said Young “was the owner and master of a certain slave named Hiram, of the value of Twelve hundred dollars.” She further alleges that the said Hiram, “with force and arms,” did on 13 August 1853 “then and there make an assault” on her with the intent “felloniously to abuse, ravish, and 81 Reel 9 Missouri carnally know” her. Contending that “she is damaged to the amount of Twelve hundred dollars,” the petitioner prays for judgment. Prior to this petition, Hubbard successfully petitioned for Eusebus to be “appointed her next Friend to Conduct and prosecute said action on behalf of your petitioner.” 0347 (Accession # 21185413). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Rebecca and Jacob Blunt seek the return of a female slave named Ruth Ann from Hiram L. Sloan. The Blunts claim that Ruth Ann was a gift to Rebecca from her father and intended as her “separate property.” They assert that Rebecca is worth $1,000 and not “liable to be taken.” They therefore ask “that said negro woman be Returned and damage for there detention according to law or ... the value of said negro woman not Returned.” Sloan’s answer reveals that the sheriff of Cape Girardeau County “levied on Said negro woman a Slave to Satisfy the debt and Cost in Said Suit by attachment and that he Still holds Said Slave by virtue of Said ... levy.” 1855 0362 (Accession # 21185501). St. Louis County, Missouri. Lucy B. Russell delivered a mulatto slave named Aaron to Bernard W. Lynch “to be by him safely and securely kept for reasonable reward to be paid by said plaintiff to defendant.” Russell claims that Lynch “conducted himself so negligently carelessly and improperly in relation to said care” that Aaron escaped and is “now wholly lost” to her. She seeks damages in the amount of $1,000, the value of the slave. The court transcript reveals that Lynch operated a “negro yard,” where slave owners, who were fearful that their slaves might run away, could confine them for “safe keeping” at a rate of 25¢ per day. In his testimony, the petitioner’s son gives a detailed physical description of the yard and blames Aaron’s escape on the fact that Lynch entrusted another slave in the yard with the key, allowing the two slaves to escape together. Other deponents, including a slave trader, describe the yard’s “rules,” giving an eyewitness account of how a “dispository & yard for the reception of slaves” operated. The supreme court’s decision hinged on the inadequacy of a slave being the gatekeeper to such a yard. 0383 (Accession # 21185502). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Jacob H. Neely claims that John R. Clark “offered and published a reward in writing” for the apprehension and delivery of six slaves to him. The reward was set at $50 for each slave. Having returned the runaways to Clark, Neely has “often requested” the reward but has been rebuffed. He asks for a judgment of $300, plus costs. 0388 (Accession # 21185504). Boone County, Missouri. Lemuel Northcut, administrator of the estate of George Northcut [Northcutt], petitions for the return of five slaves belonging to George’s estate. In 1840, George Northcut mortgaged five slaves to William Northcut to secure the payment of two separate debts owed by him to William and Eli Northcut. In 1841, he attempted to repay the money, but William Northcut refused to accept payment or to return the five slaves. A year later George died. The petitioner also seeks compensation for the services of the five slaves, which he estimates as “worth annually the sum of six hundred dollars,” during the fifteen years they have been in the possession of either William, Joseph, or Eli Northcut. 0405 (Accession # 21185505). Boone County, Missouri. Lewis Hume and thirteen other joint tenants of a tract of land and seven slaves seek an order of partition of the property. “If not susceptible of division,” the petitioners ask that the property be sold and the proceeds divided among them “according to their respective rights in the same.” 82 Reel 9 Missouri 1856 0421 (Accession # 21185601). St. Louis County, Missouri. Giles Prince, a free man of color, claims that Henry Cole and David W. Thomas, executors of the estate of the late Presley W. Ross, owe him $608, plus interest. Prince explains that he boarded Richard, a slave belonging to Ross’s estate, from May 1849 until September 1855 at the rate of $8 per month, arguing that he “did board, lodge, wash, and clothe” Richard during this period, but has not been compensated as “promised.” He seeks “judgment against defendants for said sum of six hundred & eight dollars.” Documents in the court record reveal that Richard is Prince’s son and that Prince purchased his own freedom, as well as the freedom of his wife and daughter, from Alexander C. Baker, who purchased the family from Ross’s executors in 1849. A deposition from Ross’s son-in-law, Thomas J. Gosti, describes negotiations for Prince’s purchase of another son, Harry, in which Gosti claims Prince argued that Gosti “ought to let me have Harry cheap because I have raised Richard without his costing you anything, or the estate anything.” 0449 (Accession # 21185602). St. Louis County, Missouri. Stephen Ridgley seeks judgment for $1,000, the value of his twenty-four-year-old mulatto slave named Celeste. Ridgley alleges that the steamboat Reindeer did “transport and carry” Celeste from St. Louis to Illinois “without the consent or permission of said plaintiff,” whereby said steamboat “became liable to pay” Celeste’s value to him. Documents in the court record suggest that Celeste, “a handsome looking girl,” might have been sold for $1,500–2,000 as a “mistress” on the New Orleans market. Steamboat officials contend that Ridgley allowed Celeste to live with her mother, a free woman of color, and to “direct and control her own movements” while working “as a chambermaid on steamboats running to and touching at various points in the State of Illinois.” 0477 (Accession # 21185603). Newton County, Missouri. Nathaniel W. Coffee died in 1833, leaving an only son, Granville [Grandville] Coffee, who inherited his father’s slave named Letty and a “considerable amount of other personal property.” Martha Coffee, administratrix of Coffee’s estate with Benjamin Gabbert, converted the bonds and accounts owed to the estate into purchase money for two additional slaves, Jorden and Maria. On 12 October 1850, Milner F. Crouch, administrator of the estate of Martha’s second husband, the late George Barker, brought suit against her for the value of the above mentioned slaves, plus Letty’s newborn son, Irvin. The suit was successful, and the court ordered Martha Coffee Barker to pay her husband’s estate $2,850.16. In August 1853, Granville Coffee died, while still a minor, and Barker obtained letters of administration on his estate. She now asks the court to order Crouch to pay her, as administratrix, the amount that she paid to Crouch in the previous suit. 1857 0502 (Accession # 21185701). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Minerva Miller and her husband John seek a partition of eleven slaves jointly owned by themselves and Minerva’s brother, Stephen Campbell. Upon the death of her husband, John Campbell, the widow brought her children, the said Minerva and Stephen, and the slaves in question from Arkansas to Missouri. Shortly after their arrival in Missouri, their mother died. Minerva is newly married and Stephen is “yet a minor under the age of twenty one years.” The Millers claim that they are entitled to an “equal half of said slaves” and ask the court to appoint commissioners to divide the slaves between them “according to their respective rights.” 0515 (Accession # 21185702). Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. In an 1855 suit, Pressley Phillips obtained a judgment against William W. Hunter for “a certain negro boy named Frank slave for life.” The court ordered “that said Defendant deliver up the possession of said boy Frank to Plaintiff.” In the intervening two years, Phillips complains that Hunter has “utterly 83 Reel 9 Missouri refused” to return Frank and “vexatiously held and kept possession of him the said boy Frank.” Phillips seeks damages in the amount of $1,000. The court transcript reveals that the case originated in New Madrid County, but was moved to Cape Girardeau County because Phillips thought that the “Inhabitants of New Madrid County [were] prejudiced against him.” 0528 (Accession # 21185703). Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. Three sons of Valentine Underwood represent that their father died intestate in 1855, leaving a widow and seven children as his heirs. The petitioners seek a partition of the slaves in their late father’s estate, “subject to the widow’s dower.” They explain that their mother, Sarah Underwood, owned a slave named Mat at the time of her marriage, who is now part of Valentine’s estate. They ask the court to require Sarah to “elect if she will retain said slave as her separate property.” They also report that Valentine’s slave, Ann, has given birth to a boy, who is also “the property of the said children.” Finally, since their four siblings are minors, they ask that a guardian be appointed to represent their interests in the partition. In her answer, Sarah Underwood explains that Mat belonged to her first husband, Shepherd Eades, and therefore should now descend to Eades’s children. 0543 (Accession # 21185704). Marion County, Missouri. John H. Sallee and his wife Elizabeth Sallee claim that, in January 1821, Elizabeth’s aunt, Sarah Garnett, conveyed two slaves to Elizabeth’s father, Henry Chandler, in trust for “the use and benefit of said Elizabeth.” Henry Chandler and Sarah Garnett are both dead and the slaves, now including three children since born, are in the possession of Taylor Chandler, who claims them as his property. “If it be necessary to the protection and adjudication of the rights of Pltff,” the Sallees seek either the appointment of a new trustee or execution of the trust. They also “pray judgment for possession of said Slaves.” The court record reveals that Henry Chandler was “violently opposed” to his daughter’s marriage with John Sallee, because he believed that Sallee was only interested in Elizabeth as a means of gaining possession of Sarah Garnett’s slaves. The slave title dispute centers around an 1831 document in which the Sallees allegedly relinquished all right and claim to four of Garnett’s slaves in consideration of absolute title to a slave named Mariah (who died by 1835). Taylor claims ownership of the slaves by virtue of a bequest in the late Garnett’s will. 0593 (Accession # 21185705). Boone County, Missouri. Bolivar S. Head and Albert G. Newman agreed to trade horses through an unnamed “negro man,” who was employed by Newman. Head executed his note to Newman for $57.55 for the difference in the value of the horses traded. The petitioner claims that Newman “fraudulently represented” his horse as healthy, when in fact it was “unsound and diseased with bad and unsound eyes.” He asserts that he has been damaged in the amount of $150 “for which he asks Judgment.” 0599 (Accession # 21185707). Scott County, Missouri. Joseph, Truelove, Eliza, Martha, Emeline, and Isabella, slaves of Harriet [Harriett] Williams, claim that Williams’s will emancipated them on the condition that they remain and serve her elderly mother until her death. Noting that Williams died in 1851, the petitioners recount that the will has unfortunately been “fraudulently concealed or destroyed so that the same has not been admitted to probate.” Alexander Waugh, the administrator of Williams’s estate, has “hired out and controlled your petitioners as slaves belonging to the estate of the said Harriet.” In response to the heirs’ application for an order of partition, Waugh has advertised the petitioners for public sale on 6 July 1857. Fearing that “irreparable injury and wrong will be done to each of” them, the petitioners ask the court for permission to sue individually for their freedom and for an order prohibiting either their sale or their removal from the court’s jurisdiction. 0655 (Accession # 21185708). Scott County, Missouri. By a previous court order, Joseph and five other slaves in the estate of Harriett [Harriet] Williams received permission to sue 84 Reel 9 Missouri individually for their freedom. Joseph now petitions that Alexander Waugh, the administrator of Williams’s estate, currently “holds and keeps plaintiff in bondage as a slave.” Joseph asks the court to discharge him “from further bondage.” 0657 (Accession # 21185709). Scott County, Missouri. By a previous court order, Truelove and five other slaves in the estate of Harriett [Harriet] Williams received permission to sue individually for their freedom. Truelove now petitions that Alexander Waugh, the administrator of Williams’s estate, currently “holds and keeps plaintiff in bondage as a slave.” Truelove asks “Judgement of liberation and also for her costs in this behalf.” 0660 (Accession # 21185710). Scott County, Missouri. Lidda, a woman of color, “makes known” that she is held as a slave by Alexander Waugh, the administrator of the estate of Harriett [Harriet] Williams. She explains that Williams’s will manumitted her slaves, including Lidda’s mother, Trulove, but that the will has been “fraudulently concealed or destroyed.” Lidda, born since Williams’s death in 1852, is now advertised for sale as a slave in the estate. She asks the court for permission to sue for her freedom and for “the necessary orders” to prevent her from being removed from the court’s jurisdiction. A previous court order granted her mother, Trulove, and five other slaves in the estate of Harriett Williams similar permission to sue individually for their freedom. 0663 (Accession # 21185711). Scott County, Missouri. By a previous court order, Eliza and five other slaves in the estate of Harriett [Harriet] Williams received permission to sue individually for their freedom. Minor Eliza now “maketh known that she is desirous to institute suit” and asks permission to sue by her next friend, Matthew H. Moore. 0667 (Accession # 21185712). Scott County, Missouri. By a previous court order, Eliza and five other slaves in the estate of Harriett [Harriet] Williams received permission to sue individually for their freedom. Eliza now claims that Alexander Waugh, the administrator of Williams’s estate, “wrongfully holds and detains plaintiff as a slave of said Harriett deceased.” She asks for “Judgment of liberation, and for her costs in this behalf.” 1858 0670 (Accession # 21185801). St. Louis County, Missouri. Samuel Hambleton claims that Bernard M. Lynch “wrongfully and unlawfully” took his fifty-year-old slave named Henry on 12 May 1858. He claims that Lynch “does now wrongfully, and unlawfully detain the same,” and he asks the court to compel Lynch to return Henry, whom he estimates as worth $900. He also seeks damages in the amount of $500. In his answer, Bernard Lynch claims that Henry is a slave levied upon by the St. Louis sheriff and confined to Lynch’s “negro yard” for safekeeping by the city constable, William Watson. Lynch counters that he has been “wrongfully and illegally sued by writ of replevin from this Court.” The supreme court upheld the lower court’s verdict against the plaintiff, characterizing Lynch as an “innocent third party,” and instructed that Hambleton “should have brought [suit] against the proper party,” Constable Watson. 0683 (Accession # 21185804). Scott County, Missouri. Matthew H. Moore asks the court to appoint him next friend of Martha, Emeline, Isabella, and Lidda, minor persons of color held as slaves by Alexander Waugh, administrator of the estate of Harriett Williams. 0687 (Accession # 21185805). Scott County, Missouri. Minors Martha, Emeline, Isabella, and Lidda, free persons of color, assert that they are entitled to “full and absolute freedom,” but that Alexander Waugh, administrator of Harriett [Harriet] Williams’s estate, “restrains them of their liberty and holds them (plaintiffs) as personal assets or property in his hands and control belonging to said estate.” They seek “judgment of liberation and for their costs.” The petitioners 85 Reel 9 Missouri amend their bill by explaining that their freedom depends on the “lost or destroyed” will of the said Williams. They ask “to prove contents of same” by depositions from the will’s subscribing witnesses. 1859 0692 (Accession # 21185902). St. Louis County, Missouri. Louisa Lewis seeks permission to sue as a poor person to establish “the right of herself, and of her minor son George to freedom.” Louisa claims that seventeen years ago her mother Lizzie, alias Elizabeth Dickson, a free person of color, purchased Louisa “for the purpose, and on the condition that she should be free.” Louisa argues that, inasmuch as it is illegal for free persons of color to own slaves in Missouri, the “purchase of petitioner by her mother operated as a deed of manumission.” Fourteen-year-old George was born three years after “the emancipation of your petitioner” and has lived as a free person his entire life. Henry W. Hart, the administrator of Elizabeth Dickson’s estate, now holds Louisa and George as slaves. Louisa asks the court to recognize her status as a free woman. Depositions in the court record reveal that George, whose color is “nearly white,” attended “common school with white children.” Before her mother’s death, Louisa spent time in Chicago with her husband, a former slave manumitted by St. Louis Mayor John How. A deposition from Martha Brown intimates that Louisa passed for white while in Chicago. 0730 (Accession # 21185903). Boone County, Missouri. James King Jr. and his eight siblings, the children of James King Sr., petition for a distribution of the estate, which includes six slaves. The petitioners report that King’s widow, Nancy, has elected to “take a childs share in said slaves.” Since the slaves are “not susceptible of division in kind,” they ask the court to order that the slaves be sold and the proceeds be divided equally among the heirs. 1860 0752 (Accession # 21186002). Boone County, Missouri. On 2 October 1858, John R. Feagans mortgaged thirteen slaves to John S. Clarkson in order to secure a debt of $3,000. A year has elapsed and Feagans still owes Clarkson a considerable portion of the money. Clarkson “prays that judgment may be rendered for the debt & interest due” and that the slaves may be sold to satisfy the debt plus interest. 0774 (Accession # 21186003). Pike County, Missouri. Joshua, a man of color, claims that he is entitled to his freedom “by virtue of the provisions of the will of William Kerr deceased.” He complains that he is “unlawfully restrained of his liberty” by William Purse and R. M. Penn. He asks permission to sue as a poor person to establish his right to freedom and affirms that he is willing to comply with the terms of the will, which require him to leave the state of Missouri “and go to some free state of the Union.” Reel 10 Tennessee Undated 0002 (Accession # 21400001). Washington County, Tennessee. Josiah Conley is the executor of the estate of his late mother, Nancy Conley. He declares that the last will and testament of his mother “liberated & set free” a slave woman named Harriet. Conley attests that Harriet, having been “raised by the deceased,” is “of good moral character” but physically “is afflicted to some 86 Reel 10 Tennessee extent and not of robust health.” It is Conley’s hope that “the humane provision of the law, allowing persons who are aged or diseased so that they could not with safety go to Liberia, to remain in the state be extended to her.” Noting that “Harriet has a husband in this county who is a slave,” Conley believes that Harriet “would be very reluctant to leave this state, and encounter the perils of a voyage to and residence in Liberia.” He “therefore prays that the sd Harriet may be permitted to remain in the State” and that her emancipation will be certified. 0007 (Accession # 21400002). Washington County, Tennessee. George Jackson, executor of the estate of William Jackson, requests that a slave and her son be emancipated in accordance with his late father’s wishes. Jackson cites that his father’s will “ordered the Emancipation of his slaves ... as soon as they severally arrived at the age of thirty years.” The petitioner points out that Cass, “one of the negroes in said will mentioned,” has “arrived at said Age.” Noting that “said negro woman Cass has been a Good slave & of as Good moral Character as slaves Generally are and he thinks a little better,” Jackson desires “to carry into effect the will and desire of his deceased ancestor” and urges the court to free Cass and her son Lewis. 0011 (Accession # 21400003). Williamson County, Tennessee. Sanders Scott, “a free person of colour” and the “owner of a slave named Julia his wife,” asks the court “to liberate the said woman.” He states that Julia “is of good moral character and industrious habits and well qualified to earn a liveing honestly by her labour.” 1791 0016 (Accession # 21479101). Washington County, Tennessee. Robert Kerr Jr. seeks reimbursement from Alexander Meek, from whom he purchased a ten-year-old “mullatto or dark coloured boy” named William Sutton in 1785. Since Meek purported to have “the right to sell” Sutton, the petitioner admits that he agreed to pay Meek £40 Virginia currency “for the Service of the Said boy until he Should come and arrive to the age of twenty one years.” Kerr reveals, however, that the Green County Court in Virginia ruled that Sutton “was a freeborn orphan Child and not a slave subject or liable to be sold, by the said Alexander Meek.” He further declares that said court ordered Sutton to “be bound by that Court” and “indulged the Said Sutton to choose his master who made choice of your Orator.” Conceiving that “he held the Said Sutton as an orphan child bound to him and not in right of any purchase from the said Alexander Meek,” the petitioner asserts that Meek recovered a “fraudulent” judgment against him for the £40 purchase price. Kerr therefore prays that Meek be compelled to “repay” the cash tendered for Sutton and that an injunction be issued “to injoin all further proceedings at law.” The petitioner also complains that seventeen-year-old “William Sutton claimed a right to inlist into the publick service and did actually inlist and march ... against the Northern Indians ... whereby your Orator hath been deprived of the most valueable part of the service of his said apprentice.” 1795 0041 (Accession # 21479501). Knox County, Tennessee. John Smith Baisden asks the court to issue writs of supersedeas and certiorari in order to protect his property against executions “by the Sheriff of Jefferson County to satisfy Some Judgments obtained” against one Ignatius Furman. Baisden informs the court that he recently bought a tract of land and “one Negro man named Arch” from the said Furman and that he “hath procured the said Deed and bill of sale to be recorded.” He reveals, however, that the sheriff has “nevertheless proceeded to sell the said tract of Land as the property of said Furman and yet retains the said Negro and declares his design to sell him.” Baisden contends that the judgments “were obtained in the name of Alexander Outlaw on two notes due from said Furman to said Outlaw and by him Sold to the said John Mcfarland.” Asserting that “his said Land and Negro are not liable to be sold to pay 87 Reel 10 Tennessee the debts of the said Furman,” the petitioner prays the court to certify the two suits brought in the name of Alexander Outlaw and to command that “all further proceedings ... be stayed that have been had on said Judgments.” 0063 (Accession # 21479502). Washington County, Tennessee. Margaret Lee requests that a writ of habeas corpus “may immediately issue, directed to Samuel Gammon of Sullivan County, commanding him to appear before your Honors ... with the Bodies of Margaret Lee & her two children Maria & Abraham.” Born in Boston of free parents, Lee laments that she was “suddenly seized” at sunset while on a wharf and then “bound with Cords, and hurried on Board of a Vessel” that later landed in Maryland. The petitioner decries that she was “doomed to Servitude” and that “Labour, oppression & their attendant Grief, hovered around her.” Lee reveals that “she communicated her situation to some benevolent Men, with a view of obtaining relief”; however, her owner, fearing the “truth might appear from Investigation, sold her.” Noting that she, “for the period of twenty years, has suffered a Life of Servitude, in a Country, where she had inherited from her Parents Liberty,” the petitioner and her two “tender little Infants” pray that the court may issue “the most gracious Writ of Liberty ... a Habeas Corpus” and that “your Honors may take such Steps, as will give to your petitioner an opportunity of shewing that freedom was her Birthright.” 1796 0069 (Accession # 21479601). Washington County, Tennessee. Michael Harrison declares that defendants William Murphy and Isaac Thomas combined “together to defraud & greatly injure” him when they induced and persuaded “your orator to become Security” in a transaction involving the sale “of a free negro.” Harrison contends that Thomas “well knew that the said Negro man was & ought of right to be a freeman,” not a slave. When the “Negroe man proved himself to be a free man and recovered his freedom,” Murphy filed suit against Harrison “for the value of said Negroe,” and the court issued “Judgment against your orator, at a time when he was absent in the public Service.” Harrison prays that subpoenas may issue to both defendants and that said judgment against him may “be decreed to be perpetualy injoined.” 1806 0076 (Accession # 21480601). Washington County, Tennessee. The minor heirs of John Keywood ask the court to set aside the sale of five estate slaves, who were fraudulently sold for $1,000 by their mother, Agatha. The petitioners declare that their father died in 1803 and that his will directed that all the residue of his estate should be the property of his wife during her lifetime and that “after the death of the said Agatha ... the whole of his property real & personal should be equally divided amongst your Orators his children.” The Keywood children charge that their mother and others have colluded “to cheat and defraud your orators” out of their remainder interest in said slaves by procuring a pretended bill of sale, executed by the said Agatha to one William Blevins. They also charge that the defendants knew “no consideration was paid for said negroes, and that by the will of said John Keywood your Orators had a reversion in the same.” Believing that “there is great probability” that the defendants “will run the said negroes beyond the reach of your Orators & this honourable court,” they pray that said bill of sale “may be decreed to be given up & cancelled,” that the defendants be kept from removing said slaves from the county, and that the slaves be put in the sheriff’s custody and hired out. 1807 0097 (Accession # 21480701). Knox County, Tennessee. George Hynds seeks to stay an execution recovered by the administrators of the late Francis Lea. Hynds relates that “he 88 Reel 10 Tennessee purchased a negroe man of Elizabeth Lea widow and relict of Francis Lea deceased, by the name of Sam which said negroe was then run away from the said Widow Elizabeth,” for the sum of $400. He charges that Elizabeth agreed to credit him $70 “for a Horse sold by your petitioner” to her late husband and that he “was to be allowed, for his trouble and Expences in geting the said negroe.” Asserting that “he ought to be allowed one hundred & nineteen dollars” for his “travelling Expences the Labour of his Horse & self,” the petitioner estimates that only $11 remained due to Elizabeth and her current husband. He represents, however, that the administrators of Francis Lea “recovered a judgment against your Petitioner for upwards of two hundred dollars which said judgment was & is unjust.” Hynds further avers that “the said Elizabeth at the time of said sale had no manner or Colour of title to said negroe.” Noting that “an Execution has issued” and his property is liable “to be levied for said Judgment,” the petitioner prays that the court “may direct the officers who have said Execution in their hands ... to stay all further proceedings ... & that your Petitioner may have a new trial.” 1810 0130 (Accession # 21481001). Rhea County, Tennessee. Hannah Morris seeks a divorce from John Morris, her husband of twenty-two years. She states that John abandoned her when she was sick, “declaring he would not return but to destroy what property she and her children should collect by their industry.” John made good on his promise “by pulling up the herbs in the garden, and turning the cattle in the cornfield.” In addition, Hannah reports that “to insult my feelings, and violate our marriage contract he carried on illicit commerce with a black woman.” She concludes by stating that her husband also “debases himself by intoxication and when drunk uses your petitioner with savage cruelty. This statement is made not in levity, but in sincerity and truth.” Hannah Morris asks that her marriage to John “be dissolved and forever set aside.” 1814 0136 (Accession # 21481401). Smith County, Tennessee. Benjamin Seawell Jr., the executor of the late Nancy Cherry, asks that “the personal estate bequeathed to the Said Nancy may be declared exempt from the payment of Debts.” The petitioner cites that Willie Cherry, the deceased husband of Nancy and a slaveholder, “left at the time of his Death real estate of the value of Twenty Thousand Dollars, & a small personal Estate consisting of propperty acquired by his intermarriage.” Seawell notes that Willie Cherry’s will gave “express directions ... that the property bequeathed therein to the sd. Nancy shoud. not be liable to but shoud. be clearly exempted from the payment of all Debts.” The petitioner prays that the other devisees and legatees of the said Willie Cherry “be injoined from suffering any Debts or demands recovered or to be recovered against the estate of the said Willie from being levied of the estate Bequeathed to the said nancy by said will untill after the said real estates devised to them shall be exhausted.” 1815 0145 (Accession # 21481501). Washington County, Tennessee. Dr. John Newnan asks the court to grant writs of certiorari and supersedeas and to review an action instituted against him by Montgomery Stewart wherein his ownership of a slave woman and her child is disputed. Newnan asserts that he “was the true & rightfull owner thereof, all which he can prove, upon a fair trial being had in which the title to said negroes can be investigated.” He further cites that he did not attend the county court proceedings and “therefore the Judgment rendered against yr petitioner was not appealed from.” He requests that writs be issued “by which the cause aforesd may be removed to the Circuit Court of Washington County for trial and all proceedings be 89 Reel 10 Tennessee stayed untill such trial can be had.” Newnan’s bill of exceptions reveals that he had agreed to sell a slave woman named Rachel and her daughter Patt to James Stewart for $400 in 1808, even though said slaves had run away to North Carolina. It states that Newnan recovered the slaves, delivered them to Stewart, but received only “some salt and iron” as payment. It details that Newnan went to Stewart’s plantation one evening and “next morning before sunrise returned with said Negro in his possession & took her on to Nashville.” It notes Montgomery Stewart’s claim that Rachel was a gift from his father and the jury award to said Montgomery for $544 in damages, to which verdict Newnan “excepts in Law and tenders this bill of exceptions.” 1816 0161 (Accession # 21481601). Davidson County, Tennessee. John C. Hicks seeks to stay a judgment recovered by Nancy Parham, from whom he hired two slaves on 8 March 1815. Hicks avows that he and his brother James, as security, “executed a certain writing obligatory” for $183 to the said Parham and “that the said obligation was given for the hire of two negro men slaves, named Stephen & Dick” for the remainder of the year. He further declares that he hired Stephen “shortly thereafter” to David McGavock of Nashville and that on “the 3d of April 1815 the said slave Stephen was accidently killed by the sd David McGavock.” Noting that he “did not have & enjoy the labour & profits of the services of said slave Stephen for even one month,” the petitioner cites that he applied to Parham “for an abatement of & deduction from the sum specified” in his note. He informs the court that Parham, in response, sued him and James and recovered a judgment, for which an execution has issued. Fearful that the sheriff will levy his “chattels land & tenements,” the petitioner prays that Parham be perpetually enjoined from collecting $83, which sum “was to have been paid for the service of Stephen.” 0168 (Accession # 21481602). Davidson County, Tennessee. Twenty-one-year-old Robert McCrary seeks his “distributive share” from the estate of his father, the late Robert McCrary. The petitioner informs the court that “some time in the year 1794 his Father Robert McCrary was killed by the Indians” and that his uncle, Thomas McCrary, became the administrator of said estate. Robert charges that the said Thomas took possession of his father’s “Negro boy Slave” and “without any Necessity or Authority therefor sold and disposed of” said slave and “Applied the Amount of the Sales ... to his own private use and has derived great benefit & Emolument therefor.” Declaring that said administrator “Refuses to Account with your Petitioner,” Robert prays that “by a Decree of this Worshipfull Court the said Thomas Admr aforesaid may be Compelled to pay your Petitioner his Distributive Share Aforesaid of said Estate with the Interest thereon.” 1817 0185 (Accession # 21481701). Davidson County, Tennessee. Archibald Harris asks that an injunction be directed to Joseph Cook, commanding him and “his Confederates to desist from the execution” of a judgment recovered by said Cook. He contends that Cook owned a slave named Harry and that he “proposed to hire the said negro for one year to your Orator,” representing “that Said negro man was a good serviceable hand, and not runaway.” The petitioner states that he agreed to hire Harry and that he executed a note to Cook for $85. Harris reveals “that on the evening of the Same day said negro Harry runaway from your Orator and almost as soon as he could get him out of one Jail where he was taken of and Confined he would again escape, during the whole of said term.” The petitioner charges that Cook knew at the time of hiring that Harry was “a notorious worthless and runaway Slave” and that Cook, when told of Harry’s escapes, “agreed to Surrender Said note.” Citing that Cook has recovered a judgment against him for the $85 owed, the petitioner prays that “he may have a decree for a perpetual injunction and that Said note be Surrendered and Cancelled.” 90 Reel 10 Tennessee 0191 (Accession # 21481702). Jackson County, Tennessee. The five youngest children of the late William Pharis charge that their mother and her consort, Enoch Carter, have “wickedly fraudulently and [Clandestinely] practised various schemes and devices to defraud” them of their share of his estate, “reasonably worth four thousand dollars.” Stating that their father died in 1805 and that their mother Catharine qualified as executrix, they claim that said Carter “appropriated the profits both of the real and personal estate to his own use.” The petitioners further contend that said Carter purchased two estate slaves but that he has yet “to account with your Orators and oratrixes for the amount of said sale.” They allege that “Enoch Carter is become rich and opplent, being in the enjoyment of a considerable real and personal estate all of which ... the said Enoch obtained by fraudulent practices with the executrix.” They therefore pray that the defendants “may Surrender up the property of the testator yet remaining in their hands in which your Orators & oratrixes have an equitable interest, and deliver the same into the hands of your Orators and Oratrixes ... and that they may account and full satisfaction make for the manifold wrongs and injuries Committed by them ... in the management of said property.” 1819 0210 (Accession # 21481901). Green County, Kentucky. This case originates with a petition to the Green County Circuit Court in Kentucky and ends thirteen years later with a ruling from the Tennessee State Supreme Court. The original petition to a Tennessee chancery court is not among the case records. In 1819, John Jones asks the Kentucky circuit court for “a partition and division of the slaves” in the estate of his father-in-law, the late James Munford, who died in 1808. He cites that “besides the devise to the widow, the said decedent left to his two daughters ... all the rest of his estate.” Jones states that said estate “consisted of a large number of slaves,” now numbering about twenty-eight. He charges that neither the widow nor her current husband, William Woodfolk, “have ever returned an inventory and appraisement of said estate” and that they “have failed to pay over the money and property and deliver over the slaves to which your orator is entitled” as husband of Jane W. Munford. He prays that the Woodfolks “be compelled to pay your orator his portion of the money and other property to which he may be entitled.” The Tennessee Supreme Court awards the Joneses $4,589 and John Wright and Alethia Munford Wright $5,331 in 1832. The related documents include hiring records of the estate slaves from 1808 to 1820; medical data on certain slaves; details on mining saltpeter in Mammoth Cave; and expense records for educating and clothing two white females, “in order to enhance them, having in view their future prosperity in life.” 1820 0364 (Accession # 21482001). Montgomery County, Tennessee. George Nixon informs the court that George West “executed a mortgage to secure the payment” of $4,922 owed him, in which West conveyed certain slaves “to your Orator for the purpose of securing the payment of the aforesaid sum of money.” Nixon, “a citizen of the state of Georgia,” represents that “divers creditors have obtained judgments & executions against the said West to a verry large amount” and that the sheriff “has levied the said Executions on the aforesaid negroes or a part of them and the same are now advertised for sale.” The petitioner fears that if said slaves are sold “that probably great delay, great expence & great trouble will be produced to your Orator in the recovery of the said negroes & in the forecloseure of the said mortgage.” He therefore prays that an injunction be granted “prohibiting the said Sheriff of Montgomery from exposing the aforesaid negroes to sale in satisfaction of the aforesaid Judgments & executions ... that the said mortgage may be foreclosed and that a decree may be made for sale of the said negroes to satisfy the said mortgage debt.” 91 Reel 10 Tennessee 0371 (Accession # 21482002). Washington County, Tennessee. Clark Ellis represents that his brother Elija has sold “very much of the Joint property of himself & your orator.” Clark reports that they acquired “considerable property both real & personal (by descent from their father)” and that they agreed “to unite their stock of property & to hold in common all that each of them should put into the fund.” The petitioner points out that they “did unite their property consisting of negroes horses cattle & divers other descriptions of articles,” thereby forming a partnership. Clark charges that the said Elija “sold & appropriated to his own use large sums of money for which he never accounted with your orator.” He further recounts that “he only received back the negroes, originally put in by him, and they have been ... sold, for to pay debts contracted by your Orator on the partnership account.” Citing that “he cannot pretend to state the whole of the property & funds embezzled by said Elija,” the petitioner prays “that the said Elija be decreed to pay unto your orator the one half amount of all the money & property sold & applied to his use which originally belonged to him & your orator Jointly.” 0382 (Accession # 21482003). Williamson County, Tennessee. William Perkins seeks to recover an enslaved female named Jinny, whom he purchased for $800 from John Bond. Perkins purports that “previous to the said purchase by your Orator the said John had hired out the said negro slave to one John Laymaster” for a year. He further relates that he “being about to take some hands out of the state was desirous to get the said slave into his possession” and that he hired William Floyd “to procure the delivery of the said slave,” giving the said Floyd a bill of sale. Perkins argues that “when the bill of sale was made it was not expected or intended to pass the property out of your Orator, or to give the said Floyd any right of property in or to the said slave.” He charges that the said Laymaster and Floyd “in order to oppress and injure your Orator absolutely deny your Orators right to the said slave and refuse to deliver the girl, give up the bill of sale, or execute a reconveyance.” He therefore prays that the defendants “be compelled by a decree of this Honorable Court to deliver and reconvey to your Orator the said slave ... and account for the profits of the said slave” and that they be restrained from “conveying the said negro slave out of the State.” Floyd counters in his answer that Perkins owes him money for services rendered in finding a mulatto female slave named Isabel, who had been “stolen away” and to whom Perkins “was much attached.” 1821 0401 (Accession # 21482101). Williamson County, Tennessee. Henry Swisher, the security of Jacob Harder, seeks to stay a judgment recovered by William Harder. Swisher states that William Harder, the executor of the late John N. Harder, possessed himself of his father’s property and “sold and disposed of ... negro woman Lucy and mare Bess at and for a large sum of money, that is to say ... five hundred dollars.” He further avers that said Jacob bought goods at an estate sale, for which security was required. Swisher submits that he agreed to be Jacob’s security, when “it was mutually agreed by and between the said Henry and Jacob that all the right, title, share and proportion of the said estate of the said Testator to which the said Jacob was in any way entitled should be assigned and set over to the said Henry” to indemnify the said debt. He charges that the two Harders have combined “to oppress and injure your orator” and that “William does absolutely refuse to settle with your orator ... short of the actual payment of the whole amount of said note” and has sued for the same. He therefore prays that said William “be compelled ... to account and settle with your orator for the said share of the said Jacob, and that he may be perpetually enjoined from proceeding at law upon said Judgment.” 0412 (Accession # 21482102). Williamson County, Tennessee. Keziah Berryman seeks a divorce and alimony from Anderson Berryman, her husband of twenty-three years. She represents that during her said marriage she “performed the part of a good dutiful and true wife 92 Reel 10 Tennessee to the said Anderson.” The petitioner confesses, however, that her husband “without any Just or reasonable cause has maliciously beaten, abused, and maltreated your Oratrix, in a cruel and barbarous manner.” She further reveals that he “has repeatedly threatened her life and continues to declare he will kill her,” noting that she found “a knife of very dangerous appearance” concealed in his clothes. Citing that he “is at present possessed of Nine likely and valuable negro slaves besides much valuable property,” the petitioner “greatly fears” that he “will endeavour by some artful contrivance to convey his property beyond the reach of this court.” She therefore asks that said Anderson may be commanded “to keep and preserve as much of the aforesaid property as to your Honor shall seem meet.” Keziah also prays “that she may be divorced by decree of your Honor from the bed and board of the said Anderson—And that your Honor would allow your Oratrix such Alimony as her said husbands circumstances will allow.” 0424 (Accession # 21482103). Maury County, Tennessee. Jane Dever “asserts her right” to an enslaved female purchased by her father in 1786. She states that her father, the late William Dever, was “desirous to purchase a negro girl named Biddy the property of James Montgomery” and directed his son James to buy her for him. She reports, however, that the bill of sale “was drawn to said James which fact the said William was entirely ignorant of during his whole life.” She avows that Biddy “was delivered over to Said William as his property and remained in his possession unclaimed by said James ... untill the death of said William ... about nine or ten years ago.” Dever declares that her brother died in 1808, leaving a son, William, a daughter, Mary, and a son-in-law, John Walker, who now “pretend that said negro woman Biddy & her increase of right belong to them.” She submits that, as “daughter and devisee of said William,” she is entitled to Biddy and her family. She notes that her witnesses, by whom she can prove “that said negro was purchased for the benefit of said William,” are now “old & infirm and cannot from the course of nature live many years.” Dever prays that “by a decree may the testimony respecting yr Oratrix’s title be perpetuated & may the Bill of sale given by Montgomery to James Dever be delivered up to yr Oratrix.” 1822 0435 (Accession # 21482201). Williamson County, Tennessee. John and Susan Brewer petition the court for one-third of Peter Hardeman’s estate and slaves. They report that Peter Hardeman was the former husband of the petitioner Susan and “at the time of his death besides considerable estate in Stock & farming utensils & all sorts of goods common for a farmer to have,” he possessed four slaves. Upon his death in 1820, the entire estate descended to Susan, his widow, and to Franklin Hardeman, an heir. When the court appointed Thomas Hardeman as administrator of the estate, he “entered on the administration of said estate & possessed himself of the whole personal estate of said Peter,” thereby wrongfully holding the petitioners’ share of the lands and property. The Brewers pray that the court appoint “a jury of twelve freeholders” to allot and set apart one-third of said estate “in which third shall be included the house or mansion in which said Peter most generally dwelt and ... one third part of said negro slaves.” 0441 (Accession # 21482202). Williamson County, Tennessee. Elizabeth Cartwright by her “next friend” George Wharton seeks the settlement of a debt owed to her by her former husband and her former brother-in-law. She states that she and her husband, Robert Cartwright, separated in 1808 after six years of marriage. She took their two children to Virginia after Robert “finally agreed to let her have a waggon & team of three horses, in which she might remove herself & children, & a negro man.” Elizabeth sold the slave to Thomas Cartwright, the brother of Robert, for $500 to secure funds for her trip home. Thomas immediately paid her $325 and issued her a note for the difference, which he promised to pay a month later. Having never paid her the remaining $175, Elizabeth demanded of Thomas “the amount due” when she returned to 93 Reel 10 Tennessee Tennessee years later. She states that he claims to have paid the difference to his brother Robert or to his creditors, even though “he knew of all the circumstances aforesaid.” Elizabeth prays that the defendants be summoned to answer her charges and that Thomas “be compelled to pay your Oratrix the amount of said note of hand.” 1823 0450 (Accession # 21482302). Sumner County, Tennessee. Jacob Parks and William Armstrong ask that a judgment recovered by James McMurry for $446 be enjoined. They represent that “they were purchasing Negroes for the Southern Market” in late 1817 or early 1818 when they learned that said McMurry “had a Negro Boy which he wished to dispose of.” The traders charge that McMurry assured them that “said Negro Boy was sound and healthy” and that he could “perform any kind of work that was necessary to be done upon a Plantation, & that there was nothing the matter with the Negro except laziness.” They discovered, however, that “said Negro was almost an Idiot” and “incapable of doing the most ordinary labour, unless some one was continually with him to control and direct him.” Of the opinion that “said Negro Boy was not worth any thing” and that said McMurry had “concealed the same from the knowledge of your Orators,” the petitioners state that McMurry brought suit against them and obtained a judgment for the amount owed him. They ask that said judgment “may be Perpetually enjoined” and that the money paid by them toward the slave’s purchase “may be refunded to your orators.” McMurry asserts in his answer that he informed the traders of the slave’s “want of sense” and that “they replied, they were not purchasing negroes to send to the legislature but to send to market.” 0457 (Accession # 21482303). Smith County, Tennessee. Isaac Clendennen seeks to recover the child of a female slave named Jane. He informs the court that he purchased “a certain Negro woman slave named Jane” in 1795 and that in 1811 or 1812 said Jane “produced or had a child named Lewis, a Mulatto which then was and still is the right and property of your Orator.” He further avers that “a certain Alice Berry ... by device procured possession of ... Lewis,” promising “to return him when called upon.” Clendennen notes that he briefly regained possession of Lewis but that Berry “persuaded your Orator to let him stay with her ... she being old and a relation—setting up no claim whatever.” He now argues that said Berry and one George Hamilton “in 1822 most positively refused to redeliver” Lewis to him and that said Hamilton “run off” the slave and “Clandestinely attempted to Convey him to parts unknown,” making it “as far as Buncombe County, N. Carolina,” before returning. Citing that “the Defendants are wholly Insolvent,” Clendennen claims that Lewis “is now Concealed” and that the defendants intend to take him to New Orleans, declaring “your Orator never shall have his property again.” The petitioner prays that process may issue “to take possession of said Mulatto Boy Lewis.” 0465 (Accession # 21482304). Maury County, Tennessee. Joseph and Thomas Cook seek to recover the slave Edy and her two children. They claim they purchased the three slaves from Denson A. Moore, who in turn “claimed said negroes by virtue of a bill of sale or deed of gift from his father Aaron Moore.” The Cooks cite that the slaves “are worth about 800 dollars” and that they had “retained possession” of said slaves until Aaron Moore seized them and “put them into confinement.” The petitioners fear that Moore intends to “convey said slaves out of the jurisdiction of your honorable court and without the limits of this state.” They ask the court to issue a writ of injunction against Aaron Moore, restraining him “from removing said slaves out of Said county of Maury” until the resolution of ownership is resolved. 0471 (Accession # 21482305). Maury County, Tennessee. Edward Ward, the executor of the late Richard Jones, asks that John H. Camp, the executor of the late John Camp, account for 94 Reel 10 Tennessee and pay him the hire of certain slaves, who were in his testator’s possession. He states that his testator’s will authorized him to provide “for the comfort & convenience of my wife ... & the education of my two sons Thomas and John.” Noting that Jones died in 1805, Ward cites that the widow Martha married John Camp in 1808, whereby he “had the entire use possession and profit” of up to fifteen slaves from 1808 to 1814. He avows that John Camp “contracted to pay to your Orator as Executor for the use of said John & Thomas ... the hire of said negroes to be applied to their education & support ... no part of which did he ever pay in his lifetime nor has the same been paid by” John H. Camp, his executor. Ward represents that John H. Camp has “admitted that he was liable to your Orator,” but Camp “has declined under various pretences to come to any account with your Orator.” He prays that the said John H. Camp be decreed to “account with your Orator as Executor of said Richard and that he be decreed to pay to your Orator ... the value of the hire of said negroes for all the time aforesaid, together with the interest thereon from the end of each year.” 0479 (Accession # 21482306). Maury County, Tennessee. Jane Campbell, administratrix of the late Andrew Campbell, seeks an injunction against the defendants, commanding them “not to remove the said twenty six slaves beyond the limits of this State.” Campbell recounts that two of the defendants, Charles Boyles and Brice Garner, owe the estate “the principal sum of six thousand and sixty five Dollars besides damages.” The court has issued execution judgments against Boyles, and some of his property has been levied and “sold at auction for about the sum of fourteen hundred and sixty Dollars.” Campbell points out that the same execution was “also levied on sixteen of the negroes named in a mortgage deed” from Boyles to three other men. Since Garner was “wholly without property,” Campbell believes that the debt can only be satisfied by “the right and interest which the said Charles Boyles has in and to the said twenty six negro slaves.” Campbell is “apprehensive that said ten negro slaves as also the sixteen so levied on” will be “carried beyond the process of this Court” as a means of depriving her “of a satisfaction of the demands due to her.” In addition to the requested injunction, she prays that “the negroes may be sold by a decree of this Court.” 0490 (Accession # 21482307). Maury County, Tennessee. John W. P. McGimsey states that he purchased three slaves from John Strayhorn on 6 November 1822. He further states that he “on the same day entered into a covenant” with Strayhorn to reconvey said slaves to Strayhorn in three months if he would “pay unto your orator one thousand dollars Current money of the State of Tennessee or eight hundred dollars in specie or united States Bank notes.” The petitioner points out “that the principle inducement with your orator for purchasing said slaves was to secure a debt” owed to him by Strayhorn. The parties also agreed that McGimsey would hire out the slaves to Strayhorn in the interim; after three months, Strayhorn would either return the slaves to McGimsey or pay him the money owed. Fearing that Strayhorn is “about to remove said slaves out of the jurisdiction of your honorable court and secretly convey them to parts unknown,” McGimsey asks that Strayhorn be summoned and be ordered to pay his debt and, upon failure to do so, “that your honor will anull and set aside all claim or pretense of said defendant to any right to redress said slaves.” 0497 (Accession # 21482308). Williamson County, Tennessee. Claiborne Hooper seeks his distributive share of the estates of his late parents, Ennis and Anne Hooper. He informs the court that Daniel Young assumed the administration of his mother’s estate, upon her death in 1807, and, “by virtue thereof, the said Daniel Young in his lifetime, possessed himself of the personal estate and effects of the intestate, which included also the estate left by your orator’s deceased father.” Hooper further represents that said Young “had from 1808 to 1818, in his possession ... working for him, four negroes, a woman named Milly, and three children, belonging to the estate.” The petitioner states that Daniel Young died in 1820 and that he has 95 Reel 10 Tennessee applied to Hardy Bryan, the administrator of said Young, “to come to a full and true account of the personal estate & effects” of his parents and “of your orator possessed by the said Daniel Young ... in his lifetime.” Noting that Bryan has “refused to do so,” the petitioner prays that an account of his parents’ estates may be taken, that “the clear residue thereof may be ascertained,” and that he “may be paid his distributive share of such clear residue.” 0504 (Accession # 21482309). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Robert McCombs and Gideon Thompson ask for a “writ of Injunction to stop the execution” of a judgment that orders them to pay the defendant, James Allen, $500 for a slave named Jane. They report that on 2 November 1820 they gave Allen two notes, each for $250, “in consideration of the purchase of a negro woman slave, named Jane.” Revealing that Allen represented “that said woman slave had runaway from her master who was about to move out of the state,” they further note that “there never was any delivery of said slave, nor was any bill of sale given.” They argue that “on the day previous to the purchase of said slave, she was drowned in a mill-pond” and that Allen “artfully concealed from said Complainants such facts and circumstances within his knowledge.” The petitioners believe that the day before the sale Allen “made the search, he found not far from the pond the horse tied, which said negro slave had ridden away, and also that he saw distinct impressions or tracts of the said slaves feet on the bank of the pond, going in towards the same.” Accusing Allen of “various tricks, devices, falsehoods and subterfuges,” they ask that he be summoned to answer their charges. 1824 0534 (Accession # 21482401). Maury County, Tennessee. Cuffy Woodson, a free man of color, seeks to emancipate his wife, Fanny, and her child, Patsy. Woodson informs the court that “by great diligence & economy & attention to business he has been enabled to purchas his wife a Yellow wom[an] ... who was the Slave of Micajah Moorman.” He confides “that his purchase of sd. slaves has not been with a vain or ambitious desire to acquire wealth or property, but has been an humble exercise of those feelings of ... affection which the laws of the country ... will tolerate in him.” Citing that “Fanny & her child are faithful affectionate & meritorious in their services,” he prays “with the leave of your worshipful court to emancipate and make free persons as if they had been originally so born.” Court documents reveal that the grand jury indicted Woodson in 1836 for “unlawfully and wickedly” keeping “a certain grocery and tipling house for the purpose of vending spirituous liquors,” contrary to law and “against the peace and dignity of the State.” Woodson died a short time after the indictment, but the state continued its case, charging that his widow “did sell and vend spirituous liquors to wit one pint of whiskey to a negro Slave named Harry ... without a permit in writing from the master or mistress.” 0553 (Accession # 21482402). Maury County, Tennessee. James Walker seeks to enjoin the sale of a town lot and tavern in Columbia. Walker represents that “he purchased of Peter Cheatham ... a negroe slave named Silas, gave six hundred dollars for him & received a bill of sale” in November 1822. The petitioner points out that “in order to guarentee your Orator against any loss in the event the said slave should be recovered or taken from him by any person having a better right to him, said Cheatham conveyed in trust to your Orator” the abovementioned property. Walker reports that said Silas was seized and sold, whereupon he requested that the town lot and tavern be sold to compensate his loss. He further declares that he bought said lot but that his purchase was not free from “incumbrance by foreclosure.” Walker also argues that Sheriff Nimrod Porter altered the dates on other judgments in an effort “fraudulently to defeat your Orators honest purchase under said deed of Trust.” He therefore prays that the court “grant unto your orator a perpetual injunction” on selling the lot and tavern and that said Cheatham be decreed “to come to a just & fair account with your orator for the principal, interest & cost now due & owing ... and may pay the same to your orator.” 96 Reel 10 Tennessee 0573 (Accession # 21482403). Williamson County, Tennessee. William Simmonds seeks an account of business transactions conducted with his father-in-law, James Sneed. He states that he “entered into partnership for the purpose of purchasing slaves to be sent to a distant market for sale” with Sneed in 1816, whereupon he bought out the interest of Sneed’s partner, Philip G. Mallory. He claims that Sneed had purchased eight slaves and was “about to proceed with them to Georgia, for sale.” Sending the slaves ahead under the superintendence of his son, Constant, Sneed stated “that he knew of two more slaves in the neighborhood that might be purchased,” and he told Simmonds that “he would go and purchase them for himself and your orator, and join them in the same adventure with the others.” Simmonds avers that “the nett proceeds of said adventure were seven hundred dollars,” and this amount was turned over to Sneed. When Simmonds attempted to collect his share of the money, Sneed “denied that your orator had any interest in the two negroes last purchased, and refused to make him any allowance for them.” Simmonds asks “that an account of said partnership transactions may be decreed, and that yr orator’s proportion may be decreed to him.” 0580 (Accession # 21482404). White County, Tennessee. James Tilford seeks to recover two slave women named Fably and Eliza, along with “their considerable increase.” Tilford represents that he obtained judgments from one Gabriel L. Walker, the owner of said slaves, and that Walker sold the enslaved women to his brother-in-law, Green Woods, “with a view to defeat the recovery of his just debts & to hinder, delay, & defraud his other creditors.” The petitioner further charges that said Woods, “himself in embarrassed circumstances,” then “run said negros to East Tennessee,” where he conveyed them to Henderson Clark, another brotherin-law. Tilford declares that “he caused an Execution to be levied upon said negros” and that he purchased them at a sheriff’s sale. He now argues that said Clark “rescued the negros, or took them before your Orator could get possession & refuses to surrender them up.” The petitioner therefore prays that the defendants “be compelled to deliver to your Orator the said negros with their increase & that they account for and pay over to your Orator the hire of said slaves from the date of his purchase or to compell said deffts to surrender up said negros to be sold in satisfaction of his said judgts debts.” 1825 0599 (Accession # 21482502). Williamson County, Tennessee. Samuel B. and Jane Childress Marshall ask that John Catron, the administrator of the estate of the late John Childress, be required to account for the “personal property including many slaves” left “in the hands of said administrator to be distributed amongst the personal representatives of said John.” They further aver that the decedent owned 337 acres of land “on which he had erected a splendid mansion house” and that he “was also seized of one of the best cotton farms” in Lauderdale County, Alabama; they argue that said Catron is now in possession of both tracts of land. The Marshalls also charge that said administrator has received rents from county acreage as well as town lots in Nashville. The petitioners therefore pray that said Catron “may be compelled to pay to your orator and oratrix, and the other heirs of said John, their respective proportions of said rents and profits of said lands with interest thereon.” They also ask “that partition be had of all said real estate amongst such of said heirs.” 0615 (Accession # 21482503). Sumner County, Tennessee. Twenty-two-year-old George Y. Duty petitions the court for his rightful inheritance from his father’s estate. He explains that “a certain Josephus H. Conn” assumed guardianship duties upon the death of his first guardian, which occurred shortly after his father’s death. By virtue of said position, Conn “came into the full possession of all monies slaves and other property of your petitioner,” valued at $2,000. Duty reports that Conn has “departed this life” and that John Brown, his administrator, has 97 Reel 10 Tennessee “received the whole of” Conn’s estate. Duty states “that the said Conn at the time of his death owed your petitioner as guardian as aforesaid at least two thousand dollars.” The petitioner prays the court to compel John Brown to make an account of Conn’s estate so as to determine “how much the estate of the said Josephus H. Conn owes to your petitioner.” 0620 (Accession # 21482504). Williamson County, Tennessee. The heirs and relatives of John Roulett request the court to appoint commissioners to divide the estate of their deceased ancestor among them, “share and share alike.” They state that Roulett died intestate, possessed of thirteen slaves and “other kind of personal property.” They ask that the commissioners so appointed “may divide and set apart to your Petitioners the aforsaid estate of the said John.” 0626 (Accession # 21482505). Stewart County, Tennessee. Patsey Gibson, by her next friend and grandfather Thomas French, seeks to enjoin the sale of “a negro Girl named Charity.” The petitioner submits that John P. and William Rushing “recovered a Judgment against Henry Gibson, the father of your orator” and that they have “caused an Execution to be issued” and have “caused the same to be levied on” Charity, “the property of your oratrix.” Asserting “that the said negro Girl Charity was the Gift of her grandfather,” Gibson apprehends “that should a Sale of Said property take place, the said Girl Charity might be removed to parts by the purchaser and in that court your oratrix would be deprived altogether of the Said Girl which is esteemed and considered the more valuable as being a Gift to her from her Grandfather.” The petitioner therefore prays that “your honor may decree a perpetual Injunction against the Sale of Said Girl Charity on the Execution aforesaid.” 0650 (Accession # 21482506). Williamson County, Tennessee. Peggy S. Mallory, through her next friend, Charles A. Dabney, seeks a divorce from her husband, Thomas G. Mallory. Citing numerous examples “of unprovoked abuse on his part and silent resignation on the part of your Petitioner,” Peggy claims that Thomas has threatened her life on several occasions. She relates to the court an instance where Thomas “pulled her out of bed with much violence, struck her many violent blows stripped her of every article of dress and threw part of them in the fire, and then swore with most diabolical malignancy he would throw her on the fire and burn her up.” On another occasion, Thomas “commanded your Petitioner to whip a daughter of her’s by a former husband about ten years old which she declined,” whereupon Peggy withdrew “from the bed and board of said Thomas Mallory.” Peggy adds that Thomas “is in possession of” fourteen slaves, plus 130 acres of land that she inherited from her father’s estate. Peggy asks that she be granted a divorce and alimony and that Thomas be restrained “from removing said property beyond the power of your Honour.” 0655 (Accession # 21482507). Smith County, Tennessee. Martin London asks that a “tract of land and negro woman” be sold and that the proceeds from said sales be used to discharge a judgment recovered against him by one Wyatt Bailey, the defendant. London represents that he conveyed 220 acres of land, a female slave named Beck, and sundry notes to said Bailey “in trust,” directing him “to sell the land & negroe, and collect the notes and with the proceeds discharge and pay off” said judgment of $700. He charges that said Bailey “pretended to dispose of said tract of land and negro woman at public sale, but intending to defraud your orator, so managed and conducted said pretended sale as to deter & prevent persons from bidding for said property and had the same knocked off to himself as purchaser for a sum far below its real value.” London claims that the land was worth $1,000 and that Bailey purchased it for $300; Beck was worth $200 and Bailey purchased her for $61. Noting that the sale proceeds were insufficient to satisfy the debt, the petitioner prays that the clerk and master may direct the sale of “said tract of land and negro woman and apply the proceeds to the satisfaction of said judgment.” 98 Reel 10 Tennessee 1826 0695 (Accession # 21482601). Maury County, Tennessee. Jeremiah Hobson, minor son of the late Jeremiah Hobson, accuses James Sandford, the administrator of his late father’s estate, of refusing “to give to & pay over into the hands of your petitioners guardian for his use the legal distributive share of your petitioner of said slaves & money.” Hobson represents that more than two years have elapsed since Sandford commenced administration of the estate and that Sandford has offered only “sham excuses” regarding the delay in the estate’s distribution. Hobson claims that he is entitled to two-thirds of the estate and that his mother, Nancy, who is now married to Robert M. Smith, is entitled to the remaining third. He asks the court to appoint commissioners to “divide & allot said slaves in that proportion.” In his answer, Sandford reports that he “never inventoried” two of the ten slaves in question because they were conveyed to Nancy Hobson Smith after Hobson’s death by her father, William Yancy. 0701 (Accession # 21482603). Williamson County, Tennessee. Daniel Craig declares that “it is my wish that Said Negro Boy George be freed or Emancipated” upon his and his wife’s death. He describes George as “about fifty five years of age and about five feet nine inches high of a yellowish Completion with a Scar on his right Cheek.” Craig states that “he has for twenty years and more past ben the Legal and undisputed owner” of the slave and that “Said Negro george has ever behaved himself in the most industris and honest maner towards me my famly and to the public in genral.” Further, George can be trusted with his “property in any amount with a dependance that he would do for the best for me more like a Child for his parrent than a Servant for his master.” 0705 (Accession # 21482604). Williamson County, Tennessee. The petitioners declare that they are “the only next of kin of said Charles Nash and are entitled to said seven slaves” in his estate. They report that Nash died “sometime in the month of June last” and that he bequeathed seven slaves to his wife Rebecca in his will. However, they state that Rebecca “departed this life in the lifetime of the said Charles Nash, by reason whereof they are informed that the said Legacy of seven negroes has become a lapsed Legacy and is to be distributed to and amongst the next of kin of said Charles.” They pray that the court “appoint Commissioners to divide and allot said negro slaves to and amongst your Petitioners in the proportions herein before specified.” 0714 (Accession # 21482605). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Frank and Lavenia Murfree Burton seek a “re-examination of the administration accounts of said William H. Murfree and David Dickinson,” the administrators of the late Hardy Murfree. The Burtons inform the court that Lavenia’s late father died in 1809, “leaving at his death a considerable estate in Lands ... negroes, money, stock &c to descend to and be distributed amongst his children.” They report that said Hardy advanced land and/or slaves to three of his children and that legally “those children advanced in the lifetime of Hardy Murfree, were not entitled after his death to any share or portion of the personal estate left at his death, except by accounting for the property advanced.” Charging that “they have been injured many thousand dollars as they believe, in the distribution of the personal estate of their Ancestor,” they cite that “they have not been paid their portion of hire of negroes, nor their portion of monies on hands, nor any interest on the sums of money in the hands of the administrators.” The petitioners therefore pray that the defendants be compelled to answer their charges and that “they may recover from them such a sum or sums as will make their portion equal to the portion of the other children.” 99 Reel 10 Tennessee 1827 0732 (Accession # 21482702). Williamson County, Tennessee. Calvin and Jane Love Smith seek “a full account” from Charles I. Love, the administrator of the estate of Henry I. Love. They represent that Henry died in 1824, two weeks after marrying fifteen-year-old Jane. They further note that Henry did “give and bequeath unto my dearly beloved wife Jane” ten slaves and the proceeds from a land sale. The Smiths reveal that they have “lately received” seven of the slaves, but they claim that Charles “never took any measures” to recover the slave Clarissa, who eloped “when she heard of the death of the said Henry I. Love” and who “is entirely lost” due to his negligence; that Charles sold the slave Polly and her young child without Jane’s permission; and that he “beset” Jane “to give said negro boy Moses to his daughter Elizabeth.” Charging that “the whole of the property bequeathed & devised by the said Henry I. Love, was equally liable with that bequeathed to your oratrix, to the payment of that portion of the debts,” the petitioners pray that Charles Love be decreed to pay them “the balance coming to them, after settling the estate in this way.” They also pray that the “conveyance of Negro boy Moses to the said Elizabeth Love, may be set aside.” 0749 (Accession # 21482703). Maury County, Tennessee. William Gray, “old and infirm,” charges his son with fraud. He represents that he was about to move to Tennessee from South Carolina in 1824 and that he owned a female slave and her child, valued at $550, who was “unwilling to come with him.” Citing that he disliked “to compel her,” Gray traded the two slaves for another enslaved family, composed of thirty-five-year-old Chainey and her two children, Willis and Westley, ages four and one, respectively. Gray admits that his affliction, “commonly called the Gravel,” caused him to leave during the actual trade, but he maintains that he was confident that his son Andrew “would do nor suffer any injustice to be done him in his absence.” He confesses, however, that his son, “designing to cheat, wrong & defraud your Orator of ... the said negroes,” caused the title to said slaves to be placed in his own name. The petitioner avers that “said Bill of sale now held by said Andrew was obtained by him, by the grossest fraud—by an abuse of confidence scarcely parallelled in the annals of filial ingratitude.” Gray prays that his son may be summoned and that “your Honour would decree that the Title in, to & over said negroes should be devested out of said Andrew & vested in your Orator.” 0762 (Accession # 21482704). Maury County, Tennessee. Esther Bridges seeks to enjoin the sale of three enslaved children, who have been levied upon to satisfy the debts of Jessee Bridges. Stating that she enlisted said Jessee “in the purchase of negros for her” in 1820, Esther avows that he used her money to buy “a negro man and his wife named Luke and Matilda,” but he titled said slaves in his name. The petitioner notes that she discovered the fraud, but, fearing his creditors would seize the couple and their three children, she forgave Jessee’s debts in return for a “valid” bill of sale. She now reports that said children, who were not named in the new bill of sale, have been seized and are to be sold soon “unless prevented by your honor.” Esther reveals that “she being a widow and having raised sd negro Children with her own they are endeared to her affections and the cruelty of selling them away from their parents would distress her feelings much and in all probability render through grief and distraction their father and mother of little value to your Oratrix.” She asks that the parties be restrained “from proceeding any farther in the sale of sd negros,” that the children “be delivered up again into the possession of your Oratrix,” and that the title to said slaves be “divested out of sd Jessee and Vested in your Oratrix.” 0775 (Accession # 21482705). Hickman County, Tennessee. Frederick Mayberry charges that “Justice had not been done” in the trial of a slave named Anos, who was accused of assault and battery and who belongs to Henry Mayberry. The petitioner represents that Anos came to his 100 Reel 10 Tennessee home and “then and there did commit an assualt and batery on the body” of his six-year-old daughter Agness. He further charges that said Anos “made an other assualt, & battery on the body of Elizabeth Mayberry she being the wife of your petitioner with an intent to kill her.” He cites that the court tried Anos “for afsd offence that said Justices discharged said negro” on 21 July 1827 and that he was “taxed with the cost.” Mayberry “therefore prays Your honour as the only & last remedy to remove sd cause to Your honours court ... so as a fare tryal on the cause may be had.” Related documents reveal that the court found Anos “guilty of committing the assault only by abusive language with him the distance of fifty or sixty Yards of the prosecuting house ... and not Guilty of the other offenses as charged.” It ruled that Anos should “receive eight lashes on his bare back and then be discharged.” Henry Mayberry appealed the case to the state supreme court. 0789 (Accession # 21482706). Wilson County, Tennessee. James Johnson seeks the recovery of a female slave named Mariah, whom he purchased at a sheriff’s sale. He asserts that Mariah “was sold as the property of Richard Drake under several executions in favour of several persons against Said Richard Drake.” Reporting that William B. Drake “set up a claim to her and brought an action of Detinue, against your orator,” the petitioner notes that said suit is “yet pending.” He avers “that said slave Mariah has been in his possession ever since he purchased her untill within a few weeks back,” noting that Mariah has disappeared. The petitioner “has strong reasons to believe, her disappearance, has been caused by said Wm. B.” and that he or another defendant “has clandestinely removed or caused to be removed said slave Mariah from the possession of your orator.” Johnson therefore prays that the defendants be summoned to answer his charges and that “they may be compelled by a decree of your honor to redeliver said slave Mariah into the possession of your Orator, there to abide until the final termination of said suit in Detinue.” 0801 (Accession # 21482707). Sumner County, Tennessee. Twenty-nine-year-old Elizabeth Gregory, an indentured servant, urges the court to cancel her indenture and to prevent her master, Thomas Gregory, from selling her as a slave. Elizabeth avows that “she was born free” in North Carolina and that she is the daughter “of Lucindy Perrigin a white woman with red hair.” Stating that there “she had a husband ... by the name of Adam owned by William Whitemoor,” she charges that said Whitemoor intended to take her and Adam’s daughter with him to Tennessee, “which induced her to follow the said Whitemoor.” She reports that he “delivered her over to one Harvey Robertson & told him not to sell her as she was a free woman.” Elizabeth contends that said Robertson “prevailed upon” her “to sign away her liberty for forty years,” as “it would be better for her if she would sign the indenture & if she did not something bad might befall.” She declares that Robertson “about six years since delivered her over to one Thomas Gregory ... who has had her under his controul ever since.” Noting that said Gregory “has but lately threaten to sell your oratrix,” Elizabeth prays that “said deed or indenture be ordered to be delivered up and cancelled and your oratrix be taken out of the power of the sd. Deft. and put at Liberty.” 0815 (Accession # 21482708). Williamson County, Tennessee. Henry Hill asks that the court “emancipate & set free from slavery” a five-year-old mulatto slave named Pleasent Homer Lesley, who “has performed many meritorious services” and “is possessed of real talent.” Hill “is much opposed to slavery,” and he desires that Lesley “be emancipated from the shackles of slavery in his early youth that his genius & future usefulness may not be cramped by any feelings of abasement which his situation would necessarily produce should he remain a slave.” The petitioner “proposes to remove said boy to the state of Ohio for the purpose of education should his petition be granted.” 101 Reel 10 Tennessee 0820 (Accession # 21482709). Smith County, Tennessee. The grandchildren of William Lucas state that they have a reversionary interest in several slaves “loaned” to their aunt and currently in her possession and in the possession of relatives of her husband. They recount that Lucas “called up the negroes Hannah, Harry & Major, and lent them to her [Rachel Lucas Martin] untill he should choose to recall them, calling on witnesses present to take notice that it was a loan.” Pointing out that Lucas died before “recalling” them, the petitioners allege that his will stipulated that “after her [Rachel’s] decease I give unto all the children of Sarah Martin decd. the negroes above stated, to be equally divided amongst them.” They charge that Rachel has given some of Hannah’s children to the children and grandchildren of her late husband. Fearing “that they are in great danger of losing the bounty and bequest of their grandfather under this management of the life estate,” they ask that the defendants be summoned to “set forth & discover the names, ages, discriptions and value of the said negroes—& also their pedigree”; that the defendants be enjoined from disposing of said slave property; and that the court “ascertain and declare their rights in remainder under said will.” 1828 0829 (Accession # 21482801). Williamson County, Tennessee. The widow and heirs of the late Sion Hunt seek a partition of his estate. They submit that said Hunt died in 1826 “intestate possessed of a considerable real and personal estate.” They represent that Polly Hunt, the widow, “is entitled to one third part of said land during her natural life as and for her dower” and that Hunt’s children are each entitled “to an equal half of said land quality & quantity considered.” The petitioners therefore pray that commissioners be appointed “to lay off and allot to said Polly Hunt her Dower in said land” and to partition the children’s portions as well and that they also “divide said negro slaves according to valuation equally amongst said widow and children.” Sion Hunt died possessed of twenty-two slaves, ten of whom were children under ten years old. 0847 (Accession # 21482802). Smith County, Tennessee. Civil Kornegay and her children seek “to ascertain & settle their respective rights & interest” in certain slaves. They inform the court that George Kornegay, the father and grandfather of the petitioners, directed in his will in 1808 that his slaves be loaned to his daughter and her husband, John Kornegay, “during my life, then my will & desire is that said negroes be under the care of my son Daniel, & the profits arising from them to be applied to the support of sd. Sivill during her life, & after her decease the whole of said negroes to be equally divided amongst her children.” Civil states that she and John moved to Tennessee about 1809, where her “wastefull & dissipated” husband sold five of the enslaved female’s children between 1811 and 1816. They note that the family later moved to Bibb County, Alabama, where John Kornegay died in 1823. Asserting that said John had no legal right to sell the slaves, the petitioners pray that “said negroes may be delivered up ... to some suitable & proper person to hold the same & apply the annual profits ariseing from them to the support of sd. Siville during her life, & then to be delivered to her said children.” 0860 (Accession # 21482803). Williamson County, Tennessee. The next of kin of the late James Boyd seek a division of his estate. They inform the court that said Boyd died in 1821 “having made his last Will and Testament in and by which he devised his estate to be equally divided amongst your Petitioners at the death of Nancy Boyd his widow.” Reporting that several of the distributees have already received land and slaves, the petitioners point out that 400 acres of land, thirteen slaves, and sundry furniture, stock, and tools still need to be distributed. Noting that the widow died on 24 May 1828, the Boyd children and their spouses “pray your worships to appoint five Commissioners to lay off and divide said estate amongst your Petitioners.” 102 Reel 10 Tennessee 0873 (Accession # 21482804). Williamson County, Tennessee. Marshal Jameson seeks the emancipation of a forty-four-year-old slave named Jacob, who “belonged to and was raised by your Petitioners father and has always lived in the family.” Jameson describes Jacob as being “dutiful and faithful in his services” and explains that Jacob “attended to and managed his [father’s] whole business without any overseer” when the elder Jameson became too old “to superintend his business personally.” Citing Jacob’s “long course of faithful and meritorious services,” the petitioner prays that the court will grant his father’s wish “entertained and expressed on his death bed that said slave should be emancipated.” 0878 (Accession # 21482806). Maury County, Tennessee. Thomas and Nancy Tomlinson Kennedy seek to receive “the distributive shares” due them from the estate of Hugh Tomlinson, the late father of Nancy Kennedy. Tomlinson’s estate included slaves and “amounted to or exceeded two thousand dollars” in value. The petitioners state that the court appointed Alexander McCorcle administrator “of all and Singular the goods chattles rights And credits Which Were of the intestate” and that he and the guardian James Caruthers “have kept used & employed said negroes themselves or hired them out and received the proceeds of their hire.” The petitioners cite that Nancy’s intermarriage to Thomas entitles them to jointly sue for a portion of the estate and that the said defendants have refused their requests for such settlement. The Kennedys “therefore pray the honorable Court” to command the defendants to make an accounting of the estate and to ascertain the distributive share due them and that said share be so delivered. 0888 (Accession # 21482807). Smith County, Tennessee. The granddaughters of the late John Owen Sr. request that the slaves bequeathed to their mother, the late Mary Owen Oliver, “be decreed to remain in the possession of their guardian the said Francis H. Oliver,” their father. They inform the court that their grandfather died in 1824 and that his will directed that seven slaves “be so secured & appropriated as that it may conduce to the greatest comfort and advantage of my daughter and the heirs of her body.” Noting that their mother died in 1826, the minor petitioners aver that they are also “entitled to the hire of the negroes,” which was due their mother. They therefore pray that the court determine “the balance due to your oratrixes ... and by a decree paid over to their said guardian.” 0898 (Accession # 21482808). Montgomery County, Tennessee. Lucy Smith Brantley seeks a “separate maintenance” from her husband, Abraham Brantley, and a determination of “the right and title” to four slaves. She avers that she divorced one Samuel Smith in 1820 and that “in lieu of alimony she accepted ... a settlement by which he conveyed to her a good deal of property.” Lucy further explains that among said property conveyed were slaves, who were “limited to your Oratrix for her sole use and benefit during her natural life, to be disposed of by her last will and testament.” She reports that she married Abraham Brantley in 1824, but his cruel treatment induced her to “live entirely apart from him.” She confesses that, “influenced by his solicitations and promises of better treatment,” she returned to Abraham, and that, “whilst she was under his control,” she “conveyed away the whole of her property and left your Oratrix in a state of total dependence.” Lucy cites that Abraham currently has three slaves and that he sued for the fourth slave, whom her trustee tried to retain as her property. She therefore prays that Abraham “be injoined from proceeding in his said suit,” that the court “decide whether the right and title to the said four negroes be in her or in the said Abraham Brantley,” and that “said Abram Brantley make an adequate provision for her seperate maintainance during the pendency of this suit.” 0933 (Accession # 21482809). Williamson County, Tennessee. Robert Ridley seeks an injunction against Thomas Hardeman, who “threatens to take out execution against the property of your orator for the whole amount of said Judgment,” which Hardeman obtained in the amount 103 Reel 10 Tennessee of $550. Ridley avers that he “is justly entitled to the one ninth part” of the estate of John Jameson, having purchased the interest from one of Jameson’s said heirs, and that said interest amounted to $316. He further relates that he purchased $550 worth of property at the Jameson estate sale and that “he gave his note with Security payable to the said Thomas Hardeman.” Ridley argues that his one-ninth interest should be deducted from the amount of his note, and he contends “that he has been always ready and willing to pay said amount of said purchase except the amount of the share which he has purchased.” The petitioner therefore prays that said Hardeman be summoned and be prevented from collecting the $316. Related documents reveal that “property” purchased by the petitioner at the estate sale was Dicy and her daughter Polly. 0947 (Accession # 21482810). Giles County, Tennessee. George Brown and Charlottee Buford Hicks Brown seek to recover three enslaved children, who were seized by Spencer and Charles Buford, the trustees and brothers of Charlottee. The Browns represent that Charlottee’s late husband, John Hicks, executed an indenture to the said Bufords in 1821. They report that the property in said indenture, which included a slave family, secured a loan and that, upon payment of said debt, the remaining property was to be held in trust “for the use and benefit of Charlottee Hicks.” The petitioners point out that Charlottee retained possession of the slaves and the property until 1826, when it, “excepting ... the negroes,” was sold to satisfy the said debt. The Browns charge that the Bufords seized the three orphaned slave children and that they have “withheld from your Orators ... the possession of said negro children and the enjoyment of their services.” The petitioners therefore pray that the defendants “be decreed to deliver the possession of all the remaining part of said property.” Related documents reveal that the trustees sold all three children for $468.75 on 28 September 1828 at the Giles County courthouse. Reel 11 Tennessee cont. 1829 0002 (Accession # 21482901). Williamson County, Tennessee. The grandchildren and relatives of Joseph Lea ask that commissioners be appointed “to divide and set apart” slaves belonging to the estate of Rachel Thompson, their late mother. They cite Lea’s will as evidence to their claim wherein he wrote, “I lend to my daughter Rachel Thompson during her life two negroes Fender and Hannah and at her death the said negroes with their increase are to be equally divided amongst the children of Rachel and their lawful heirs forever.” Thompson died in 1828, leaving a total of twelve slaves in her estate. Stating that they are heirs “of said Rachel,” the petitioners declare that they are “each entitled to an equal sixth part in value of said negroes.” 0013 (Accession # 21482902). Williamson County, Tennessee. The ten children and relatives of Ann Pope seek a division of the slaves belonging to the life estate of their mother. They state that the late William Lucas bequeathed and conveyed several slaves and their increase “in trust for the use and benefit of the said Ann Pope during her natural life remainder to the children of her body legally begotten.” They further represent that, since the death of her husband John, Pope “has released & conveyed to your Petitioners in common all of said Negroes which remain to be divided.” They ask that the court appoint commissioners to divide the twenty slaves “in equal parts and proportions” among the petitioners. 104 Reel 11 Tennessee 0020 (Accession # 21482903). Williamson County, Tennessee. Newton Cannon states “that by the last will and testament of said Minos Cannon Dcd. there are Two thousand five hundred dollars in cash devised by several bequests to several legatees.” As administrator of his father’s estate, Cannon reports that “there was no money left by the said Minos at the time of his death wherewith to pay said legacies.” The petitioner states that there “are six negroes not specifically devised by said will belonging to the estate,” and he “prays your worships to make an order authorising him to sell said negroes for the purpose of enabling him to pay said several legacies.” 0027 (Accession # 21482904). Williamson County, Tennessee. Henry Babcock and Charles Gardiner, “merchants & partners in trade,” seek a writ of sequestration for two slaves. They inform the court that Samuel Hamner executed a deed of trust to Joseph Catton with the intent of securing “payment of two notes ... held by complainants.” The petitioners assert that the deed of trust directed Samuel to repay the debts by 1 May 1828 “& in case he should fail therein, the said defendant Joseph was ... to expose for sale the property in said deed mentioned.” Noting that the property included “a negro woman named Lucy & her child called Harriett,” they charge that said Hamner has possession of the slaves and “has been running them about from place to place to prevent their being sold under the aforesaid deed.” Fearful that the slave family will be carried “to parts beyond the Courts of this State, so as to defeat your orators of their just remedy under said deed,” the petitioners pray that the defendants be restrained “from departing & going beyond the limits of the state with said negroes” and that the sheriff “take said negroes Lucy & Harriet into his possession.” 0034 (Accession # 21482905). Maury County, Tennessee. Jane McKee seeks a divorce and alimony from William McKee, whose “treatment was so cruel & violent as to compel her to fly for safety.” Jane laments that her husband caught her “by the throat, & gave her several violent blows,” and that he “swore he would kill her & while attempting to get his gun she escaped, & has since kept away from him.” The petitioner charges that William “is given to intoxication, possesses great personal strength, is very violent in his passions, & sanguinary in his disposition.” She confides that her husband’s “treatment is so unnatural, barbarous, & cruel that it is impossible for her to live with him.” The petitioner, “desirous to be divorced from him,” prays the “Court may decree her such alimony and maintainance as in Equity & good conscience she would be entitled.” She also prays that “he be enjoined by the Honorable Court from forceably, violently or against her will, taking the custody or control or management of her person under penalties sufficient to restrain him.” Jane informs the court that William owns “about fourteen negros,” two of whom, “at the intermarriage, she brought into the family.” 0042 (Accession # 21482906). Smith County, Tennessee. Seventy-six-year-old Joshua Hadly seeks to rescind a deed of trust that conveyed his 195-acre plantation to Edward L. Douglass. Hadly charges that Douglass “swept from him his home at which he had lived for 40 years and to which he was much attached.” He confides that Douglass befriended him after a bitter dispute with his family, which resulted in alienation from and renunciation of his wife and children. Declaring that he conveyed “not only his home place but all of his property” to said Douglass, Hadly asserts that the defendant, “under a promise from him that he should be made sole heir,” agreed to care for him until he died; he also promised “that the Negroes of your Orator should also live on the plantation to take care of him as long as he lived” and “that he would allow said Negroes 10 acres of said land to cultivate during their stay with your Orator.” The petitioner laments that, “instead of finding the affection and tenderness which this child of adoption had promised,” he “found in the short space of a month an enemy.” He therefore prays that said Douglass “may be compelled to surrender said deed to be cancelled” and that he may be compelled “to account for and pay your Orator for the use and occupation of said premises.” 105 Reel 11 Tennessee 0050 (Accession # 21482907). Williamson County, Tennessee. James Armstrong requests that two slaves belonging to the estate of Thomas Lapsley, his uncle, be sold and that the proceeds be divided among the distributees, his siblings. He states that he and his brothers “were desirous of liberating the said slaves Jerry and Sally” and “locating them in the State of Ohio or some other nonslaveholding State” but that his sister was not so inclined. Armstrong points out that “he has endeavoured in vain to obtain the consent of” his sister to emancipate the said slaves; however, having “no other alternative left him,” he “obtained letters of administration upon the estate of said Thomas Lapsley.” Citing that there “are at least five joint owners of said slaves Jerry & Sally and distribution cannot otherwise be made,” he asks that an order for the sale of the slaves be decreed. 0058 (Accession # 21482908). Sullivan County, Tennessee. In 1823, former slave and free black man Adam Waterford of Sullivan County, Tennessee, executed two deeds of trust, or mortgages. One trust was to protect Isaac and John Baker of Washington County, Virginia, from any liability they might incur by posting bond for Waterford in a civil suit as well as any liability they might incur by buying a slave Waterford had sold them; the other trust was “to secure to said Isaac Baker the payment of $704.85.” Waterford complains that the actual amount due is $625, because he received “Nashville money ... at a time when Nashville money was upwards of thirty per cent under par.” In spring 1825, Waterford drove “forty head of cattle,” worth $350, to Virginia to pay part of the deed, but Baker “sacrificed” them, and they “only sold for fifteen dollars.” In order to secure the deeds, Waterford put into trust his 206-acre homestead in Sullivan County. He charges that Isaac Baker obtained a fraudulent title to his land from the trustees and sued Waterford for the property. He lost but is threatening to sue again. Waterford says he “is willing & ready to come to a fair and honest settlement” with Baker, but he wants the amount adjusted to include the full value of the cattle and the depreciated value of the Nashville money. Waterford asks the court to enjoin Baker from suing again, to adjust the amount due, to compel Baker to receive “the sum that is really due to him in Equity,” and to void the deed of trust and the fraudulent conveyances. 0203 (Accession # 21482910). Williamson County, Tennessee. William H. Hill, administrator of the estate of the late Nancy Creecy, seeks permission to sell the slaves in the estate. He reports that proceeds from the sale of all the estate’s personal property, “excepting slaves,” amounted to $243 but that the estate currently owes $365 and there are other outstanding debts “not ascertained.” He states that the estate slaves “consist of Zilpah a crippled negro woman about twenty five years old who has three children.” Believing “that said negro woman is so much a cripple as to be entirely worthless to hire and the estate must every year sink deeper and deeper in debt until said negros or some of them be sold,” he asks that “the interest of the estate” and its two minor distributees be served by requiring “a sale to be made.” 1830 0209 (Accession # 21483002). Smith County, Tennessee. Samuel Overton asks that Dr. Luther Bigelow be summoned to answer his charges of usury and that a slave family be sold to satisfy a debt owed to said Bigelow. He admits that he was “much embarrassed in his circumstances, and greatly in want of money to pay his debts” in 1825 and that he “called on” said Bigelow, seeking a loan to cover his debts. He further reports that Bigelow, purportedly “a man of honesty and fair dealing,” agreed to an indenture for $500, which was to be paid off in three months, at an interest rate of 25 percent, “provided also that your Orator would execute a deed of Trust for five negroes.” He reveals that he did not pay the note on time and that Bigelow “called on your Orator to renew said note for three months longer, adding 25 per cent interest more on the original sum.” Stating he was forced to renew the note a third time, Overton charges that “said 106 Reel 11 Tennessee Defendant had by fraud, covin and usury, converted his five hundred dollar debt into a claim on your Orator for the sum of nine hundred and fifty dollars.” He claims that Bigelow said he would sell the mortgaged slaves in order to “purchase them at a less price,” which forced him to convey said slaves. Overton prays that Bigelow account to the court and that “he receive what may be justly due him after said account.” 0253 (Accession # 21483003). Williamson County, Tennessee. Mary Dabney, widow of the late Charles A. Dabney, states that she is entitled to “one seventh part of his personal estate.” She reports that the estate consists of twenty-five slaves “amongst other things,” but she states that the administrator of the estate believes “the demands against said estate can be settled up without interfering with the negro slaves belonging to said estate.” Dabney “therefore prays your worships to direct and decree that one seventh part in value of said negro slaves be set apart to her as her share of the slaves of said estate.” She also requests that a guardian be appointed for her six minor children, who are also heirs to the estate of their father. 0260 (Accession # 21483004). Williamson County, Tennessee. Miriam Porter, the widow of John Porter, joins her eight children and their spouses in asking the court for their fair portion of the deceased’s estate. The petitioners declare that they “are each entitled to one ninth part of the personal estate” and its eighteen slaves. They “therefore pray your Worships that said negro slaves may be divided amongst the said widow and children respectively as aforesaid.” 0269 (Accession # 21483005). Williamson County, Tennessee. The children of Stephen and Jane Norton, both deceased, as well as the legal representatives of deceased Norton children, state that they “are entitled to” twelve slaves. They point out that the will of Stephen Norton directed “certain negro slaves and their increase” to be “bequeathed to his wife Jane during her life and at her death to said Testator’s children.” The petitioners report that “the widow of said Testator departed this life” sometime in the month of October last. They “therefore pray that your Worships would direct said slave[s] to be sold ... and the proceeds divided amongst them.” Thomas Bradley in his commissioner’s report references slave title disputes and resultant suits that involved slaves mentioned in the petition. He also cites that several slaves were in the possession of persons not named in the petition. 0277 (Accession # 21483006). Williamson County, Tennessee. John L. McEwen, administrator of the estate of the late Nancy Barfield, states “that she had besides the usual personal property two negro slaves.” He explains that “Nancy left her children and next of kin ... seven in all, who are equally entitled to said Nancy’s personal estate.” Since “said slaves cannot be divided amongst those entitled without sale,” McEwen “believes it is for the interest of those entitled to distribution, that said slaves should be sold.” He “prays your worships to grant an order that said negro slaves shall be sold.” 0283 (Accession # 21483007). Smith County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Joshua Hadley ask that George Latimer, an in-law, be ordered “to produce all the deeds bonds or other instruments which he may have obtained from Capt. Hadley” so that they may be cancelled. Citing their estrangement from the decedent, they argue that Latimer acted as “a true sycophant adapting all his passions, and inflaming his hatred against his family.” They further contend that Latimer induced the said Hadley, who was “old feeble and childish, and worn down with sickness,” to sign a will “by which the whole estate was devised to him.” Noting that Hadley died in 1830, the petitioners state that Latimer “pretends to claim a large amount of the property” through his use of “various subterfuges.” In particular, they aver that Latimer tried to carry certain slaves to Illinois and “attempted to set them free,” but the prevailing laws rendered said “attempt to emancipate the negroes ... a futile & void act.” The Hadleys reveal that the decedent “first resolved to set all the negroes free, altho ... he never entertained any conscientious 107 Reel 11 Tennessee scruples upon the subject of slavery,” in order to deprive his family of any inheritance. They pray that Latimer be made “liable for all the property real or personal, or money which he may have recd. or fraudulently disbursed.” The court opinion cites that Hadley “was averse to slavery and often expressed himself so,” and the deposition of William Douglass strongly supports that argument. 0326 (Accession # 21483008). Smith County, Tennessee. Cornelius Dollahite and Margarett Sanders Johnson charge Elizabeth Sanders Blackwell and her son Sanders with appropriating much of the estate of the late Jane Sanders Greenwood. The petitioners represent that Edward Sanders, the father of Margarett and Elizabeth, left a life estate in sundry slaves and other property to his widow Jane and “at her death to his & her three Daughters.” They report that Jane and her daughters moved to North Carolina with the slaves, where they all married and lived for a number of years. They state that Jane and Elizabeth later moved to Tennessee with three slaves, leaving seven slaves in the hands of a court-appointed receiver “to be hired out for the use and benefit of” said Jane; they “suppose” that “the hire of sd. Negroes who were very valuable amounted ... to upwards of $3,000.” Noting that Jane died in 1830, the petitioners argue that the defendants “exercised an astonishing influence over her, and so managed ... to get into their hands and convert to their own use the whole of the money arising from the hire of the negroes both in North Carolina and in this state.” The petitioners ask the court’s aid in compelling an account from the defendants. [The petition is missing pages.] 0332 (Accession # 21483009). Maury County, Tennessee. John D. Love seeks “a decree of foreclosure” on a debt secured by an eighteen-year-old slave named Hercules. Love represents that John L. Petillo, “being indebted to your Orator in the sum of $361,” did “by a deed of Mortgage convey to your Orator a negro boy named Hercules” in 1829. The petitioner points out that Petillo “left this state going ... to some part of the Lower Countries,” having only repaid $131 of said debt. Love explains “that tho he shall at the end of the year take sd negro into possession yet his Title being once a Mortgage will always remain a Mortgage and that he will always be liable to the Equity of Redemption.” The petitioner therefore asks that the mortgage be foreclosed and that the defendant be compelled to repay $230 by a certain date. If said debt remains unpaid, the petitioner prays “that sd negro be sold by the Clerk and Master of your Honorable Court at public Sale and that out of the proceeds thereof he pay to your Orator [said] debt with Interest.” 0346 (Accession # 21483012). Sumner County, Tennessee. Jameson Bandy, of Hickman County, requests that the “bill of sale” issued to Hubbard Sanders for his slave Anna be cancelled. He states that in 1828, “being much oppressed and embarrassed in his pecuniary matters,” he borrowed the sum of $96 at “thirty three and third per cent interest on the money loaned,” and offered Sanders “a Bill of sale for a negro girl called Anna as security.” Bandy reports that Sanders died in 1829 and that the executor and executrix of his estate, “for the purpose of oppressing harrassing and defrauding” him, “refuses to receive the money borrowed, or to deliver up to your orator said girl.” Bandy therefore prays “that the title to said Girl be divested out of the Legal Representatives of said Saunders and vested in your orator” and that he “be exempted from the payment of said interest as illegally charged.” 1831 0354 (Accession # 21483101). Smith County, Tennessee. William and Polly Armstrong Wilbourn revive an 1820 bill that sought “to set aside a sale of a large estate belonging to James Armstrong deceased.” They cite that the court “decreed that complainants bill be dismissed” and that “they had no agency, or participation in said original bill.” They represent, however, “that on examination of said original bill they discover that it is there stated, they 108 Reel 11 Tennessee suppose by mistake, that Tiney is the property of said James Armstrong.” The Wilbourns contend that said James gave six-year-old Tiney to Polly “in the year 1816, or 1817 shortly after the intermarriage of the said Complainants.” They further declare that “they retained undisturbed & peaceable possession of said negro girl” until the death of James in 1819. They now avow that, in 1829, the defendant “on the final hearing of said [original] cause obtained a decree for Hannah, & her increase, of which the said girl Tiney is one.” Fearing an “attachment on Tiney and her daughter Angelina,” the petitioners argue that she “was not intended by the said James to be included with the rest of the children of Hannah under the gift of Hannah & her increase to Patrick Armstrong.” They therefore pray that “the title of said Tiney & her child be divested out of said Patrick & vested in” them. 0365 (Accession # 21483102). Williamson County, Tennessee. Thomas Merritt and Rebecca Newsom Merritt, administrator and administratrix of the estate of the late Nathaniel Newsom, submit that “after they apply the balance of said assets to the payment of said debts there will remain a balance of said debts unpaid of four hundred and five dollars.” It is their opinion that “it is necessary to sell or dispose of a slave belonging to said estate for the purpose of paying said debts.” Since the slave Lewis is presently hired until 25 December 1831, they “pray your worships to order said slave to be sold at such time and place” deemed proper by the court. Rebecca’s current husband, Henry J. Merritt, joins in the bill as a petitioner. In an effort to settle the estate, the Merritts, along with Benjamin and Rebecca Newsom, who are the infant children of the deceased, file a supplemental petition requesting the court to appoint commissioners to “make distribution of” fourteen slaves that belong to the estate to the petitioners, “each being entitled to one third thereof.” 0380 (Accession # 21483103). Sumner County, Tennessee. Tandy and Susan Perkins Duncan represent that they are entitled to a share of the increase of three female slaves bequeathed by Benjamin Moore to his daughter, Elizabeth Moore Perkins. The Duncans cite that Susan’s grandfather devised “unto my daughter Elizabeth Perkins ... three negroes viz. Suck Luce & Hannah & their increase to her and the heirs of her body.” The petitioners charge “that they have never received any of the negroes aforesaid or any part of their value and the only advancement which they received ... was a negro girl named winney upon their marriage.” Noting that some relatives now hold as many as thirty slaves, they ask that said relatives be summoned and that they “be compelled to Surrender to your orator and oratrix one Seventh part of the aforesaid negroes, to wit Suck Luce & Hannah & their increase & that they be compelled to pay your orator & oratrix’s portion of the value of the services of said negroes since the death of said Elizabeth Perkins.” 1832 0401 (Accession # 21483204). Williamson County, Tennessee. Thomas Merritt and Rebecca Newsom Merritt, the administrators of the estate of the late Nathaniel Newsom, and Henry J. Merritt seek to restrain creditors of the estate from selling two levied estate slaves. They state that they have “returned an Inventory and account of sales and negro hiring of said estate” as well as an accounting of the estate’s debts. They point out that the defendants, “formerly partners trading under the name of Wallace & Hobbs” have brought “two claims against your Orator’s intestate,” which the petitioners have been unable to settle “on account of the impossibility of collecting the proceeds of said sale & hiring before they fell due they having no money on hand.” The Merritts state that “not withstanding your Orators’ great diligence and endeavors to settle and collect said debts due to the estate, and to pay the debts due from the estate,” the defendants have “had executions issued on said judgments” and that the constable has levied “two negroes Sam and Cherry belonging to the said intestate’s estate” and now threatens to sell them on 6 February 1832. The petitioners ask for the “timely interposition of 109 Reel 11 Tennessee your Honor” to enjoin the defendants from selling said slaves. The petitioners point out an incorrect reference to one of the defendants in an amended petition. 0412 (Accession # 21483205). Maury County, Tennessee. The four minor grandchildren of Sarah Wade seek to enjoin the sale of an enslaved girl named Mourning, who was given to them by the said Sarah. They represent that their grandmother executed the deed of gift for the ten- or twelve-year-old slave in August 1829, while they still lived in Virginia. The petitioners declare that they and their father moved to Tennessee “some short time after the gift made,” confessing that he “has squandered all his property and is now probably totally insolvent.” Citing that their father suffers from “habits of intemperance,” the Wades reveal that various creditors have obtained judgments against him and that the county constable “has already levied them upon their negro girl Mourning ... and threatens to sell her in satisfaction thereof.” They confide “that said girl has now become very valuable to them, and her value at this time is enhanced from the fact that she is in a pregnant condition.” Noting that a “negro trader” is in the neighborhood, who is “determined to buy her, and take her out of the country immediately,” the Wades pray that the creditors be perpetually enjoined “from proceeding to sell the said negro girl.” 0425 (Accession # 21483206). Giles County, Tennessee. Richard Scoggin asks that Thomas Martin and George W. Martin be restrained from selling a thirteen-year-old enslaved girl named Hannah. The petitioner purports that “he is the Owner” of said slave and that “he purchased said negro girl of his wife’s father for a valuable consideration.” He insists, however, that said Hannah “has become so far a favourite servant of him & his family that a reasonable price for her in money would not be a satisfactory or sufficient compensation for the loss of said Girl.” Scoggin avers that the defendants obtained a judgment against his father-in-law, Thomas Harwood, and that the sheriff “has levied ... on the said negro Girl for the purpose of satisfying said execution.” Stating that Hannah has been seized and is slated to be sold, the petitioner decries “that he is in no way liable for any part of the debt” and that “it is unjust ... for the property of your Orator to be sold to satisfy the debt of another person and to deprive your Orator of a favourite servant.” He therefore prays that the defendants “be enjoyned from selling said negro Girl by virtue of said execution and that your honor decree to your Orator the possession of the said negro Girl.” 0431 (Accession # 21483207). Smith County, Tennessee. David Stroud asks that a bill of sale for three slaves be cancelled. He informs the court that he moved from North Carolina to Tennessee in 1831 with a twenty-one-year-old female slave and two enslaved children, “which negroes constituted nearly all the property of which your orator was possessed.” Explaining that he “was desirous to convert the value of said negroes into Land & stock,” Stroud states that he was unsuccessful in his attempts “to exchange a part of said negroes for the land.” The petitioner submits that he succeeded in selling the said slaves [now four in number] to Robert Garret for $800, whereby he accepted a $675 note, $23 in cash, and some livestock. Stroud reports that said Garret later “wished to cancel” the contract for three of the slaves, avowing that he could only afford to keep one of the children. The petitioner, however, charges that “the said defendants have confederated to cheat & defraud him out of the title to said negroes, and also their Value.” Noting his “good cause” to believe that Robert Garret “will remove said Negroes beyond the reach of the process of your honorable court,” the petitioner prays that the contract be set aside and that the court ensure “that the Negroes may be forth coming upon the final hearing of this Bill.” 0442 (Accession # 21483208). Williamson County, Tennessee. John Rusworm asks that the sheriff and others be restrained from selling certain slaves, who are currently levied upon for the payment of Martin Clark’s debts. Rusworm relates that he “became bound as security for the 110 Reel 11 Tennessee said Martin Clark” in the amount of several thousand dollars. He further asserts that Clark, “in part consideration of his afsd liability as security ... and to indemnify him,” conveyed five slaves to him in trust, “which negroes he alleges are not worth more than nine hundred dollars.” Rusworm now avers that the defendants obtained a judgment against said Clark, that an execution issued, and that the sheriff “levied upon all of sd negroes so conveyed in trust to your orator.” Arguing that “one of said negroes is a family negro & therefore more highly appreciated,” the petitioner prays that the slaves “under said execution” not be sold “until further direction of your honor.” 0448 (Accession # 21483210). Williamson County, Tennessee. Jacob Everly and his wife, Louisa Word Everly, seek a division of property that was conveyed to Louisa and her sister America by “deed of gift” from their father, Thomas H. Word. The petitioners claim that the sisters are “entitled to three negroes and some money.” They “pray your worships to appoint commissioners to make a division of said property.” 1833 0457 (Accession # 21483301). Maury County, Tennessee. John T. Brown, guardian of eightyear-old Mary Elizabeth Robertson, believes “himself as guardian entitled to the negroes of sd Mary Elizabeth & whatever moneys are due her.” He cites that Benjamin F. Robertson, his ward’s father, died in 1824, “possessed of a large personal estate ... the chief part of it, consisted of slaves.” In 1825 the court appointed Peter R. Booker and Edward B. Littlefield, the defendants, administrators of Robertson’s estate. According to Brown, said administrators “have hired out the slaves of the sd estate and received hire therefore” along with “other large sums of money.” Brown explains that Martha E. Robertson, his ward’s mother, is now married to General William Arnold and that they have sold away “all lands or real property she had owned” in this county. Brown states that the court appointed him the guardian of Mary Elizabeth in 1831. He reports that in that year he, as guardian, and Arnold, in right of his wife, and the administrators of Robertson’s estate “got an order ... for commissioners to divide sd negroes in the hands of the sd Administrators between sd Arnold & sd Mary Elizabeth.” Brown notes that there were “two setts of negroes, one inherited or devised to sd Arnold’s wife by her father Jas M. Goodloe & the other having been given by deed to her by James Jones dec.” Brown reports that the commissioners have set aside a portion of slaves from both groups to his ward, but the administrators “dispute the validity of his appointment or authority as guardian” and refuse to relinquish possession of the slaves. Brown asks that the defendants answer “all the foregoing matters” and that the court decree them “to deliver over to your orator the sd negroes allotted as aforesaid to sd Mary Elizabeth.” 0467 (Accession # 21483303). Williamson County, Tennessee. Eighteen-year-old Polly McLemore Perkins and her husband, William O. Perkins, seek a partition of the slaves remaining in the estate of her late father, Robert McLemore. They inform the court that McLemore’s will directed that his slaves be divided among his widow and his children, three of whom are still minors. The Perkinses cite that the slaves were “to be divided when your petitioner Polly M should arrive at the age of eighteen years and should marry.” They also note that the widow’s “interest in all of said slaves” has been set aside and that Polly is of age and married. Of the belief that they “are entitled under said will to five seventeenths of the value of said slaves,” the petitioners pray the court to “order a division of said slaves ... to be made & appoint commissioners to divide the same & set apart to your petitioners five seventeenths of the value thereof.” 0480 (Accession # 21483304). Williamson County, Tennessee. James S. Williams asks the court to indemnify him against “any mistaken fraudulent or unlawful disposition or 111 Reel 11 Tennessee mismanagement of the residuary property belonging to the distributees of said estate” of the late James Williams. The petitioner cites that said Williams died in 1832, having made his will in 1825. He reports that he and one James Williams, “commonly called bald James Williams,” qualified as executors. He charges that his co-executor has “appropriated to his own use a large portion of the perishable property ... which were acquired by the deceased after the making of his said will and before his death” and that “he refuses to give your Orator any control of any of the said assets or to direct how they shall be used or appropriated for the advantage of the distributees.” Arguing that “bald Jim” has “now committed” a devastavit, Williams “considers himself in great danger of being injured if not totaly ruined by the course the said James Williams is pursuing and likely to pursue in the administration of the assets of said testator.” He prays that “the assets be decreed to be so disposed as to provide for the certainty that all distributees be honestly, fairly and punctualy paid” and “that he shall not be injured by the devastavit of said James Williams.” 0490 (Accession # 21483305). Williamson County, Tennessee. Meredith Gentry, the administrator of the estate of the late Thomas G. Gentry, asks to sell a twenty-five-year-old slave named Harry “or such other of said slaves as may be sufficient to pay & satisfy the whole of said Claims against said estate.” Gentry declares “that there will be a deficit in the assets of said estate (exclusive of the negro slaves) to pay the claims against the same.” Asserting that “in his opinion all things considered, it would be most advantageous to all concerned, to sell Harry,” the petitioner prays that “he or some other person acting under the athority of this Worshipful Court, be ... directed to sell said Harry.” Meredith Gentry cites “that there are belonging to said estate” a thirty-year-old female slave with six children under the age of sixteen. 0498 (Accession # 21483306). Williamson County, Tennessee. Donald McGilvray, Catharine Forbes, and her husband Alexander are the devisees of the late William McGilvray. They allege that James Park and Edward Clouston, the executors of McGilvray’s estate, have refused “to come to a settlement with your petitioners and to pay them what is due them.” The petitioners state that McGilvray died possessed of “Lands, Town Lots, houses, slaves, household and kitchen furniture, debts, &c.” They point out that the “debts of said testator were few and small and that the expenses of settling said estate ... have been but trifling.” They state that the executors have sold the deceased’s real property “for large sums of money” and that they have “received other sums of money for rent of lands ... hire of slaves and also collected debts,” which has resulted in there being “a large ballance in the hands of the said executors coming to your petitioners.” Having “on various occasions applied to the said executors for a settlement of their just claims” with no results, the petitioners now ask that the executors be summoned to court to answer their charges and by “a Decree of this court to account with your petitioners and pay over to them all such sum or sums of money” to which they are entitled. 0507 (Accession # 21483307). Williamson County, Tennessee. The children of David and Elizabeth McCord, both deceased, request that the slaves belonging to the life estate of their mother be distributed “among your petitioners.” The petitioners state that their father died in 1819, giving his wife Elizabeth “during her natural life a negro woman named Lynn, and at her death, he gave the said slave to your petitioners.” The heirs state that their mother “some time in the present year ... departed this life intestate.” The McCord children cite that there are four slaves and that each petitioner is entitled to “one fifth value of said slaves.” Since an equitable division of the slaves “cannot be made among the said legatees and distributees (namely your petitioners) according to their respective interests,” the petitioners request that the “court order and direct” a sale of said slaves. 112 Reel 11 Tennessee 0515 (Accession # 21483308). Sumner County, Tennessee. John T. Dismukes, administrator of the late Austin M. Coats, seeks to redeem four slaves, who were mortgaged to Washington J. Dewitt by the decedent. Dismukes avers that said Coats moved to Missouri, and later to Texas, to avoid being held “responsible” in selling a slave to whom he had no title. The petitioner asserts that his intestate conveyed four slaves to said Dewitt, which the parties “distinctly understood to be a mortgage.” Dismukes argues that he had hoped that Dewitt “would do him Justice & allow this property to go in Satisfaction of Coats debts.” He reveals, however, that he believes that Dewitt will “Run off the negroes beyond the jurisdiction of the court in order to defeat & defraud your orator of his debt.” The petitioner therefore prays that he may be permitted to redeem the slaves in question by refunding the money due to the defendants. 1834 0533 (Accession # 21483401). Maury County, Tennessee. Daniel Dansbee asks that John Pollan be summoned to answer his charges concerning the purchase of a twelve-year-old slave girl named Vine. Dansbee claims that “some ten or twelve years ago” he paid Gilliam Harp $330 for the slave child, noting that Harp “resided in the same neighbourhood with complainant and had had said girl in possession for many years and complaint believed had a good title to her.” The petitioner reports that the title dispute over Vine arose when Harp’s son-in-law, John Pollan, declared that Vine actually belonged to Harp’s wife, arguing that the slave had been sold illegally. The petitioner states that Pollan filed suit against “said Gilliam, your orator” and another person, “who had bought some of the same negroes,” and the parties reached a compromise whereby money was exchanged and Pollan promised “to procure a bill of sale” from the eight other claimants. Dansbee states that Vine now has a child and that he “is still subject to be sued for these negroes by any and everyone of all these claimants” since he has not received a bill of sale. The petitioner therefore requests that Pollan “be enjoined from enforcing Said judgment or collecting any part of it till he procures a bill of sale.” 0543 (Accession # 21483402). Maury County, Tennessee. Elisha Buckner requests that Nathan Turnbo and his wife Elizabeth be restrained “from selling, transferring or in any manner putting any of said property beyond the jurisdiction of this honourable Court” that was bequeathed to the minor children of Elizabeth and her late husband, William Buckner. Buckner charges that “Turnbo has disappeared from the neighborhood” along with a thirteen-year-old estate slave, causing him to surmise that Turnbo “has run said negro off, and that his object is to sell the negro.” He fears that Turnbo “will run off the other two negroes and leave the children destitute and your orator liable for the value,” as he is the security for both Elizabeth and the children’s guardian, Alfred Buckner. The petitioner “therefore prays” that the court direct the sheriff “to seize & take into his possession the negroes ... and them safely keep” until a new administrator is appointed, “who will be responsible for the safe keeping of the property,” and that the court will “direct a division & distribution of the property of the said William among the several parties.” 0555 (Accession # 21483403). Williamson County, Tennessee. Augustine Weedon, the sole heir of the late George Weedon, seeks to recover slave property from the estates of his late brothers, George T. and John Weedon. The petitioner informs the court that George T. “was an idiot” and that he received six slaves as his distributive share of his father’s estate. Weedon charges that John, during his lifetime, failed to take care of George T. and that Mrs. Woods, the woman with whom John lived “in a state of adultery,” claimed John’s property at his death and “took possession of sd. Geo T.’s property as well.” He submits that he hired his son-in-law, Harrison Shackleford, to go to Kentucky and retrieve the slaves from Mrs. Woods, whereupon Shackleford “surrendered them up to Richard H Wallace.” The petitioner charges that the defendants “entered into a fraudulent combination to get hold of the property of the sd idiot & 113 Reel 11 Tennessee they were to divide it among them.” Averring that “sd Geo. T. was the owner of all the negroes” and that he is “the only distributee of the sd George T Weedon,” the petitioner prays that the defendants be summoned to answer his charges, that they be required to have the slaves “forthcoming,” and that “upon the hearing thereof the court will decree that sd negroes be delivered up to your orator.” 0571 (Accession # 21483404). Williamson County, Tennessee. Benjamin Bedford asks that property be sold to satisfy a judgment of $1,075 that was recovered against William Ament in April 1833. Bedford informs the court that an “execution issued which has been returned by the sheriff of Davidson County no property found in his county.” The petitioner concedes that “he knows of no property belonging to the said William P. Ament” that can be levied upon, “as all of his property is conveyed by mortgages and deeds of trust to secure a much less sum of money.” He further states that Ament mortgaged a total of twelve slaves and that ten of them have been sold to satisfy debts other than his own. Citing that two town lots and three slaves still remain, the petitioner prays that “said property may be sold or such part thereof as is necessary to pay the debt.” 0575 (Accession # 21483405). Knox County, Tennessee. James Trundle requests that the “Marshal of the District of East Tennessee” be enjoined from levying a judgment on a slave woman named Harriet and her four children, whom he purchased in 1832 from James Berry. Trundle states that he bought “said negroes on account of his being the owner of the husband of Harriet, and for the purpose of keeping them as an entire family, for domestic purposes, which he has hitherto done.” He believes, however, “that his possession and use of said negroes is about to be disturbed” by the local marshal. Trundle states that the Bank of the United States of America has secured judgments against Berry and three of his associates for outstanding debts. He declares, however, that the marshal has received no authority from the bank to seize the five slaves. Alleging “that his title to said negros is not in any way disputed, so far as he knows or believes,” Trundle asks that his “property may be entirely relieved and disembarrassed from the pretended incumbrance.” 0585 (Accession # 21483406). Williamson County, Tennessee. The grandchildren and representatives of the late Hugh Barry seek the recovery of the “children and grand children many in number” of a slave named Judah. They inform the court that the said Barry died in 1781, bequeathing a life estate in his property to his widow Margaret, “with remainder to the children of Sd. testator.” They charge that the administrators of Barry’s estate “from the proceeds of the stock and other personal estate of said testator, purchased a negro slave named Judah.” They further report that said Margaret “lived and Co habited with one Claiborne Hankins,” resulting in the birth of the defendant Nancy. The petitioners contend that, “since the death of said Margaret,” Nancy and her husband William have set up “some pretence of title” to the issue of Judah and have “refused to deliver the possession of them or any of them to your orators.” They therefore pray “that the title of said slave Jude and her said progeny be decreed to Your orators and that said Defendants Blackburn and wife be decreed to surrender the possession of the same to Your orators.” 0592 (Accession # 21483407). Maury County, Tennessee. William and John Davis Farney, through their next friend and grandmother, Jemiah Sanderson, appear in court “for the sole purpose of securing their own rights” to a slave woman Betsy and her four children. The petitioners argue that their father, John Farney, conveyed the said slaves to them in 1825 in a deed of gift. They state that the deed stipulated that “John Farney shall retain the possession of said negroes & their increase untill his children your orators arrive at age.” They confide that their father has “become excessively dissipated & otherwise irregular & immoral in his habits” and “has sold every article of property he possessed & now has none or very little visible 114 Reel 11 Tennessee property if any at all.” The petitioners believe that their father intends to move to Mississippi with the slaves, and “they fear he will dispose of said negroes to their prejudice or they will be sold to pay his debts and by either means they will be entirely lost to them before they can enforce their rights.” They explain that John, another slave cited in the deed, has already run away. They ask that the sheriff “take said negroes into his possession to await the further order & decree of this Court” and that their father be made a defendant to their bill. 0606 (Accession # 21483408). Williamson County, Tennessee. Sarah Tillett and Hannah Tarkington state that they are entitled to “one share” from the “balance of the price of the sales of Peter and Merris,” two slaves that belonged to their late father, William Tarkington. The petitioners point out that the two slaves sold for $875, of which $795 remains “in the hands at this time” of the defendant, James Park. Tillett and Tarkington aver that they are each entitled to one-seventh “of the purchase money of said two slaves with interest thereon,” which amounts to $113.57. They cite that they have “demanded their said legacies from the said James Park” and that he has “utterly refused to pay to them the same or any part thereof.” The petitioners pray the court “to decree that the said James Park pay each of your petitioners” the money due them from the sale. 0614 (Accession # 21483409). Giles County, Tennessee. Elizabeth Briggs seeks her share of sixteen slaves, who are currently in the possession of the defendants. Briggs informs the court that her father, William Read, died in 1794, seized of a female slave named Phillis. She further represents that the widow “made an absolute sale of the said Phillis” and that the enslaved female “had no opportunity to, and in fact never did make any choice of any one of the children of said Read to whom she Phillis would go after the decease of the said Widow Susan Read.” She asserts that “the children issue and increase of the said Phillis” are held by her sisters and brothers-in-law and that “said defendants aside from said negros are in very moderate circumstances as to property.” Briggs believes “that the said defendants unless restrained by your honor will remove said negros beyond the jurisdiction of said court to parts unknown” and that “a decree in favour of your oratrix would be wholly useless & nugatory & of no profit to your Oratrix.” She therefore prays that “your honor decree to your oratrix her portion of said property as one of the heirs & distributees of the sd William Read deceased” and that “the said defendants be restrained by your honor in the mean time from removing the said negros beyond the jurisdiction of said court.” 0623 (Accession # 21483410). Franklin County, Tennessee. James Copeland, William Park, and James Park ask that a female slave and her eight-month-old child be attached by the sheriff “so as to have them forthcoming to abide the future order or decree of this court.” The South Carolina petitioners represent that Andrew Park mortgaged an enslaved female named Phillis to secure a debt of $300 in 1828. They further assert that said Park had possession of the slave until “about one year ago” when John Bennett “got sd. negro in his possession claiming said negro ... under some lean, mortgage or contract, real or pretended.” Copeland and the Parks purport that “the lein of your orators is superior to that of any other claim,” and they point out that “the whole of sd debt & interest is still due.” Noting that Andrew Park is insolvent, the petitioners “are more disposed to apprehend danger” of the slaves being removed “beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” They therefore pray that the defendants be enjoined from removing said slaves, that “upon the final hearing of this cause that sd defts be forever foreclosed from all equity of redemption to sd. negroes,” and that Phillis and her baby “be sold & the debt & interest & costs be paid out of the proceeds of the sale.” 0638 (Accession # 21483411). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Anson Estes asks that William Parish be restrained “from proceeding to collect” on a judgment. He also requests that the clerk and master examine the business dealings made by his partner, Thomas Hamilton. Estes 115 Reel 11 Tennessee represents that he owed $205 to said Hamilton, “for which he executed his note to him.” He further relates that he and Hamilton “by verbal agreement became equal partners in profit and loss in trading to the south on horses and negroes.” The petitioner argues that Hamilton owes him for business disbursements as well as his share of the profits, a “total of $744.29 which your Orator upon a fair and final statement, is entitled to receive from said Thomas Hamilton.” Arguing that he offered to satisfy his said note, Estes submits that Hamilton refused and instead assigned said note to William Parish, who “brought suit against him for the same.” The petitioner charges that the defendants confederated and combined “for the purpose of cheating and defrauding your Orator.” He therefore prays that the court will “direct an account to be taken” of the partnership transactions and that he may receive “any balance as may be found in favour of your orator,” after deducting the amount of said judgment. 0650 (Accession # 21483412). Williamson County, Tennessee. Dr. Thomas Hunt charges his brother-in-law with “cheating and defrauding” him and Thomas A. Graves “by defeating their lien on sixteen slaves.” Hunt and Graves state that David Graves “was endebted to the complainant Doctor Thomas Hunt ... in the sum of about twenty two hundred dollars.” Upon discovering that said Graves was “wasting his property with great profusion,” Hunt “took from said David Graves a mortgage upon sixteen negroes.” Hunt avers that he intended that the slaves be held by Graves as a means of support for his sister and her eight children. Submitting that Graves and his agent, Ralph Graves, have sold eleven of the sixteen slaves, the petitioners feared that said David and Ralph “would very shortly spend and sacrifice all the property ... unless it was taken from his possession; and that the complainant Thomas Hunt would lose his debt and that his motives of benevolence to his sister and her children would be defeated.” They therefore conveyed the remaining five slaves to John Butler “for the benefit of Thomas Hunt.” The petitioners now pray that the defendants account for the slaves sold by them and that the remaining slaves “be sold to pay the debt of said Thomas Hunt.” [There appears to be a discrepancy in the petition’s file date and the related documents.] 0660 (Accession # 21483413). Smith County, Tennessee. John Tilford seeks “a redemption of the land & negroes” that he mortgaged to Col. John Muirhead. He informs the court that “he became embarrassed in his circumstances in 1827” and that he was forced to mortgage ninetyseven acres of land to the said Muirhead, along with “two negroes, William about 60 years old, strong healthy & active, & patience about 40 who was also a smart & active woman.” Tilford further represents that “the deft. took the negroes Wm & Patience into his possession on 21 April 1829 & has held them ever since.” Maintaining that the debt was satisfied in the fall of 1833, the petitioner contends that the “Deft refuses to pay hire for the negroes, or rent for the land.” Tilford therefore prays that the court “may order & decree a redemption of the land & negroes & that they be delivered up to your Orator & that an account may be taken of the annual hire & rent of the property from the time it came into the hands of deft.” Muirhead alleges in his answer that he agreed to buy the said slaves “at the price of $300, & took a regular absolute bill of sale.” 0704 (Accession # 21483414). Williamson County, Tennessee. Mary Petway joins her two minor children, William and John, and their guardian, Henry Stevens, in asking that the court order a division of fourteen slaves belonging to the estate of her late husband, John Petway. She explains that Curtis Stevens, administrator of the decedent’s personal estate, has settled the estate’s debts and “consents that a division take place as is herein prayed for.” To “effect such division,” she asks that the court appoint three commissioners, “whose duty it shall be to value said slaves & allot to each of your petitioners the one third part thereof in value.” 0709 (Accession # 21483415). Maury County, Tennessee. Mary Love, “widow & relict of David Love deceased,” asks that her son-in-law, John Whitaker, compensate her for the sale of her 116 Reel 11 Tennessee dower right. She represents that her husband died in 1827, possessed of eight or ten slaves and a tract of land. Love further declares that she had “her right of Dower in and of said tract of land laid off and allotted to her embracing the mansion house.” She submits that her family prevailed upon her in 1830 to sell said land and that she agreed “upon their paying her the one forth part (one childs part) of the same,” which amounted to $1,000. Love states that the land was sold, but she charges that her son-in-law only gave her “two hundred and fifty dollars in a small negro Girl named Prucilla.” With her “mansion house” sold, she avers that she lived alone with Prucilla, noting that “in the fall seasons she made her little Negro girl pick out cotton to pay for the cotton she herself used in cloathing herself and little Negro and during a part of the time she got a poor white girl to stay with her for company.” Citing that “she is driven by absolute necessity to take this course,” Love prays that “your Honor will Decree an account to be taken” between herself and the defendant and that she may receive “whatever sum may be ascertained to be due her.” 0726 (Accession # 21483416). Williamson County, Tennessee. Lemuel Farmer, executor of the will of the late Wright Stanley, seeks permission to sell an estate slave named Basil, who “is in the habit of running away.” Basil was bequeathed to Stanley’s widow, Mary C. Stanley, but she has “dissented to said will.” Farmer assumes Basil “will be of little value” to the estate and asks the court to direct the sale. 1835 0731 (Accession # 21483501). Rutherford County, Tennessee. James Vaughan seeks to suspend a debt claimed against him. In September 1834, Vaughan purchased two slaves from Alfred Martin for $675, part of which value he paid with a note for $250. At the time of the purchase, Valentine M. Sublett held a lien on the slaves in consideration of a debt Martin owed him. Martin assured the petitioner that he would “lift and satisfy” the lien; when he did not do so, Sublett sued and won judgment against Vaughan for the debt. Vaughan states that “notwithstanding said judgment against your orator, the said Alfred still holds in his hands the said note.” He further asserts that he has given Martin many “goods” on credit from his firm, Bolles & Vaughan, thereby bringing the balance of the note to “about 56 dollars.” Vaughan now fears that Martin will sell the note to a third party, who will then bring suit for payment. In consequence, Vaughan prays that Martin be enjoined from selling the note “or bringing suit upon it to the prejudice and damage of your orator.” In his amended bill, Vaughan states that Martin has sold the note to Isaac W. Breshear, who has since won judgment against the petitioner. Vaughan prays that Breshear’s suit be perpetually enjoined and that Martin be ordered to “refund to your orator all the monies he may heretofore have paid upon said note and for the negroes.” 0745 (Accession # 21483502). Williamson County, Tennessee. Williamson Jordan asks John Jordan Jr., the executor of the late Johnson Wood, to “come to an account with your orator for the monies due him” as partner of said Wood. The petitioner represents that he and the decedent “entered into a partnership ... in the purchase & sale of slaves & other things” in 1832. Jordan recounts that he and said Wood purchased a parcel of slaves in Tennessee in 1832 and then sold the same in 1833 in Mississippi, for which the firm received commissions. He charges that “there is a large sum of money in the hands of said Wood or his executor,” most of which stems from “the proceeds of said commissions sale of slaves & land” and, he avers, “to one half of which sum your orator is justly entitled.” Jordan asserts that he has “requested said Wood in his lifetime & said executor since his death to account with him for the same” and “they have hitherto wholly refused & failed to do so.” The petitioner therefore prays that the defendant account for said funds and that “he be decreed to pay to your orator such sums of money as upon such accounting may be found to be owing to him.” 117 Reel 11 Tennessee 0751 (Accession # 21483503). Williamson County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Benjamin Brown “are willing that distribution be immediately made of the slaves belonging to said estate between your petitioners” and the defendants. Representing that “there are now belonging to said estate eighteen slaves,” they declare that it would be advantageous for all parties “to have a division of said slaves made immediately among them.” The petitioners pray “your worships to appoint suitable commissioners to divide and allot to each of your petitioners and of said defendants his and her share of said slaves according to law and justice.” 0763 (Accession # 21483506). Williamson County, Tennessee. David Cartwright asks that property be sold to satisfy his judgment against William Ament. Cartwright informs the court that an “execution issued thereon and was placed in the hands of the sheriff of Davidson County, and by him returned ‘no property found.’” The petitioner submits that said Ament had previously “executed a deed of trust to Orville Ewing to secure the payment of a note,” thereby mortgaging two town lots and ten slaves. Cartwright charges that said Ewing has sold “a portion of the property,” including the slaves, and that he has used said proceeds to discharge debts other than his own. The petitioner insists that his debt “is the only one unsatisfied among the afd. debts, embraced in said deeds of trust.” Of the opinion that “personal property is left in said Aments possession,” the petitioner prays that “by your Honors decree said trust property remaining may be sold or so much of it as will pay and satisfy your orators demands.” 0768 (Accession # 21483507). Knox County, Tennessee. John Wright Jr. asks that he be awarded “an Injunction against the Judgment” recovered by Leonard Coker. Wright relates that he purchased a twenty-four-year-old male slave named Isham from Coker in 1834 and that Coker made “to your Orator a Bill of sale for the negro, warranting the said negro Isham to be sound and healthy.” He declares that he went “to West Tennessee, where the negro was,” and that he found Isham “had been severely burnt on the hand and foot, and very much injured in consequence but your Orator at that time discovered no other unsoundness about him.” Wright reveals that he then sold Isham to other parties, “and on the strength of the Warranty from Coker, Warranted the negro to be sound and healthy.” He avers that the new owners found “in a short time that the negro had other defects ... and was worth little or nothing in consequence of diseases by which he was afflicted,” whereby they sued and obtained a judgment. Citing that Coker has also obtained a judgment, Wright alleges that “Coker is completely and entirely insolvent, and if he could extort this Judgment from your Orator, it would soon be squandered,” availing him no opportunity to make Coker “answer for the fraud practised.” He prays that Coker’s judgment be stayed and that “the damages sustained by your Orator be .... applied in discharge of said Coker’s Judgment.” 0777 (Accession # 21483508). Williamson County, Tennessee. William Porter seeks to recover two slaves “held in trust for your Orator” by the late Richard Napier. Porter explains that in 1828 he and Napier came to an agreement whereby Porter would vest the title of his two slaves in Napier and Napier would “pay your Orator the yearly hire of said slaves” as well as compensate Porter for his labor. Noting that he was “getting advanced in years,” Porter relates that he believed “his property would be Kept more to his own advantage and more secure from being squandered by his own occasional imbecility and folley.” Porter concludes that the arrangement was successful during Napier’s lifetime; however, the executors of his estate are “unwilling to settle with your Orator without the intervention and decree of this Honorable Court.” Porter therefore prays that the defendants be summoned to answer his charges and “that they account with your Orator for the hire of said slaves as well as his own Labour, and pay the balance which may be found to be due and that the said slaves may be delivered to your Orator.” 118 Reel 11 Tennessee 0782 (Accession # 21483509). Williamson County, Tennessee. Twenty-year-old Pamela Johnson Farley seeks an annulment of her marriage and the restoration of her property. She confides that she married Atkinson Farley in 1827, “she being at that time under twelve years of age.” Farley further avers that “at the time of her marriage she owned in her own right a considerable real & personal estate,” which included a slave girl named Sarah. The petitioner, now a widow, recounts that her husband mortgaged Sarah and her child Tennessee to secure a debt of $500 owed to Martha Page; he later borrowed an additional $80, for which “he executed to her a mortgage of the same date.” Farley now charges “that only $400 was actually borrowed” and “that the $180 or excess above the $400 is usury.” Citing that “Mrs Page has advertized said Negroes which are worth $800 to be sold under said mortgage,” the petitioner avows that they “are family negroes and your orator prefers them to their value.” She therefore prays that Page be enjoined from “selling or disposing of said negroes Sarah & Tennessee under the mortgages aforesaid or any other manner.” She also asks that if her marriage cannot “be declared null and void,” then she be allowed to pay “the amount actually due deft to redeem said negroes.” 0793 (Accession # 21483510). Williamson County, Tennessee. Robert Beard asks that Atkins McLemore “surrender up” a twenty-four-year-old male slave named Sam and a mortgage, which Beard executed to McLemore “to secure the payment of twenty six dollars ... and the further sum of thirty five dollars,” as well as “all such other sums of money as the said defendant should thereafter lend or become bound for on account of your orator.” Beard believes “that the hire of said negro will more than pay and satisfy the said McLemore for all liabilities and advances for and on account of your orator he having had said boy in possession nearly eight years.” Noting that McLemore is “withholding s’d mortgage & negro & refusing to settle,” the petitioner prays that the defendant “be decreed to surrender up said boy Sam and the said mortgage to your orator” and that McLemore “be compelled by a decree of this court to sell said negro” if accounts prove that he “should be due any thing.” 0806 (Accession # 21483511). Williamson County, Tennessee. Nancy Menefee asks that several deeds of conveyance be cancelled and that she “have an adequate support and maintenance decreed her suitable to her condition in life.” Menefee, the elderly widow of James Menefee, purports that she conveyed a tract of land and four slaves to her son-in-law and daughter, James and Mary Green, with the understanding that they were to render her suitable support. However, she declares that “she had repeatedly before the execution of said deed expressed her intention not to convey away any of her negroes.” The petitioner further admits that “she put her cross mark” on two other deeds, which gave said James sundry livestock and household furniture. She charges that the said James “by contrivances ... got the possession of the most valuable part of your oratrix’s property” and that he now “refuses either to give up said property or to pay your oratrix any thing for her support.” She therefore prays that the said deeds of conveyance be cancelled; that she receive quarterly support from the defendant; and that “an account be taken of all the property of Compl. which deft has taken & converted to his own use as well as the hire of all the negroes of your oratrix & that your oratrix have a decree for the value thereof.” 0812 (Accession # 21483512). Williamson County, Tennessee. Twice-widowed Susanna Thompson seeks an account from Enoch Ensley, the administrator of Jason Thompson. The petitioner, a former Louisiana citizen, charges that her late husband Jason appropriated several slaves, sundry notes, and ten bales of cotton “to his use” during his lifetime “without her authority or consent.” She argues that Jason and his son sold slaves, who were given to her by her father or who were part of her inheritance, and that “she never received any portion of the price” for which they were sold. She further contends that Jason went to Louisiana and received 119 Reel 11 Tennessee $6,676 in notes and ten bales of cotton, “constituting her share of her mothers estate,” and that he or his son either sold or “collected the same ... and appropriated to his own use.” Thompson maintains that all of the above-mentioned property was her sole and separate property, “what is considered by the laws of Louisiana paraphernal property,” and that Louisiana law entitles her “upon the dissolution of her marriage with the said Jason Thompson by death to a restoration of all of said negroes that may be alive, or ... to their value” and “to payment of the price for which ten bales of cotton sold” and “to the amount of said notes received.” She therefore prays that her charges be answered and that the defendants “be compelled to pay and account to your oratrix.” 0829 (Accession # 21483513). Giles County, Tennessee. Abram Appleton requests that Robert Newton, administrator of the late James Appleton, account to him “for his share of said estate.” Appleton represents that his father died in 1832, “possessed at his death of a large amount of personal estate, & greatly more than sufficient to pay his debts.” As the son of the intestate, the petitioner purports to be “entitled as such to one tenth part” of the estate. Asserting that said Newton “has collected or ought to have collected all the debts due said estate,” Abram charges that Newton “has been trading & speculating with the funds & proceeds of said estate, & converting the same & has made large profits thereon & now has a large balance in his hands, for which he fails & refuses to come to any account.” The petitioner therefore prays that Newton be summoned to answer his allegations and that he be “decreed to come to a true & perfect account with your Orator, of his share of said estate.” The late James Appleton’s estate consisted of “negroes, money, stock of all sorts, debts due & owing ... & various other choses in action & various other sorts of personal property.” 0836 (Accession # 21483514). Giles County, Tennessee. John Hamric seeks to recover a “negroe woman and her increase” from the possession of his late wife’s next of kin. Hamric asserts that Martin Laird, acting as the agent of Sarah Tuttle Laird, “purchased with a part of the funds of said Sarah a negroe woman named Saluda.” He further reports that said agent “delivered the said negroe woman into the possession of the said Sarah” and that she “enjoyed the possession and use of said negroe woman” until her death in 1833. The petitioner now argues “that after the death of said Sarah the said Defendant took possession of said negroe woman and her said increase and still holds the same; setting up a claim thereto.” Hamric therefore prays that said defendants answer his charges and that “your Honor Decree to your Orator the said negroe and all her increase since the said purchase by the said Martin Laird.” He also asks that he receive “a reasonable price for the service of said negroe woman during the time she has been in possession of Defendants.” 0857 (Accession # 21483516). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The sons of Robert Mclin seek to redeem or repurchase two slave girls, whom Robert had mortgaged in 1833. The petitioners avow that their father owned “two likely negro Girls, slaves for life, named Clarissa & Minerva, the first at that time, aged about thirteen Years & the other about Eleven Years.” They further reveal that he mortgaged said slaves to James Bone by executing “a bill of sale, absolute on its face, for said negroes,” which “was understood & intended by both parties to be a mortgage.” Noting that “it was a favorite Object with their father & his family not to part with said negroes by an absolute transfer or sale,” the Mclins claim that they have offered Bone various amounts of money “for the purpose of redeeming or repurchasing said negroes.” They insist “that their object in filing this bill is not to get the value of said negroes after paying the ballance due for their redemption or repurchase but to get the negroes themselves.” The Mclins therefore pray that they “may be at liberty to redeem or to repurchase said negroes” upon the repayment of amounts due the defendant and that he “be compelled to reconvey & give up said negroes to Your Orators.” 120 Reel 11 Tennessee 0875 (Accession # 21483517). Maury County, Tennessee. Solomon Davis, the widower of Lucy Richardson Davis, seeks a share of the $1,820 garnered from the sale of seven slaves, who belonged to the estate of his father-in-law, the late Thomas Richardson. Davis declares that the said Richardson “died possessed of a large personal estate,” in which his widow “was to enjoy a life estate.” The petitioner reveals that the said widow did, “at the solicitation of some of her children, surrender & release her interest in certain of the Negroes then in her possession to be divided among the children.” Davis relates that he “was willing & ready, to assent to the sale of said Negroes, for the purpose of a division among all the Legatees of the said Thomas Richardson ... yet the said Defendants refused to give to your orator any of the proceeds of said Sale, alledging that by the death of his said Wife he was not entitled to any portion of her father’s Estate.” Considering “himself injured in the premises,” the petitioner prays that he be decreed a “1/9 part of said Sale, being the amount due your orator on behalf of his said Wife.” 0891 (Accession # 21483518). Williamson County, Tennessee. Elizabeth Pearce seeks a division of the slaves that remain in the estate of her late father, Michael Gleaves. She reports that her father died in 1811, possessed of three slaves named Bob, Phillis, and Luce. The petitioner “verily believes that said Michael Gleaves died intestate as to a final disposition of said negroes Bob, Luce & Phillis, and that upon the death of Rachel Gleaves, the mother of your Oratrix they have to be divided and distributed among the children.” Asserting that her father “had made little or no advancement to her of any value,” Pearce contends “that the large provision he made for most of the other children ... will give to her a large portion of said slaves.” She argues, however, that the executors of said estate “intends to make sale of said slaves and talks of dividing the proceeds among the children & the representatives of the children.” The petitioner, in strong opposition to said sale, believes that her rights are in jeopardy and that it is not safe for the slaves “to remain in the hands of an insolvent executor.” She therefore prays that the executors be enjoined from selling any of said slaves and that “your Oratrixes just portion of said slaves be decreed to her by your Honor & a fair & legal division of said slaves be made.” 0917 (Accession # 21483519). Giles County, Tennessee. The children of the late James Jones ask that their mother, Martha Jones Mitchell, and her husband Isaac be restrained from removing twenty-three slaves, who are currently in their possession. They report that their father bequeathed five slaves to his widow Martha “to have the use and benefit of said negroes for and during the time of her natural life after which they with their increase are to be divided equally among your orators and oratrixes.” They inform the court that the three female slaves so bequeathed have had a total of eighteen children and that the twenty-three slaves “are worth $7000 or more.” The heirs charge that Isaac Mitchell “has spent the greater part of his own property” since marrying their mother. They also believe that he “is about to remove himself and a part of said negroes from the county of Giles to some place in the Western District of this state.” They therefore pray that said slaves be taken into the custody of the sheriff to have them “forthcomeing to abide such order or decree as may be made” and that Isaac Mitchell “be forever enjoined from removeing said negroes or any of them from the county of Giles.” The petitioners fear that it will “become dificult if not impossible for your complainants to identify and obtain possession of” the slaves if they are removed. 0932 (Accession # 21483520). Davidson County, Tennessee. Winnefrid Richmond seeks a divorce from her husband, Braddock Richmond, on the grounds that said Braddock has “been living for the last two years in open Adultery with one of his, or rather, your Petitioners female slaves named Polly.” She informs the court that she married Braddock in 1821 after the death of her previous husband, Thomas Garrett. The petitioner asserts that she and Richmond “have in their possession seven slaves ... all of those slaves were derived from her father” and that they 121 Reel 11 Tennessee have resided on a tract of land, which “was assigned to your Petitioner for her Dower.” Confiding that “within the last few years she has almost been entirely deserted by her said Husband,” Winnefrid charges that “he has in fact, literally made the House occupied by said Polly his house; he has eat there and slept there, and has in numerous instances violated the matrimonial vow, not only with said Slave polly but in all probability, with other females, unknown to your petitioner.” She therefore prays that she be granted a divorce; that her husband “be enjoined from taking possession of, or intermeddling with said Slaves”; and that an equitable part of said land and slaves “be vested in her during life with remainder to her Children.” The answer disputes certain slave data. Reel 12 Tennessee cont. 1836 0002 (Accession # 21483601). Bedford County, Tennessee. Henry Conway asks that Robert Cannon honor an agreement made between them as to the ownership of an enslaved family. He maintains that he “claimed and held in his own right” thirty-five-year-old Patience, eight-yearold Mary, and five-year-old Abram in the spring of 1832, at which time “said negroes were sold to satisfy several executions in favour of different creditors.” He avows that he wished “to preserve said family and have a chance to redeem them at a future day,” so he “requested the then Sherriff to have them all knocked off together.” He avers that he induced said Cannon “to purchase these negroes for your Orator and give him your Orator a chance to redeem them.” He reports that Cannon obliged and purchased the slave family for $381, a price far below their value of $950. Conway charges that he “tendered to the said Robert the money he had paid for said negroes” on 12 February 1836 “and in reply to it the said Robert said that he would not take it as he was under no obligation to do so.” Citing that “between the years 1832 & 1836 negroes had taken a remarkable rise in their value,” Conway believes that Cannon has abandoned “the terms of his contract.” He prays the court to “decree that said Robert shall specifically perform by said agreement.” 0019 (Accession # 21483602). Williamson County, Tennessee. Thomas and Elizabeth Neely submit that Elizabeth has never received dower in the land or slaves owned by her deceased husband, James Neely. They state that “sometime in the year 1832 James Neely departed this life intestate,” possessed of 260 acres of land and eight slaves and leaving Elizabeth his widow and two minor children as his surviving heirs. The petitioners point out that the slaves “belong to your petitioners and said George & Greene equally” and that they are currently “in the hands of said administrator,” who “has funds of said estate besides said slaves sufficient to pay all the debts” incurred by its administration. The petitioners therefore pray “that said dower be allotted to your petitioner Elizabeth & that said slaves be divided.” Account ledgers for the estate of James Neely reveal that the slaves in the estate hired out in 1835 for $341. 0028 (Accession # 21483603). Williamson County, Tennessee. The grandchildren of the late Samuel Dukes seek to preserve their rights to an enslaved family that was bequeathed to their mother Elizabeth and that was “devised in the possession of the testators Widow the defendant Winny Dukes during her natural life.” The petitioners represent that their mother died ten years ago, “whereby the right of their said mother to the negro Gils & her increase legally vested in complainants.” They further charge that the female slave and her two children “were secretly removed” from Winny’s possession, “with or without the consent of the defendant Winny they 122 Reel 12 Tennessee know not.” Having “luckily discovered” the slaves in the possession of defendants Vance and Page, the petitioners contend that the widow “forfeited her life estate & said negros are now the absolute property of complainants” if she “suffered said negro to be removed.” The Dukes grandchildren therefore pray “your honor to protect against the present & all future frauds upon them until by the death of the defendant Winny their right to Gils & her increase becomes absolute.” They therefore request that the sheriff “take into his care & custody ... sd. negros ... & there safely keep to abide your honors decree.” 0035 (Accession # 21483604). Williamson County, Tennessee. Enoch Ensley, the administrator of the late Jason Thompson, asks that John McNairy Thompson be restrained “from removing ... slaves Out of the Jurisdiction of this Court.” Ensley represents that his testator died possessed of six slaves and that the defendant is “pretending some claim” to them. He informs the court that he hired four of the slaves to said Thompson. He charges “that sd. defendant instead of returning said slaves at the end of the year has Kept them and ... intends to retain them and refuses to give them up upon pretence ... that he is entitled to them as his distributive share of said Jasons estate,” whereby he “commenced an action of Detinue ... against the said John Mc Thompson.” The petitioner admits that “he has strong fears that the said John M Thompson will not have said negroes forthcoming.” He therefore prays that the defendant either “deliver up said negroes to Your Orator or to the sheriff ... or to give his bond with good and sufficient securities that he will have said negroes forthcoming to abide the event of said actions of detinue.” 0042 (Accession # 21483605). Sumner County, Tennessee. Samuel McGee, Jane McGee Phelps, and William L. Phelps fear that their remainder interest in six slaves belonging to the life estate of their father, Hugh McGee, is at risk. They state that in 1828 Hugh “made a deed of gift to your Orator Samuel & your Oratrix Jane of certain negroes (with their increase) reserving a life estate to himself in the same.” They believe that Hugh “having married again since the date of said instrument” is at present “endeavouring ... to defeat this conveyance so made.” They recount that on two occasions Hugh has attempted to sell one of the slaves mentioned in the deed, and “they are fearful that he will succeed at last on selling said negroes & removing them beyond the jurisdiction of this honourable court & their interests in remainder jeopardized.” Charging it to be “the settled determination of said Hugh to defeat if possible the conveyance thus made to your Orator & Oratrix,” they pray the court to direct the sheriff “to take said negroes into his possession, & hire them out” until the next court session unless the said Hugh can give “security for the safe keeping & the forthcoming of said negroes at the termination of the life estate.” 0048 (Accession # 21483606). Williamson County, Tennessee. Judith Word seeks a divorce from Thomas H. Word, her husband of thirty-three years. She claims “in the progress of time the said Thomas became addicted to habits of intemperance ... and grew familiar with intoxication and other accompanying vices [and] his treatment to your Petitioner became harsh unfeeling and abusive.” Word points out that, “as a consequence of those bad habits,” her husband “destroyed and spent his property and thereby brought poverty & misery upon your petitioner and her children.” By 1833, she claims that he was “continually intoxicated” and on occasion “drove her from home in the dark hours of the night as well as by day.” That same year, she asserts, he “threatened to take her life and then put an end to his own” and ultimately “deserted and absented himself from your petitioner and removed to parts unknown.” Judith Word, “for the above causes,” prays the court “to grant your petitioner a divorce from the bonds of matrimony from the said Thomas H. Word.” A related petition reveals that Thomas H. Word deeded two slaves to his two daughters, Louisa and America. 123 Reel 12 Tennessee 0056 (Accession # 21483607). Knox County, Tennessee. George Peery urges the court to cancel a bill of sale for a slave family of nine that he executed to two “Negro-traders” while under the influence of “spiritous liquor.” He states that Calloway Hodge and Bright Hodge paid him a visit “for the purpose of purchasing his stud-horse,” and he proceeded “to repeat drams with them, until he became intoxicated as not to recollect distinctly any thing that subsequently occurred.” When the Hodges first “proposed buying a family of negroes,” Peery argues that he declined “first because he was opposed to selling to Negro-traders and secondly, because he would not part from them against their inclination.” Finally, due to intoxication, the positive assurances from Hodges that the slaves would not be resold, and the fact that one of the slaves “on whom he reposed great confidence” said that the slaves themselves wanted to be sold, Peery executed a bill of sale for the family. He now claims that his drunken state barred him from knowing “what he was doing.” He charges that Hodges bribed the slave to make false testimony about wishing to be sold. He asks that the Hodges be summoned to answer his charges and that “the said Bill of sale may be cancelled and the said Hodges be enjoined” from taking possession of the slaves. 0061 (Accession # 21483608). Williamson County, Tennessee. Nancy Anderson Hughes seeks a divorce and alimony from her husband, Samuel Hughes, who has “struck her with a cow hide whip and also repeatedly with his fist.” Hughes charges that “said Samuel also frequently cursed and abused her in the grossest language and falsely charged her with want of chastity before marriage.” She further confides that her husband “has repeatedly told her since their marriage that he has had sexual intercourse with the women both slaves and others of ill fame.” Hughes believes that Samuel’s “cruel & inhuman treatment ... towards her renders it unsafe & improper for her to cohabit with him.” The petitioner confesses that she is fearful that her husband will remove or waste his personal property, thereby depriving “her of her just claim for a support & maintainance of her self & children unless prevented by the timely interposition of your Honor.” Hughes therefore prays that said Samuel “be enjoined from selling or in any way disposing of” his land and slaves, that “the bonds of matrimony between said Samuel and your oratrix may be disolved or that they be seperated from Bed and board forever and that said Samuel may be decreed to make suitable support & maintaince for your Oratrix and her said Children.” 0075 (Accession # 21483609). Williamson County, Tennessee. John Page and his wife Margarett accuse Martha Wilson, Margarett’s court-appointed guardian, of withholding “large sums of money” as well as the annual hires from slaves and annual rents from land that belong to her ward. The Pages point out that Margarett’s father, Samuel Wilson, died in 1821 or 1822, resulting in Martha Wilson’s appointment as guardian. They state that “shortly thereafter” Martha “took into her possession the lands of your oratrix ... and the slaves of your oratrix,” and the said Margarett has received neither the rents nor the hires due her from said property. The petitioners also believe that Martha “never collected or rendered into her possession” large sums of money in the hands of the estate administrators and, because Martha “is not prosecuting a suit against” them, “said sums of money are probably lost to your Oratrix on account of the great neglect of said deft as guardian.” The Pages ask that Martha Wilson be summoned to answer their charges, that she make an account of the estate, and that “she be decreed to pay to them what shall be found coming to them in such accounting.” An incomplete petition, attached to this petition, identifies Martha Wilson as the widow of Samuel Wilson and therefore the mother of Margarett Page. 0080 (Accession # 21483610). Williamson County, Tennessee. George Graham, son of the late John Graham, seeks his share of an enslaved family, which was purchased by his father in 1835. Graham represents that he and his father “were partners in trade” and that “the said John Graham purchased with the partnership funds ... five negroes” and that his father 124 Reel 12 Tennessee “acknowledged after said purchase that s’d Slaves belonged to said firm.” The petitioner reports, however, that his father “took the Bill of Sale for said slaves ... to himself alone and not to said firm and thereby vested the legal title to said slaves in him.” He further argues that the administrator of his father’s estate “has taken possession of the personal property of said intestates estate,” which includes Chany and her four children, and “refuses to deliver the same or any part thereof to your Orator.” Maintaining that the “said slaves when purchased equally belonged to your Orator and the said John,” the petitioner prays that said administrator be summoned and that the court may “decree to your Orator one half of said slaves in value & their hire and that they be set apart to him or that your orator be decreed one half of the value of said slaves & of their hire.” 0087 (Accession # 21483611). Williamson County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Christopher Brooks request that the slaves belonging to his estate be sold. Citing the large number of “claimants,” the petitioners insist “that to do justice among the claimants ... said negros should be sold and the proceeds of sale divided equally between your Petitioners.” 0096 (Accession # 21483612). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Robert L. Weakly asks that slaves belonging to the estate of the late James Linum be sold to satisfy a debt owed to him by the decedent’s son James. Weakly submits that he recovered “an attachment against said James” for $465.92, which was levied “on the interest of said James on six negro slaves for life,” but that “he was restrained by process of ne exeat from selling said slaves until the termination of said suit at Law.” The petitioner contends that “no person has administered on said estate” and that James has a larger stake in said property “than his share as one of the children of said Linum deceased.” He charges that the widow Ellinor “claims all the interest of said James in said slaves by Virtue of a pretended conveyance from said James” and that “said deed was made by the said James & Ellinor fraudulently & with the intent to delay, hinder & defraud the creditors of said James.” Fearful that Linum and his mother will “manage & contrive to remove & smuggle said property beyond the jurisdiction & process of this court,” the petitioner prays that “all the interest claim or title of said James may be sold to satisfy your Orators debt.” 0104 (Accession # 21483613). Williamson County, Tennessee. Allen McCord, the administrator of the estate of the late Harvey B. McCord, reports that he “is anxious to close the business at as early a day as possible.” He states that four slaves belong to the estate and that he is reluctant to hire them out “as they will hire for little or nothing.” He submits that “a division of the value of said slaves among the distributees cannot be made without a sale of the slaves there being ... twelve, or fourteen distributees ... and only 4 slaves.” McCord states “it is [in] the interest of said distributees” to sell the slaves, and he is of the opinion that “they will bring a fair price if sold.” He asks “that he be ordered and directed to sell said slaves.” 0110 (Accession # 21483614). Giles County, Tennessee. Thirty-eight-year-old Lavina represents that she and her eleven-year-old son Jackson are entitled to their freedom “by the provisions of” John Duffield’s will. Lavina informs the court that “on the 6th day of March 1807 & thence up to the 25th day of June 1812 She your Oratrix was a Slave & the property of one John Duffield.” She explains that said Duffield “made his last Will & Testement in writing,” in which he stipulated that all his property was to “be at [my] loving wife Elizabeth Duffield’s disposel & command during her lifetime.” Lavina further avers that Duffield directed that “all the negroes of mine to be emancipated” after his wife’s death. Citing that Elizabeth Duffield died “some time in the year 1832,” the petitioners charge that the “Executors of said Will have hitherto failed & refused to emancipate them or take any steps or use any means for that purpose ... & that they are now held in Servitude & Slavery by John Goff.” Lavina and Jackson pray that the defendants be summoned to answer their charges and that “your Honor grant to 125 Reel 12 Tennessee your Orator & oratrix their freedom & decree to them all such other & further relief as in law Equity & Justice they may be entitled.” 0138 (Accession # 21483615). Giles County, Tennessee. William T. Ross, the administrator of the late William D. Thompson, seeks to prevent the removal of some thirty slaves, who once belonged to the late Samuel Faine. He avers that said Faine died seized “of a large personal estate,” which came into the possession of Susan Faine, the widow, and the two minor Faine children. He further reports that his intestate married Susan Faine in 1834 and lived with her until his death in 1835. Ross charges that said Thompson “till his death held said negroes in his own right as tenant in common with said two children, undivided, ... and being the absolute owner of his wife’s share in said negroes and holding the same ... in his own right.” He further argues that the defendants “refuse to let your Orator have the share of said William D Thompson ... which is one third & to which he is entitled as such administrator.” He asserts that Susan agreed to have commissioners appointed “to divide said negroes amongst her, & her two children” and that they intend to remove to Louisiana, taking the slave property with them on a specially built boat. Fearful “that he will lose said negroes” and their $14,000 value, Ross prays that “said slaves may be attached by the sheriff, and kept in his custody” and that the court may “decree to your orator such share & portion of said negroes, as he as such administrator is entitled to.” 0156 (Accession # 21483616). Smith County, Tennessee. Hopkins Richardson seeks to protect his interest in five slaves that belong to the life estate of Hannah Dobbins. He states that Hannah is the widow of James Dobbins, who died in late 1830 or early 1831, and that James “gave to his wife (amongst other property) sundry negroes ... to hold during her natural life or widowhood”; at her death or marriage, certain individuals were to receive title to the said slaves. Richardson reports that he has purchased the interests to the slaves from some of these said individuals “for which he paid a full and fair consideration.” He asserts that “Hannah is advanced in years and that she manages the estate in her possession so badly that ... she is largely indebted,” and he fears that the slaves may have to be sold to satisfy her creditors. In addition, he claims that “divers evil disposed persons ... are endeavoring to purchase the interest of said Hannah for life so as to get possession of said negroes.” Richardson asks that Hannah be required to “give good and sufficient bond & security to have said negroes forthcoming at such time as your honor may direct” or that the sheriff “immediately seize said negroes and so dispose of them as to have them before your honor at the next term of this court.” In 1837 Richardson reiterates his request that his remainder interest be protected and prays “that an injunction in the nature of a writ of ne exeat issue.” 0164 (Accession # 21483619). Sumner County, Tennessee. The children of the late Thomas White seek to protect their interest in a female slave named Franky and Franky’s two daughters. The petitioners purport that their father devised said Franky to his daughter, Ally Sears, “for her natural life” and that “the Remainder in sd slave belongs to your Orator Kenelm.” They further cite that he willed one-half of Franky’s “increase” to his daughter, Mary White Brinkly. The petitioners charge that their brother-in-law, Anderson Sears, “has made repeated threats that he will sell & run off sd slaves ... & your Orators & Oratrix are apprehensive he will carry sd threats into execution.” Noting the enslaved family to be worth $800, the petitioners pray that Anderson Sears be compelled “to give security that sd slaves shall not be sold nor convey beyond the Jurisdiction of the Court.” 1837 0176 (Accession # 21483701). Washington County, Tennessee. Benjamin Crump asks that Abraham B. Lipton settle his guardianship accounts and hand over six slaves, who have been in 126 Reel 12 Tennessee his possession since 1835. Crump, who is both illiterate and intemperate, states that he moved from North Carolina to Tennessee when he was eighteen and “was of wild and reckless dispositions.” He also avers that, “owing in part to his natural imbecility,” he is “an easy prey to those who were disposed to take advantage of his unfortunate and friendless condition.” He admits that said habits caused him to choose Lipton as his guardian in Tennessee “for the purpose of protecting his interests and property.” Crump charges that said Lipton retrieved nine slaves and “a large sum of money” from his former guardian in North Carolina. However, he argues that said Lipton sold three of the slaves “without the pretence either of necessity or authority ... to a negro trader.” The petitioner declares that said Lipton has “utterly refused to make settlement or to give up the money & property in his hands unless he were allowed the amount of divers pretended bonds ... which he pretends to hold on your Orator.” He therefore prays that Lipton “may account with and pay to your Orator all such sums of money as are rightfully due to your Orator, including the prices of negroes & other property sold & also the hire of negroes.” 0193 (Accession # 21483702). Williamson County, Tennessee. Louisianna Reid seeks a divorce from Thomas McDaniel Reid and asks “the court to preserve her property for the use of herself and her children.” She states that her first husband, James M. Banks, died in 1835, leaving her a sizeable estate, which included 512 acres of land and “one undivided seventh part of forty one slaves of various sizes and description of great value.” She charges that her current husband, a convicted forger, “formed the wicked design of cheating and defrauding her out of” her bequest by falsely representing himself to be “a man of great wealth,” taking the identity of his cousin, and thereby “induced her to agree to marry him.” She avers, however, that she insisted he “enter into a marriage agreement” and that he “at length wrote and executed a marriage contract between him and your Oratrix.” Reid reveals that she gave the contract to her husband “to have proven & registered,” but he “suppressed the same with the intention of wickedly destroying it.” Citing that Reid’s “principle object in marrying her was, to procure her fortune to spend,” Reid prays that she be granted a divorce and that David Campbell, as administrator of Banks’s estate, “be perpetually enjoined from paying over to said Thomas any part of her said property.” 0218 (Accession # 21483703). Williamson County, Tennessee. Sixteen-year-old Jane E. Owen seeks a divorce from her sixty-two-year-old husband, Sterling Owen. The petitioner laments that said Sterling has “rendered her condition intolerable.” She reveals that he “became and was without cause strongly affected with jealousy towards your oratrix” and that he “falsely charged your oratrix with the crime of adultery with two of his own negro fellows.” Jane confides that on the night of 3 June 1837 her husband fired a pistol into her right shoulder and that “her clothes were set on fire by the pistol, that she was badly burned by its fire, and that the ball of said pistol has lodged in her shoulder her Physicians not having been able to extract it.” The petitioner reports that her husband is the owner of two tracts of land, fifteen valuable slaves, and sundry other personal property. Fearful that said Sterling “will sell and dispose of his property for the purpose of defrauding her of her alimony,” the petitioner prays that an injunction be issued to “restrain said defendant from selling or disposing of any of his real or personal property until out of the same a suitable maintenance be allowed and secured to your oratrix.” She also requests that the court “decree to your oratrix a divorce or separation from bed and board from said defendant forever.” 0244 (Accession # 21483704). Sumner County, Tennessee. Jessee Gambling asks the court to stop the sale of “an infant slave the property of your Orator.” Gambling informs the court that he sold twenty-two-year-old Hannah, the mother of five-month-old Marcus, to one John Read for $1,200 and that Read “in part payment for said woman Hnah let your Orator have a negro 127 Reel 12 Tennessee woman of the name of Dilcy & her child Henry at the price of $800.” He reports that said Hannah “made a great deal of complaint about being seperated from her child” so Read offered to buy the baby for $150. Gambling insists that he agreed because it “was distinctly understood between the said John and your orator, not to be an absolute sale of the child but a conditional one merely—if the sd John paid your orator $150 at Christmas the child was to be the property of the said John if he did not the child was still to Remain the property of your Orator.” Revealing that “not one dollar” of the $150 has been paid, the petitioner avers that Read has executed a deed of trust, in which he included “the negro child of the sd Hannah ... to secure a debt” and that said deed of trust “authorizes a sale” of said child. Gambling therefore prays that the defendants “be enjoined from selling sd. infant child ... that said child be delivered up to your orator and Retained by him untill said $150 shall be paid.” He also asks that the child be prevented from being removed. 0257 (Accession # 21483705). Warren County, Tennessee. Samuel Richardson asks that the agreement made between him and the late Thomas Hopkins be honored by James Thompson, the administrator of Hopkins’s estate. The petitioner represents that he wished “to rid himself of the perplexity incident to the government & controll of” his slaves and that he felt a strong “inclination to emancipate his slaves” but “his duty to provide for his family” precluded him from doing so. He avers that he agreed to convey seven slaves to Thomas Hopkins, “a man of excellent character, of a gentle disposition, humane & Kind to his slaves,” on the condition that Hopkins would “keep them for his life not sell them ... that he should during his life if he saw proper emancipate said slaves but that if he should fail to emancipate said slaves in his life time, then they were at his death to be returned to your orator.” Richardson notes that Hopkins died “without having emancipated any of said slaves” and that there are now more than twenty slaves in Thompson’s “possession & control.” Citing that the defendant “is unwilling to surrender to your orator the possession of said slaves without the decree of this Hon Court,” the petitioner prays that said contract “may be specifically executed.” 0287 (Accession # 21483706). Giles County, Tennessee. Patrick Braden asks that the administrators of the late Benton R. White “render a just, true & full account and history of the affairs” of a partnership formed by him and the decedent. Braden relates that he and said White “entered into partnership” in 1824, whereby said copartners agreed “equally and alike to bestow and give his personalty, services, labour, skill and attention to the management of the concerns of the said trade.” The petitioner notes that said agreement was “not in writing or under seal but was by word of mouth” and that the firm fared well until December 1826. He further argues that White was in charge of the accounts and “took possession of the Books.” Citing that White died in 1835, Braden charges that the partnership profits were “large & valuable after paying all demands & charges against the firm, for all which the said White has failed to render any account to your Orator or to pay him his share of the same” and that said White “converted your Orators share of said gain & capital to his own use.” The petitioner therefore prays that the defendants settle the firm’s affairs and that he be decreed “his share of the profits” arising from the “cotton, negroes, or other property sold or disposed of by said White, which was the property of the firm.” 0296 (Accession # 21483707). Williamson County, Tennessee. John McLemore seeks satisfaction of his debt through the sale of mortgaged slaves. He submits that William Arnold and his wife, Martha E. Robertson Arnold, executed a deed of mortgage in 1831 to secure a debt of $5,588.31. He cites that Arnold admitted that “these negroes had belonged to his wife before their marriage and he was particularly anxious if possible to get clear of his embarrassments and support his family in the mean time without disposing of the Negroes”; he states, however, that Arnold died in 1833, with “the whole of the principal and the balance of the 128 Reel 12 Tennessee interest ... due and unpaid.” Charging that the mortgage “fully authorized” him “to take possession of said negroes for the purpose of selling so many of them as should be found necessary to pay and satisfy his said demand,” the petitioner avers that he has “frequently in a friendly manner applied” to the defendants “for payment and satisfaction of said mortgage debt due,” but they have “refused to pay your orator any part of said debt.” Noting that said slaves have “largely increased in number by birth,” McLemore prays that the court decree “that said negroes be sold and the proceeds thereof applied to the payment of” his debt. 0312 (Accession # 21483709). Dickson County, Tennessee. Fanny Gray, a free woman of color, asks that she and her children “be placed in the hands of a receiver” so as to prevent the defendants from “selling them in slavery.” Fanny recounts that her late husband Simon purchased her for $400 in 1825 and that he successfully “presented a petition to the County Court ... praying the emancipation of your Complainants” in 1836. Representing that Simon died soon thereafter, Fanny charges that several of the defendants “took your complainants and with force and arms carried them on board of a steam boat and carried them to ... Kentucky with a view of selling them in slavery.” She reveals that their efforts failed in Kentucky, but she cites that the defendants were successful in procuring executions on Simon’s estate, which resulted in her daughter Cassandra being levied upon and sold for $325. Of the belief that “they are in eminent danger of being carried out of the said state ... and sold in slavery,” the petitioners “pray that they be immediately in the hands of the sheriff.” They further request that they be hired out to defray their court costs, that the defendants be enjoined from recovering them or any debts due the estate, and that the sale of Cassandra “be declared null and void.” 0337 (Accession # 21483710). Davidson County, Tennessee. Nathaniel Norment seeks to recover a male slave, whom he loaned to his son-in-law, John Elgin, in 1827. Norment declares that he loaned said Elgin “a negro boy of the name of Robin then about 17 years of age” and that “it was distinctly ... understood that your Orator would not give any negro to Mr. Elgin.” The petitioner submits that said Robin “was seised by the Sheriff of Rutherford under some pretended execution against the said Elgin & sold to the highest bidder.” He avows that Robin “was a faithful family servant of a most excellent family of negroes” and that “he had raised him & was attached to him & was not willing to part with him even at greatly more than his value.” Norment represents that Robin was in General Samuel Smith’s possession from 1828 until Smith’s death in 1835, and he notes that Smith’s executor “has had him in possession ever since receiving his hire or services.” He therefore prays that said executor be compelled to answer his charges, that Robin be returned “without delay into the State,” and that “your Honor to decree the said boy to be delivered up to your Orator & direct an account of his annual hire.” 0347 (Accession # 21483711). Smith County, Tennessee. William Person asks that the defendants be restrained “from proceeding farther on” a judgment of $556 recovered in the April 1837 term. He asserts that, in 1830, he paid $400 for a male slave named Isham, who had been levied on for the satisfaction of the debts of Lee Sulivan Sr. He states that he has now learned that said Sulivan conveyed Isham by deed of gift to his seventeen-year-old son Joshua in 1816. Citing that Joshua had died by 1818, the petitioner reveals that “said Lee Sulivan never parted with the possession of the said negro boy Isham before the death of his son ... and after his death he retained possession of him claiming the negro as his own property until he was sold to your orator.” Person cites that John Hadly, the administrator of Joshua Sulivan’s estate, filed suit in 1836 to recover the value of Isham and that Hadly obtained a judgment in 1837 for $556, “being the amount of the purchase money given for said negro Isham with the accruing interest thereon.” He therefore prays that Hadly and Sulivan be enjoined “from proceeding farther on said Judgment or from collecting any part of the same.” 129 Reel 12 Tennessee 0355 (Accession # 21483714). Smith County, Tennessee. Swan Thompson seeks a perpetual injunction against Lee Sullivan Sr. and John L. Hadley, the administrator of the estate of the late Joshua H. Sullivan. He informs the court that he purchased a nineteen-year-old enslaved female named Hetty and her ten-month-old son Jeremiah from the said Sullivan in 1830, “at the price of $375 which has been paid, & took a bill of sale with warranty, from said Lee.” Thompson insists that he considered said slaves “to be the property of said Lee,” but he recounts that he later learned that Sullivan had conveyed certain slave property that included Hetty to his son Joshua “by deed of gift” in 1816. Asserting that said Hadley has “recovered judgment against your orator for the said Sum of $375 & interest,” the petitioner believes that an “execution will shortly be issued & the said judgt collected from your orator unless the same be enjoined by your honor.” Thompson therefore prays that the execution for said judgment be “perpetually enjoined” and that the defendants be compelled to pay his court costs “as well as the amount he has been necessarily compelled to pay his attorney in said suit at law.” 0361 (Accession # 21483715). Washington County, Tennessee. Walter Waterford, by his next friend, Lewis Garner, sues his deceased brother’s estate for his freedom. Waterford states that some time before 1826, his free brother, Adam Waterford, “prompted by love and natural affection,” bought him from William P. Thompson. Adam agreed with Walter and their father, David Waterford, also free, that as soon as Walter repaid the purchase money of $450, Adam “was to emancipate your Orator.” Adam, however, “in some way became responsible” to Isaac Baker in Washington County, Virginia, and placed Walter in Baker’s possession, where he remained many years. A few years ago, Adam moved Walter to Tennessee and placed him with George Rutledge. Walter states that his services are worth “ten to twelve Dollars per month” and that his labor over the years is worth “between one and two thousand Dollars.” He argues that he long ago “paid and greatly overpaid” Adam and “ought long ago to have been emancipated.” Walter asks the court to enjoin any attempts to move him before the case is heard and to compel Adam’s administrator to emancipate him. In his answer, David Waterford confides that his father Adam “had the kindest feelings for Compt. and felt a deep interest in his freedom, and in every thing that concerned his interests, and in endeavouring to secure his liberty, and save him from the hands of those who would have doomed him to endless servitude, suffered great trouble, loss of time, and incurred heavy expense in counsels fees, travelling expenses and otherwise.” 0436 (Accession # 21483716). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The executors of the last will and testament of the late James Elliott seek permission to sell three estate slaves. They inform the court that “amongst the other negroes which came” to their hands “to be hired out” were an “old man” named Edmund, his wife, Katy, and their three- or four-year-old child. Edmund, who is “infirm & diseased and has been in that situation for some considerable time,” was “particularly a favorite with the testator and they believe that [Elliott] in his life time would be very averse to having him hired out in the ordinary way that the slaves of deceased persons are disposed of.” They point out that Edmund “cannot be hired for any thing and his constitution would not endure the hardships imposed upon said slaves.” They therefore maintain that it would be “far better for the interest of the heirs that said slaves be sold.” They ask permission to hold a private sale “at their discretion” because they are unwilling to risk separating the husband “from his wife and child from its parents.” They purport that such a division “would be extremely against the inclinations of all who are interested and against the wishes of testator whose kindness for said Edmund was such as to induce him to offer him his freedom which was refused in the lifetime of testator.” 130 Reel 12 Tennessee 1838 0446 (Accession # 21483802). Washington County, Tennessee. William Slaughter, a man “far advanced in years,” asks the court to annul an agreement made between him and Richard Stuart, a former slave with an exemplary reputation for “honesty, sobriety, and industry.” Slaughter represents that he and his wife were no longer able to manage their farm in such a manner as to provide them “a comfortable subsistence” thereon, so he entered into a contract with Stuart in 1831. He declares that said agreement gave land and tools to Stuart on the condition that Stuart would supply the couple with necessaries and “other things that is common for folks of their age.” Slaughter charges that Stuart “soon became indiferent to the wishes or comfort of your Orator; and gradually insolent, neglectful, and almost utterly regardless of all the obligations imposed on him by said agreement.” He further attests “that the character & conduct of said Stuart were undergoing a total change—that he put off the bearing of a slave and put on that of a master.” The petitioner therefore prays that Stuart be compelled “to supply your Orator with such support as was contemplated by said agreement” or that a “cancelment of said Deed of Conveyance & agreement may be decreed.” 0462 (Accession # 21483803). Washington County, Tennessee. Sixty-five-year-old Nancy Rowe seeks a divorce and alimony from Thomas Rowe, her husband of four months. She contends that said Thomas “drove your Oratrix from his residence and compelled her to seek a home, and the means of subsistence from the charity of her friends.” Nancy represents that soon after said separation her husband petitioned for a divorce on the sole “ground of natural imbecility—a charge which was well known ... to be a most wicked, wanton untruth.” Declaring that he “was seized & possessed of considerable property real and personal,” the petitioner insists that “her said husband, in fraud of her rights, and to shield said property from being made liable to her support” conveyed away said property to his children from a previous marriage. Nancy therefore prays that she be granted a divorce and that she be allowed “out of his Estate, such support and maintainance, as your Honor shall deem just & Equitable under all the circumstances.” She also requests that the defendants be “injoined from selling said lands & negroes or disposing of the same in any way.” 0470 (Accession # 21483804). Maury County, Tennessee. Emily Webster, the minor heir of the late John G. Webster, seeks a new guardian. She states that the court appointed her stepfather, Lemuel H. Duncan, as her guardian in 1828 and that he “took possession of your oratrix and the portion of her fathers estate which fell to her upon division and has kept possession thereof up to this time.” She charges that Duncan’s reports “are wanting in the specific description of the property” and that they are “stated in such general terms, that they afford no certain account of the manner in which the trust has been performed.” Citing that the reports “do not show the exact amount of money nor how many negroes, their ages, names or sex,” she particularly inquires about the circumstances surrounding the death of “two valuable negro fellows.” She avers that she petitioned “for the removal of the said Duncan from the trust” when her mother died in 1838 and that “the court sustained her motion and removed” him; however, “to the surprise of your oratrix the said Duncan prayed an appeal,” which is still pending. Webster therefore reiterates her prayer that “said Duncan may be removed from the guardianship ... and that an account be taken, and the amount found to be due may be decreed to be paid over to such other guardian.” 0488 (Accession # 21483805). Bedford County, Tennessee. Peggy Steward, the widow of William Steward, asks that the executors of her late husband’s estate hand over a twenty-twoyear-old slave named Jehu. The petitioner reports that the said William devised to her “a specific legacy of two negroes” in his will. She declares that the executors have “Settled up with 131 Reel 12 Tennessee the greater part of distributees & Legatees yet your petitioner has never yet been put in possession of but one of the negroes bequeathed to her.” Steward charges that the executors have “sold or otherwise disposed of said boy and have failed in this respect to discharge this part of their trust.” Noting that Jehu “is well worth 1000 dollars,” the petitioner prays that the defendants “be decreed to deliver said negro or pay his value to petitioner and also his hire from November 1834 up to this time.” 0495 (Accession # 21483806). Bedford County, Tennessee. Seventy-year-old Freeman Burrow asks that his son William and two other parties account for the purchase money received from the sale of two slave children. Burrow avers that his son and Robert F. Arnold devised a “wicked design” to kidnap eleven-year-old Betsy and seven-year-old Jackson. He argues that William and Robert came to his house and “asked for a dram,” whereupon he sent the said children “to a neighboring still house.” Asserting that said William and Robert then left his house, the petitioner avows that “they immediately overtook the negroes and seized them and carried them to Huntsville Ala and there sold them, as their own property.” He insists that he “then learned that there was a pretended deed of gift from your orator to said William Burrow conveying to said William all your orators equitable interest in said two negroes, and to two other negroes.” The petitioner “denies that said deed contains his will or intentions, that his mind never assented to its execution, and that it is wholly void and fraudulent.” He therefore prays that the defendants be enjoined from “interfering with your Orators quiet possession” and that the “pretended deed of gift be ... cancelled.” 0508 (Accession # 21483807). Bedford County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Bryant Nowlin seek to protect their remainder interest in sundry slaves, who are currently in the life estate of Elizabeth Devin. They represent that the said Nowlin died in 1810 and that he devised to his daughter, Elizabeth Devin, “a negro girl named Hannah and her increase during her natural life and at her death my will and desire is that said negro & increase be equally divided by lot or sale ... among the children of my daughter Elizabeth Devin.” The petitioners charge that said Elizabeth has “set up a title and claimed to be the exclusive owner” of said slaves and that she has threatened to “sell and so dispose of the said Hannah and her increase as to defeat the object and design of the testator ... and defraud your orators out of their just legal rights.” They declare that “the increase of the said Hannah at this time amounts to fourteen slaves ... the whole of whom are worth the sum of five thousand seven hundred dollars.” Noting that the defendant has already sold one of said slaves, the petitioners pray that Hannah and her family be placed “into the possession” of the sheriff and that the said slaves “be hired out and the hire thereof be appropriated to the use and benefit of your orators until it amount to the value of said slave so sold.” 0524 (Accession # 21483808). Williamson County, Tennessee. Louisiana Banks Reid seeks the allotment of her dower and the recovery of sundry slaves. She asserts that her husband, James Banks, died in 1835, seized of a sizeable estate. In addition, Reid reveals that her father had conveyed eleven slaves to her in 1822 and that “it was the intention of her father to convey said negroes to her seperate use, free from the control of her husband ... to the only proper use of her and her issue.” She charges that David Campbell, her late husband’s executor, “has taken possession of the whole estate,” including the “negroes of your oratrix.” She further argues her late husband’s will “is partial and unjust towards her and gives her less by far than she would be entitled to by law (if it is intended by said will to exclude her from her dower in her said husbands estate).” She notes that her current husband, Thomas Reid, “has deserted her and removed out of the United states,” but “it was agreed in writing between them that she should have and hold her estate both real and personal ... to her own seperate use.” Reid prays that the court may “assign and set apart her dower in her husband’s real estate,” that she may 132 Reel 12 Tennessee receive “a childs part of the personalty of her deceased husbands estate,” and that she may have “all the negroes given to her by her father ... with their increase.” 0536 (Accession # 21483809). Williamson County, Tennessee. Parilee Adcock desires to end her ten-month-long marriage to Beverly Adcock. The petitioner submits that, “on last Christmas night,” her husband “beat and abused the person of Your Oratrix with such wantonness and cruelty as greatly to endanger her life.” She further confides that she “was then far gone in pregnacy” and that “he beat her head with his fist so as to greatly injure her mind and reason.” Parilee laments that “she was delivered of her child about two months after and said child was still born with its head greatly apparently beat and marked.” Recalling that her husband left her “about three months ago and has lately gone to the state of Mississippi,” she states that he sold a “negro woman and child” and some livestock before he abandoned her, leaving behind a mare and two enslaved children, four-year-old Calvin and two-year-old Abram. Fearful that he will try “to defeat her of her alimony,” Parilee prays that “he be enjoined and restrained from removing Sd. negro boys or selling or disposing of them & said mare.” She also asks “that by Your Honors decree a divorce from bed and board be granted to her against said defendant.” 0541 (Accession # 21483810). Williamson County, Tennessee. John and Mary Collins ask the court to restrain Nancy Garrett from moving two slaves to Texas. The slaves were bequeathed by Mary’s father, Thomas Garrett, to the defendant “during her life or widowhood,” and “should belong to his heirs” after Nancy’s death. The petitioners assert that Garrett “avows her determination to leave the United States and become a citizen of Texas, and that she intends to take said slaves with her.” Fearing that their “contingent interest” in the slaves “would be lost,” they ask the court to require Garrett to give “ample security for their forthcoming.” 0548 (Accession # 21483811). Warren County, Tennessee. William North joins his sister, Polly North Samples, and her husband, Alexander, in asking the court to enjoin John Allen, administrator of the estate of their “ancestor,” Gilbert North, from “paying out any of said estate to any person” until the court can rule on the validity of North’s will. The petitioners charge Pleasant North, Pleasant Rutherford, and Pleasant’s wife, Minerva, with destroying Gilbert’s will “in order to defeat and defraud [them] out of the provisions therein made.” They allege that the trio kept “the old man Continually drunk and deranged” in the period prior to his death “for the express purpose of controlling” him. During this time, Gilbert conveyed the majority of his “negro property,” fairly worth $8,000, to various people, leaving the slaves “incumbered with fraudulent claims hanging over them” at his death. They ask the court to cancel these bills of sale and to put the slaves “in the hands of a receiver” until the court’s final decree. 1839 0564 (Accession # 21483901). Bedford County, Tennessee. George W. Ruth, the jailer of Bedford County, asks the judge to require Boyd M. Grace of Alabama and Samuel Williams of North Carolina to appear before the court to “interplead and litigate” their respective claims to a runaway slave, Drew, alias Jerry, who is currently in his custody. Ruth explains that both men have applied for the slave, and he is reluctant to release Jerry “until directed by a decree of your Honorable Court least he be sued & put to great expense, loss and trouble by the other claimants.” Samuel Williams, in whose favor the decree was ultimately rendered, asserts in his answer that Drew “was aided in making his escape if not carried away from this State, by one Craven Davis ... under the delusive promise of getting him (the said slave) or putting him in a way to get to see his wife,” who had been taken to Tennessee “by one Mr. Littlejohn.” 0580 (Accession # 21483902). Giles County, Tennessee. Eliza H. Harris and Alfred F. Harris, minor heirs of Alfred M. Harris, ask the court to compel their surviving guardian, Alfred Flournoy, 133 Reel 12 Tennessee to account with them for “whatever may be due” them. Flournoy jointly “received and had the entire controul and management of the lands, slaves, monies, & other effects” belonging to the children with William C. Flournoy, who has recently died. Through their next friend, Charles C. Abernathy, the Harrises maintain that a settlement and account “is indispensably necessary.” They name William Flournoy’s executrix, Martha Flournoy, as a defendant, and they ask that she be held responsible for the execution of Harris’s will. They also ask the court to dismiss Alfred Flournoy as their guardian and to appoint a new guardian to manage their affairs. 0591 (Accession # 21483903). Giles County, Tennessee. Archibald C. Esselman, the guardian of Robin Butcher, an “insane” free man of color, asks the court to enjoin Susan P. Wall “from further molesting him in the peaceable possession of said Robin.” Esselman alleges that Wall “aided by Godred Webb and John Thorpe has attempted by force to take said Robin out of the possession of your Orator, with the purpose and intent, as your Orator is informed and believes, to run the said Robin off, and sell him as a slave.” Esselman “apprehends great danger” that Wall and her agents will be successful, and he seeks the court’s intervention. 0598 (Accession # 21483904). Williamson County, Tennessee. Joseph Royster, administrator of the estate of the late Kitturah Royster, seeks the court’s permission to sell two slaves in his sister’s estate “as may be most advantageous to the heirs and distributees of sd Kitturah.” Kitturah, who died “intestate unmarried and without issue,” is survived by seven siblings. Royster represents that, “from the number of the distributees and the small amount of property” belonging to the estate, it is “impossible to make an equal and fair division of said estate among them.” 0602 (Accession # 21483905). Sumner County, Tennessee. Dr. Nathaniel and Harriett Sanders seek to correct errors in an account and to receive their proper share of an estate. They inform the court that Harriett’s father, James Sanders, died intestate in 1836, leaving a large estate and numerous heirs. When commissioners gathered to divide the slaves among the heirs, they determined that each would receive a share worth $7,782.40, including any advances received during Mr. Sanders’s life. Dr. Sanders claims that he was mistakenly charged twice for three slaves. As a result, his account of advancements totaled $7,570, almost $1,800 too much. Part of the confusion resulted from his father-in-law’s repeated efforts to help Nathaniel settle financial and legal problems, particularly the matter of a slave named Jim, purchased in North Carolina in 1819 before Dr. Sanders and his wife moved to Tennessee. Nathaniel Sanders asks that the court correct the account and order the administrators to pay the money he and his wife should have received. 0643 (Accession # 21483906). Davidson County, Tennessee. John D. Young asks the court to divest titles to certain land and slaves “out of” his sons Napolean, Ferdinand, and William, and to restore the titles to him. He also asks that his sons compensate him for the slaves’ hire. He explains that, during the years 1825–1827, he “was unfortunately addicted to constant habits of intoxication in so much that his mind was much impaired & his capacity for business so far destroyed that his friends & children became apprehensive he would squander and loose all his property.” He claims that he “has but little or no remembrance” of transactions his children & friends “persuaded and procured him to make,” including a conveyance of “all his negroes and other property to his children in the form of a deed of gift.” Although he has “altered his habits and returned to his mind,” his sons still hold “adverse possession” of his slaves, leaving him “in his infirmities and declining years upon the cold charities of a world of strangers.” 0650 (Accession # 21483907). Williamson County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Nicholas Wilburn ask the court to compel the administrator of Wilburn’s estate, Robert Davis, to “come to an account for what estate of Your Orators & Oratrixes he has or ought to have in his hands,” 134 Reel 12 Tennessee and to “pay over the same” to them. Although Davis gave bond for “the faithful discharge of the trust reposed in him,” the petitioners assert that he has not been forthcoming regarding his management of the estate. They seek a discovery of the lands, slaves, and rents and hires belonging to the estate, and they question specifically his “Keeping of the accounts of the hiring of said slaves,” which they deem “troublesome.” Claiming that “they are able to manage said negroes without the intervention of any other persons,” they ask the court to grant them permission either to sell the slaves or to have a “division of them made among Your Orators and Oratrixes in such proportion as they may be entitled thereto.” 0662 (Accession # 21483908). Stewart County, Tennessee. Frances Brinson, widow of Drury Brinson, asks the court to cancel a trust deed that she executed with Wright Outlaw, her son-inlaw. Outlaw assumed a debt that Brinson owed to Nathan Thomas and began managing Brinson’s affairs “at all times promising to protect and secure her interest to the best advantage for her.” The petitioner and her children own nine slaves, whom they inherited when Drury died in 1835. Outlaw obtained an order from the county court for the division of the property, in which Brinson was allotted three slaves. Outlaw then put all of the slaves up for sale “at one time and bid them all in for about one thousand dollars.” She now fears that he is “about to run them off out of the Jurisdiction of the Court and out of the State.” Asserting that her son-in-law “designed defrauding her out of her property,” she asks the court to enjoin him from transporting the slaves and to attach the property, as she is now “stripped of every thing and [has] not the slightest means left her for her maintenance and support.” 0672 (Accession # 21483909). Sumner County, Tennessee. Robert Joyner, the guardian of Samuel Draper’s five minor children, joins Nancy Draper, Samuel’s daughter, who is of legal age, in asking the court for permission to sell the slave Annis. They explain that “Division Cannot be made of Said negro without she is sold & Petitioner Nancy could not get her Portion of said Slave without a Sale.” They ask that “the money arising from said Sale” be divided among Nancy and the “Said Minors.” 0678 (Accession # 21483910). Williamson County, Tennessee. The “heirs & distributees of the said Charles Perkins deceased” seek a division of the eleven slaves that belong to his estate. They request that commissioners be appointed “to set apart & allot to the said Hariet H. Perkins one third part of said slaves & to the said Charlesanna Perkins one third part & to the said Thomas M. Jones & Marietta his wife one third part according to fair valuation absolutely.” 0688 (Accession # 21483911). Williamson County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Thomas Figures ask the court to compel Thomas A. Pankey to account with them “for all the property he has received belonging to” their father, “& after allowing him all just credits,” they seek a decree for “the surplus.” Thomas Figures conveyed “177 acres of land ... 17 negroes, all his household furniture stock &c. Crop of corn, fodder, oats, cotton &c” to Pankey in 1831 “for the purpose of paying the debts of the Said Figures.” The deed stipulated that “it was the duty of the Said Pankey,” after the deaths of Figures and his wife, “to convey the property, not consumed in the payment of Said debts to the children of the said Thomas share & share alike.” The petitioners claim that Pankey has appropriated the surplus “to his own use,” including $1,500 that he allegedly received for a “trust negro” named Jacob, who was sold in Louisiana by Pankey’s “agent” and co-defendant, Henry Smith. 0696 (Accession # 21483912). Knox County, Tennessee. Charles and Nancy Lumpkin Curd seek an injunction to prevent their son-in-law, James Weaver, from removing a female slave named Mariah and her six children outside the jurisdiction of the court. The Curds explain that they loaned Mariah to their daughter under the “contract and understanding” that “either party [had] at any time the right either to send the negroes home, or the other to have them at 135 Reel 12 Tennessee pleasure when required.” Their daughter has died, however, and Weaver “has set up a claim” to Mariah and her “increase” and refuses to return them. Mariah was a bequest to Nancy Curd from her mother, Ann Lumpkin, and the Curds assert that Weaver’s “arrangements to move to a foreign state” will prevent them “from carrying into effect the intentions of the said Ann Lumpkin.” They allege that Weaver “will not even permit Your Orators to converse with him on the subject but when your Orators attempt to demand and require the said negroes to be delivered to them conceals himself.” 0705 (Accession # 21483913). Bedford County, Tennessee. John Fitts, a resident of Mississippi, petitions the court for the return of “two negro boys ... both of yellow complection,” who are currently in the custody of Hiram Edy. Fitts explains that “some weeks ago, he determined to settle a farm in the Republic of Texas” and left Mississippi “in company with” his brother, Oliver, and the “said two negro boys and thirty five other slaves.” The petitioner was detained on business, and he “sent his brother on with the negroes.” When he arrived in Texas, “he learned that his brother whilst in a fit of intoxication was induced by Deft Hiram Edy to sell him Said two boys” for $1,100 in Texas currency, “which is at least 50 per cent below par.” Fitts avers that his brother “had no authority whatever to make said sale”; in fact, he declares, “he owns the mother of the said two negro boys, and there brothers and sisters that they are a family of negroes which he has owned for some years, and he would rather have them in Specie than to have a much larger sum of money than there real value.” He asks the court to enjoin Edy, who is a “trancient character” now living in Tennessee, from “removing or selling said negroes.” 0711 (Accession # 21483914). Knox County, Tennessee. The children of Nelly Yancy seek to set up their claim to several slaves currently in the possession of Willie Young. The petitioners assert that the slaves in controversy are the children and grandchildren of Chloe, a slave their mother received by a “proper and legal division” of the estate of her late father, Richard Bayne, who died in 1797. Chloe was sold with her daughter, Harriett, at sheriff’s sale to satisfy the debts of Nelly’s husband, James Yancy. The petitioners claim that at the time of the sale, their mother “remonstrated against” it and that Young, who obtained possession of the slaves after a series of “hurriedly made” ownership transfers, was “fully aware of” Nelly’s title. They characterize Young as a “partaker in the fraud” and conjecture that he has “kept his residence concealed” in Anderson County, “an obscure part of the world,” in order “to prevent a discovery of the negroes in his possession.” They also allege that he has sold Chloe and her daughter, Mary, to a Mr. Woods. They ask the court to compel Young to surrender Chloe’s descendants and to account for their hire, which he has “appropriated,” and for the value of the slaves he sold. 0723 (Accession # 21483915). Dickson County, Tennessee. Joel and Polly Bayless ask the court to restrain James Dickson, Samuel Stacker, and William Dick from prosecuting their writ of error in response to an earlier suit involving the recovery and hire of Claiborne, a slave originating in the estate of Polly’s late father, Isaac Shelby. The Baylesses explain that Polly’s eldest siblings “took possession of and sold and converted to their own use” valuable estate slaves, including Claiborne, whom they sold to one Joseph Dickson. Dickson then controlled him for nine or ten years before selling him to Stacker. The Baylesses later became administrators of Shelby’s estate and successfully brought suit against Dickson and Stacker. The parties thereafter reached a compromise concerning compensation for Claiborne’s hire, which the court valued at $900 for the nine-year period. The defendants, however, failed to uphold their end of the bargain and are now threatening to pursue their writ of error to the supreme court “and wholly defeat the action of your orator and oratrix.” Joseph Dickson has since died so the petitioners sue his executor, James Dickson, in his stead. 136 Reel 12 Tennessee 0749 (Accession # 21483916). Williamson County, Tennessee. John E. and Drury Dance, administrators of the estate of their brother Russell Dance, seek the court’s assistance in settling the insolvent estate. Russell Dance died intestate on 3 October 1838. He was a partner in a mercantile business and in a slave-trading company. His estate includes furniture, a cotton gin, several horses, seven slaves, numerous debts owed to it, and two lots of land near Murfreesboro. With his brothers he jointly owned twenty-four other slaves and 320 acres of land. The petitioners declare that Dance’s personal estate is worth “not more than Seven or eight thousand dollars,” but the claims against it amount to “probably twelve or fifteen thousand dollars.” Noting that the administrators have already sold most of the personal property, the Dances aver that “without the interposition of your honor it is probable that numerous Suits will be commenced against your orators so soon as the law will allow, & much cost accrue.” They ask that the estate be settled “according to the provisions of the Act of Assembly of 26 Jany 1838 in regard to insolvent estates;” that the decedent’s creditors be enjoined from suing; that their share of the land and slaves jointly owned be set aside; and that they be permitted to sell all of Dance’s property, including land. Finally, they ask the court to guide them in paying the various creditors with the money raised. 0761 (Accession # 21483917). Dickson County, Tennessee. George Tatum, the guardian of George Clark, a “lunatic,” asks the court to compel Benjamin Clark to account with him for property in his hands belonging to his ward. Tatum alleges that, in 1835 or 1836, Benjamin Clark “by misrepresentation & falsehood” appropriated a $750 judgment owed to George by William Cox, as well as $700 of George’s pension money. A few years later Benjamin convinced George to convey his interest in a slave named Simon to Benjamin and two minor children, even though George was “without a sound and disposing mind and totally unable to manage his own business.” Tatum maintains that Simon, a mechanic, is worth between $800 and $830 and “hires for from 15 to 20 dollars per month.” Tatum asks the court to invalidate Simon’s bill of sale. He also asks the court to attach Simon so that his “safety” is kept subject to the “further order” of the court and to enjoin Clark, whom Tatum fears will “run said Boy and sell him beyond the jurisdiction of your Honorable Court.” 0767 (Accession # 21483918). Maury County, Tennessee. Taswell Alderson and James Mitchell, executors of the estate of the late Hezekiah Ward, seek an accounting of Thomas E. Ridley’s business venture with the deceased Ward. They explain that Ward and Ridley “entered into partnership in the negro trade, by written articles of partnership.” They contend that Ward advanced $22,000 to Ridley “to purchase negroes,” and they submit the defendant “went to Virginia & Maryland to purchase negroes, & your orators charge did purchase negroes in the spring & summer of 1836 in said states for the firm of Ward & Ridley.” The petitioners maintain that Ridley “took the negroes purchased by him to the South, State of Mississippi & Louisiana for sale, and there sold them.” Being ignorant of how many slaves were bought and later sold and not knowing any monetary details of Ridley’s transactions, Alderson and Mitchell “pray that the said Thomas E. Ridley be compelled to account for the funds advanced to him by the said Hezekiah, and of the profits made upon the purchase & sales of said negroes” and that the terms of the “written articles of partnership” be enforced. 0775 (Accession # 21483919). Maury County, Tennessee. The children and grandchildren of the late Nelly Yancey ask the court to divest “all title” to a slave named John out of “William Polks distributees or assignees” and to order Sarah Polk and the Columbia Central Turnpike Company to account with them for the slave’s hire. The Yanceys explain that eleven slaves, who were part of their mother’s inheritance, were “removed” and sold “in places unknown” by their indebted father, James Yancey, when the petitioners were “of tender years.” After their mother’s death in 1834, they took “all reasonable and proper exertions to ascertain” the slaves’ 137 Reel 12 Tennessee whereabouts, and, though none remained in Virginia, they found Osburn and John in Tennessee “in possession of George Polk and John of the Columbia Central Turnpike company.” Their father had sold the slaves to William Polk of North Carolina over thirty years ago, and Polk had moved them to Tennessee before his death, to “carry on under his agents & overseers an extensive planting establishment.” The slaves remained in Polk’s widow’s possession until she hired out John to the Turnpike Company. Sarah Polk is a stockholder in the company. 0791 (Accession # 21483920). Williamson County, Tennessee. William H. Hanna seeks the payment of debts due from the estate of Russell Dance. On 3 October 1838, Russell Dance died of “consumption.” Administrators John E. and Drury Dance declared the estate insolvent and filed a bill against Dance’s creditors to present their claims immediately or be barred from collecting anything thereafter. They also sued Hanna, claiming that he owed $3,950.72 to the estate, but Hanna contends that “Russell Dance died largely indebted to him.” Hanna and Dance became partners in 1835 in a mercantile business and a slave trading business. Hanna recounts in detail the operations of the businesses, charging that Dance took money from their businesses for his own personal use and never repaid it. Arbitrators determined that Dance’s estate owed $1,852.74 to Hanna. Hanna believed that the actual debt was greater, but he was willing to accept the ruling; Drury Dance, though, refused to abide by the decision. Arguing that the administrators are using their lawsuits to avoid paying him, Hanna asks that their suits be stopped until his case is decided, that a determination of what Russell Dance’s estate owes him be made, and that payments to Dance’s other creditors be stopped until his claims are established and added to theirs. 0818 (Accession # 21483921). Jackson County, Tennessee. Peter Sweeper, a man of color, returns to court March Term 1839 to enter a plea of trespass against William Woodfolk. Sweeper charges that Woodfolk did “imprison the plaintiff and deprive him of his liberty and did then and there reduce him to the condition of the most abject Slave.” The petitioner avers that the defendant compelled him “to work for and serve him” for seven years and that Woodfolk appropriated “the whole of the proceeds of the labour and services of the plaintiff.” Sweeper represents that “he has sustained damage to the amount of two thousand dollars and therefore he brings suit.” The related documents give valuable insight into the history of the case. Depositions reveal that Sweeper “was charged with conveying away runaway slaves” and that “he was convicted of the charge alledged against him and sold out of the State of Maryland for six years” in 1826. Sweeper’s attorney cites that “the suit for freedom between these parties was twice tried in the circuit court of Jackson County and resulted in favour of the plaintiff both times.” He further states that Woodfolk appealed each verdict to the supreme court. He notes that the first time it reversed the lower court’s decision but that “the last time Judgment of the circuit Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court establishing the plaintiffs right to freedom.” 1840 0887 (Accession # 21484001). Washington County, Tennessee. Enos McFall, the administrator of John Houston’s estate, joins with Houston’s children and grandchildren in asking the court to compel John’s son, William Houston, to surrender the slaves of his deceased father. They claim that William “received a much more Liberal portion of his Father’s estate,” and charge him with misappropriating this share by concealing an agreement he made with his father intended to invalidate an 1826 deed of conveyance. He currently has in his possession seven slaves, whom the petitioners believe they “have a right to have ... impounded” until the court decides the case. They seek an eventual distribution of the slaves “according to their respective rights.” 138 Reel 12 Tennessee 0898 (Accession # 21484002). Washington County, Tennessee. Mary Houston, the widow of John Houston, asks the court to assign her “dower allowance and distributive share” of her late husband’s estate. She accuses her stepson, William Houston, of setting up “pretended claims” to certain lands and slaves before John’s death in order to “embarrass or destroy the rights of your Oratrix.” She cites William’s “long standing hostility” towards her, contending that her separation from John, which occurred before his death, was “produced by the untiring exertions of his children,” who endeavored to “poison” John’s mind against her. She asserts that the fraudulent deeds set up by her stepson were made “in fraud of her marital rights, that, as the widow of the said John Houston she stands upon the same footing as creditors.” She also names the administrator of John’s estate and the estate’s other heirs as defendants, asking the court to suspend their suit against William Houston, filed in February 1840, “until the rights of your Oratrix can be ascertained.” 0919 (Accession # 21484003). Maury County, Tennessee. Ephraim R. Osburn asks the supreme court to “release” him from a circuit court judgment that holds him liable for the illegal emigration from Kentucky into Tennessee of his laborer, Jack Claibourne, a free man of color. Osburn came to Tennessee in 1833 “for the purpose of carrying on the manufacture of hemp.” Finding it “almost impossible to procure in Tennessee laborers who understood the business,” he employed “hands” from Kentucky, who had the “necessary skill and knowledge.” The petitioner claims that neither he nor Claibourne were aware that a law prohibited “such persons from coming into the state.” Claibourne, indicted and convicted of the violation three times between 1837 and May 1838, was finally sentenced to “twelve months confinement in the Penitentiary.” He appealed the conviction, the petitioner “again became his bail,” and Claibourne returned to Kentucky, where he “became alarmed,” and failed to appear for his appeal. Osburn testifies that Jack is “a useful, industrious and honest man—a sober and attentive laborer and without any great fault known to petitioner except a black skin.” The jury concurred with this assessment and “petitioned the Governor for a pardon” of Claibourne. Osburn asserts that there was “never any intention to commit a crime [,] no injury has been done to any person by the negro in the State.” 0937 (Accession # 21484004). Maury County, Tennessee. Richard Hazelwood and Levi Wade, executors of the will of the late Samuel Bowman, seek the court’s direction in executing Bowman’s will. The petitioners characterize the will as “originally ambiguous in its terms, and of doubtful construction.” Several of the devises—including a bequest of slaves to Bowman’s daughter, Elmira Tucker, and a bequest of $50 to “the colonization society”—are “so uncertain that they are advised they are void.” They allude to “circumstances,” which have made it “extremely hazardous” for them to attempt to execute the will without “the interposition of your honorable Court.” They ask the court to rule on the validity of such clauses. 0951 (Accession # 21484005). Bedford County, Tennessee. Martha Cunningham, through her next friend, Jane H. Cunningham, seeks to establish her title to a slave named Malinda, whom her son-in-law purchased at her behest. Cunningham explains that she inherited from her father, John Bayley, a slave named Lemuel, whom she later sold for $1,200. She gave $400 of the proceeds to her son-in-law, Giles Bowers, to purchase Malinda. Bowers, however, “took the bill of sale in his own name, and has never conveyed the said negro girl to your Oratrix.” The petitioner now complains that Malinda has been seized by the constable of Bedford County and is advertised to be sold in satisfaction of a judgment against Bowers obtained by the firm of Eakin & Moffat. She avers that Malinda has been in her possession since the purchase. She asks the court to issue an injunction to stop the sale and to “divest the title to said negro girl out of said Giles R. and vest it in your Oratrix.” 139 Reel 12 Tennessee 0968 (Accession # 21484006). Dickson County, Tennessee. William B. Young asks the court to invalidate “sales pretended to have been made” by William Turner to Willis Morgan and Thomas Watson and to restore the property “to the same situation it was in with respect to titles before” the sales. Young conveyed land and four slaves to M. A. Martin in 1834 in trust for Lewis Hyer. Young owed Hyer $1,290, which he agreed to pay before January 1836, or the property would be sold. Young chose Martin as his trustee because he “confidently believed” that Martin would not sell the property “under any circumstances which would prevent its commanding a reasonable price.” He now charges William Turner with selling the property at a reduced price without “right or title to the said property” and without “authority to make a sale thereof or to convey the same.” The property sold was subject to a life estate of Charlotte Dunlap, “an old woman of feeble health and constitution.” Young fears that these sales “will form a cloud on his title calculated at some future day to embarrass him in the recovery of his rights to his property.” 0980 (Accession # 21484007). Williamson County, Tennessee. John Southall, administrator of the estates of Bishop and Elizabeth Oldham, seeks the court’s permission to sell ten slaves belonging to the estates. Noting that “he cannot state the precise interest” that each of the many claimants may have in the slave property, Southall affirms “that it would be manifestly and greatly to the interest and advantage of said Claimants that said slaves be sold.” 0990 (Accession # 21484008). Williamson County, Tennessee. Richard Beal, the administrator of the estate of Lewis T. S. Jennings, seeks permission to sell Eli, one of the eighteen slaves belonging to the estate. Beal complains that Eli is “of notoriously bad character that he has within the last two or three years as he is informed & believes broken & entered 12 or 15 houses & stolen property therefrom.” Eli “has been often found guilty of stealing and whipped therefor within the last 2 or 3 years and has as he is informed recd. several thousand lashes.” Beal informs the court that Eli is currently held in the Franklin jail “for breaking the house & stealing from a widow woman 5 or 6 miles below Franklin”; her neighbors now “threaten him with instant death on first sight.” Beal also alleges that Eli has often “threatened to burn houses.” He asserts that his only interest in this “matter” is “as trustee for the owners of the property and having a desire to preserve said slave or his value for said owners.” 0997 (Accession # 21484009). Williamson County, Tennessee. James H. Green, the executor of Sherwood Green’s estate, and five of Green’s sons ask the court to appoint commissioners to divide the slaves in Green’s estate among his heirs. They report that the testator “bequeathed to his widow Mary O. Green negro girl Nancy and four negroes of her own choosing and bequeathed the balance of his negroes to be valued and divided by drawing amongst” the petitioners. 1005 (Accession # 21484011). Williamson County, Tennessee. Moses E. Farmer, the executor of the estate of the late Frances Echols, seeks permission to sell slaves belonging to the estate. He reports that Echols died possessed of five slaves. Farmer further notes “that in sd will the said slaves with the remainder of the property which is very inconsiderable is given & bequeathed to four legatees.” He asserts that “from the age and value of said slaves your Orator ... is unable to distribute them under the will,” without a sale, which he deems “necessary and proper.” Farmer therefore “prays an order of court directing him as Executor aforesaid to sell said slaves & pay over the proceeds.” 1009 (Accession # 21484012). Smith County, Tennessee. Robert Adams sues the executor of his father’s estate and two relatives for possession of twenty-two slaves. Adams maintains that he bought four slave women—Nance [Nancy], Lucy, Hannah, and Jenny [Jinny]—from his father, Allen Adams, in 1806 or 1816, but he “unintentionally lost or mislaid” the bill of sale. In 1836 Allen Adams gave Robert another bill of sale for the women and their offspring. In his 140 Reel 12 Tennessee 1837 will, however, “under some influence or other,” Allen Adams bequeathed the slaves to various relatives. Allen Adams also sold Jenny and her children to his grandsons Bennet and Nathaniel Wright. Robert Adams charges that his bill of sale supersedes the will. He requests “an attachment in the nature of a ne exeat requiring the Sheriff of Smith County to take all said negroes into his possession” until the end of the suit. He demands that the Wrights prove their title to Jenny and her children. Finally, Adams asks the court to award the slaves to him and to allow “a reasonable hire for them” since the death of his father. 1018 (Accession # 21484013). Smith County, Tennessee. Ann Filts Sullivan, the widow of William Sullivan, asks the court to confirm her title to a large number of slaves, whom she claims through her father’s will under remainder by survivorship. When Ann’s father, Boling Filts, died in 1812, he left a life estate in a slave named Lucy and her children to his widow, Mary. Upon Mary’s death, however, the slaves were claimed by Samuel Caplinger “under a contract of purchase from William Sullivan.” Ann reminds the court that her late husband died before Mary Filts, and “consequently at his death the life estate was not terminated.” She asserts that Caplinger intends to “defraud her of her rights & deprive her of the bounty intended for her by her parents.” She asks the court to order Caplinger to disclose “the names of the negroes now in his hands,” which Ann estimates would “exceed fifty in number,” and the value “of each seperately & all collectively.” She also seeks a writ commanding the sheriff to “take the said negroes into his hands & keep them safely subject to the order” of the court. 1026 (Accession # 21484014). Smith County, Tennessee. James Rowland, on behalf of his six minor children and his two married daughters, Elizabeth Denton and Martha Roe, files suit against his late wife’s brothers, John and Joseph Payne, who are executors of their late father’s estate. The children’s maternal grandfather, William Payne, left their mother, Patsey Payne Rowland, a one-fourth interest in a tract of land, which was in his will directed to be sold and equally divided among his children after his widow’s death. The Paynes have not executed this clause of the will, although they previously “elected to receive under it the legacies designated for them, to wit,” four slaves. Rowland insists “that by the law they cannot receive any benefit under the will without complying with all its provisions.” They ask the court to order the Paynes to sell the land “to the highest bidder & that one fourth of the proceeds be paid over to them according to the said will.” 1034 (Accession # 21484015). Bradley County, Tennessee. Sanders W. Lea and Marcus North, residents of Georgia, seek “to recover the possession of” Daniel and Easter, two slaves currently in the possession of John Jester, the defendant. They allege that Jester “has no legal title whatever to said Negroes” and that “the undisputed legal title to said slaves is in your Orators.” They charge that Jester knew “these facts but in order to cheat and defraud your orators and to deprive them of their property removed and run said Slaves from the State of Georgia” to Tennessee. Fearing that Jester “will run said slaves beyond the limits of the State of Tennessee” in order to defeat their claim to said slaves, Lea and North request a writ of ne exeat be issued “so as to prevent said slaves Daniel and Easter from being removed.” 1040 (Accession # 21484016). Marshall County, Tennessee. Stephen W. Rainey seeks a writ of attachment against Thomas B. Favour, who detains two “free boys of colour,” who are bound to Rainey by indentures. Rainey explains that he hired out the two boys, five-year-old Governor Houston and three-year-old Genl. Brady [?], to Favour in 1838. He has recently learned that Favour “is about to remove to the State of Alabama” and refuses to give up “said boys or to give a bound for their forth coming at the age of twenty one when sd boys will be free.” Rainey fears that Favor “will trade or make way with said boys so that your Orator would be put to much trouble to get possession of said boys & comply with his obligation to the county court of 141 Reel 12 Tennessee Williamson County.” He asks the court to enjoin Favour from removing the boys beyond the jurisdiction of the court. 1049 (Accession # 21484017). Knox County, Tennessee. David Campbell, administrator of the estate of the late William K. Trigg, seeks permission to sell a seven-year-old slave named John Frank. Campbell reports that “he has paid up a considerable amount of debts due from said estate which has exhausted all the personal property of said estate.” In order “to satisfy other claims against said estate,” Campbell contends it “will be necessary for him to sell” the child. He asserts, however, that “he can make as advantageous a sale of said negro boy by private contract as at public auction.” Noting that “the heirs of said William K. Trigg are desirous that said boy should not be separated from his mother and family,” Campbell prays “an order of your Honorable Court authorizing him to sell said boy by private contract.” 1052 (Accession # 21484018). Montgomery County, Tennessee. Lucy Brantly asks the court to confirm her title to a slave named George, in whom she claims a “limited estate.” Brantly explains that, when she separated from her former husband, Samuel Smith, she received a group of slaves as a separate estate; at her death, the slaves were to be divided among her children with Smith. She “devised and distributed” these slaves to her children as the children “married off,” but she allowed her minor son, Sydney Smith, to have possession of a slave named George “to hire him out and dispose of the proceeds as to him might seem right & proper.” Recently, however, she has learned from “speeches Given out by one Thomas Cherry,” that Sydney sold George to Cherry, even though, as a minor, he is “not capable of contracting unless for Necessaries.” Cherry’s creditor, Benjamin King, “caused his execution to issue against” Cherry’s property, and the sheriff seized George. Sydney then successfully obtained an injunction to prevent the sale and hired out George to Dr. Benjamin Harrison for the present year. Brantly asks the court to perpetually enjoin Cherry, King, and her son from “disposing of the boy in any way so as to increase the chances of defeating” her claim. 1077 (Accession # 21484019). Dickson County, Tennessee. Writy Hassell seeks a maintenance out of the estate of her late husband, Zebulon Hassell, and asks that an account of his property “be taken.” She claims that in 1833 Zebulon conveyed “a large amount” of his property, including eight slaves, to his children from a previous marriage “without making any provision for your oratrix” after his death. She argues that the “said Zebulon was at the time of making said Deed old and infirm and that he was persuaded by his children to make said deed to the exclusion and prejudice of your Oratrix.” She characterizes the deed as a “fraud upon” her rights and names Zebulon’s six children as defendants to the bill. Two of the defendants allege in their answer that Writy and Zebulon executed a contract before their marriage whereby they agreed that the property each brought to the marriage “was to belong at their death to their respective children & grandchildren by their former marriage and that the same was not to pass out of the respective families to which it belonged.” Reel 13 Tennessee cont. 1841 0002 (Accession # 21484101). Sumner County, Tennessee. Josiah Baldridge asks the court to enjoin Elizabeth Kirkham from collecting a judgment against him until she transfers to him the titles to two female slaves from her son-in-law, who claims the slaves through his late wife, 142 Reel 13 Tennessee Dorinda Parker. Baldridge exchanged his slave Cloe plus $400 for Kirkham’s two slaves, Reny and her daughter Mary, in the spring of 1836. Kirkham “promised your Orator, that she would get the said Perkins to assign to your Orator whatever interest or claim he had in the negroes.” Not only did Kirkham fail to do this, she threatened to sue him “as the Guardian & in the name of her children alleging that the title of said negroes is in them, [and] that she has no title.” Later she did file suit against Baldridge “upon his warranty” for Cloe. She received a judgment for $400, “which was 50$ more than the estimated value of the negro in the trade.” The debt is now in the sheriff’s hands for collection, and Baldridge submits that he “ought not to be compelled to pay said judgment until he shall be quieted and made safe in his title to said slaves.” 0008 (Accession # 21484103). Sumner County, Tennessee. Fountain L. McDaniel and Alexander Williams sue with their wives, two daughters of the late John Belote, to compel Martha and Henry A. Belote to account for their handling of inherited property. The petitioners have filed their suit as a cross bill to an earlier suit filed by Elizabeth C. Goodall, another daughter of John Belote, and her husband, John D. Goodall. The case concerns the estates of John Belote, father of the women, who died in 1826, and their grandfather, Henry Belote, who died six months later. Both estates contained slave property. John Belote’s will allowed his widow, Martha, to keep his slaves “for the purpose of schooling clothing boarding and raising her children” until the youngest turned twenty-one years old. Martha Belote and her son, Henry A. Belote, became guardians to the younger children and operated the plantation for more than a decade. The petitioners allege that Martha and Henry Belote took advantage of the situation, using property for their personal benefit and failing to account properly for expenses and income. In 1837, the plaintiffs bought the Goodalls’ share of the estates; later, they sold their own shares of John Belote’s estate. Martha Belote agreed to abide by the terms of these sales and surrender the slaves involved, including a skilled slave named Sober, when the youngest child came of age in 1839; however, she has since refused to relinquish the slaves. The petitioners ask the court to compel Martha and Henry A. Belote to correct their guardianship accounts, to deliver the daughters’ inheritances, and to surrender the slaves to their rightful owners. 0034 (Accession # 21484104). Davidson County, Tennessee. William Gilliam, “a wholesale dealer in China, Glass & Queensware,” asks the court to order Mary Bransford to reimburse him for “articles stolen by” Mary’s slave, Jordan, while he was hired by Gilliam. He maintains that when he hired Jordan in March 1829 through Mary’s son and agent, L. M. Bransford, he specified that “it was of the utmost importance to him to have a perfectly honest servant.” Jordan, however, “was detected in stealing from the store, for which offence Your Orator had him put in Jail.” Gilliam claims that Jordan stole “upwards of” twenty china sets and that “he had accomplices selling for him all the time he was with Your Orator.” The petitioner accuses Bransford of concealing Jordan’s reputation as “a noted thief,” who stole from a previous employer and who “had been turned out of the church for his conduct.” Bransford has won a judgment to recover Jordan’s hire, which Gilliam refuses to pay as “his losses are of greater amount than the hire of the negro.” He asks that the defendant be enjoined from collecting the judgment and that she pay him “the value of the goods stolen by her aforesaid dishonest slave.” 0043 (Accession # 21484105). Williamson County, Tennessee. William L. Webb, through his guardian Brice M. Hughes, requests that the slaves belonging to the estate of his late father, William Webb, be divided between him and his mother. Webb reports that his father “died the owner” of thirteen slaves and he, as the only child, is entitled to a two-thirds share of the estate. Noting that the estate administrator, John Hughes, “is willing to deliver sd slaves to sd distributees,” Webb prays “that sd Slaves be divided & that two thirds of the value thereof be set apart & allotted to Your orator.” 143 Reel 13 Tennessee 0047 (Accession # 21484107). Bedford County, Tennessee. Lemuel Bowers seeks an account of the administration of his late father’s estate from his brothers, Benjamin F. and William Bowers, who are the executors of their father’s will. John Bowers’s will directed that his executors sell four slaves in the estate and divide the proceeds of the sale “equally amongst his children of whom there were eleven.” Lemuel complains that his brothers have sold the slaves, but that he does not know “for what sums they sold or what disposition if any said executors have made of the proceedes.” He claims that he “has repeatedly Called upon said Executors for a Settlement but they have always refused to make Settlement with him.” He asks the court to intervene and to order them “to pay your Orator such sum of money as he may be entitled to as a Legatee or distributee of said John Bowers deceased.” 0057 (Accession # 21484108). Lincoln County, Tennessee. Cullen E. Sugg joins his wards, Mary, Elvya, John, Ellinor, and Phebe Reece, in asking the court’s permission to sell a slave named Allen. The children’s father, Solomon Reece, bequeathed the slave to “the seven children of [his] first wife.” The eldest son, William W. Reece, has recently turned twenty-one years of age and a sister, Elizabeth, is dead. Before her death, however, Elizabeth sold her interest in Allen for $1,000 to Drury Perkins. The petitioners ask the court to determine the validity of Perkins’s claim to the slave and to decree that the slave be sold so that Sugg can “divide and distribute” the shares to each sibling. 0061 (Accession # 21484109). Maury County, Tennessee. Samuel Lusk Jr. and James Lusk Jr., as guardians of the minor children of Elias Lusk, seek permission to sell a thirty-six-year-old slave named Caesar. The “principal part” of the property left to the children by their father consists of slaves. Caesar, they claim, is a slave of such “general bad character” that they cannot manage him. They report that he has “lately been guilty of divers thefts & misdemeanors in the neighbourhood where he is hired for the present year which have so exasperated & enraged the citizens of the neighborhood, that your petitioners have been compelled to take the said boy home and Keep him in close confinement.” Believing that they cannot “feel safe in permitting him to go at large,” the Lusks ask that the slave be sold and that his purchaser be required to take Caesar “out of the country.” 0073 (Accession # 21484110). Maury County, Tennessee. James Kannon, guardian of the minor heirs of James Leetch, asks the court to compel the children’s former guardian, Robert Hill, to account with them for the money in his hands “from the rent of Lands, Town lots hire of slaves and otherwise” belonging to them. The Leetch children charge Hill with “negligence and fraud” and blame him for their “want of information” regarding their property. Having successfully petitioned at a prior term of court to have him removed as their guardian, the petitioners now seek a final accounting of his activities. 0085 (Accession # 21484111). Dickson County, Tennessee. John Kingins seeks an injunction to stop the sale of three slaves, who have been levied on in order to satisfy a judgment in favor of Garrett Knewkirk against William C. Jones. The petitioner maintains that the slaves are subject to a deed of trust “for the benefit of certain creditors of William Jones.” He notes that the “valuable servants” were left in Jones’s possession, but were “subject to this complainants controll.” Kingins asserts that “great Injury will result to the creditors for whose benefit the property was conveyed” if the court does not intervene. He reasons that he can “perhaps pay and satisfy the said debts” if he is permitted to sell the slaves himself “with the other property included in said deed.” Knewkirk, a citizen of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has obtained a judgment against the firm of Jones Manning & Co. 0089 (Accession # 21484112). Lincoln County, Tennessee. Boone Wilson, administrator of the estate of the late William H. Childress, seeks permission to sell certain estate slaves in order to 144 Reel 13 Tennessee pay the estate’s debts. Wilson recommends that “Tom, Horace, his wife Silvia & young child, Jim, Allen, & Washington” be sold, as “they will not increase much in value, the rest being younger and of course becoming more valuable.” 0093 (Accession # 21484113). Washington County, Tennessee. J. H. Rodes and J. P. Thompson ask the court to declare the purchase of three slaves by James King and Samuel Goodson “a nullity.” The petitioners charge that the sale and purchase of the slaves “was in pursuance of a concerted arrangement between ... [John and James O’Brien] ... & King & Goodson” and that such arrangement was “illegal ... and a fraud on their rights.” Rodes originally sold the slaves to the O’Briens in October 1838, but “was induced to retain” their title until the O’Briens, who were “much embarrassed in their circumstances,” paid the full amount of the purchase money, which amounted to close to $2,200. The following year, the sheriff levied an execution on the slaves and sold them at public sale to King and Goodson. Rodes and Thompson allege that the purchasers had the “notorious” knowledge that “said O Briens had no legal title” to the slaves. Thompson, who has obtained a judgment against the O’Briens, also claims “a right in equity to have the equitable title of said OBriens to said negroes, if any they have, made subject to the satisfaction of said judgments.” The petitioners ask the court to require the defendants to have the “negroes forthcoming” so that they may be sold and the proceeds applied to the satisfaction of the judgments. 0104 (Accession # 21484114). Lincoln County, Tennessee. William H. Moores mortgaged a slave named Isaac to Joseph Hinkle on 7 October 1840 to secure a debt of $500. Hinkle has not repaid the debt, and Moores now asks the court to compel Hinkle to pay the $500 plus interest, or to order that Isaac be sold in satisfaction of the debt. 0110 (Accession # 21484115). Knox County, Tennessee. John and James McMillan, the administrators of the estate of their late brother, Andrew McMillan, seek permission to sell a family of slaves in the estate in order to discharge the estate’s debts. The petitioners request that they be allowed to sell Annis and her two young children at a private sale “in the event an advantageous offer were made.” 0117 (Accession # 21484116). Marshall County, Tennessee. William B. Holden asks the court to compel Aaron W. Graves to issue him a bill of sale for a slave named Grant, whom Holden purchased from Graves for $300 in June 1840. Holden concedes that it was not “convenient” to execute the bill of sale at the time of purchase, but complains that since then, he has “two or three times called on said Graves for said bill of sale,” and Graves has “uniformly put off executing the same under various plausible excuses.” Graves, who “ultimately left Marshall county,” has sued Holden “upon” the two outstanding notes, and there are now executions against him “in the hands” of the sheriff for collection. Holden also seeks an injunction to prevent collection of the judgments until Graves issues the title or the court rescinds his contract with Graves and orders Graves to refund his first payment of $100. 0122 (Accession # 21484117). Marshall County, Tennessee. Charles Hardison asks the court to invalidate the bill of sale for a slave named Emily, whom he purchased for $500 in November 1839 from John Bills through Bills’s agent, John Appleby. The petitioner declares that Bills and Appleby “fraudulently represented” Emily as “sound,” and have combined to “cheat & defraud” him. Hardison declares that Emily “was & is nearsighted—deficient in eye sight so much so that she cannot work in the field or within the house to any sort of profit.” He contends that “she is so deficient in the eyes as to be of no value as a house Servant or field hand & is entirely useless to your Orator or the Sd Thomas Hardison.” The petitioner’s brother, Thomas, for whom he contracted the sale, refuses to take Emily because of her unsoundness. Moreover, Bills and Appleby also refuse to take her back. The petitioner now laments that “in a trade in which he 145 Reel 13 Tennessee had no interest[,] he will have to pay” a judgment Bills has won for the balance of the slave’s purchase price. Hardison also asks the court to “perpetually enjoin” the judgment. 0133 (Accession # 21484118). Montgomery County, Tennessee. Samuel R. Moody, administrator of the estate of the late Marcellus Jordan, asks the court to order Henry Fry and Sarah Shaw to “deliver up” sixteen slaves, whom he claims belong to Jordan’s estate. Moody asserts that, before his death, Jordan “pretended” to sell the slaves to Fry “for the purpose of avoiding the payment of some debts for which he was bound as security.” Fry executed his notes to Jordan “in his lifetime for about the sum of Six Thousand Dollars,” and the slaves were carried to Sarah Shaw’s farm shortly thereafter, where they remained “untill a few days since when they were secreted or hid by Fry” to avoid the levy of an execution. Moody accuses Fry of being “willing to embarass the creditors” and of taking advantage of Jordan while he was “lying on his sick bed.” Moody asks the court to enjoin Fry and Shaw from “disposing” of the slaves while the suit is pending and asks that Fry be held “responsible for the full value of all the negroes.” 0146 (Accession # 21484119). Smith County, Tennessee. James Goodner, a tanner “engaged in the Mercantile business,” asks the court to order his brother-in-law, Benjamin F. Brownin, to come to a final settlement with him regarding “various dealings and tradings between them.” Goodner tendered three notes to Brownin in an 1830 purchase of three slaves, but allowed two of the slaves to remain in Brownin’s possession. Goodner later sold one of the slaves to a third party and agreed that Brownin “was to keep the negro woman Sarah, and the increase which she had.” Over the next eight years, Goodner extensively traded with Brownin, an innkeeper and grocer. The pair agreed that Brownin would keep Sarah and her four children in exchange for a refund of the notes Goodner gave him in the original purchase and that whoever “should be indebted to the other upon settlement final, was to pay the same, whatever such indebtedness might be.” Goodner now complains that Brownin has only refunded one note and estimates that Brownin owes him “something like eleven or twelve hundred dollars.” He also asks the court to enjoin Brownin from “disposing” of the notes “until a final hearing of the cause.” 0154 (Accession # 21484120). Sumner County, Tennessee. Richard Franklin, administrator of the estate of the late William Franklin, seeks permission to sell a slave named Mary for the “purpose of enabling him to make a division” of Franklin’s estate between his two heirs. He deems it “impracticable” to make an equal division between Franklin’s widow, Nancy, and his son, Gallant, without a sale. 0161 (Accession # 21484121). Robertson County, Tennessee. William Pope petitions on behalf of his granddaughters for a perpetual injunction to be issued against Nashville merchants S & T Aiken & Co. He explains that he conveyed two slaves to the girls on 17 June 1841 “by Deed of gift,” which stipulated that “the said negroes [were] not to be subject to the payment of the debts of William W Pope,” his son and the father of the minor petitioners. Pope points out “that one of Said negroes Ben has been levied upon by the Sheriff of Robertson County as the property of said William W. Pope.” The petitioners pray that the court restrain the sheriff “from selling said negro Ben” and that “your Honor Order and Decree that your petitioners be ever quieted in the right to said negro Ben & Charles.” 1842 0169 (Accession # 21484201). Maury County, Tennessee. Robert Campbell Jr. seeks the return of four slaves, whom he purchased from Henry S. P. Chappel on 27 August 1841. Campbell explains that he and Chappel mutually agreed to allow the slaves to remain in Chappel’s custody “until the expiration of six months thereafter.” Campbell was “absent from the state of 146 Reel 13 Tennessee Tennessee” at the end of the six months, but, on his return, he “demanded the Said negroes from the sd Chappel who refused to deliver the sd Negroes to your Orator & he cannot therefore obtain the possession of the same.” The petitioner fears that Chappel intends “running the negroes beyond the jurisdiction of this Court so as to deprive your Orator of the same.” He asks the court to attach the slaves, whom he claims have depreciated in value since the sale, and to appoint a receiver to take custody of them until the final decree of the court, which he hopes will require Chappel to deliver the property to him, and to reimburse him for the slaves’ hire during the time they have been detained. 0177 (Accession # 21484202). Montgomery County, Tennessee. Dr. Jesse Harrison “prays your Honour to appoint some Responsible person a receiver requiring that he Enter into bond and good security for the forth coming of Said Boy George,” a slave who is currently jailed as a runaway. George’s title is currently in dispute in a case pending in the chancery court filed by Lucy Brantly against her son, Sydney Smith, and Thomas Cherry and Benjamin King. Brantly and Smith were indebted to Harrison for “medical services and other considerations.” The pair placed George in Harrison’s possession “with the express understanding that the labour and services of said Boy George were to discharge said indebtedness at a stipulated annual hire.” George later became “refractory and evinced a disposition to Run Away.” Harrison also asks that he “be relieved from any further liability for said Boy George.” 0181 (Accession # 21484203). Giles County, Tennessee. Orville and Eleanor McKissack seek possession of certain slaves. Eleanor McKissack is the daughter of William M. McKissack and Rebecca Sallard McKissack. When Eleanor was a baby, her maternal grandfather, Charles Sallard, gave William three slaves, Murphy, Anna, and Patsy [Patty], upon “the condition and with the understanding that said Negroes together with their increase should belong to your Oratrix the said Eleanor W. upon her coming of age or marriage.” When Eleanor married Orville McKissack in 1833, her father refused to give them the slaves, “but now holds the same claiming as his own.” They charge that William McKissack “always and up to the time of the marriage ... admitted that the title to said Negroes was not in him but that he held them under said agreement with said Sallard.” On 23 September 1841, Sallard conveyed the slaves to the complainants in a deed of gift, so they contend that they “have now a complete title.” The plaintiffs request the slaves and compensation for their hire while in William McKissack’s possession. 0199 (Accession # 21484204). Washington County, Tennessee. Allen Goodwin, the administrator of the estate of the late Vaught Heaton, asks the court to compel Calvin Moore, Nancy Moreley, and Samuel E. McQueen to surrender certain slaves, whom he claims belong to the children of Vaught and Nancy Heaton. The slaves in question belonged to Nancy’s father, Edward Smith, who gave them to his wife, Catharine, in 1808, who in turn gave them to Nancy during her marriage to Heaton. When Nancy’s second husband, James Moreley, died around 1840, his administrator, Calvin J. Moore, claimed the slaves and their descendants as property in Moreley’s estate, ignoring the Heaton children’s reversionary interest in the slaves. Nancy Moreley then moved with Samuel E. McQueen “somewhere westward,” taking with her the four younger slaves in the family, all of whom are “young likely and sound and healthy.” Moore holds another member of the slave family, John. Goodwin seeks John’s return, as well as compensation for his hire, and, in the event that the four slaves removed by Moreley and McQueen cannot be found, he seeks “the price of said negroes together with the interest arising upon the same.” 0209 (Accession # 21484205). Williamson County, Tennessee. Joseph M. Irwin asks the court to perpetually enjoin John J. Burnett from collecting a judgment against him pursuant to the purchase of a slave named Peter. Irwin explains that Burnett, the guardian of Edward Pickett, 147 Reel 13 Tennessee sold him the slave on 29 September 1840, with the knowledge that Peter was not in the state of Tennessee. Burnett did inform him that Felix Robertson, “Captain of a Steam Boat in the Nashville trade,” had previously purchased Peter when he was “exposed to sale on the Public Square in Nashville,” but that the contract had been “rescinded.” Robertson took possession of Peter, but his security “was not satisfactory and had been returned.” Irwin expected that “Mr. Robertson would re-deliver the Negro Man on demand.” As soon as the “boating season commenced,” Irwin saw Robertson in New Orleans and demanded the slave. Robertson asserted “that he had already sent the Boy to Texas and would not give him up.” Burnett instituted suit for nonpayment on Irwin’s bond, and an execution is “about to be enforced against Your Orator’s property.” Having not “even seen the Negro since the day of his purchase,” Irwin seeks relief. 0215 (Accession # 21484206). Maury County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late William Y. Frierson state that Frierson died “seised & possessed of” nine slaves. They contend that there are “assets & effects sufficient to satisfy the legal claims & demands against sd estate exclusive of the above mentioned negroes.” They further “believe it would be greatly to the interest of the distributees that a sale of sd. negroes should be made inasmuch as it would be wholly impracticable to make a division of the same on account of their family connexions & the difference of age & value.” The petitioners therefore request “that an order be granted for the sale of the negroes” and that the administrator of the estate be made a defendant and “required to answer all the parts & charges herein contained.” The attached commissioners’ report reveals that the nine slaves were divided among the heirs on 28 March 1842. 0223 (Accession # 21484207). Maury County, Tennessee. Joseph Fagg asks that “proceedings may be had before your Honour” to determine if “a writ of lunacy may be instituted” for his eighty-seven-year-old father. Fagg reports that his father, Joel Fagg, “has become very feeble and infirm, and from old age and imbecility of mind and body has become incapable of taking care of himself and his property.” Joseph fears that his father “is liable to be mislead ... & controlled by others as a child.” The petitioner states that his father owns seven slaves, various livestock, and three hundred acres of land. In order “to secure the estate and provide for the comfort of his said father,” Joseph Fagg requests that a guardian be appointed. 0229 (Accession # 21484208). Maury County, Tennessee. Martha W. Farrar asks the court to grant her a “final separation” with alimony from her husband, William B. Farrar, who is “addicted to intemperance.” She represents that his “cruel and inhuman” conduct towards her makes it “unsafe and improper for her to cohabit with him and be under his dominion and control.” He recently “advertised her as having deserted his bed and board and cautioned the public against giving her any credit,” leaving her with no ability to support her family. She seeks a sufficiency of his property to maintain the family and writs of attachment and injunction issued against his property, which includes five slaves, whom she fears he will remove to Texas. A month later, Farrar amended her bill in response to a constable levying upon her husband’s slaves, who were in the custody of the clerk and master per the court’s earlier decree. She asserts that William initiated the levies in order “to defeat the order for her maintenance and ultimately to defeat her and her children of alimony.” 0255 (Accession # 21484210). Marshall County, Tennessee. Mary Allen seeks the recovery of three slaves from James H. Huggins and Brevard Huggins. Allen states that “she lost possession of said negroes” when “an execution issued” and her property “was levied upon and sold under said execution and purchased by James H. Huggins for himself or as agent of Brevard Huggins.” Even though she believed the judgment to be “void,” Allen arranged with James that he “should bid off the negroes and allow your Oratrix [to] redeem them on or before March last.” She reports that James did buy “the said negro woman & boy” for $248, but that he 148 Reel 13 Tennessee and Brevard now “utterly refuse to permit your Oratrix or any one on her behalf to redeem the same.” Allen asks “that your Honor will declare said sale to be void, and decree that defts deliver over said negroes who are of peculiar value to complainant to your Oratrix.” 0260 (Accession # 21484211). Bradley County, Tennessee. Jacob Jester asks the court to enjoin Sanders W. Lea, Robert N. Gillispie, and William S. Russell from enforcing judgments won against him while acting as the security on a note for his brother, John Jester. He also asks the court to order the sale of John’s two slaves, Daniel and Easter, to “satisfy said judgments and costs.” The petitioner became his brother’s security in 1840 on a debt of $340 that John owed to Lea. A year later the sheriff seized Daniel and Easter and offered them for sale. Jester alleges that his brother entered into a “fraudulent arrangement” at the sale with Gillispie, who purchased the slaves for John’s benefit at the “paltry sum” of $100 and now holds them “under a secret trust.” John Jester then “removed to parts unknown,” and Lea sold the judgments to Russell, the constable’s surety, in order to “relieve said constable and to subject the property of your orator to the satisfaction of said judgments.” Jester charges that his brother’s slave property was “of value sufficient to pay and discharge said judgment” and that the constable “fraudulently permitted said John to dispose of” it. 0273 (Accession # 21484212). Bradley County, Tennessee. Anderson Nowlin, the next friend of his sister Artimincy, requests that Benjamin R. Inman be enjoined from selling the slave woman Milly and her children. Nowlin recounts that his mother, Winney Nowlin, “unfortunately ... gave birth to a Daughter by the name of Artimincy Nowlin and who by birth was an Idiot or Natural fool.” He states that his father, James Nowlin, “believed it to be his duty to give and settle said negro girl and her increase upon the said Artimincy.” Nowlin cites that “said conveyance was only made for the purpose of enabling said unfortunate Daughter to procure a support and help from said negro and increase and without the help of said negro woman to attend and wait on said Idiot,” Artimincy would surely have suffered. The petitioner reports that after said conveyance, his father became indebted to Inman and the “said claim matured into a judgment” against his father whereby Milly was levied and seized by the constable, who “will expose said negro girl to sale.” Nowlin asks that Inman be directed to answer the charges and that “said property be decreed to said Artimincy for her sole benefit” with a trustee appointed to manage them for her. 0279 (Accession # 21484213). Smith County, Tennessee. Dianah Reeves asks “that a perpetual injunction enjoining and restraining the said defendants” be issued against Martin Sloane and his business partners. Reeves asserts that “a judgment rendered against Frances Pugh” in favor of the defendants has resulted in an execution being “issued on your oratrix’s negro man Osker.” She “most positively alledgs that she does not owe said Judgment nor is she liable either directly or indirectly” for its payment. Fearing that unless “prevented by the timely interposition of your Honorable Court said negro Osker will be sacrificed to pay sd unjust Demand so illegally levied upon your oratrixs property,” Reeves asks that “said negro Osker or any other property which does or may belong” to her be protected from sale for the satisfaction of debt. 0284 (Accession # 21484214). Smith County, Tennessee. Dianah Reeves asks “that a perpetual injunction be granted enjoining and restraining the Defendants Baily and Bowman” from selling her slave named Oscar. Reeves asserts that “a Judgment rendered against Frances Pugh,” her son, has resulted in an execution being levied “upon a negro man Oscar which belongs to your Orator and not to Frances Pugh and unless said officer [Bowman] is prevented by the timely interposition of your honorable Courts your Oratrix said negra man will be sacrificed to pay said Debt.” She argues that “the said Frances Pugh is of Lawful age and that your Oratrix is not bound for said Debt in any way whatever.” Reeves further charges “that 149 Reel 13 Tennessee the Said Defendants Bailey and Bowman have combined to cheat and defraud your Oratrix out of what little she has as they cannot come at what your oratrix has by fair means they wish to do so by foul means.” Reeves asks that her slave Oscar and “any other property which belong to your Oratrix” be protected from sale for the satisfaction of a debt. 0290 (Accession # 21484215). Smith County, Tennessee. Mary A. Harper seeks a divorce from her husband, Alfred Harper, and asks for “a reasonable suport out his estate.” Mary claims that her husband began verbally and physically abusing her “about six weeks after said Marriage.” In one violent episode, he seized her “by the hair of her head” and dragged her “over the house.” He also began inviting “negroes to visit him at his own house” and, on a night in August 1842, he made an “arrangement to give a Super to the Negroes at 25 Cents a head & the use of his kitchen to dance in during the night & he remained with the Negroes dancing with them Most of the Night.” Mary also accuses Alfred of committing “acts & deeds inconsistant with the matrimonial vow by conducting adultery with his sd. negroe woman Lacy.” Informing the court that Alfred owns 119 acres of land, two slaves, and “stock of various kinds,” she seeks an injunction, barring him from disposing of his estate until a final decree of the court. Alfred denies associating with “negroes ... on equal terms” in his answer. In a related petition, Mary Harper, recently divorced by court decree at August Term 1843, seeks custody of her infant child, who was born “whilst said Bill was pending in said court.” She cites that her divorce from Alfred Harper was granted, but “no order was made in said decree as to who should have the custody of said child.” She asks for custody “of her said child free from the contact or disturbance of said Alfred.” 0307 (Accession # 21484216). Sumner County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late William Clampitt request that his children and his estate “be left in the hands of” his widow Martha. They state that William died possessed of a one hundred-acre tract of land, assorted livestock, and three slaves. They allege that it was his desire “that his children should be kept together with their mother and there should be no partition of the property during her widowhood there not being more property belonging to said estate than would support raise and educate said children.” The petitioners state that if Martha takes her dower “it would take such a portion of the land, as would render the balance of little value to the children.” They also contend that “a division of the personalty” would not be “manifestly for the interest of all the parties concerned.” In particular, Martha is “desirous to keep her children together as she feels the fostering care and attention of a mother, to be necessary in rearing said children.” They pray “that the above mentioned land and slaves and other personal property” be ordered to remain intact, with the understanding that Martha will “support, and educate said minor children” and the estate’s administrator will not “make sale of the same or any part thereof.” 0313 (Accession # 21484218). Giles County, Tennessee. Martha Fogg joins her adult children in asking that commissioners be appointed to divide and distribute the slaves in the estate of John Fogg, Martha’s late husband and the children’s father. They also report that a slave named Silas, who “has been considered the property of the said Arthur D. though there has never been any division of said negroes among your petitioners,” has been sold for $356 to Rufus G. P. White. The petitioners request “that all the right title & interest which your petitioners & the said defendants have in to said negro boy Silas, be divested out of them & vested in said White.” Martha names her minor children—George, Everly, Malenia, and Agness—defendants to the bill and avers that her husband’s slaves “are of value sufficient to indemnify said minors & will afford them a much larger share than was allotted to your petitioners.” 0321 (Accession # 21484220). Williamson County, Tennessee. Clem McClary Sr., a free man of color, joins his forty-six-year-old wife Rachel and their six children, thirteen-year-old Peter, eleven-year-old Mary Ann, nine-year-old Susan, seven-year-old Eleanor, five-year-old Clem Jr., 150 Reel 13 Tennessee and three-year-old Elizabeth, in a petition for their emancipation “by proper & legal bonds being executed without incurring the penalties of the act of 1831 Ch. 102 and that they be allowed to remain within this state.” The petitioner, “with a view in good faith to emancipate his said wife Rachel & his two only children then born of her,” contracted to purchase them from Martin Clark in early December 1831 “before the passage of” said law. He further states that since 16 December 1831 “the said Rachel has ever since lived with him as his wife and as a free woman and has since that time borne to him your petitioners Susan Eleanor Clem & Elizabeth and that no other person has since that time exercised any ownership over said Rachel or her children but that they have lived with said Clem McClaury sen. as his wife & children as orderly industrious free persons of color.” The petitioners pray that their emancipation be forthcoming and “that they be allowed to remain within this state.” 0332 (Accession # 21484222). Montgomery County, Tennessee. The “President directors &c of the union Bank of the State of Tennessee” ask the court to issue an attachment against certain property, including four slaves, belonging to Henry and Andrew Newman. In the meantime, the bank asks the court to appoint a receiver “to take the same into possession and hire it out until the decision of said suit.” The bank claims that Andrew Newman “has actually succeeded in removing of his negroes to the State of Alabama” and that “the number of them was considerable more than enough to pay” his debt. They allege that the property “passed through Nashville, on its way to Alabama under the charge of two persons who had been employed by said Henry Newman to run said property off,” but that an agent of the bank and another creditor gave “Hot pursuit” and were able to overtake the property and bring it “within the Jurisdiction of this Court.” 0343 (Accession # 21484223). Sumner County, Tennessee. Sarah Ray asks to be “protected and quieted in her rights” to a slave named Celia and Celia’s eight children. She asserts that her mother, Lydia Ray, gave Celia to her “about the year 1804” as “part of her interest in” the estate of her late father, Joseph Ray. She complains that her nephew, George Ray, has taken advantage “of the weak and fickle mind of an infirm mother of ninety years of age” and convinced Lydia, through the help of his “agent in the immediate neighborhood,” Charles Coker, to convey the slaves to him. The sixty-three-year-old petitioner asserts that she has “devoted her whole life to the care and attention of her Mother, that she has worked day and night for her frequently till 11 or 12 o’Clock that she for many years, say at least for 25 years, weaved and worked for corn meat, Sugar goods and every thing necessary for her and the family’s Support that she was the means of Keeping the family and property together, that she for 30 years has worked harder than any slave on the place, and in all probability harder than any in the County of Smith.” She asks the court to enjoin her nephew and Coker from “disturbing or molesting her in the enjoyment” of the slaves. In the meantime, the petitioner asks that Cyrus W. Brevard be appointed as receiver of the slaves, who should then be hired out. 0356 (Accession # 21484224). Bradley County, Tennessee. The Planters Bank of Tennessee asks for an attachment “to be levied on” certain “negro slaves” belonging to James H. Fyffe and Hugh Smith “to be disposed of” to satisfy a judgment won by the bank for payment of Solomon Bogart’s $3,350 debt. The bank seeks to hold Bogart’s property, as well as the property of the three men who served as his security, subject to the judgment. The bank accuses the defendants of conveying eight slaves to other men in order “to delay, hinder embarrass and defeat the collection of the aforesaid debt to your orator.” The bank alleges that the “confederates” intend to remove the slaves “beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Tennessee.” 0367 (Accession # 21484225). Sumner County, Tennessee. Joseph and Martha Robb ask that James White, the administrator of the estate of Martha’s late father, Samuel Calhoun, be ordered to deliver to them two slaves that Martha’s maternal grandfather, Richard King, gave 151 Reel 13 Tennessee her before his death. They also ask that Calhoun’s personal estate, which includes nine slaves, be divided between them and Martha’s stepmother, Martha H. Hallam, and her husband, William, “according to their respective rights.” The slaves in question, Sloan and Sally, are “family negroes” with whom Martha Robb was raised “from her earliest infancy” and to whom she “has become very much attached.” The Robbs assert that the two slaves were devised to Martha in Calhoun’s will in order to “carry out the intentions of the said Richard King,” and are not subject to Martha Hallam’s right of dower as Samuel Calhoun’s widow. They testify that “a recovery of their value would be altogether an inadequate remedy” and therefore request “a specific delivery of the slaves themselves.” They also ask to be compensated for the slaves’ hire while they have been in the hands of said administrator. 0385 (Accession # 21484226). Bedford County, Tennessee. Peter Lee, the administrator of Hugh Snelling, seeks to make his final account of the estate. Lee represents that his intestate died in April 1841 and that the heirs agreed to appoint commissioners to divide the estate. The commissioners “required each of said distributees to furnish a statement of the money and other property advanced ... by said Hugh Snelling”; they then divided the twenty-eight slaves into groups and allotted them to the heirs. Since the lots were of unequal value, the heirs should have paid money to each other to make the shares equal, but some of them were “dissatisfied with said division and refused to comply.” Lee initially refused to hand over the slaves until the heirs complied, but he later decided to let them have their slaves and balance the shares when he made his final settlement. Lee is ready now to settle said estate. He avers that he “has repeatedly requested said distributees to ... pay or secure the amount to be paid by them respectively,” but several heirs refuse to do so. Lee asks that the court compel the heirs to equalize the shares or that it decree “a distribution de non.” 0399 (Accession # 21484227). Maury County, Tennessee. The “Branch of the Bank of the State of Alabama at Montgomery” asks the court to attach “a large number of slaves” belonging to Rene Fitzpatrick and Stephen Horton to be held subject to the payment of their $5,451 debt to the bank. The two own a total of forty-six slaves between them, and forty-two are currently in the possession of Arnold Zelner, the jailer of Maury County. 0405 (Accession # 21484228). Maury County, Tennessee. James H. Shorter, a citizen of Georgia, asks the court to issue an attachment “to be levied on” the property of Rene Fitzpatrick, who owes him several “sums by judgment.” Shorter asserts that Fitzpatrick, a citizen of Alabama, has “absconded therefrom with about 40 negroes, horses mules & waggon &c all which property is now in Maury County Tennessee and will be run off immediately if not stopped.” 0412 (Accession # 21484230). Giles County, Tennessee. In this “amended bill of complaint,” Andrew M. Ballentine, Samuel Kercheval, Richard G. Scoggin, and Robert Toland ask the court to hold eleven slaves “subject to complainants debt.” They claim that two bills of sale for the slaves from Edward D. Jones to Edward H. Jones and Edward D. Jones to Homer R. Jones “have never been duly proved or registered.” The petition initiating their suit is not in the collection. 0420 (Accession # 21484231). Cannon County, Tennessee. John Martin, the administrator of the estate of the late Richard Butcher, asks the court to enjoin Joseph Ramsey, James H. Stone, and Goolsbury Means “from selling or interfearing with said Negro boy Daniel,” a sixteenyear-old slave in Butcher’s estate described as a “likely valuable boy ... borne his property, and is a family slave, which the family is unwilling to part with.” Martin reports that the three men “came to the house of your orator in Cannon County on the fifth of September 1842 and pretended to have Executions in their hands against one Henry Kinsey [and] forcibly took the 152 Reel 13 Tennessee said Negro out of his possession.” He asserts that he “knows of no right” that the defendants had to take Daniel. Butcher’s estate is indebted, and Martin testifies that the estate’s creditors “are entitled to said boy first to have their debts satisfyed.” The county court ruled in favor of the defendants, but the supreme court reversed the decision on 30 January 1845. 0433 (Accession # 21484232). Shelby County, Tennessee. James Bates submits that on 19 November 1842 “two judgments were rendered against him” by defendants Walton and Steen. He points out that “in may last he hired three negroes of said Martin Walton at twenty five dollars per month and retained them about two months.” The petitioner contends that “it is for the hire of said negroes with a few other items of account that said judgments were rendered against him.” Bates states he contracted with Walton “to receive in payment of said claims a certain waggon at the price of sixty dollars.” He claims “that said Steens was not known to your petitioner at all in said transaction,” and he believes Steen was added when “said debt was divided and two seperate suits instituted thereon in order to reduce the amount to the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.” Considering “himself injured and aggrieved,” Bates asks the court to issue subpoenas and “to remove the proceedings in said causes to the circuit court of Shelby county at its next Term.” 0440 (Accession # 21484233). Shelby County, Tennessee. William Patterson complains that his wife, Catharine McIntire Patterson, left their home two years after their marriage in 1837 and moved in with her mother, who owns “some twelve or fifteen negroes.” Patterson repeatedly attempted to get her to move with him from their then-home of Alabama to Tennessee, where he believed “he could thereby better his condition in life.” She refused to move with him to Tennessee or live with him anywhere else. William Patterson, now a resident of Tennessee, asks the court to dissolve his marriage. 0452 (Accession # 21484234). Sumner County, Tennessee. The petitioners seek to recover property willed to them by their grandfather. They relate that their maternal grandfather, Elijah Humphries [Humphris] [Humphreys], bequeathed slaves and other property to them in his 1794 will. Jessee Haynie Sr., father of five of the petitioners, concealed the information from his children, telling them that Humphries willed the property to their mother Rhoda [Rodah] [Rody] Humphries Haynie for her life and then to her children. The plaintiffs avow that they were “kept in ignorance of their rights” until 1842, when “a copy of the Clauses of Said will was found among the papers of Jessee Haynie at his death.” They charge that Jessee Haynie Sr. sold twelve slaves illegally to various buyers and also bequeathed their rightful property to his third wife (“a young woman in her 19th year”) and to two daughters by his second wife. Haynie’s will has not entered probate yet and “it is probable that the same will be contested.” In the meantime, the petitioners ask the court to issue an injunction and an attachment to confiscate the slaves held by the defendants, because they fear the defendants will remove them from the court’s jurisdiction. They also ask the court to award them title to the slaves and compensation for the time others held the slaves. 0512 (Accession # 21484235). Smith County, Tennessee. In August 1842, Francis Gordon conveyed some property in trust “for the benefit of Jacob W. Roe & other creditors & securities” and appointed David Ward and John Newhouse trustees. Prior to that time, Creed Penn, the current sheriff of Smith County, “levied two executions upon some of the property embraced in said trust deed” to satisfy a judgment obtained by John Roe against Gordon. Gordon explains that he “purposely” left three of his slaves out of the deed in order to satisfy that execution, as well as others. Wiatt Bailey, former sheriff of Smith County, seized and sold the three slaves yielding a total of $801. Gordon asserts that this sum is sufficient to satisfy all executions pending against him, including Roe’s, and accuses Bailey, Haney, and Penn of forming a 153 Reel 13 Tennessee “pretext for selling other property” belonging to him. He asks the court to restrain the defendants from further seizing his property, particularly that contained in the trust deed. 1843 0527 (Accession # 21484302). Williamson County, Tennessee. Stating that “he has been this day emancipated from slavery by a decree of this court,” John Griffin, a free man of color, seeks permission to remain in Williamson County, where he has lived for the past eighteen years and where “most of his friends and relations” reside. He further notes “that he has a wife and six children now living in the county of Williamson & held in slavery.” Griffin “prays your worships to grant him the privilege of residing in said county of Williamson.” 0534 (Accession # 21484303). Williamson County, Tennessee. Betsy, a free woman of color, asks to remain in Williamson County and to be “exemted from the penalties imposed by the act of 1831 Chap 102 and other penalties and conditions imposed on free persons of colour residing in this state or required to leave the same.” Betsy attests that she has been “a resident of the County of Williamson near twenty five years ... that all her friends and relations are in the County of Williamson where the greater part of her life has been spent.” The petitioner further says that “she is a woman of good caracter and is disposed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour towards all the free white citizens of this State.” Betsy states “that her occupation is that of a washer woman and she believes that she is amply able to support herself and save Enough of her earnings to prevent her becoming a charge upon the County in her old age.” 0541 (Accession # 21484304). Maury County, Tennessee. Henry Wade asks that James and Pleasant Akin “be perpetually enjoined” from proceeding with the sale of the levied property of Elizabeth Simmons. Wade explains that on 3 February 1843 James Wade “delivered to your Orator a deed of trust for the use and benefit of Elizabeth Simmons,” which included household furniture, livestock and a seventy-year-old slave named Nancy. The provisions of the deed stipulated that the property contained therein was “for her use & benefit exclusively,” and it did not belong to her husband and was not “subject to the payment of his debts.” Wade reports that “James Akin & others have had executions levied upon some of the property to satisfy debts owing by” Elizabeth’s husband and “the same is advertised to be sold.” As Elizabeth’s trustee, Wade cannot “silently permit sd property to be sold and the sd Elizabeth deprived of the scanty means of support which has been afforded her by others.” He asks that the court issue an injunction “enjoining & restraining the sd James & Pleasant Akin from further proceeding by sd executions.” 0547 (Accession # 21484305). Maury County, Tennessee. James G. Booker, executor of the estate of his late father, Peter R. Booker, and the estate of his late brother, Henry L. Booker, seeks the court’s advice on distributing the slaves in Henry’s estate. Booker explains that his late father’s will left “six thousand dollars worth of slaves” to each of his children, specifying that, if any of the children died “without issue, either before or after coming of age,” the slaves should be “equally divided between my surviving children.” Henry Booker died in 1841, leaving only a wife, and the petitioner questions whether his brother’s “negro property ... reverts back to the estate of the said Peter R. Booker ... or whether the same vested absolutely in the said Henry L.” He also informs the court that various creditors of Henry have won judgments against him, and certain slaves are in the sheriff’s hands to be sold to satisfy the decrees. He asks the court to enjoin the creditors from “interfering in any way with said negroes, until the rights of your orator as Executor of said Peter R. are settled by your honour to said property.” 0554 (Accession # 21484306). Maury County, Tennessee. John Huddleston, a resident of Lowndes County, Mississippi, seeks an attachment on slave property that he “believes & so 154 Reel 13 Tennessee charges” is “now in Maury County at what precise place or in whose possession he is not advised.” The petitioner recounts that “one George Stillman of Lowndes County Mississippi borrowed said negroes the mother to wait upon his family as a cook until your Orator should want them or until said Stillman could hire one in her place.” Huddleston contends that Stillman “fraudulently run off said negroes to parts unknown” and that “they are concealed by various persons to him unknown as yet” in this county. Since Stillman is at present insolvent, the petitioner “has good reason to believe” that if he should “endeavor to regain said negroes without the aid of an attachment that said negroes will be run entirely off so that your Orator will lose them.” Huddleston therefore asks that the sheriff “attach said negroes & keep them” and that Stillman be required to answer his charges. James Douglass claims to be the “lawful owner” of the slaves in his cross bill; he alleges that Stillman purchased the slaves from Huddleston “six years ago” and proceeded to sell them to Douglass for $1,300 in 1843. The 1847 decree ruled that Huddleston had a valid claim on the slaves and that Douglass fraudulently “purchased [the slaves] with a view to defeat the same.” 0576 (Accession # 21484307). Williamson County, Tennessee. William Donelson seeks a writ of attachment against Thomas J. Porter in an effort to collect a debt for $281.25. Donelson explains that several men won a judgment against Porter for the hire of a slave in a previous suit in 1840; the court ordered Porter to “deliver over ... a negro man of great value” in satisfaction thereof. Porter, however, removed the slave, worth $700, to Mississippi and “converted him to his own use.” The complainants in the earlier suit assigned their rights to Donelson, who now seeks to collect the debt from Porter, now residing in Tennessee. Donelson reminds the court of an 1838 judgment in Porter’s favor, which he successfully “enjoined collection of.” Proceedings regarding this judgment are currently pending in the supreme court. The petitioner asks the court “to attach said Judgment debt or so much thereof” and to apply it toward the satisfaction of his debt. In a bill of revivor filed six months later, Donelson cites that Porter has recently died. He now seeks to obtain payment of the debt in the name of Porter’s administrator, Archy Porter. 0587 (Accession # 21484308). Maury County, Tennessee. Jessee H. Fitzgerald asks the court “to restrain the said William W. Coleman from selling the negro girl Jane.” The petitioner states that Coleman, a constable, “has levied several executions amounting in all to about five hundred dollars” in favor of the defendants upon “Jane as the property of one Martin Dodson againt whom are said several executions.” Fitzgerald argues “that the said negro girl is not the property of said Martin Dodson and was not at the time said executions were levied, but that she is and was at the time and had been for several months the property of your orator.” He asks that the defendants be commanded “to appear & answer the several allegations herein contained.” Fitzgerald also charges that “there is a considerable amount of usury in each of the aforesaid executions.” 0592 (Accession # 21484309). Knox County, Tennessee. Thomas B. Cox, the administrator of the estate of the late Ailey H. Mabry, asks for permission to sell eight slaves that belong to the estate. He explains that “in compliance with his duty and in obedience to the laws” he duly advertised and offered up for sale “all the perishable property belonging to said estate which brought about the sum of $230.” Cox ascertains “that there are debts against said estate far exceeding in amount the value of the assets which your petitioner was authorized to sell and convert into cash.” Cox notes that the debts of the estate may be as much as $3,000 and they “are now bearing interest.” With the view that “he has no other means of discharging the debts of the estate,” the petitioner believes “it advisable for the interests of the estate that these slaves should be sold at once in as much as they are mostly unproductive.” 155 Reel 13 Tennessee 0597 (Accession # 21484310). Marshall County, Tennessee. Hilliard Vincent, his nine brothers and sisters, and James Amis, guardian of the minor Vincent siblings, ask that their father, James Vincent, and William Shehane be ordered to surrender a slave named Gabe. Their grandfather’s will bequeathed a life estate in the “slave for life named Gabe of the value of $600.00” to their mother. After their mother’s death, their father conveyed “all his interest” in Gabe “and other slaves” to the petitioners by a deed of gift. As the “absolute owners” of Gabe, they explain that they hired him out to William Shehane “for two weeks,” but, that instead of returning the slave to them “as he was bound to do,” Shehane “wrongfully & fraudulently hired or pretended to hire said slave of said James Vincent for the residue of the year.” They fear that the pair is “endeavouring to hire persons to run & secrete said slave” beyond the jurisdiction of the court. They also request that the sheriff of Marshall County attach Gabe and hold him in his custody while their case is being tried. In his cross bill, James Vincent, who is illiterate, asserts that he was intoxicated when he executed the deed of gift to his children. 0611 (Accession # 21484311). Williamson County, Tennessee. Adam, “a man of Colour,” sues for his freedom. On 1 November 1841, Amos Hurley, guardian of the minor heirs of Leonard Smith, sold Adam for $901 to Michael Garrett. Adam asserts that his former owners “were willing, he should acquire his freedom, by paying the price, that should be bid for him at publick sale.” In fact, Adam contends that he, Hurley, and Garrett agreed before the sale that Adam would repay the purchase money and that Garrett would free him. Adam thus acquired “notes bonds and evidences of debt upon good and Solvent persons” for $550 and gave them to Overton Kennedy, one of Garrett’s securities. On 8 January 1842, Michael Garrett wrote a deed freeing Adam, whereupon he “engaged in business acquired property in his own name, and in all respects, acted as a free man.” Adam reveals that Hurley won a judgment on the debt never paid by Kennedy and that the sheriff seized his land, two horses, a saddle and bridle, and his person to satisfy said judgment. He further argues that Garrett falsely promised to pay Hurley’s judgment, but instead kept the $407 worth of bonds and notes that he had given him. Adam reports that most of his property was sold and that he was sold at auction for $401 to Amos Hurley, who put Adam back in jail until seventeen days ago. At that time, Hurley directed an agent “to carry your Orator to the State of Mississippi and Sell him into perpetual slavery for what he would bring in that Market.” Of the opinion “that he was entitled to his freedom ... and seeing that ... he was about to be kidnapped & Sold into hopeless and perpetual slavery, far removed from his friends and the evidences of his claim to freedom,” Adam “openly left” Hurley’s agent on the way to market and returned to Davidson County. He asks the court to void the sale to Hurley and to confirm his freedom. 0631 (Accession # 21484312). Knox County, Tennessee. William Rodgers, the administrator of the estate of the late Alexander Kanard, seeks permission to sell a forty-year-old estate slave named David. Rodgers explains that the said estate “is endebted three hundred dollars and upwards and that there is only the amount of $111.34 of assets to pay said debts, and that the creditors are pressing for their claims.” Believing that “there is no means of paying the liabilities of said estate except said slave David,” the petitioner urges “your Honor to decree the sale of said Slave David upon such term as may be most advantageous to the interest of said estate.” 0635 (Accession # 21484313). Smith County, Tennessee. John Stevens asks the court to allow him a credit of $116 on a judgment won against him by James B. Moores. He also asks for the title and possession of a slave named Lewis and for an injunction restraining Moores from “further proceeding towards the execution of the said judgment against your Orator.” Stevens explains that Moores received Lewis in 1841 through a mutual “exchange and transfer of various items” between them. He further states that Lewis’s value “was put down at four hundred dollars in round or even numbers, though it was well understood & expressly agreed 156 Reel 13 Tennessee between your orator & defendant Moores that he was only worth three hundred dollars.” Moores later filed suit against Stevens,”charging that said Negro was unsound,” and won a judgment of $400. Stevens protests that he was “defrauded out of one hundred dollars in the price of said Negro,” asserting that Moores still retains Lewis. (The $16 balance is for the value of four thousand shingles, which were also a part of their trade agreement.) 0641 (Accession # 21484314). Bradley County, Tennessee. The widow and children of the late Robert Cate seek to have a bill of sale for the slave Pleasant set aside. They claim that Robert’s father, the late William Cate, directed in his will “that a certain negro man named Pleasant ... should be given to his son Robert.” They explain that shortly after William wrote his will he “became entirley Delarious, and incompetent to Transact any Kind of bisiness.” They further charge that Charles Cate, the brother of the late Robert, persuaded his father “to Give him a Bill of sale to said boy Pleasant mentioned in the will.” The petitioners maintain that William executed the will in question “in his proper mind and that He was very Desirous the will should be proven.” Widow Matilda Cate states that she has been “left very pore with several small Children” and that “the Fraudulent Conduct of the said Charles ... has tended to the manifest Injury of Your oratrix and all most Ruined her prosperity in a pecuniary point of view.” The petitioners therefore ask that the defendants be summoned to answer their charges, that the sheriff of Bradley County take Pleasant into his custody until their case is heard, and that William’s “will be Delivered up and proven and Registered as Required by law.” 0650 (Accession # 21484315). Bradley County, Tennessee. Sarah Cate asks that a “pretended bill of sale” for a slave named Pleasant “be declared utterly fraudulent and void.” She states that her late husband, William Cate, was “lawfully possessed among other things, and of his own right, of a certain valuable and young negro boy, named Pleasant.” She charges that Pleasant was in her husband’s possession until his death “when he the said negro boy was Secretly, fraudulently and in violation of law, and of the rights of your oratrix and the other distributees of the said William deceased, stolen or decoyed away by a certain Charles Cate.” She alleges that Charles bases his claim on a bill of sale executed by William fourteen months before his death when the said William “was excessively drunk, totally insane and incompetent.” Claiming that said bill “was procured through the grossest fraud,” Sarah Cate prays that Charles be summoned to answer her charges and be enjoined from removing Pleasant and that the “bill of sale by a decree of this court be declared null and void, and the one half of the proceeds of the sale of said negro boy be decreed to be paid to your oratrix.” 0658 (Accession # 21484316). Bradley County, Tennessee. William K. Pickens and five other petitioners ask that Samuel J. Rowan and David Reagan be restrained from removing the slave Bill outside of Polk County. They maintain that Rowan “caused an execution to issue” from a judgment that resulted in Bill, “property that belonged or that was owned in part Jointly by your Orators,” being levied on. They further state that “for the purpose of cheting and defrauding your Orators,” Rowan seized Bill, “at least a half mile from said Town,” whereupon David Reagan, the deputy sheriff, “there sold said negroe, for about the sum of sixteen Dollars.” The petitioners argue that the “execution was void” and that Reagan “had no authority to sell said negro at any other place than at or in the Town of Columbus.” They ask that the defendants “be compelled to answer” their charges and that “Sheriff of Polk County be directed to take the possession of the said negroe and him to be safely Kept ... untill the Suit at law is finally disposed of.” 0665 (Accession # 21484317). Giles County, Tennessee. Martha Estes and her husband, William, ask the court to “decree to the said Martha A. Estes said negro Girl Jane to be held as her separate property and for her sole and separate use.” The Esteses explain that Martha purchased Jane in 1841 from William Gibner [?] with money derived from the estate of Samuel Gilbert, her late father. Gilbert bequeathed the proceeds from the sale of his estate, after the 157 Reel 13 Tennessee discharge of his just debts, to his three daughters to be equally divided among the three sisters and “free from the controll or claim of their said husbands.” Later that year, however, Lemack Ezell won a judgment against William Estes and “levied an execution” on Jane. The petitioners condemn the “wrongful seizure” of Jane and seek her return, as well as an account for her hire. 0671 (Accession # 21484318). Williamson County, Tennessee. Joseph and Amy Owen White and Amy’s brother, Herbert Owen, seek to amend the deed of trust that the Whites executed in 1828 upon contemplation of their marriage. They explain that Amy brought four slaves to the marriage, who were made subject to a “deed of marriage settlement” that allowed her to dispose of the slaves as she saw fit after her death. The draftsman of the deed, however, “misapprehended” their instructions, and the petitioners, who are “illiterate persons,” wish to correct his mistake. They now outline the proper “disposition” for the slaves in the event that Amy dies childless, and name eleven slaves who have been born to Jemima, Judith, and Matilda since 1828. [The petition appears to be missing a page or pages.] 0678 (Accession # 21484319). Williamson County, Tennessee. Wiley Vessels and Horace Vessels, through his next friend, Thomas Byers, seek to recover their twenty-eight-year-old slave Patsey and her two children. The two petitioners state that they “were in possession of said slaves ... in Chicot County in the state of Arkansas until some time in the month of July 1842 when the same were clandestinely taken and run off.” They claim that the abductor “neither had any title to the same nor ever set up any claim to them.” They were later informed that the slaves were “in the possession of the said William D. Taylor,” who lived one hundred miles away from the petitioners and who laid claim to the slaves “under a mortgage” from another individual. The petitioners report, however, that the slaves “were run off to the state of Tennessee” before they “instituted any proceedings for their recovery of the said slaves.” Fearing “that the said slaves will be again run off into parts unknown so they will be wholly lost to your Orators,” the petitioners ask that the defendants be summoned to answer their charges and that the slave family be placed in the custody of the sheriff “to await the further order of the honourable court.” 0685 (Accession # 21484320). Williamson County, Tennessee. Richard Alexander asks the court to attach Mary P. Breathitt’s slave, Randal, and to appoint a receiver to hire him out for his benefit “until the further order of this court.” Alexander explains that Breathitt is “justly indebted” to him and has failed to repay him when he “demanded the money.” Randal, a carpenter by trade and “a specific legacy” to Mary from her mother, Elizabeth Eaton, “is liable to take to Mississippi out of his reach at any time on getting the consent of said admr,” Thomas N. Figuers. The petitioner asks the court to enjoin Mary from “having said slave conveyed out this state.” He also mentions that Eaton’s will gave Randal to Mary during her life, and that, upon her death, “said slave is to be free.” 0696 (Accession # 21484321). Williamson County, Tennessee. Edward L. Jordan, the administrator of the estate of the late Sally Wood Jordan, seeks permission to sell two slaves that belong to the estate. Jordan states that “Sally Jordan died seized and possessed of the following property towit slaves Lucy aged about 50 & Jerman about 30 yrs” and that “this is all of the property belonging to said estate known to your Petitioner.” He also reports that “the debts against the estate will not amount to more than twenty dollars.” Recognizing that there is a “small amount of property belonging to said estate and the large number of heirs having an interest in the same,” Jordan believes “that it is impossible to divide the same without having a sale thereof.” He therefore asks that the court will “grant him a decree ... for a sale of said slaves Lucy and Jerman on a reasonable credit and that the proceeds thereof be divided” among the heirs “share and share alike.” 158 Reel 13 Tennessee 0704 (Accession # 21484322). Williamson County, Tennessee. Jacob Jamieson, a free person of color, seeks to emancipate his fifty-year-old wife Lucy and his ten-year-old son James. He states “that he is now old, as well as his wife, and he is very anxious, to have them emancipated.” He explains “that he has no relations known of to him, who are not slaves” and “upon his death ... he has no kin who could take them.” Jamieson avows “that his said wife & child have industrious habits & have uniformly conducted & demeaned themselves as peaceable persons & have always manifested a proper respect & submission, to the white population of this community.” Attesting to his wife’s and son’s “good moral character,” the petitioner prays “that they be so emancipated by your Worships.” 0709 (Accession # 21484323). Williamson County, Tennessee. Jacob and Lucy Jamieson and their son James state that “the said Lucy & James have been duly emancipated,” and they “are desirous of remaining in said County.” The petitioners report that Jacob “owns land & resides on it in said County, and they have no relations or acquaintances out of the State.” They ask the court “to grant to said Lucy & Jim the privilege of so remaining in said County of Williamson.” 0715 (Accession # 21484324). Washington County, Tennessee. The slaves of the late Loyd Ford, by their next friend, Phoebe Stuart, seek to establish the validity of Ford’s last will and testament, which bequeathed them their freedom, as well as certain lands in Washington County where the petitioners wish to remain. They also seek an injunction against Ford’s administrator and fourteen heirs at law, who contest the will and who threaten to sell them and the property they have accumulated. The petitioners declare that Ford made a will on 1 March 1840, which called for the emancipation of his slaves upon his death. They surmise that his resolution “was owing to the fact that most of your Orators and Oratrixes were born the slaves of said Ford and were raised by him. In addition to this, most of complainants and especially your Orator John were persons of irreproachable character and had rendered meritorious services to their said master ... Most of your Orators and Oratrixes are persons of mixed blood, being mulatto’s, and besides the motives above indicated they have always understood and believe that their late Master was animated in his desire to emancipate them by the still more powerful consideration of—natural love and affection.” 0732 (Accession # 21484325). Washington County, Tennessee. John Nave Jr. asks that his contract with Calloway Ramsey for the purchase of a slave named Isabel be rescinded. He states that he received “an assignment of the bill of sale” that cited various individuals who at one time had an interest in Isabel. He further purports that “it is extremely doubtful whether or not any title to said slave was communicated to him by said assignment.” Since Ramsey represented Isabel as being “sound, healthy and sensible,” Nave gave him a horse and six “writing[s] obligatory” for five tons of bar iron, “equal in cash to $403.20.” Nave reports that “soon after said trade was made, your Orator, greatly to his surprise and mortification, discovered that all the material statements of said Ramsey were false; that said slave instead of being sound was diseased ... and instead of being sensible she is actually an idiot, or so far destitute of reason as to be utterly incapable of rendering service as a slave.” Nave prays that Ramsey be compelled to answer his charges and produce “the said several writings obligatory” and that Ramsey be “decreed to pay your Orator for his care and trouble in keeping said slave” and that he “refund the purchase money with interest.” 0741 (Accession # 21484326). Wilson County, Tennessee. The executors of the estate of the late Wood Jones seek to carry out the provisions of their testator’s will. They ask that Edmund Burton be ordered to deliver “up to them” a slave named Caty and her children “together with a reasonable sum for hire,” so that the enslaved family can be distributed to the children of Polly Amanda Jones Burton, the late wife of Edmund and Jones’s daughter. Her widower, however, 159 Reel 13 Tennessee “pretends to set up a claim to them by gift, as a marriage portion anterior to the death of said Wood Jones.” The executors assert that although Burton had possession of the slaves before the death of the testator, the slaves were a loan from a man, who was “in the habit of sending negroes to his children after they were married and taking them back and sending others or the same ones as it suited him.” Burton “positively refuses to give them up, but threatens to sell them and appropriate the proceeds to his own use.” 0750 (Accession # 21484327). Franklin County, Tennessee. Joseph Franklin asks that he be released from any liability on a note used by him to purchase a slave from the estate of the late James Morris. He further requests that “the whole contract in regards to said negro man Jessee be disanulled, canceled and held for naught.” Franklin explains that he purchased Jessee from Morris’s administrator, Robinson Turner, in April of 1842, without the knowledge that the slave was “diseased and unsound and had been for some Considerable Time previously labouring under a dangerous and Lingering disease called in Medicine diabetes.” A post mortem examination by “a man skilled in medicine” revealed “fully satisfactorily and conclusively” that Jessee died “of and from the fatal effects of the disease aforesaid.” Franklin speculates that Turner’s failure to give him a proper bill of sale for Jessee was “occasioned by a fraudulent knowledge of the unsoundness of said slave.” He also seeks an injunction against Turner and the note’s assignee, John G. Brazelton, prohibiting them from “all proceedings on said note at Common Law in the mean time.” 0772 (Accession # 21484328). Montgomery County, Tennessee. Brittania Jones asks the court to order her son-in-law, John H. Marable, to surrender “up to her” twelve slaves, who belong to her late daughter’s estate. In the meantime, she asks the court to command the sheriff of Montgomery County to attach said slaves “and to take them in his possession” until the case is heard and decreed. Jones informs the court that her daughter married the defendant in Arkansas and the laws of that state recognize her entitlement to said slaves “as heir of Mary in preference to the marital right of said John H. Marable.” The Marables resided in Tennessee but their slaves were hired out in Arkansas to Mary’s brother, John A. Jordan, until “some time after” 1843. Jordan alleges that her son, Robert Jordan, left the slaves “on the bank of Cumberland river near to the residence of said Marable,” at Marable’s urging, “wholly ignorant of the death of said Mary.” Jones also seeks compensation for the slaves’ hire while they have been in Marable’s possession. 0784 (Accession # 21484329). Smith County, Tennessee. Reuben M. Searcy joins his wife, Frances Alloway Searcy, and her four minor siblings in asking the court to compel Daniel A. McEachern and Zachariah Alvis, the securities on Archelous Alloway’s guardianship bond, to render an account of Alloway’s guardianship activities while managing the minors’ affairs. They particularly seek the amount of hire generated by their two slaves, Lewis and Zuphea. The petitioners explain that their grandfather, Booker B. Bradford, bequeathed to them the two slaves and a legacy of $518. Their father, Archelous, managed their estate from 1834 until his death in 1840. While they believe that their father “would have done them ample justice had he not died,” they desire to settle the accounts, which have been taken over by Searcy, their new guardian. The defendant McEachern is now administering Alloway’s estate, and the petitioners request from him “the amount for hire in each year and the amounts of disbursement for each one of your orators and oratrixes.” They assert that the slaves’ hire and “the interest annually on sd. legacy would greatly overpay the amount expended on them.” 0800 (Accession # 21484330). Sumner County, Tennessee. The slave Nancy petitions for her freedom and for the emancipation of her six children. Nancy avers that Sally Mahan [Mahon], her late mistress, “was always attached” to her and her children and said that “she never intended that they should be held in slavery after her death but would emancipate and set them 160 Reel 13 Tennessee free.” Mahan’s brother James was present when she prepared her will and told her that the best way to ensure her slaves’ emancipation was to will them to him on condition that he free them. Nancy claims that James Mahan said “he then could and would take them to a free state and set them free” if he could not free them inside the state. Nancy charges that James Mahan has not freed them as he promised. In fact, Nancy believes that Mahan has pledged or is about to pledge some of her family to secure the repayment of a debt. The plaintiffs urge the court to emancipate them. They also ask the court to issue an injunction against Mahan and to order the sheriff of Sumner County to take custody of them. 0814 (Accession # 21484331). Sumner County, Tennessee. Richmond C. Tyree claims ownership of an eight-year-old slave girl named Mahala [Hala, Haly], who is involved in a freedom suit. Tyree reports that he paid $118.87 to James Mahan on 2 January 1843 to buy Mahala. On 10 March 1843, Mahala and her family filed a freedom suit against Mahan. They claim their freedom “under a verbal wish Which they alledge was made by their late mistress Sally Mahon decd. and an alledged verbal promise made to her by said James, that he would Set Said persons of color free.” When he heard about the suit, Tyree questioned Mahan, who told him they had no right to freedom. Mahan admitted that his sister “had talked of freeing them Sometime before She made her Will,” but he maintained that she “abandoned the idea” when she learned that she could not emancipate them “So as to allow them to remain in this State.” Instead, she bequeathed them absolutely to James Mahan. Tyree asserts that Mahan said he would fight the suit. On 10 April, however, Mahan told him he would not contest the suit, because he “was afraid of the Said Nancy.” She also had promised that her family “would live with & Serve him as long as he ... lived” if he would not contest the suit. Tyree charges that Mahan and Nancy are “combining together—for the purpose of procuring a decree in Said cause for freedom and thereby to defraud your Orator out of his just right.” He asks “that this cause be heard together with Said Bill for freedom” and that the court rule in his favor. Fearing that Mahan and Nancy will hide Mahala from him, he asks the court to seize Mahala, who is still at Mahan’s house with her mother, and hire her out until the cases are settled. 0821 (Accession # 21484332). Bradley County, Tennessee. The heirs of John King accuse Robert King and Elisha Sharp of “combining and confederating together to cheat and defraud your orators ... of their just and vested right in remainder to” a slave named Amy and her three children. John King bequeathed a life estate in Amy’s mother, Nan, to his widow, Mary, specifying that their children receive Nan’s “increase” after Mary’s death. The petitioners declare that “the Negro woman Nan in said will mentioned bore many children after the death of the Testator, so as to produce a sufficient Number to satisfy all the specific devises of Negroes in said will Mentioned.” Notwithstanding the will’s stipulation, Robert King sold Amy and her family to Sharp as if he “had an absolute estate in said negroes.” The petitioners now assert that Mary King’s death in 1840 gave them the “immediate right to the possession of said Negroes,” which they are unable to do because Sharp has “concealed” the slaves since his fraudulent purchase in 1834. They seek the return of the enslaved family, including any other children Amy may have borne. In the event that Sharp has sold the slaves, they seek an account of “their full value.” 0833 (Accession # 21484333). Bradley County, Tennessee. Martin Langston asks the court to enjoin the sale of a slave named David, who is now in the sheriff’s custody to satisfy an execution against his father-in-law, Thomas Atchly. Langston explains that he purchased David from Atchly for $450 on 12 April 1842. He declares that “said sale was fair, & for a full and valuable consideration,” although a portion of the purchase price was used to discharge a debt Atchly owed him. Attesting that the sale was made “without fraud, or intent to delay or defeat creditors,” Langston seeks the court’s “interposition” to preserve his property rights. 161 Reel 13 Tennessee 0841 (Accession # 21484334). Williamson County, Tennessee. William B. Porch asks the court to order Thomas Demoss and Aris Brown to “deliver up to Your Orator” a slave named Julia and her “small child which as yet has no name.” Porch explains that Brown, the sheriff of Davidson County, has seized the two slaves for “an Execution in favor of one Thomas Demoss against John C Porch,” the petitioner’s brother. While the slaves were hired out to his brother for “the present year,” they belong to William, who purchased them the year before from B. C. Robertson, “a citizen of Dickson County for the sum of Seven hundred Dollars.” William notes that Julia is “peculiarly valuable to Your Orator as she [is] young, healthy and likely to raise him a large family of likely and valuable children.” He seeks an injunction restraining the sale, as well as compensation for Julia’s hire while she has been detained. The defendants’ answer reveals that Julia’s child is named Maria. 0848 (Accession # 21484335). Maury County, Tennessee. Samuel Gentry, the administrator of the late Pleasant G. Harden, asks the court to confirm the sale of a slave named Joshua. Gentry informs the court that his intestate died in 1839, “possessed of sundry slaves,” and that included in said slaves was “a negro man named Joshua, about 22 or 23 years of age.” He further reports that in the latter part of 1841 “the said negro named Joshua ran off, & took the woods, & absented & secreted himself entirely from the possession of your petitioner, & from the possession & control of any one.” Gentry purports that he made “diligent search for said boy & that all effort to get possession of him was unavailing.” Of the opinion that Joshua “would never be caught” and believing “even if the boy was ever caught, he would probably run off again,” the petitioner agreed to sell Joshua to one John L. Cheek, who “proposed to purchase said boy from your petitioner as he then ran in the woods,” for $750. Gentry notes that Harden’s widow is in agreement with the sale and that “they neither warrantied the title or the delivery of said boy to said Cheek.” The petitioner therefore prays “your honour under the circumstances ... to ratify & confirm said sale.” 0856 (Accession # 21484341). Bedford County, Tennessee. Benjamin Webb and Guynn Foster ask the court to order John Patterson to “deliver up” a slave named Tom and the note Patterson used to purchase Tom. They further ask that if Patterson “cannot do that, that you will direct an account to be taken of the value of sd slave and decree that sd defdt shall pay the same with the value of his hire.” The petitioners explain that Webb, through his agent, Foster, transacted the sale with Patterson subject to a “defeasance” allowing Webb to repurchase Tom within six months. The two men complain that Patterson refuses to comply with “sd defeasance,” alleging that Tom has run away from him. The petitioners, however, assert that Patterson “has in fact sold him for a sum largely over three hundred dollars,” the value of the note. They “allege moreover if he has run away sd Patterson is liable.” Depositions in the court transcript reveal that Patterson refuses to return the slave until the petitioners pay him for the costs incurred to keep Tom in jail after his recapture. 0871 (Accession # 21484342). Shelby County, Tennessee. James Scott, a free man of color, requests permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He states that “he was born free in the County of Burke in the state of North Carolina—that he removed to this County about fifteen years since” and that his freedom papers were recorded in Shelby County on 10 November 1834. Scott fears “that should he remove from this state, he would have to be located among strangers, and strange laws.” Noting that “his associates are here,” Scott asks that “your worships may extend to him the privileges of the act of Assembly passed at Nashville 4th February 1842.” 0876 (Accession # 21484343). Shelby County, Tennessee. Berry Chavers, a free man of color, seeks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He states that “he has resided in the 162 Reel 13 Tennessee state of Tennessee for the last 17 or 18 years, and in the County of shelby for the last three or four years.” Chavers claims “that he has & now does sustain a good character” and that “he would state that there are many causes which induce him to express his desire to remain in this county.” Noting that “his acquaintances are here, that he is acquainted with the Laws & regulations of this state & is well pleased with the same,” the petitioner asks that the court “permit him to remain in the County.” 0885 (Accession # 21484344). Shelby County, Tennessee. Wilson Davis, a free man of color, seeks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He states “that he was emancipated” and has resided in said state “many years previous to the first day of January A. D. 1836.” Davis further states that “he has formed acquaintances and made friends” and that “he is now engaged in an honest and lawful employment, from which by a proper Course of industry & Economy, he can derive a comfortable subsistence for himself & family.” He fears that “were he to remove from the State among Strangers where he could derive no advantage from the Character for industry, honesty, and sobriety, which he believes he has sustained, he would in all probability fail or at least find great difficulty, in procuring such employment as would yield him a support.” Noting “that by a removal from the state he would be compelled to submit to a great Sacrifice of the Comforts & Conveniences” he now enjoys, Davis asks the court “to grant him the privilege of remaining a resident of the County of Shelby.” 0891 (Accession # 21484345). Shelby County, Tennessee. Margaret Brooks, a free woman of color, seeks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states “that she was manumitted some time in the year of 1834 in the County of Hardeman in sd. state.” Margaret further declares “that she has ever endeavred to demean herself in an orderly manner towards all the free citzins of said state.” Noting “that all associates and acquaintances reside in the county,” the petitioner “prays your worships to grant to her the privileges provided for in the act of sembly made & provided for passed at Nashvill on the 4th day of February 1842.” 0898 (Accession # 21484346). Shelby County, Tennessee. Philip Thompson, a free man of color, requests permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He states “that he has resided in the city of Memphis since the early part of the year 1835.” Thompson further states “that he has acquired some property in the character of real estate in said city” and that “he has demeaned himself circumspectly and cautiously to all the good citizens of said city.” The petitioner prays “that your worships may grant and extend to him the priviledges provided for in the act of assembly passed at Nashvill on the 4th day of February 1842.” 0905 (Accession # 21484347). Shelby County, Tennessee. Squire, a free person of color, seeks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He reports that “he has resided in the state of Tennessee previous to the 30th day of November 1835.” Squire states that “he is desirous to continue to reside in said County—because his wife and children are slaves and are owned in the county of shelby—and are now in the possession of William Peace in the town of Memphis.” Representing “that he has given bond and security for his good behaviour as required by the statute,” Squire asks that the court “grant him the privilege to reside in the County aforesaid.” 0912 (Accession # 21484348). Shelby County, Tennessee. Allen, a free man of color, requests permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He states that “he arrived in Memphis in said state some time in the year of 1833 then a slave.” Allen explains that “he was manumitted at the Court at Critten[don] County Arkansas as will fully appear from his papers of emancipation.” Noting that “all his acquaintances live here that he knows of no other place to go to,” the petitioner asks the court “to grant to him the priviledges provided for in the act of Assembly passed at Nashville 4th February 1842.” 163 Reel 13 Tennessee 0919 (Accession # 21484349). Shelby County, Tennessee. Henry Hill, a free man of color, requests permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He states “that he is desirous of continuing to reside in said County because his wife is at this time living in Memphis ... and is the property of Mr A. O. Harris, of said city.” Having “given bond and security for his good behavior,” Hill prays the court to “grant him the privilege to reside hereafter in the County aforesaid.” 0923 (Accession # 21484350). Shelby County, Tennessee. Elizabeth Larry, a free person of color, asks to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states “that she has resided in the county of Shelby for several years” and that “her age and description were registered at the County Court in Bedford ... at the April Term 1820.” Noting that all her family and friends are here, Larry “most respectfully petitions your worships that the priviledgs of the act of Assemby passed at Nashvill 4th Februry 1842 be extended to her” and her daughter. 0927 (Accession # 21484351). Maury County, Tennessee. The administrator and administratrix of the late William B. Alderson seek permission to sell a fifteen-year-old slave named Jesse[e] in order “to pay the outstanding debts of sd estate.” They inform the court that Alderson died in January 1843 and that they have “exhausted all the effects which have come to their hands.” Included in the packet is a related petition filed several years later by Alderson’s heirs wherein the heirs object to an 1848 settlement filed with the court by Alderson’s administrators. They particularly complain about the “too small” and “palpably erroneous” sum the administrator charged himself for rent of land and slave hire. Noting that one of Alderson’s slaves was sold without an order from the court, they charge that the estate has been managed “loosely fraudulently & negligently,” and they now ask that the court reopen the settlement so the estate can be resettled. 0941 (Accession # 21484353). Sumner County, Tennessee. Martha Stone seeks a divorce from Lewis Stone, whom she married in 1809 in the state of Virginia. The last four years, Lewis has been “wandering about through the county and has made no provision or maintenance” for his family. Lewis has in fact taken Sally, a slave given to Martha by her father, along with Sally’s seven children, and “fraudulently put them in possession of a woman by the name of Charity Hunter.” Martha asserts that Lewis “has maliciously deserted her” and currently has “taken up with and now resides in the State of Ky. with Betsey Firkran, and with whom he has committed repeated acts of adultery.” Martha reports that Lewis has “an estate of about a thousand dollars in Virginia coming to him” and that she will be entitled to a portion of her mother’s estate at her mother’s death. In addition to the divorce, she asks “that the said negroes be decreed to the Compt, and her property and estate in Ky. be settled on her, and what property she has in her possession be decreed to her.” 0950 (Accession # 21484354). Williamson County, Tennessee. Daniel Baugh, “Executor of the last will and testament of Nathaniel Griffin deceased,” states that Griffin owned a forty-year-old slave named John at the time of his death. Baugh contends that Griffin’s will directed “his said slave to be emancipated” and he “is now desirous of carrying into execution this part of the will.” Baugh believes that “said slave is a man of good moral character and industrious habits, and has the trade of a blacksmith—As far as your petitioner has learned, said slave has always manifested a proper respect and submission towards the white population and is a sober man.” For these reasons, Baugh asks that “he may be permitted to carry into execution the will of his testator, and that said slave may be emancipated.” 0955 (Accession # 21484355). Williamson County, Tennessee. James Park seeks to emancipate his “female slave named Betsy of copper complexion supposed to be between forty five and fifty years of age ... on account of the meritorious services and general good conduct of 164 Reel 13 Tennessee said Betsy.” According to an attached “indenture,” James Porter “for the consideration of the sum of one dollar to him in hand paid ... hath bargained sold and delivered ... a certain negroe woman slave named Betsy” to James Park on 31 December 1842. Reel 14 Tennessee cont. 1844 0002 (Accession # 21484401). Wilson County, Tennessee. John B. Bryan and Nelson J. Bryan ask that the sale of a slave named Louisa, the property of James Thomas, be ordered and that “the proceeds of her sale be applied to the payment of their claims.” Thomas transferred three slaves named Harriet, Isham, and Louisa by a deed of trust to Levi Gilliam on 8 June 1840. Harriet died shortly thereafter and her son, Isham, was sold by the sheriff “under a court execution.” Thomas has “taken no steps to close” the trust, and Louisa, who is worth $400, is still in his possession. While Gilliam is willing to sell Louisa, he cannot “except by the aid of this Court.” As the Bryans fear that Thomas “will run said girl beyond the limits of the State,” they also ask the court to direct the sheriff to take possession of Louisa in order to “safely keep” her until the “final order” of the court. The transcript of the court record reveals that the chancery court was unable to safeguard Louisa as Thomas sold her to one Jonathan Doss in violation of their decree. The case was appealed to the supreme court, which affirmed the lower court ruling and ordered Doss to deliver up Louisa to be sold for payment of the Bryans’ claim. 0014 (Accession # 21484402). Montgomery County, Tennessee. John C. Bird, administrator of the estate of the late William Brantley, asks the court to order the sale of five slaves belonging to Peter N. Marr, a debtor of Brantley’s estate. Bird reports that his testator won a judgment against Marr for about $1,072 in 1838, of which $450 remains outstanding. Bird points out that Marr transferred seven slaves by a deed of trust to Charles Bailey in 1837 for the benefit of other creditors. He believes that “the principal part of the debts mentioned in the deed of trust has long since been paid & satisfyed” and that the value of the slaves is “more than amply sufficient to pay the balance of the debts, and all or very near all of your Orators debts.” Fearing that Marr will remove the slaves “out of the Jurisdiction of the Honbl Court,” he asks the court to attach them for safekeeping and to decree him “any balance that may be due from the sale of the negroes, after paying the balance of the debts that may be found due in the Deed of Trust.” The 1851 newspaper notice of sale, after the case was decided in Bird’s favor by the supreme court, includes four different names for Harriett’s children than the three names introduced in the petition; these may or may not be the same slaves. 0026 (Accession # 21484403). Washington County, Tennessee. Samuel and Delilah Early “impeach the validity” of an estate settlement made by Jonah Lilburn and Orville P. Nelson, administrators of the estates of the late Hannah and Jacob Hartsell. When Delilah’s mother, Hannah Hartsell, died in 1841, Jacob Hartsell administered her estate until his death in 1843. The Earlys charge that Jacob “illegally” sold and purchased Hannah’s sole slave, Jane, at the estate sale in violation of a prearranged agreement that Sarah Goode would purchase Jane for $200, her share as a distributee of Hannah’s estate. Since the defendants’ settlement is “predicated on” the report of sale made by Jacob, they ask the court to rectify this account and to hold Jacob’s estate “liable” for Jane’s hire. In addition to making said allowance, they also ask the court to enjoin the defendants from collecting a judgment against them for estate property they purchased at said sale. They propose that a “fair settlement” will show that the estates 165 Reel 14 Tennessee actually owe them money, once the court has accurately ascertained Delilah’s distributive share of her mother’s estate. 0038 (Accession # 21484404). Washington County, Tennessee. James and Priscilla Stuart Farmer charge Robert Stuart with “setting up a false fraudulent and pretended claim” to four slaves in whom the petitioners claim “one half of an undivided interest” by virtue of Priscilla’s late mother, Sarah Laughlin Stuart. They explain that in 1810, Sarah’s father, Alexander Laughlin, “made and executed a Bill of sale” to Sarah for a slave named Kit “and her increase.” The four slaves in question are Kit’s daughter, Malinda, and her three children, who are between the ages of four and nine. The slaves are currently in the “actual possession” of Robert’s father, John Stuart. The Farmers inform the court that Sarah’s “last words” acknowledged her “will and desire that the aforesaid Negroe property should go to her children,” Priscilla and her brother, David. In addition to decreeing to them “half of the said negroes,” they ask the court to attach the slaves for safekeeping and to enjoin Robert Stuart from “removing, selling or disposing of them in any manner whatsoever.” 0051 (Accession # 21484405). Washington County, Tennessee. Deborah Houston asks the court to enjoin her brother, William Houston, from “selling or hiring or in anywise disposing of” her slave named Sandy. She recounts that “to her surprise twelve men” came to her brother’s house to “have a guardian appointed for her” and then reported to the court “without her knowledge or consent” that she was of “unsound mind.” Houston relates that “the next day” her brother detained Sandy “against the will of your oratrix all under the pretense that your oratrix is insane and incapable of managing her own affairs.” She deems the jury’s “report of her insanity” false and unfounded and asserts that William “well knows it to be groundless.” Citing William’s “own sinister purposes, and fraudulent designs,” she contends that William “procured the forces of law to be employed as a colouring to give plausibility to this unjust usurpation of her rights.” She assures the court that she manages her affairs with the same care “as prudent persons of plain common sense take of their property.” She also seeks compensation for Sandy’s hire while he has been detained by William. 0057 (Accession # 21484406). Maury County, Tennessee. Henry Foster, administrator of the estate of the late James Bigham [Bingham] and guardian of his “numerous” minor children, asks the court to direct the clerk and master to “take & state” an account between Bigham’s widow, Elmina [Elmira], and the estate. Foster reports that he has taken “in his hands” the property of the estate, consisting primarily of notes that he estimates are worth $14,000, “exclusive of eight negroes.” The slaves, “four grown & four small,” have been “kept together” and hired out to Elmina with whom his wards reside. Holding the widow’s notes for the hire, Foster avers that “it would be advisable” to keep the slaves “undivided as between sd widow & minors.” He asks the court to allot Elmina her part of the “monied means” of the estate while promising to file an inventory of the minors’ property. 0065 (Accession # 21484407). Maury County, Tennessee. Henry Foster, guardian of Mary E. and Frances T. Bigham [Bingham], asks for permission to apply a portion of the girls’ inheritance towards their education. Each girl is entitled to “one seventh of the annual hire of 3 of the said eight negroes” in their late father’s estate, “which would amount to about $17.00 annually.” Mary and Frances are fifteen years old and thirteen years old, respectively, and Foster estimates that an allowance of “$50. or more to each” will secure the girls “a very desirable education.” 0069 (Accession # 21484408). Knox County, Tennessee. Margaret Madison McClure seeks an injunction against James Cox and others, prohibiting them from removing six slaves outside the court’s jurisdiction. In the meantime, she asks the sheriff of Blount County to take possession of 166 Reel 14 Tennessee the slaves “and so secure them as that they will be forth coming at the hearing.” McClure explains that on 12 April 1844 she filed a bill against the defendants in the chancery court “Setting up her claim to certain Negroes in the possession of the said Defendants.” In her original bill, an injunction “was not prayed for,” but she now fears that the defendants have removed or concealed the slaves in controversy. 0074 (Accession # 21484409). Marshall County, Tennessee. Mary Jane Fitzpatrick seeks a divorce from her husband, William, with whom she claims she can never again live “for fear of death or great bodily harm.” Mary Jane confesses that her husband is a “drunkard,” who visits “houses of ill-fame” where he indulges in the “most obscene & improper conduct.” He has repeatedly “beat & choked” her and recently “maliciously & for the purpose of destroying the life of Your Oratrix with a knife or razor tried to cut her throat.” She then “fled from his house” and now resides with her mother. Mary Jane also asks the court to order William to “provide a suitable maintainence for her children & a suitable allowance” for her. While William “was not the owner of anything” when they married, he now has obtained property from his “wealthy” father, Morgan. She asks the court to attach “such slaves, land & other property as the said Morgan may have given her husband” and to enjoin the two men from selling any of “said property.” She also asks the court to decree a slave named Dick and a horse, which she brought to the marriage, as her separate property. 0080 (Accession # 21484410). Smith County, Tennessee. Leroy Settle, Samuel E. Stone, and Joel W. Settle ask the court to perpetually enjoin Martin W. Sloan from selling a slave named Isaac under an execution against their debtor, Silas C. Cornwell. The petitioners explain that Cornwell executed a deed of trust “for a certain negro slave named Isaac” to secure the payment of said debt to “Samuel E Stone & Co.” While Isaac was assisting “in taking a boat back, which had drifted off from Jackson county and was lodged in the vicinity of Carthage in Smith County,” the sheriff of Smith County seized the slave as Cornwell’s property. The petitioners argue that the said Cornwell “has no title in said negro subject to sale under execution” because “the legal title to said slave Isaac, by virtue of said deed is vested in said Joel W. Settle trustee as aforesaid.” They cite the statute, which prevents the sale of slaves “under executions against others than the persons having legal title thereto,” and they ask the court to apply the same to Isaac, “a valuable, trusty slave and an excellent blacksmith.” 0088 (Accession # 21484411). Giles County, Tennessee. Thomas H. Harper asks the court to attach nine slaves belonging to Edward F. Mahone “to answer the said debts & costs of your Orator.” Harper won a judgment against Mahone in an Alabama court in 1838 but has been unable to collect the award due to a series of legal maneuvers by Mahone. The petitioner understands that the slaves “have already been attached in four several suits,” but he is still “desirous of enforcing his said debt & of subjecting said slaves to the satisfaction thereof.” He notes that Mahone is a resident of Alabama, “so that the ordinary process of law in Tennessee cannot be run against him.” 0094 (Accession # 21484412). Bradley County, Tennessee. Benjamin R. Inman seeks compensation from Benton Henegar for Inman’s portion of the proceeds from a sale of slaves. Inman met Henegar in Tallahassee, Florida, where Inman had travelled “with some horses to sell.” He loaned Henegar $300 so Henegar could purchase a family of five slaves. From Tallahassee the two men decided to travel to Columbus, Georgia, where they hoped to sell the family for “the best price, in partnership.” Inman furnished a carriage and used the horses he intended to sell in Tallahassee to transport the group. The contract, “perfectly agreed upon,” called for an equal split of the sale’s proceeds, after Henegar refunded the $300. The men sold four of the slaves “making a clear profit of four hundred dollars,” but the eldest male slave, Chapman, “was taken sick” and could not be sold. As soon as Henegar “got the said money into 167 Reel 14 Tennessee his hands, he refused to account and pay over” Inman’s half. Inman now seeks “one half of said four hundred dollars, the nett profits on the purchase and sale,” as well as “one half the difference between the price given for said boy Chapman and his present value.” 0099 (Accession # 21484413). Williamson County, Tennessee. Minor siblings John, Edward, and Joseph Edwards join with their sister, Frances Ann Edwards Bradly, and her husband, William D. Bradly, in seeking permission to sell a twenty-six-year-old slave named Anderson. The petitioners hold Anderson as “tenants in Common” and since the “intermarriage of your Petitioner Frances Ann with said Bradly it has become necessary to have said negro sold.” They wish to divide the proceeds from the sale “according to Law.” 0107 (Accession # 21484414). Williamson County, Tennessee. Charles A. Merrill, administrator of the estate of the late Lodwick B. Beech, asks the court to allow certain legacies in Beech’s will to be “abated to an amount sufficient to pay all the just debts and liabilities of said testator.” The petitioner also seeks an injunction against two of Beech’s children, restraining them from removing slaves named in the will out of Williamson County. Merrill reports that after qualifying as administrator, he found Elizabeth Beech and Sarah Neville already “in possession of” the slave property bequeathed to them by their father’s will. He maintains that a portion of the estate must be liquidated in order to pay its debts. He seeks an account of these debts and also asks that a court-appointed receiver take custody of the slaves and hire them out while the suit is pending. In an amended bill, the petitioner explains that Elizabeth B. Beech was “inserted in said original bill as a defendant by mistake of counsel,” having “died previous to the date of testators will.” 0119 (Accession # 21484415). Wilson County, Tennessee. John Roach seeks to prevent Lewis Wright and Joseph Rutland from collecting a judgment against him pursuant to an execution levied on his property. Roach purchased a slave named Andrew from Wright and Zedekiah Tate for the price of $500 on 19 March 1844. The bill of sale warranted Andrew’s soundness of mind and Wright and Tate’s title in the slave as guardians of James Tate and Rachael Tate Walden. The slave was not warranted to be sound in body as he was “afflicted with something in the nature of white swelling.” Even so, Roach was satisfied with the purchase and Andrew became “a favourite slave ... & is a pretty good shoemaker.” Since the purchase, however, Roach has learned that Andrew is one of a group of slaves, who “were due to have their freedom at a certain period” under the will of the late Ignatious Jones. Obviously “unwilling to risk the controversy and run the hazard of losing his money in the event of their success,” Roach refuses to resume payments on the purchase. He, therefore, seeks an injunction in this case if Andrew “is by right entitled to his freedom”; if he is not, Roach “prays that the title of the said James J. & Rachael & her husband be divested out of them and vested in him, or in Case the Sale was illegal & that Cannot be legally done, he prays that he may have a decree for the amount he has already paid.” By an agreement between the parties, this case “was to abide by the result of the Case of John & others in the Supreme Court so far as the question of freedom was concerned.” The chancery court’s final decree reveals that the supreme court granted the slaves in the estate of Ignatious Jones their freedom and, therefore, ordered the defendants to compensate Roach in the amount of his purchase money plus interest. 0133 (Accession # 21484417). Davidson County, Tennessee. Robert Martin asks the court to attach “said negroes Celia & Child and Rebecca” so that “said negroes may be made liable to your orators” claim against William S. Olliver for “medical services rendered to his family.” Olliver and his wife, Adeline, both signed the note because Mr. Olliver had previously conveyed in trust “all his property of every description” to his wife for her “sole and separate use.” Martin assumed that Adeline Olliver’s inclusion on the note would ensure that “the property would be found and he could compel payment thereof.” The Ollivers, however, removed from Tennessee 168 Reel 14 Tennessee to Virginia “without making any provision for the payment of your Orators said demand.” Martin charges that the deed of trust was executed “under such circumstances of indebtment” as to make it “a delay hindrance and fraud upon his creditors.” In fact, Olliver “has since executed ownership over the negroes mentioned in said deed of trust” by reconveying them to a third party. He asks the court to hold the slaves in “legal custody” and to nullify the second conveyance. 0141 (Accession # 21484418). Montgomery County, Tennessee. Minor Sally Etheridge asks the court to order “a final Settlement with her former Guardian,” Nathan Skinner, “from the time he was first appointed up to the Present time.” When Skinner first became her guardian, Sally explains that she was “Quite young and Knew Nothing of her rights or of her property.” She now has reason to believe that Skinner possessed, used, and controlled “a likely Negro fellow,” whom she inherited from her father’s estate, and that he later sold the slave in 1839 for $630 when he was in fact worth $800. She charges that Skinner similarly underestimated the slave’s yearly hire and hired him out for between $60 and $80 when “the Boy was Worth from One hundred and twenty dollars to One hundred and fifty dollars.” She now seeks a report from Skinner as to “how much and what disposition he has made” of her late father’s estate. She also asks the court to reaffirm the previous appointment of her subsequent guardian, Joel B. Acre, whom she “Chose for herself.” By the time the case reached the supreme court in 1845, Sally was married to one Peyton Thomas. 0154 (Accession # 21484419). Williamson County, Tennessee. James Thompson, the uncle of Milton Thompson, asks the court to compel his nephew’s guardian, Edwin Austin, to pay him for the care of Milton’s recently deceased brother, Alfred, who “was an Idiot totally.” After his father’s death in 1834, Thompson’s sister, Rebecca, came to live with him bringing with her two young slaves and her two children. The family lived with James from 1834 until 1842, during which time the proceeds of their slaves’ labor “was never sufficient” for their support. After Rebecca’s death, the boys “had no means of support” and were “furnished their victuals & clothes by Your Orator.” Alfred was also “very troublesome” during this time, “frequently straying away from home & having to be searched for ... & otherwise requiring strict personal attention.” Alfred died a year after his mother, and Edwin Austin, another uncle, soon thereafter took over Milton’s guardianship. The petitioner now requests that Austin compensate him out of Alfred’s property for his “services & outlay,” which include a “Physicians bill & funeral expenses.” He maintains that he is willing to give “credit for Alfred’s share of the hire of said Slaves,” as Alfred’s administrator. Depositions from neighbors include extensive description of the inferior quality of Alfred’s clothing; William Gambill opined that Alfred “went as badly clothed as any white person I ever saw.” 0166 (Accession # 21484420). Overton County, Tennessee. The children of James Peak seek the return of four slaves currently in the possession of their grandfather, Walter Ally. The petitioners assert that Ally gave their mother a slave named Mary when she married their father, James Peak, her third husband. Mary remained with their parents for two years until she was “privily seduced from your Orators by said Ally.” After Mary had two daughters in 1833, Ally gave the slaves to another granddaughter, Mariah Rawlings Humble, their mother’s daughter from a previous marriage. The slaves were then sold at public auction, whereupon James Peak purchased them, paying one-half of the $412 purchase money to a third party to whom Humble had sold his interest. The petitioners contend that they were given half of the slaves by their grandfather and that their father’s purchase of the other half “vested in them the whole of said negroes.” They argue that they have “raised the said negroes from children, clothed and fed them, and continued to keep them as thier own” until Ally “fraudulently seduced them to leave.” 169 Reel 14 Tennessee They insist that their grandfather holds the slaves “with a strong hand” and ask the court to recognize their title vested in them “by the gift and Statute of Limitations.” 0179 (Accession # 21484422). Sumner County, Tennessee. The children and grandchildren of Stephen and Sarah Winchester seek to sell the slaves belonging to the late Winchesters so that the proceeds from the sale may be divided among them. “Many years ago” Sarah Winchester’s father, Joshua Howard of Maryland, deeded in trust four slaves “and some others who are dead and their increase” to the late couple “for the support education and maintenance of their children”; at their death, the slaves were to be divided “among said children.” The slaves have increased in number considerably since the deed of trust. As some of the petitioners live in Tennessee, some reside in “free states,” and one lives in Texas, they believe that “a good and practicable division advantageous” to all parties cannot be effected without a sale of the property. One of the petitioners, Rebecca Eliza Beck, has already received “a little negro ... which she sold for $200”; the petitioners agree that said Beck “should be charged without regard to her present value.” They also ask the court to appoint Samuel H. Lauderdale as receiver, “who will take possession of said slaves and hire them out till the 15th day of July.” 0185 (Accession # 21484424). Shelby County, Tennessee. Sarah Tias, administratrix of the estate of the late John Tias and guardian of his five minor children, unites with her son-in-law, William Kimbell, in asking the court to appoint commissioners to divide the slaves in Tias’s estate among his heirs. Tias died “some years ago,” leaving sixteen slaves of “various ages.” William Kimbell is entitled to one-seventh of the slaves “by right of his wife, Mary, one of the daughters of said John Tias,” while the other petitioners are entitled to the “remaining six sevenths of the estate.” They ask the court to “set apart and allot to the said Kimbell” his portion of the slaves. 1845 0194 (Accession # 21484501). Sumner County, Tennessee. Patrick Stuart seeks the return of his slave Green. Stuart relates that he bought “a negro boy named Lewis” on 2 April 1842 from John Saunders [Sanders]. In July 1842, Saunders told Stuart that “he had a Prospect of making Some disposition of Lewis that would be advantageous ... but was not certain whether it could be accomplished.” He offered “a boy named Green” as a pledge for the return of Lewis “or a boy of equal value.” Stuart agreed. Saunders never returned Lewis, so Stuart kept Green until John Mills claimed prior ownership. Operating “under a mistake of the facts and his rights,” Stuart gave up Green. He attests that he later discovered that Mills’s claim was fraudulent and sued to recover Green. He won in the Sumner County circuit court, but Mills appealed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case on the grounds that Stuart should have sued in equity. Stuart asks the chancery court “to take jurisdiction of his Case” and declare that “the Said act of Surrender of Possession by him” had been “induced by the fraud & misrepresentation of Deft Mills.” Stuart also asks the court to compel Mills to return Green. 0204 (Accession # 21484502). Washington County, Tennessee. The “President, Directors & Company of the Union Bank of the State of Tennessee” seek the court’s assistance in collecting a judgment against Samuel Green and Jacob Hartzell [Hartsell] as the endorsers of the late Samuel G. Chester. They explain that the execution issued pursuant to their judgment was returned by the sheriff “nulla bond,” and they now fear that, “without the aid of a court of Equity,” they are “likely to be defeated” in its collection. They inform the court that Green and the recently deceased Hartzell executed two “pretended” deeds of trust for the benefit of Jacob Klepper and James H. Jones, respectively, whereby they conveyed “all, or nearly all” of their property, including four slaves. The bank argues that the transactions are “fraudulent & void” and were made “to hinder, delay, & defeat the creditors.” They allege that the “whole of said 170 Reel 14 Tennessee property” remained in Green and Hartzell’s “exclusive possession” and should now be made subject to the satisfaction of their “just demands.” They ask the court to issue “writs of injunction to restrain” Klepper and Jones from “parting with” the property. 0214 (Accession # 21484503). Washington County, Tennessee. Elizabeth E. Allison, daughter of the late Isaac Allison, asks the court to compel Jesse Allison and Samuel Latture to provide an account of their administrative activities regarding the estates of Isaac Allison and the late John Allison Sr. The petitioner explains that she “is entitled to one third of the proceeds” of the sale of her father’s estate and “of the various notes and accounts” reported in his inventory. She also informs the court that her late father was “one of the heirs at law and distributees” of John Allison Sr., who owned eight slaves at his death. She now “impeaches the whole of said settlement” made by Latture in 1836. She also charges that Jesse Allison “has never attempted, so far as she knows, in her behalf, to recover any part of the personal due her” from Allison Sr.’s estate and “in that respect, most grossly and culpably neglected his duty as administrator.” She cites her “right in equity to call upon” Latture to show “what part” of the estate she is entitled to recover, and “to hold the said Jesse Allison ... accountable for the same.” She particularly seeks her share of the slaves “set apart to her.” 0232 (Accession # 21484504). Maury County, Tennessee. William R. Bradley joins eleven other petitioners in asking the court to appoint commissioners to divide thirteen slaves equally among them. The complainants assert that they “each own one equal Eight part in value of said slaves.” 0240 (Accession # 21484505). Maury County, Tennessee. William Cherry asks that a slave named Sarah be sold so that the proceeds may be “appropriated to the payment of whatever may be due and owing to the said William Walker” and the “residue” given to him. The petitioner explains that Walker purchased Sarah “with the express understanding and agreement” that “the said negro was to be conveyed to a trustee for the use and benefit of the children of your Orator” when Cherry paid him $126. Walker, however, now “claims an absolute title to said negro” and will neither accept the $126 Cherry has tendered nor reconvey the slave “under the contract aforesaid.” Cherry asserts that, “in an ordinary market,” Sarah is worth $400, and he asks the court to order Walker to “pay to your Orator the difference between the price at which said negro was sold and her real value.” He also seeks compensation for her hire since “the said 1st day of September 1843 to the time that a final decree shall be rendered in this cause.” 0248 (Accession # 21484506). Maury County, Tennessee. Margaret Hackney asks the court “to settle” fifteen slaves “upon your oratrix for her separate use & enjoyment free from the molestation & hindrance” of her husband, Joseph Hackney. Margaret explains that, “at the age of about 70 years and without any children,” she found herself beseeched by said Hackney to exchange her “solitary and Lonely” condition for “his protection as her Husband.” Unwilling to give up “the power of disposition” of her slaves, to whom she was “much attached,” she desired a marriage contract securing the same “for her separate and sole use during their marriage.” Believing that such a contract “looked like the parties had no confidence in one another,” Joseph promised Margaret that, if she agreed to marry him, he would convey the slaves to her “the very next week after their marriage.” Margaret consented and the couple married. She now complains, however, that Joseph has reneged on his promise, grown “ill & fractious,” abused her repeatedly, and threatens to “run the negroes off & sell them.” She asks the sheriff to attach her slaves and to deliver them safely to a receiver, who will hire them out until the final determination of the suit. 0268 (Accession # 21484507). Maury County, Tennessee. The children and grandchildren of the late John Smiser Sr. seek a division of the property in Smiser’s estate among the 171 Reel 14 Tennessee distributees of his will. The will specified that Smiser’s executors, John Smiser Jr. and Alfred Smiser, retain his property together on his farm until the present year when they should make “disposition of said estate.” In the meantime, Smiser desired that his slaves work on the farm under the superintendence of said executors. He also stipulated that the “the funds arising from his contract with the Columbia & Pulaski Turnpike road company” be applied to pay his debts and that his share in a “partnership in the growing & manufacturing of hemp and running a set of grist & sawmills” be sold and the proceeds divided among his heirs. His widow, Eve Mary Smiser, has recently died and her interest in the estate should descend to their children and one grandson, Edward Garland. The petitioners pray that the clerk and master “proceed to take & state an account with said executors” and that commissioners be appointed to “divide said property according to the terms & provisions of said will.” 0278 (Accession # 21484508). Knox County, Tennessee. Frances Robertson asks the court to bar her husband, Francis H. Robertson, from trading, selling, or removing her two slaves, Kizziah and Amos, out of Knox County. Robertson explains that her husband purchased Kizziah and her daughter, Eliza, at his father-in-law’s estate sale in 1843; he paid $715 for the two slaves, who “were bought in part satisfaction of the amount due to your Oratrix from the estate of her father,” which she estimated at $900. He then sold Eliza “to pay his debts” and “availed himself of the benefit of the bankrupt law.” In the meantime, Kizziah had another child named Amos. Robertson’s creditors, however, have recently obtained judgments against him “upon a supposed indebtedness.” The petitioner now asks the court to enjoin them “from in any wise molesting, disturbing or levying upon said negroes.” She also reports that her husband has transferred the slaves’ titles to Amelia Peck. She asks the court to divest the titles from Peck and to vest them “in a trustee, to be appointed by your Honor, to hold them in trust for your oratrix and her heirs.” Finally, she asks for any “balance due her from her father’s estate.” 0290 (Accession # 21484509). Franklin County, Tennessee. William Edward Venable, administrator of the estate of the late Letty White, joins the heirs of James Philips in asking the court for permission to sell a slave named Jemima. In the 1845 “valuation, allotment and division” of White’s estate, the Philips heirs received Jemima and another slave named Henry. Venable sold Henry in order to “discharge the indebtedness” of the heirs to White’s estate. They are now “anxious to have their share of the other slave Jemima and … it is impossible to make distribution of said slave among the parties interested without a sale of said slave.” They ask for a decree authorizing said sale and a distribution of the proceeds among the four entitled parties. 0299 (Accession # 21484510). Franklin County, Tennessee. Joseph L. Baker, administrator of the estate of the late James Estill, seeks permission to sell two estate slaves named Jesse and Reuben in order to divide the proceeds among the estate’s numerous heirs, who live in Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. He submits that “it is impossible to distribute said negroes among those entitled thereto without a sale.” Jesse and Reuben are both under seven years of age. 0306 (Accession # 21484511). Smith County, Tennessee. John McCall, executor of the last will and testament of the late Thomas J. Hubbard, seeks permission to sell six estate slaves in order to divide the proceeds among Hubbard’s heirs. McCall states that it is “impossible to divide said negroes without a sale” as Hubbard had fourteen brothers and sisters, “a part of whom are now living & those dead have left children now living.” 0312 (Accession # 21484512). Sumner County, Tennessee. William H. Cartwright asks the court to enjoin Samuel R. Anderson, “the Sheriffs of Sumner and Wayne Counties and all others from further proceedings upon” a judgment won against him in a previous suit. In 1843 Cartwright endorsed a note for $275 from Washington Carter over to Anderson “for the purpose 172 Reel 14 Tennessee of being discounted in Bank in order that said Carter might pay off a debt in the hands of a constable named Thomas H. Bell.” Anderson, however, never discounted the note, and, in August 1843, successfully sued Cartwright and Carter. Cartwright complains that “the Law was wrongly charged in the trial of said cause” and that “at the time said note was first made and endorsed Washington Carter was oweing in executions about $1600 which was levied by said Bell and another Constable R T. Warner on the negroes of said Carter.” The slaves were later sold bringing “about $1200.” Calling it “a fraud in said Anderson to appropriate said note in the manner he did,” Cartwright seeks relief. 0318 (Accession # 21484513). Williamson County, Tennessee. John W. Peebles and his wife, Mary Elizabeth Boyd Caruthers Peebles, ask the court to compel James W. Boyd, the executor of the estate of Mary’s late father, to account with them for their one-eighth part of the estate. George W. Boyd died in 1841 possessed of a “considerable estate” that included twenty-five slaves. The Peebleses complain that they have “received no portion of it from the executor although the time his long passed when it was made his duty by Law to distribute the State among the legatees respectively.” They also ask the court to appoint commissioners to “allot and Set apart ... their part in value of the land and negroes” belonging to the estate. 0328 (Accession # 21484514). Williamson County, Tennessee. Thomas F. and Leah Cannon Perkins join Leah’s brother, William P. Cannon, in asking the court to compel Rachael S. Cannon, widow and administratrix of the late Newton Cannon, to provide an accurate account of her administration of the estate. Leah and William’s father, Newton Cannon, died in 1841 leaving a widow, ten children, and 125 slaves, “of which about 60 were working hands.” The slaves were dispersed across two farms in Tipton County, a farm in Williamson County, and Cannon’s “valuable house & lots in Nashville.” The petitioners allege that Rachael Cannon “negligently & carelessly managed” these farms “for want of employment of proper overseers.” They complain that she “caused a pretended valuation” of the estate, which was “grossly below the true value,” and that her “pretended settlement” of the same is “erroneous & more favorable to her than it should have been” and should be “revised & corrected in this Court.” They particularly ask Cannon to produce “the names & number of slaves, with their increase, ages, & annual value of their hire” from the time of her husband’s death until 27 February 1844. The court record reveals that a portion of Cannon’s slaves hired in aggregate for $2,292 in 1843, giving the breakdown in terms of “men women & boys” in each hiring situation. The court’s decree provides great detail about slave management on the farms under Rachel’s administration. 0348 (Accession # 21484515). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Wyatt A. Brown seeks an injunction to restrain David M. Jarratt from removing his slave named Jefferson, who is “a first rate Blacksmith,” beyond the court’s jurisdiction. Brown explains that he mortgaged Jefferson to Jarratt in order to prevent the slave from being sold under sheriff’s levy in 1842; in return, Brown received a $600 advancement that would allow him to discharge his debts to a third party. Jarratt proposed that the constable proceed to sell the slave, whereby he would purchase him in a “mere formal sale to carry out” their agreement. Jarratt assured Brown that the bill of sale would “not affect in the slightest degree your orator right to redeem sd. slave.” Since the transaction, Jarratt has offered Brown $115 in exchange for Brown’s equity of redemption and Jefferson has been in Jarratt’s possession the entire time. Recently Brown arranged to redeem Jefferson through a third party, but Jarratt “claimed him as his own absolutely” by virtue of the earlier bill of sale. Insisting that the conveyance was a mortgage, Brown asks the court to facilitate Jefferson’s redemption. 0359 (Accession # 21484516). Williamson County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Nicholas T. Perkins Sr. join Perkins’s son and administrator, Nicholas T. Perkins Jr., in seeking an account 173 Reel 14 Tennessee of the estate’s administration, which reflects the heirs’ indebtedness to the estate and the advancements received by them from Perkins Sr. during his lifetime. Perkins Jr. also asks for permission to divide the estate’s fifty-four slaves, whom he estimates as worth $15,000, and to sell much of the real estate in order to pay the estate’s debts. The petition documents include an 1843 petition filed by creditors George H. Burton and Benjamin Litton seeking to enjoin Perkins Jr. from distributing or selling the estate, Perkins Jr.’s answer to the petition, and an amended bill filed by Burton and Litton. A note on the court record reveals that the case was settled by court decree on 6 October 1849. 0372 (Accession # 21484517). McMinn County, Tennessee. Meany G. Rudd, John Rudd, and Joseph Rudd seek to protect their remainder interest in a slave named Huldah. The siblings explain that their father, Herod Rudd, bequeathed a life estate in five slaves to their mother, Sarah Rudd, who has recently died. They and another brother, William Rudd, and two siblings, who predeceased their mother, were to share the interest in remainder. The petitioners charge that their brother, William, who served as executor, has violated the trust “reposed in said will” by fraudulently selling Huldah to James S. Bridges in the 1831. Bridges has “enjoyed the profits of her labor ever since and claims her as his own right and property.” The petitioners have requested that William Rudd and Bridges “deliver up” Huldah so that she can be sold “and the trust executed according to said will.” The two men “wholy refuse” to do so, however, and by their “fraudulent and unconscientious conduct” will “cheat and defraud your complainants out of their just, lawful and equitable rights.” They ask that the bill of sale in the 1831 transaction be declared “null and void,” that the defendants be compelled to surrender Huldah, that the enslaved woman be sold, and that the proceeds of said sale be divided among them. 0388 (Accession # 21484518). Giles County, Tennessee. Charles W. H. Biles, the former overseer and manager of a farm belonging to Stephen Biles, seeks an injunction against Archibald White, a creditor of his former employer. Biles explains that he served as security for Stephen in a transaction with one Jane D. Johnson, to whom Stephen owed a debt. He later advanced Stephen the money to pay Johnson in exchange for “a lien & trust upon” two slaves. He now asserts that these slaves “cannot legally be seized or sold” by Stephen’s creditors. White, however, has recently procured an execution against Stephen Biles in the supreme court and caused the slaves “to be levied upon” as Stephen’s property. The petitioner asks the court to enjoin their sale and to decree them “to belong to your Orator.” 0395 (Accession # 21484519). Davidson County, Tennessee. Austin Wade and Elizabeth Wade Scott, siblings of the late Frances Wade, ask the court to compel Frances’s guardian, Ephraim McRady, and the administrator of her estate, Joseph L. Wingfield, to account for their “actings and doings” with regard to her property. They explain that, when Frances was “quite a young woman,” she suffered a “spell of sickness” that left her “in such a state of prostration and imbecility, that she became idiotic for the remainder of her life.” Her “numerous” siblings entered into an agreement in 1816, whereby Joseph Wingfield, a brother-in-law, consented to “support and clothe her during life” in exchange “for the use of her property.” McRady took over as Frances’s guardian upon Wingfield’s death in 1838, but Frances and her three slaves remained with Wingfield’s surviving family. Frances herself died in 1843, leaving three other slaves, the surviving progeny of Sarah, one of her original three slaves, now deceased. Joseph L. Wingfield promptly filed a bill seeking permission to sell the slaves to pay her debts. Pointing out that Frances “was incapable of contracting a valid debt,” her siblings now allege that Wingfield “trumped up” an account in order to obtain the court’s authorization to sell the slaves. Two of said slaves now reside with Wingfield and his sister, Lucy Ann, and “have been called the property of the said Lucy Ann.” Having received a total of $14 between them from Wingfield as 174 Reel 14 Tennessee their share of Frances’s estate, they seek an accurate accounting of what is due them and possession of the slaves or compensation for their value. 0415 (Accession # 21484521). Williamson County, Tennessee. Naomi C. Graham Johnson seeks the court’s assistance in securing her inheritance “for her sole and separate use.” She explains that two years after her father’s 1835 death, her guardian, Henry C. Horton, took possession of her father’s five slaves, who have “remained in the hands of the said Henry C.,” along with three additional slaves born since that time. While still a minor, Naomi married Jesse W. Johnson, a man “improvident in his habits, and disposed to squander rather than to accumulate.” Naomi now informs the court that “settlement of her interest in the above described slaves upon herself is necessary to secure her and her children a support.” Horton, however, claims that he and Samuel Henderson purchased Naomi’s interest in the slaves from her husband in 1843 by agreeing to assume Jesse’s debts “to the amount of $375.” Naomi asserts that her interest in the same was worth at least $800 and “probably a thousand Dollars.” She now asks the court to nullify the alleged deed of conveyance. She maintains that in addition to a division of the slaves, Horton owes her money for “the hire of slaves and rents of Land.” 0426 (Accession # 21484522). Bradley County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late John Cozby accuse the administrators of his estate, William B. Cozby, William McDonald, and David Ragsdale, of returning a fraudulent account of the estate. They assert that Cozby’s son, William B., has instituted a campaign of “fraud, device and cunning” designed “to throw upon and burthen the estate of the said John with the payment” of his own debts; not only was William indebted to his father before his death, but he owed “divers” other creditors to whom he mortgaged slaves and other property. They charge that he has sold and hired out estate slaves at reduced prices “to make profit and gain at the expense” of his father’s many heirs. Recently he received the court’s permission to sell four estate slaves under the pretense that it was necessary to pay the estate’s debts. The heirs call the sale a fraud “practised ... upon the Honorable Court,” which culminated in William’s “friend” purchasing at least one of said slaves for William’s use. They ask the court to compel said administrators to make a final settlement based on an accurate account with a division of the slaves and their hires among the distributees. 0436 (Accession # 21484523). Maury County, Tennessee. Cornelia Long seeks a divorce with alimony from her husband, Nicholas Long, citing his “brutal, inhumane, and grossly insulting” behavior towards her. Wildly jealous and convinced of her infidelities, Nicholas regularly cast “aspersions ... upon her virtue and chastity” and accused her of “indecencies and indignities” that would shock “any reflecting moral or religious individual.” For example, Nicholas accused her of “aiding abetting and assisting” her brother “with using violence to a young lady of the neighbourhood, for the purpose of carnally knowing her without her consent.” He further charged Cornelia with “taking a servant to watch while she was perpetrating acts of infidelity.” Insisting that “she has stood the indignities offered to her long enough,” she seeks a divorce from Nicholas, who is “impotent & incapable of procreation.” She “only wants” the property that she had when she married Nicholas and demands that he deliver up “her wearing apparel instantly.” In his answer, Nicholas denies all charges. He avers that Cornelia repeatedly told him that “if she was his wife she was not his slave and that she was white and free to go where she pleased.” He also reports that she had six slaves when they married, but that when he went to Kentucky to retrieve them, her “interest in the negro property” was “bound up” and the slaves could not be removed from the state. 0460 (Accession # 21484524). Davidson County, Tennessee. John Woods seeks the court’s assistance in “redeeming” a slave named Simon, who is currently in the possession of Oliver P. Catron. Woods explains that Simon ran away from his “service” on 27 December 1843 and was 175 Reel 14 Tennessee later apprehended in Nashville and jailed “for a period of twelve months.” Simon told the jailer that he belonged to “some one living & resident in Williamson County” and that his name was Peter. In January 1845, the sheriff advertised and sold “Peter” as a runaway slave, and Toliver Dawson purchased him at auction for $355. Dawson later sold Simon to Oliver Catron for $600. Woods “called on” Dawson in May to “avail himself of the provisions of the act of the General Assembly” in an effort to redeem the slave. Dawson “would not hear him” and walked off “in great anger.” Woods then “immediately” informed Catron about his “right” to redeem Simon. He now asks the court to permit him to redeem the slave after paying the amount Dawson paid for Simon. In a supplemental bill, Woods asks the court to nullify the sales to Dawson and Catron, citing irregularities that “invalidate” the transactions. 0471 (Accession # 21484526). Sumner County, Tennessee. The children of Lewis Mansker seek to collect their father’s portion of the estate of his uncle, Kasper Mansker, who died in 1821. The petitioners explain that Kasper’s will included a clause instructing his executors to sell his slaves after his widow’s death, and, after paying $500 to Mary Miller, to divide the balance between his two nephews, Lewis and John. When Kasper’s widow died in 1840, she held twenty slaves, who were to be treated as if she “never” remarried per her marriage contract with Isaac Walton. The petitioners now assert that they are entitled to “one half value of said property and personal estate” after deducting said $500. The twenty slaves, however, have filed a suit for freedom in the chancery court, citing a provision in the widow’s will directing their emancipation. The executors of said widow admit in their answer that Mrs. Walton had only a life estate in her husband’s slaves and the children born since his death. The petitioners acknowledge that the slaves are “under the control of this Honorable Court” while the suit is pending and ask the court to “consolidate the suit for freedom with this cause and let them be tried together.” They seek the amount to which “they are entitled under the will of Kasper Mansker” or a decree for the sale of the slaves and “their due portion of the fund arising from the sale or such portion of the slaves themself as the court may deem” them entitled. 0481 (Accession # 21484527). Shelby County, Tennessee. Burkley Reed Thomas seeks a divorce from his estranged wife, Martha Bailey Thomas, apart from whom he has lived for at least two years. Reed alleges that Martha continues to have intimate contact with Robert Coleman, a man to whom “she had been attached & and to whom she had been engaged to be married” before she married the petitioner. He contends that his wife was not only verbally abusive to him, but would order the overseer “to seize & strip naked the negro women & men, & have them cruelly beaten & tortured when no offence had been committed.” Thomas further reveals that his wife confessed to him “that she had a plan” to kill him and the slaves and that she carried arsenic “for the purpose of poisoning petitioner.” He asks that he be “freed and discharged from the obligations” of marriage. A neighbor alleges in a related document that Martha Thompson “whipped to death” one of her servants “before her marriage and one Since” her separation from her husband. 0498 (Accession # 21484528). Shelby County, Tennessee. John C. McGehee, administrator of the estate of his late brother, Fountain McGehee, seeks the court’s assistance in settling his brother’s estate. McGehee explains that his brother’s five slaves were to be “equally divided” between his widow, Cynthia McGehee, and his only son, William McGehee. He now asks the court to appoint commissioners to appraise and divide the slaves. 0506 (Accession # 21484529). Shelby County, Tennessee. Susannah Bond supplements an earlier petition for divorce from her husband, Sylvester Bond, by seeking an injunction and an attachment preventing her husband and his brother, John Bond, from removing his slaves “beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.” She claims that her husband “has been pretending to sell his property so as to defeat the claim of your Oratrix to a settlement or provision out of the 176 Reel 14 Tennessee same.” He specifically taunted her by declaring that “he would sell all his property for one cent & pocket that before she should have any of it.” To accomplish that end, Sylvester has allegedly conveyed his five slaves to his brother, John Bond. The slaves, however, are still in Sylvester’s possession, and he still employs them. The petitioner asks the court to issue writs of ne exeat and injunction, preventing the defendants from leaving the county and finalizing their transaction. [The Race and Slavery Petitions Project does not hold Bond’s original bill.] 1846 0515 (Accession # 21484601). Davidson County, Tennessee. John Cartwright asks the court to hold five slaves subject to the debts of James Watkins and William W. Brown. Watkins and Brown signed a note on 14 March 1846, promising to pay Cartwright $396.25 plus interest within nine months. A year earlier Watkins had conveyed some lots in Nashville and five slaves to one Robert B. Castleman in a trust deed. The deed stipulated that, in the event that Watkins failed to pay the debt, Castleman should “expose said property to sale” and apply the proceeds to the debt. The petitioner explains that Watkins “forfeited” the trust deed and Castleman sold the lots in Nashville, “leaveing the negroes, subject to the other debts of the said James Watkins.” Watkins still has not paid Cartwright the money, and the petitioner now asks the court to sell the slaves and pay him the amount of the debt. 0523 (Accession # 21484602). Bradley County, Tennessee. Minor Samuel A. Easly accuses the executor of the estate of his late uncle and his uncle’s widow, Mary Easly, with combining and confederating “together to cheat and defraud” him of certain slaves specifically bequeathed to him by his uncle’s will. Said executor, David Westfield, has refused to deliver seven slaves to him and plans “to make them chargeable with the debts of the Testator.” Westfield has already sold nine of his testator’s slaves and purchased them himself at “a sacrificed price”; in addition, he recently has joined with Easly’s widow in filing a bill in the chancery court seeking the court’s authorization to sell a portion of Samuel’s legacy. Samuel insists that “there remains sixteen Negroes and their increase besides those which were bequeathed” to him, leaving a “sufficiency of Negroes to sell without selling” his legacy. He asks the court to decree that Westfield “properly Marshall the assets so as to protect the Negroes specifically bequeathed to your orator.” He seeks delivery of the remainder of his legacy, as well as compensation for the slaves’ hire while Westfield has “controlled the labours benefit and advantage of said Negroes.” 0533 (Accession # 21484603). Williamson County, Tennessee. Susan Philips and her two children, Samuel Franklin and Catherine Philips, ask to be “emancipated and set free with permission to remain in this State upon giving bond and security as by law is required.” Susan explains that her “kind and benevolent” master, Joseph Philips, died in 1830, leaving a last will and testament that bequeathed freedom to her and Samuel Franklin “so soon as she the said Susan should earn for said estate the sum of four hundred dollars after the death of the said Testator.” Susan now submits that she has turned over said money to the estate’s administrator. Her daughter, born after the testator’s death, should also be emancipated since “by the Law of the land her state and condition follows that of her mother.” Susan Philips “states to the Court, that she and her children were born and raised in the County of Williamson where she has ever lived, that notwithstanding her humble and enslaved condition in life, she has laboured to preserve and maintain an upright and honest character.” She plans in “future life so to conduct herself and nurture her infant children.” 0537 (Accession # 21484604). Bradley County, Tennessee. Eliza Morris asks that William H. Stringer and Asahail Rawlings be ordered to “surrender and deliver up” her slave named Clerry; she then seeks permission from the court to “have and hold said Negro Girl as her separate and individual property free from any right or controll” of her husband, Thomas Morris. The petitioner 177 Reel 14 Tennessee explains that her husband “left and deserted your oratrix” six years ago and has gone “to parts unknown.” She confides that, “thrown upon her own resources,” she purchased nine-year-old Clerry from James Smith for “a full fair and valuable consideration” and kept Clerry in “her own Exclusive possession and controll.” She asserts that her title to Clerry was “Notoriously Known” by Stringer and Rawlings, who were “intimately acquainted with the said James Smith and his negro property.” Even so, after Smith’s death in 1845, the pair “sent a negro Man a slave belonging” to Smith’s estate “to purloin & decoy” Clerry from her possession. They have kept her since November 1845 until the present time “against the will consent or approbation of your oratrix.” Citing Clerry to be now worth $600 and hiring for $5 per month, Morris also seeks compensation for “a fair and reasonable hire” during the time they have detained her slave. 0546 (Accession # 21484605). Franklin County, Tennessee. James T. R. Taylor, administrator of the estate of the late Moses Taylor and also one of Taylor’s heirs, seeks permission to sell the only two slaves in Taylor’s estate. Taylor asserts that a division of the slaves “cannot be made among the distributees of said Moses without a sale thereof.” Taylor’s report of sale reveals that Cherry, a twenty-year-old female slave, sold for $504, while George Roper, a seven-year-old boy, sold for $299. Taylor started the bidding for Cherry at $450 and the bidding for George Roper at $250. 0550 (Accession # 21484606). Sumner County, Tennessee. Joseph C. Guild asks the court to sell three slaves in the possession of E. Penn “for the Payment and Satisfaction” of a debt owed him by Penn’s brother, George W. Penn. In the meantime, he asks the sheriff to attach said slaves and “Safely Keep” them while the suit is pending. Guild acted as Penn’s security on a loan for $105.41 due on 2 July 1846. Penn later left the state and relocated to Missouri still owing Guild the money. Guild now represents that Penn left a thirty-three-year-old slave named Anne and her two infant children with his brother. He recently sent “said note to Missouri for collection”; Penn responded by acknowledging the debt, but “stating his inability to Pay it.” Guild asks the court to hold Penn’s three slaves in Tennessee liable for the debt. 0554 (Accession # 21484607). Knox County, Tennessee. Pleasant M. Bowerman, administrator of the estate of the late Henry Bowerman, seeks permission to sell the slaves in the estate “in order to enable your petitioner to make distribution” among the heirs. Bowerman reports that some of the heirs live in free states and “could not receive slaves as their part of sd estate and your petitioner is well satisfied that it would be to the interest of those concerned in said estate as distributees, that said slaves be sold and a division be made of the proceeds of said sale.” Describing the difficulties of hiring out several of the slaves, the petitioner reveals that Caroline is a “natural idiot, never having had any mind and a slave who is unable to care of herself”; Kitta, Mariah, and Chana are “old women & your petitioner is unable to hire” any of them; and Ephraim, Saul, Will, and Edward “for the want of a master have been spoiled so that they cannot be hired to any one at all acquainted with them.” 0560 (Accession # 21484608). Smith County, Tennessee. Elizabeth Moores and her son, Henry L. Moores, seek the court’s “advice and direction ... as to the rights and power confered upon” Elizabeth by the will of her late husband, William Moores. Elizabeth explains that although she has endeavored to support her “family of helpless females” without the sale of the estate’s land and slaves, it has now become necessary to sell some of the estate’s real and personal property. She reports that through her “care and attention” she has “nearly quadrupled” the number of the estate’s slaves, who have been levied upon to discharge the estate’s debts. She charges that these levies are “the acts of a part of the devisees under said will” and that the property left to her “was not liable for said debts beyond the life estate of your oratrix.” She avers that “fair and reasonable charges for the boarding clothing schooling &c from the death of their father ... up to the time of their respective marriages would have diminished their 178 Reel 14 Tennessee respective shares at least an amount equal to the whole debts your oratrix now owes.” She asks the court to restrain her creditors from selling the slaves until the court rules on the particulars of their legal title. In the event that the court holds her property liable for the debts, she asks the court to allow her a credit for the “the necessary maintenance and Education of her children.” 0569 (Accession # 21484609). Rhea County, Tennessee. The administrators of the estate of the late James Montgomery and his other heirs seek the court’s permission to sell the estate’s ten slaves. They argue that because “said estate will have to be divided into 11 original Distributive shares and there only being 10 slaves, unequal in value,” a sale is necessary “in order that an equal distribution of said estate may be had.” 0579 (Accession # 21484610). Marshall County, Tennessee. The daughters of Robert W. Hill join their respective husbands and their minor brother, William Jasper Hill Jr., in asking the court to “set apart” their interest in five slaves in order that they be “advantageously divided.” The children recovered the slaves “against their said father by a decree of this Court” at an earlier term, and the slaves “were settled upon them separate and apart” from their husbands. Two daughters have recently married “and no provision has been made for them independent of their said husbands.” They fear that the slaves, who are now hired out, “are likely to contract habits of an injurious character.” They inform the court that James C. Record, their trustee, holds a fund of the slaves’ hire, which they would also like divided among them. 0585 (Accession # 21484611). Marshall County, Tennessee. Priscilla Russell seeks a divorce from John Russell, her husband of eighteen years. Priscilla accuses her husband of abandonment and adultery. She confesses that “she & her said children (three of whom are girls) have been left comparatively unprovided for, and are at any time liable to be turned out upon the world without any the slightest provision for their support.” She particularly fears that John “is now seeking to turn his property into money for the purpose ... of evading such responsibility.” She asks the court to appoint a receiver to take the property, including a slave named Burton, into custody until the suit is determined. She also seeks a “suitable support and maintenance for herself and her said children.” 0595 (Accession # 21484612). Davidson County, Tennessee. Matilda Kingston seeks a divorce from her husband, William Kingston, who abandoned his family in 1845 after twelve years of marriage. Matilda characterizes his disposition during the marriage as “cross, ill natured, crabbed & faultfinding.” Before he finally deserted her, he beat her with “a large stick” and gave her “a half dozen severe & heavy blows, over the shoulders and arms to the manifest danger of her limbs & life.” He then instructed their son to bring him a “cowhide or horse whip,” but Matilda was able to escape to her brother’s house before further injury. “At a loss for any just excuse” to abandon her, William “offered to hire a man ... to creep to bed to your Oratrix, & let himself be detected there.” She fears that her husband “will return, and again assert his rights over her as his wife & subject her to his will & violent conduct.” She surmises that this conduct “is founded in his disappointment in not receiving as much property as her fathers circumstances at the time of marriage induced him to hope for.” She also asks the court to enjoin him from “carrying off” her slave, Louisa, “which came to her as her distributive share of her fathers estate & was when he left, nursing the infant child which was left with your oratrix.” She asks the court to “settle” Louisa upon her. 0602 (Accession # 21484613). Smith County, Tennessee. Bartlett B. Uhls and James C. Sanders, the executor of John Cochran’s estate, ask the court to seize and sell Thomas J. Black’s remainder interest in six slaves currently in the possession of his mother, Elizabeth Folks. Claiming that Black, a former deputy sheriff, is indebted to them, the petitioners charge that he has “removed to parts unknown,” where he is “hopelessly insolvent” with the exception 179 Reel 14 Tennessee of his interest in these slaves. Sanders’s testator gave two slaves, Mourning and her son, Jim, to his sister Elizabeth in 1834 and she was to have “the use of said negros during her natural life,” after which the slaves would be divided among her seven children. Mourning has since had four more children. The petitioners ask the court to sell Black’s “undivided seventh” of the slaves; in the meantime, they ask the court to enjoin Black and Folks from either disposing of or selling any part of Black’s interest in the property. An 1848 report of sale reveals that Black’s interest in the six slaves was sold to Henry McDonald for $160. 0610 (Accession # 21484614). Maury County, Tennessee. Thomas Mahan asks the court to enjoin “all further proceedings” in the collection of a judgment against him regarding the hire of a slave named Caswell. He contends that William Brooks has attempted to “defraud” him by refusing to “give him the just credits & deductions” to which he is entitled for the “support and maintenance” of his mother-in-law, Mary Brooks. Mary left Caswell, in whom she held a life estate, with Joseph before she “removed to the Western District” decades ago. At her son’s behest, Mahan took possession of Caswell and kept him at “the rate of fifty dollars a year” for a period of five years until Mary’s death. In 1845 one Michael Dooley brought suit against Mahan for Caswell’s hire and won a judgment. William Jackson later “made a claim for the hire of said slave as a compensation to himself” for “the board and maintenance of said Mary Brooks.” Both Dooley and Jackson transferred their claims to Joseph “who concealed his interest” therein from Mahan. Mahan claims that “by procuring said pretended claim” from Jackson and “getting a nominal administration for his sole benefit” from Dooley, Brooks will deprive Mary Brooks’s heirs “of their just distributive shares in said estate.” Mahan is entitled to a share in right of his deceased wife. Brooks has since transferred the judgment to a third party who “has taken out an execution.” He asks the court to “perpetually enjoin the same.” 0620 (Accession # 21484615). Knox County, Tennessee. Gabriella and her two daughters, Delila and Henrietta, ask the court to enjoin the heirs of Joseph Bell from selling them as slaves. Citing their “history of lineage,” they proclaim that Gabriella’s grandmother, Jinny, was “an Indian and free” and that her mother, Judy, was “begotten by a white man by whom her grand mother had ten children born at or near Port Royal Caroline Co. Virginia.” Jinny resided with one John Roy and, “either by Indenture or some other arrangement,” came into the possession of and resided with “a certain Rodham Kenney.” After Gabriella was born, she and her mother “were taken by some legal process and sold as the slaves or property of” Kenney and eventually purchased by “a certain Edward Downing,” who gave them to his sister, Bell’s wife. The Bells then brought them to Tennessee and received the profits of their labor until Joseph died around 1838. The petitioners represent that “there is to be this day an assembling” of Bell’s heirs “for the purposes of distributing or selling” them; “the time has at length arrived when complainants are absolutely forced to assert the right which they have to freedom.” They reveal that Bell always admitted their ancestors’ freedom and that his daughter, Margery, “has repeatedly declared that at her death complainants with their offspring,” who now number eight, “should be free.” They pray that the court “will decree their absolute freedom and will perpetually enjoin the said defendants from any interference.” 0639 (Accession # 21484616). Smith County, Tennessee. Lorenzo Ballow and his wife, Mary Kitrell Ballow, seek to protect their remainder interest in several slaves under the terms of a trust established in 1826 by Mary’s father, Isaac Kitrell. The trust reserved to Kitrell a life estate in four female slaves—Rose, Winney, Harriet, and Mima—and directed that the women and their “increase” be equally divided amongst Kitrell’s children at his death. Kitrell then “placed” Rose with the Ballows; Winney with Margarett Kitrell Proctor and her husband, Green; Harriet with Isham Kitrell; and Mima with Fielding Kitrell. While subject “to be returned to him whenever called for,” the slaves spent the next decade thus dispersed, and each slave woman had one or 180 Reel 14 Tennessee more children, several of whom were later conveyed outside of the family. While the elder Kitrell is still living, the Ballows fear that Mary’s siblings are maneuvering the property in a manner “prejudicial to their rights.” They have approached Kitrell to formalize the loans as they currently exist, ensuring “no further division” of the slaves at his death. Fearing that their title to the slaves “may be involved in further difficulty and dispute,” they ask the court to declare to them “their estate & title in remainder to an undivided fourth of said negroes mentioned in said deed.” 0650 (Accession # 21484617). Smith County, Tennessee. Ruth Moore seeks a divorce from her husband of thirty years, John Moore. Ruth informs the court that she lived “very happily” with her husband for about twenty years until he became “much addicted to the debasing habit of intoxication” and began to verbally and physically abuse her. She now has “Just cause to fear and does fear that she is in Great danger of death or Great bodily harm from” his abuse. Ruth brought two female slaves to the marriage; one of them, Eliza, has since had five children. Ruth asserts that the couple had “a Very good start for young beginners in the world which with proper care and economy might have been increased by this time to a hansom estate.” John, however, has “disposed of her real estate his own and the most of said slaves.” She seeks an injunction to prevent John “from disturbing or in any way molesting her in the possession and enjoyment” of two slaves, who remain with her, and “a reasonable Sum for maintenance” during the suit. Less than a month later, Ruth filed an amended bill asking the court to bar the constable, and “all other the creditors real or pretended” of her husband, from selling the couple’s four remaining slaves to pay John’s debts. In his answer, John Moore attributed his wife’s marital discontent to a period of “very feeble health,” wherein she “became apprehensive of the loss of their property.” The “heavy expenses incurred” during her sickness drained their finances, and they lost “nine valuable negroes by death.” The couple dismissed the suit in August 1847, attesting that the “difficulties existing have been amicably adjusted.” 0666 (Accession # 21484618). Washington County, Tennessee. In an amended bill of complaint, Sarah Jett asks the court to perpetually bar her estranged husband, Starke Jett, and three other men from selling her slave named Ricard [Richard] to satisfy certain debts owed by her husband to creditors. Sarah explains that, from the time of her marriage until the said judgment, she had the “entire controll and management of said negro boy,” who was part of her allotment from her father’s estate. Starke “renounced” all rights to Richard and signed a marriage contract stipulating that Sarah “should have the exclusive control benefit and use of the said negro boy.” She has since “left the house of her said husband” due to his “cruel and intolerable ill-treatment,” and has filed a bill for divorce in the circuit court. One of Starke’s creditors, Jacob Merchant, has caused multiple levies to issue against Richard, upon certain lands of hers in Virginia, and upon property in her father’s estate. She asks the court to “stay the insatiable hand” of Merchant, who is trying to force “a quadruple payment of said debt.” She also prays “that the said negro boy be by a decree of your honourable court restored to the absolute control of your Complainant.” 0675 (Accession # 21484619). Washington County, Tennessee. John Gamble seeks compensation for the “care, maintenance & support” of his forty-year-old sister, Elizabeth, who is of “unsound mind” and “requires as much assistance watchfulness & care as an infant.” Gamble represents that he has kept Elizabeth at his own house, paid her medical bills “for the last Fifteen or Sixteen Years,” and “had the trouble & expense of rearing feeding & clothing two negro slaves, from their infancy to the present time.” Now, “less able, than he was formerly to bear the constant drain upon his purse & his industry,” he asks that “his past expenditures be reimbursed him & that he be allowed a fair compensation for the past maintenance of his sd sister & for her future support.” Gamble further requests that the clerk and master be directed to “take an account” of the debts due him from the said Elizabeth and to ascertain if it would be 181 Reel 14 Tennessee “expedient” to sell the thirteen- and fifteen-year-old slaves in order to raise a fund for Elizabeth’s support. A related deposition reveals that the slaves are the children of Elizabeth’s sole slave, who “was drowned some thirteen or fourteen years” ago. 0697 (Accession # 21484620). Davidson County, Tennessee. Carter Allen, surety on Thomas Taylor’s guardianship bond, asks the court to require Taylor to make a complete settlement of accounts with his son-in-law and daughter, William K. and Pamelia Ware; he is particularly concerned about the management of the two slaves owned by Pamelia before her marriage. Taylor assumed guardianship of Pamelia in 1819 and continued in that capacity until she married Ware in 1828. At that time, Taylor delivered the two slaves to the Wares, who took “the possession & control of them from that date.” Allen now represents that he and Taylor “are growing in years, and may not in the course of nature live many more years.” He “desires to close his business transactions & be free from all anxiety, and litigation.” Having examined the records of the county court, he has noticed that Taylor has not filed any returns for the years between 1820 and 1827. He fears that he “would be harassed with litigation” if Taylor died without settling the account and seeks the court’s assistance in settling the matter. Allen died before the case was adjudged; the bill was later revived in his executrix’s name and subsequently dismissed. 0711 (Accession # 21484621). Maury County, Tennessee. Dillard Hardwick seeks “to countermand the attachment and injunction granted upon the prayer” of his father, Jonathan P. Hardwick. The petitioner reminds the court that his father filed “his original bill” on 23 December 1846, in which he claimed entitlement to an enslaved family and prayed that “they may be delivered to him.” Noting that the court issued an attachment on said slaves, Dillard now enters his cross bill, charging that “the negroes mentioned in Complts Bill are his own absolute property that he purchased them in the year 1838.” He further explains that his father became “pressed and embarassed in his circumstances,” whereby “your orator loaned him sd. negroes with others for an indefinite period with the understanding & agreement that he was to have them until he became relieved from his embarasment or until your orator should need them & that he was to return them at any time when demanded by your orator.” Dillard declares that his father “has had the possession and use of his negroes for a longtime he is now able to do without them and your Orator needs them and wants them.” Fearful “that sd negroes are unsafe and in danger of being removed by the sd. Jonathan beyond the jurisdiction of sd Court,” the petitioner prays that he “be permitted to retain the possession of sd. slaves and to dispose of them as his interest may dictate.” 0744 (Accession # 21484623). Davidson County, Tennessee. Edward Wilkinson and his sister, Emma C. Wilkinson, seek the return of two slaves from Anthony W. Vanleer and Robert Baxter. The siblings explain that their grandmother, Sarah McCarstle, gave them each a slave on 10 November 1835; Edward received Bob or Robert, “a negro man then about twenty two years of age,” while Emma received “a negro woman slave named Fanny about the same age.” The petitioners complain that their father sold the slaves to the Nashville firm of Vanleer, Hicks & Co. around the year 1838 or 1839, “in part consideration of a steamboat” called the Nashville. Asserting that he did not have “any power or authority so to do,” the petitioners now wish to hold the firm’s surviving partners, Vanleer and Baxter, “accountable.” They characterize the slaves as “valuable family negroes,” for whom they “cannot be compensated” in money. They also seek reimbursement for the slaves’ hire while in the firm’s possession. 0761 (Accession # 21484624). Davidson County, Tennessee. Nathaniel Drake, a minor petitioning through his next friend, Alfred Drake, asks the court to compel his former guardian, Benjamin C. Drake, to compensate him for “whatever estate of his has come, or might, by due diligence, have come into” his hands. The petitioner explains that Drake has never rendered an 182 Reel 14 Tennessee account of his guardianship since his appointment in 1835. Before he recently “withdrew himself from the state,” Benjamin sold his plantation, several of his slaves, and other property “to defeat and defraud your orator of his just demand upon him.” A partial list of said property includes: “the said slaves Caroline and Squire ... in the hands of said [William] Chandler; and the slaves Sylva and children in the hands of the said Elisha Reeves; and the said slaves Charles and Mary and the four head of horses and fifty barrels of corn in the custody of Charles.” Benjamin also “falsely pretended ... to set said Charles free.” The petitioner now asks the court to attach the property and to appoint a receiver endowed “with power to dispose of it,” so that the proceeds can be applied “towards satisfaction of your Orator’s said demand.” 0770 (Accession # 21484625). Davidson County, Tennessee. George Hall and Andrew Blakemore seek to protect their interest in several slaves currently held by Jenny Hutson Robertson, the widow and executrix of Jesse Hutson [Hudson]. The petitioners explain that they are the assignees of Jesse Hutson Jr. and are thus entitled “either in possession action or reversion to all the property devised to him by said will.” They charge that Jenny’s second husband, William P. Robertson, during his lifetime, “either carried, or caused to be carried to parts unknown” several slaves embraced in Hutson’s will, sold them for “about the sum of thirteen hundred dollars,” and purchased other slaves in their stead. Hall and Blakemore’s father brought suit against the Robertsons in 1814 and caused them to enter into bond for the slaves’ forthcoming at Jenny’s death. The petitioners now voice their concern that the sureties on the bond are “wholly insolvent.” The slaves have increased in number despite two women having “disappeared” or run away. They fear that Robertson “or some agent of hers” will “carry off said slaves” and thereby “defraud & defeat” their claim. They ask the court to enjoin Robertson and to appoint a receiver to keep the slaves during the suit’s pendency. They also ask the court to compel Robertson to account for the whereabouts of all the slaves and their issue and to give bond with security that she will not remove any of them. 0784 (Accession # 21484626). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Rolly Wrather asks the court to enjoin Henry and Levi White and Adam Finch from selling his slave named Charlotte. Wrather explains that he hired Charlotte to his son, Alexander, “during the term of the year 1846.” Constable Finch has levied executions “upon said Girl Charlotte” at the “instance of the said Henry and Levi B White, who are or pretend to be creditors of the said Alexander B. Wrather.” The petitioner asserts that Charlotte “never was the property of the said Alexander B. further than he acquired a specie property by hiring her for the year.” Averring that Charlotte was in fact “born in your orator’s family,” Wrather declares that he “attaches peculiar value to her that cannot be compensated by damages.” He asks the court to determine “by what authority they have interfered with said slave” and to decree that Charlotte be “delivered up to your Orator.” 0794 (Accession # 21484627). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Minor siblings William H. and Sarah B. Smith join their uncle, Joel R. Smith, in seeking to secure their remainder interest in several slaves belonging to Joel’s recently deceased mother, Elizabeth McMinn. McMinn received a life estate in three slaves by the 1835 will of her father, George Ridley. The petitioners charge that, after Ridley’s death, McMinn “assumed to ... do acts which were inconsistent with her limited title” in the slaves, including making “dispositions of a portion of them which, she ... had no right to make.” McMinn particularly “attempted to give away” the slaves to various children, who in turn sold them to third parties; those not otherwise disposed of are now in the possession of McMinn’s sons, William and Peter Smith, and include some of the nine children of Hannah, a slave named in Ridley’s will. Noting that McMinn’s life estate was subject to a deed of trust, the petitioners now accuse the trustees of negligence and assert that they are liable personally “for so much of the trust property as has been lost by their neglect.” 183 Reel 14 Tennessee They sue McMinn’s heirs for the value of the slaves already sold and their hire, and they seek a proper division of the slaves among those who share remainder interest in them. 0810 (Accession # 21484628). Washington County, Tennessee. John McCrosky amends a previous bill by asking the court to grant him “a priority over” the president and directors of the Bank of Tennessee in the satisfaction of a claim against John A. Aiken, Alfred E. Jackson, and William G. Gammon. McCrosky explains that he recovered a judgment in 1838 against Aiken in the name of Henry McCray. Eight years later the Bank of Tennessee also won a judgment against Aiken, and an execution was levied upon Aiken’s two slaves named Elbert and Jenny. The court soon thereafter stayed the execution by granting Aiken an indulgence. McCrosky asserts that Jackson “had no authority” to order the issuance of said execution and that “said levy creates no lien on said slaves and that if any attaches it does so by virtue of your Orators said execution previously issued and returned as aforesaid.” He asks the court to enjoin the men from removing the slaves beyond the court’s jurisdiction. He also requests that the sheriff of Washington County take custody of the two slaves until the case is heard and adjudged. [The Race and Slavery Petitions Project does not hold McCrosky’s original bill.] 0817 (Accession # 21484629). Davidson County, Tennessee. John Reid, administrator of the estate of the late Peter M. Winston, seeks the court’s interpretation of “the meaning of ... some of the clauses and items” in Winston’s last will and testament. In particular, Reid asks how the “laws of the land” affect his testator’s direction to “purchase as soon as possible, and without delay a woman of color, named Eliza and all her children, and that said Eliza & children, after the purchase be, forthwith, emancipated, and taken to a free State, & placed there in a situation that they can live comfortably.” The petitioner also cites the clause wherein the executor is directed to purchase a plot of land for one Kitty Ailstolk and to “support her in a comfortable & reputable manner during her life, and at her death sell said place for the benefit of Eliza & her children.” Reid finally asserts that Winston directed that “all the rest and residue of his property real and personal” be given to Eliza and her children. The petitioner therefore prays that Winston’s next of kin be made party defendants and that his “said will & the provisions thereof be constructed and specific directions be given.” The hire values for five slaves for the years 1855–1857 are listed in the clerk and master’s report dated May 1857. 0862 (Accession # 21484630). Sumner County, Tennessee. Elizabeth Rutherford asks the court to compel her son, Thomas W. Rutherford, to make a settlement with her regarding the business he transacted while superintending her farm. The petitioner explains that, after her husband’s death, Thomas desired to “live with her, and take charge of the farm,” which employed “six working hands.” She consented that “he should do so and after the family being supported, out of the proceeds of the farm he should take and manage for his own use the overplus.” A particular slave named Jacob, a “valuable boy,” was not to “compose one of the hands, or an in any manner to fall within said arrangement.” During the three years that she and Thomas shared the farm, he “acted as her agent” and hired out Jacob “upon a steam boat” for Elizabeth’s benefit. She now contends that Thomas owes her $18 per month for Jacob’s hire for portions of the three-year span and for certain other expenses, such as a doctor’s bill and a note he collected for her. She asks the court to assist her in obtaining compensation from Thomas, who “retains possession of her farm as aforesaid.” This case was arbitrated with another related suit filed by Thomas Rutherford against Elizabeth. 0868 (Accession # 21484631). Sumner County, Tennessee. In his amended bill of complaint, Thomas W. Rutherford, executor of the estate of the late James Rutherford, seeks to protect the remainder interest in several slaves belonging to his testator’s heirs. His earlier bill sought to enjoin his mother, Elizabeth Rutherford, and three others from removing an estate slave named Ritter and her child beyond the court’s jurisdiction. He has recently been informed that the 184 Reel 14 Tennessee defendants sold the slaves to “John Hall & his brother,” who intend to “remove them to the state of Mississippi.” Rutherford now contends that, if the slaves are carried off, “it will be an entire loss to said heirs in remainder” and he will be held accountable. He asks the court to compel the defendants to answer “all they know” about the transaction and the slaves’ whereabouts. He also asks the court to order the sheriff to attach Ritter and her child while the suit is pending. This case was arbitrated with another related suit filed by Thomas Rutherford against Elizabeth. [The Race and Slavery Petitions Project does not hold Rutherford’s original bill.] 0873 (Accession # 21484632). Shelby County, Tennessee. Marcus Brown, a free man of color, “is desirous of remaining & residing in the County of Shelby in said state.” He declares “that he is a native of the state of Tennessee” and that “he has a number of acquaintances & friends in said County & state.” Of the opinion that he can “more easily make a support for himself by his labor than he could do else where,” Brown “prays your Honorable Court to grant him the privilege of remaining and residing in said County according to the act of assembly in such case made.” 0878 (Accession # 21484634). Marshall County, Tennessee. Lavina Wilson complains that Samuel Kanier holds her slave named Charlotte “in defiance of complainants known & acknowledged title.” Lavina loaned Charlotte to her mother, Mary Alexander, “about 12 or 13 years” ago. Her mother was about to move to Tennessee from North Carolina “and being old and poor, complainant furnished her with said Girl to wait upon her in Tennessee.” Mary died in 1839 and her son-in-law, Samuel Kanier, took possession of Charlotte and has “continued to the present time to have the benefit of said negro’s labor a period of nearly seven years.” Wilson asserts that Kanier is “accountable” to her for Charlotte’s hire “during that space of time.” Charlotte is now in the possession of Richard Dougherty, who “under pretence of hiring her has colluded with his co-defendant to keep complainant out of her rights.” She fears that Kanier and Dougherty will take Charlotte out of the state and asks for an attachment and injunction so that Charlotte cannot be moved. She also seeks an account of Charlotte’s hire. 0884 (Accession # 21484635). Marshall County, Tennessee. David McGahey seeks the court’s aid in settling an estate. Joab Bagly died in June 1845 and, as administrator of the estate, McGahey sold most of Bagly’s personal estate “except the slaves & also such articles as were left with the widow for her years support.” The $1,200 raised from the sale is not enough to pay the liabilities of the estate, so McGahey believes that some or all of the slaves must be sold. He further informs the court that two of Bagly’s sons-in-law, Richmond Campbell and John Orr Jr., borrowed money from Bagly to buy land. Campbell gave notes but has not repaid them. Orr never gave notes “and is liable for it either as a debt or as an advancement.” McGahey asks the court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs, to subpoena the heirs to ascertain how much advancement they received during Bagly’s life, and to decide whether to sell the slaves or divide them among Bagly’s heirs. [Petition damaged.] 0908 (Accession # 21484636). Sumner County, Tennessee. Thomas Norvell and his two sisters, Susan and Minerva Norvell, seek writs of injunction and attachment against Aaron Adams, John Mills, and Benjamin Mills to protect their interest in certain slaves they claim as a legacy from their grandfather, Anthony Murray. The Norvells explain that they hold the remainder interest in four slaves bequeathed to their mother, Sarah Norvell, during her lifetime. They now complain that their indebted father, Robert Norvell, either mortgaged or sold said slaves in 1815 to various parties in violation of Murray’s will. The slaves in question have “increased” in number to fourteen and are now scattered across four states and in the possession of the defendants and several other men. The petitioners assert that, at Sarah Norvell’s death in March 1843, three-fourths of the title to the slaves vested in them. (Another sister has relinquished her interest in the slaves.) They now ask the court to partition the slaves 185 Reel 14 Tennessee among them and to order the defendants to compensate them for the slaves’ hire since their mother’s death. Reel 15 Tennessee cont. 1847 0002 (Accession # 21484701). Bedford County, Tennessee. Sophia A. M. Swales seeks a divorce and alimony from her husband, John Swales. She declares that “she intermarried with one John Swales: that they lived together a number of years ... peaceably & kindly” until “about seven years ago” when her said husband abandoned her and their two children. Sophia recounts that “she does not now know where he resides or what has become of him,” and she alleges that “her husband has been utterly neglectful of your Oratrix during that time: failing to provide for her and family those necessaries of life, which from his position he was bound to do.” The petitioner “would further state that she has in her possession as the property of John Swales three negroes ... which negroes your Oratrix received from her parents and they did not come from her said husband, or any of his relations.” Sophia requests that the court will “decree a dissolution of the bond of matrimony now existing between your Oratrix and the said John Swales and also grant to your Oratrix and her two children such alimony as to your Honor may seem right.” 0007 (Accession # 21484702). Maury County, Tennessee. George H. Gordon, a resident of Mississippi, seeks to recover “the right & title” to thirteen slaves that were conveyed to him in a deed of trust by Wesley Reily on 2 March 1842. Gordon explains that Reily “being indebted to divers persons in a large amount of money ... executed a deed of trust, to secure said debts,” thereby conveying the said slaves to your orator as trustee. He points out “that by the terms of said deed it was the duty of your orator” to seize the aforesaid property, “which was not placed in his possession, and sell the same,” if Reily “should fail to pay off said judgments or said promissory note.” Gordon charges that shortly “after the execution of said Deed & before the execution of the trusts therein specified the said Wesley Reily ... ran off & carried away said negro slaves in said deed conveyed out of the state of Mississippi.” Citing that he “was defrauded out of his right as trustee,” Gordon prays that writs of attachment issue on the slaves that were fraudulently sold and that the title to all the slaves be vested in him “or that they be sold & the proceeds paid over to your orator.” 0019 (Accession # 21484704). Davidson County, Tennessee. The cross bill of Ann Banks and others requests that the sheriff take custody of a slave girl named Leah [Lear] until the court rules on both petitions. Banks represents that she and the other petitioners have judgments against the defendants for various sums, resulting in a levy “upon a negro girl named Lear.” Banks contends the slave has been “transfered and conveyed” from one defendant to the wife of another defendant “since the levy of said executions.” Charging “that said conveyance is fraudulent and made for the purpose of defeating” their demands, the petitioners believe “that said negro is liable for their claims” and implore the court to rule in their favor. 0030 (Accession # 21484705). Maury County, Tennessee. In a series of petitions during the years 1847 and 1848, Margaret Hackney seeks the court’s interposition in her unhappy marriage with Joseph Hackney. First petitioning through her brother and next friend, George Dickey, she seeks a separation from Joseph and alimony. Citing her husband’s “aim and design 186 Reel 15 Tennessee ... to become ... the owner of her negroes,” she alleges that Joseph “is anxiously awaiting her decease in order to have his scheme fully consummated.” She believes that he is trying to hasten her death and has “even gone as far as to force opium and brandy upon her when she was lying sick.” He also removed her from their farm where she was “comfortably situated” and has “incarcerated her in a most uncomfortable shed-room.” She fears she will “die by piecemeal” through exposure to inclement weather and Joseph’s disregard. Dickey shortly thereafter files a bill reiterating his sister’s “present situation,” adding that Joseph forbids Margaret’s relatives to visit her, and he asks the court to “determine whether she ought forthwith to be so provided for that her health and comfort may be secured.” Margaret answers with a bill for dismissal, relating her brother’s death, her expectation not to live “much longer,” and her desire to remain with Joseph, whom she calls “her best living friend.” After the court appoints her another next friend, she reopens her suit and asks to be “placed among her friends where she can be treated kindly in her declining days.” She then amends this bill, accusing Joseph of adultery, asking for an “absolute divorce” from him and that “all the property that belonged to her at the time of said marriage be settled upon her.” 0062 (Accession # 21484706). Davidson County, Tennessee. William H. Petty, the sole heir of the late William Petty, seeks possession of a slave named Tenah. Petty recounts that his father died in 1826, possessed of “a negro woman slave named Tenah,” who went “into the hands of” of his estate administrator, John Greer. Petty charges that Greer “sold without any order or authority” the slave woman, who at present “has come into hands of said Catherine Lee who now holds and claims her as her own.” Reporting that Greer is now deceased, Petty “prays that said Catherine Lee and William T. Ross administrator of said John Greer” answer his charges and that “the said slave be decreed and declared to be the property of your orator.” 0068 (Accession # 21484707). Smith County, Tennessee. William L. Martin, trustee of Joseph A. Martin, reports that “there was allotted to petitioner in trust for said Joseph A. Martin a negro named Tom,” which represented one-seventh of the property owned by the late William Martin, their father. William explains that “after the division of said negroes the said Joseph A. Martin ... made a contract with Wilson T. Martin” to exchange Tom for “a negro woman Marinda and her two children Jane & Alfred.” As trustee, William consented to the trade and “is of opinion that the exchange was fairly made, that the woman & children were worth the amt given for them.” He asks “that your honor confirm said contract” and “that titles to said slaves be divested and Invested accordingly.” 0073 (Accession # 21484708). Lincoln County, Tennessee. Abram Martin, Edward A. Mosely, and James and Ann Finch seek writs of injunction and attachment to ensure the safekeeping of five estate slaves involved in a title dispute with Samuel E. Gilliland and Matt M. Marshall. Marshall claims the slaves according to an 1843 will of Rachael Martin. The petitioners, however, assert that, before her death in 1847, Martin published another will, which “revoked and annulled” the earlier document. They inform the court that from the evening of Martin’s burial “up to this day” the slaves have been “unheard of by your complainants and were taken and carried ... from said grave yard or the plantation ... into the county of Lincoln.” They believe that Marshall, who is “in insolvent circumstances,” will remove the slaves beyond the jurisdiction of the court preventing their ability to recover them. They ask the sheriff to take the slaves into his custody “to abide the decree of this court at the division of a suit at law to be brought for their recovery.” 0087 (Accession # 21484709). Lincoln County, Tennessee. Charles Bright, “Administrator with the will annexed of James Duff deceased,” seeks a “construction of said will and aid in the due execution of the same.” Bright reports that Duff died “seized and possessed both of considerable real and personal estate.” He cites that Duff bequeathed “all and singular my 187 Reel 15 Tennessee negro slaves, both male and female to the American Colonization Society to be by them transported to the American Colony of Liberia to be forever free and independent.” In addition, Duff also allocated “the sum of $50” to “each of my negro slaves so set free.” Bright further reveals that Duff’s will directed that “until it shall be convenient for the above named Society to transport my negro slaves so set free, that they shall be hired out by families and the proceeds thereof ... be applied towards having the children both male and female taught to read, write and cypher.” Noting his lack of legal expertise, Bright pleads for assistance in executing “all the points that may arise under said will.” He also prays “that this Court would appoint a guardian or guardians” for the twenty-eight slaves, whom he has requested be named as parties to the bill. 0112 (Accession # 21484710). Davidson County, Tennessee. Felix K. Zollicoffer asks the court to “attach” seven slaves belonging to Hudson A. Kidd. Zollicoffer, “accommodation indorser” on a note for $650 owed by Kidd, fears that Kidd will “remove and carry off said property beyond the limits of the State of Tennessee,” making Zollicoffer liable for the debt, which will “become due about the 27th day of February 1847.” The petitioner, in addition, seeks payment of the debt. 0119 (Accession # 21484711). Davidson County, Tennessee. Benjamin Litton, surety on a note for Mary F. Baldwin, asks the court to hold Baldwin’s separate property liable for a debt she contracted to purchase household furniture. Litton acknowledges that Baldwin set up a marriage contract with her husband, Henry, to prevent Henry’s creditors from selling Mary’s slaves to satisfy his debts. The court deemed the couple’s “household and kitchen furniture” liable for said debts, and at a sale of the same, Mary purchased various “beds, chairs, tables, carpets, plates, knives, forks &c ... absolutely necessary for the comfort and existence of her family.” Her husband was not considered “in any way a party to the transaction.” Litton charges that the terms of the marriage contract authorized Mary to contract debts and that her “separate property” should therefore be made subject for the same. He reports that, although many of the slaves mentioned in her marriage contract “have died, been sold, or are incumbered by mortgages,” a “sufficiency of property” remains in her hands. He asks the court to compel her to “set forth” the extent of her slave property, which could then be sold or hired out to repay him. 0127 (Accession # 21484712). Davidson County, Tennessee. Melissa Robertson requests that the defendants be enjoined from selling a slave named Leah [Lear]. The petitioner explains that “on the 15th June 1843 one Preston W. Davis a neighbor and friend of hers conveyed to the said James Whitworth by a bill of sale or Deed of Trust ... a certain negro girl named Lear to be Kept and used by your oratrix and her children.” She states that in November 1843 said slave was levied upon whereby the petitioner “obtained an injunction and prevented [the constable] from selling her,” and the slave “was redelivered to your oratrix and has remained in her possession ever since without being disturbed.” Robertson recounts that “a few days ago” a constable “by virtue of a pretended or real judgment, and execution, ... against her said husband” once again levied on Leah and “has advertised her for sale on the 18th day of this month.” Claiming “that said negro girl is a family servant that she has in a great degree raised her from her infancy that she is much attached to her,” Robertson prays that the defendants be “perpetually enjoined from selling said negro girl and that she be redelivered to your Oratrix.” 0137 (Accession # 21484713). Maury County, Tennessee. Elizabeth Smith and her five minor siblings ask the court to attach several slaves now in the possession of Arkey Y. Partee and to require Partee to “give bond & security for the forthcoming of all sd negroes with their increase” at the termination of their mother’s life estate. In 1826 the petitioners’ father conveyed the slaves to William Yancy for the use of their mother, Nancy Hobson Smith, during her natural life and “after her death the sd negroes with their increase if any to be equally divided between all her children.” Yancy hired out a seventeen-year-old female slave named Gilley, and the profits 188 Reel 15 Tennessee she generated were intended to support Nancy. Noting that their father and their trustee have died, the Smiths aver that Gilley and her seven children are now in Partee’s possession, “by what right he claims [them] or ... how he got possession of them your oratrices & orators know not.” The petitioners fear that, considering the “difficiency of his title to sd negroes,” Partee will “run them off” beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Two years later, Partee filed his cross bill asking the court to nullify the 1826 deed of trust and make “good and valid” his title to Gilley and her children. Partee claimed that he acquired the slaves when they were levied upon and that the deed of trust between Smith and Yancy was created to defraud Smith’s creditors. 0154 (Accession # 21484714). Smith County, Tennessee. Thomas Wooton, executor of the will of Peggy Coleman, seeks permission to sell an estate slave named Mariah in order to discharge the estate’s debts. He also asks the court “to construe said Will as to the time of distribution of the surplus” of the estate’s assets. Coleman’s will directed that Mariah “should go to” her sister and her sister’s husband, “for the special purpose that they should take her niece Martha Jane Douglas, and raise and educate her.” The couple was to keep Mariah until Martha Jane became of age, married, or died. Adding that they “have failed to take said slave upon the terms mentioned in said Will,” Wooten asks to sell Mariah in order to make a distribution of the proceeds “amongst those entitled under the will.” Included in the packet are depositions and a decree in the 1860 case of minor Martha Jane Douglass versus A. H. King, in which Douglass seeks compensation for Mariah’s hire during the years 1846–1860. The depositions with the petition estimate her hire at an average of $40 a year over the fourteen-year span. 0163 (Accession # 21484715). Williamson County, Tennessee. Jacob Halfacre Jr., surety for Sarah Nevills on a note used to purchase a slave, seeks reimbursement from Sarah and her husband, Josiah Nevills, in the amount of $217.17. Halfacre explains that Nevills induced him to become her security by “saying that she had an ample seperate estate under” the will of her late father, Lodwick B. Beech, that would pay the note. Beech’s administrator also confirmed to Halfacre that Sarah was entitled in trust to four slaves as a separate estate. When the note became due, however, Sarah was unable to pay it, suit was instituted against Halfacre, and a judgment was obtained against him. Sarah sold the slave, a fourteen-year-old boy named Jacob, repurchasing him herself, but did not generate enough money to discharge the judgment against Halfacre in its entirety. Halfacre informs the court that Beech’s administrator has assented to Sarah’s legacy, and she now hold four slaves through inheritance. He asks the court to compel the sale of a portion of this property in order to pay the debt. 0169 (Accession # 21484716). Giles County, Tennessee. George T. Malone, administrator of the estate of the late Willis R. Malone, joins the other “heirs & next of kin” of the said intestate in seeking assistance in settling the estate. The petitioners point out that “the said Willis R. Malone had, at his death, no effects of much value, except such as he derived under the will of his father George Malone.” They ask the court to decide if the said property should “upon the death of said Willis R., to go to his administrator & his assets for the payment of his debts, or whether the same rolls back into his father’s estate & goes to his relations under said will.” They also report that George T. Malone, in his duty as administrator, sold fourteen-year-old Giles, the sole slave in the estate, for “a full & fair price & which sale complainants desire to be confirmed.” The petitioners therefore pray that the creditors of the estate be named “defendants to this bill,” that an account of the estate’s assets and expenses be determined, and that “the residue of said assets distributed & divided as required by law.” 0178 (Accession # 21484717). Davidson County, Tennessee. George W. Martin seeks damages from Ralph Martin for an alleged fraud committed against him in a transaction for the sale of two slaves. George reports that he was convinced by the defendant to purchase from him a husband and wife named Appollo and Hannah for $1,250. Ralph recommended the 189 Reel 15 Tennessee slaves “in the highest terms,” characterizing Appollo as “remarkable for his fidelity [and] integrity”; he also stated that Appollo “could make as a hack driver forty dollars a month” and that Hannah “could make one hundred dollars a year.” Shortly after the transaction, however, Hannah ran away to a free state and Appollo, after being furnished with “a fine pair of horses to be driven in a hack,” attempted to follow her, but was arrested and jailed. After some effort and expense, Appollo was retrieved and returned to the petitioner. Claiming that Ralph knew that the two slaves “entertained” the desire to run away, George asserts that Ralph “deceived him in said contract.” He asks that “account be taken of the cost & expense paid by [him] and of the value of said negro slaves, and that the said note be delivered up and cancelled.” In his answer, Ralph Martin describes Appollo as a slave “allowed to hire his own time, paying his business to respondent,” and Hannah as someone who “lived almost as a free person.” 0192 (Accession # 21484718). Smith County, Tennessee. David F. Womack, trustee for Thomas G. Lindsey and his family, seeks writs of injunction and ne exeat to recover three slaves currently in the possession of Jeremiah Smith and Samuel Tinsley. Womack loaned the slaves to Lindsey’s family after he was unable to comply with a court decree directing him “to lay out said [trust] fund in a negro woman.” The slaves, described as “family negroes raised by your orator,” were worth $600. Lindsey promised to “make up the difference” between the slaves’ value and the money in the trust fund when he received the balance of his inheritance from his late father, William Lindsey. The Lindsey family had possessed the slaves for about a year when Lindsey “ran them off in the night time from” Prince Edward County, Virginia, to the state of Tennessee. In the process of moving the slaves, he sold one of them; Womack later recovered this slave when the purchaser, confronted with the “evidence” of Womack’s title, “surrendered” her. Womack pursued the remaining slaves in Tennessee where he discovered that Thomas had died. Lindsey’s widow administered on his estate, selling the slaves, including one newborn, as estate property. He now sues Smith and Tinsley, requesting that the slaves be “delivered up.” 0214 (Accession # 21484720). Davidson County, Tennessee. Mary Baldwin, through her husband and next friend Henry Baldwin, seeks the court’s assistance in protecting certain slaves secured to her sole and separate use by the couple’s marriage settlement. In January 1846 Baldwin executed “her separate deed of trust” with the firm of Catron and Stephenson conveying seven slaves to them to secure the payment of two notes. This “separate and independent act” was made without the knowledge of Mary’s trustee, James W. Hoggatt. The petitioners now charge that the larger of the two notes is “deeply tainted with usury” and that the transactions, being the “acts and deeds of a married woman,” ought to be “absolutely void.” They also complain that Oliver Catron, a partner in the recently defunct firm, has “seized upon” the slaves and committed them to the Davidson County jail subject to Mary’s debt. The Baldwins claim that “in December last” they “effected an agreement” with Catron that settled the debt. They ask the court to enjoin Catron from selling the slaves and to declare said notes null and void. In the meantime, they ask the court to appoint a receiver to hire out the slaves during the pendency of the suit. Hoggatt in addition asks the court to clarify his role as trustee of the Baldwins’ marriage settlement. 0235 (Accession # 21484721). Bradley County, Tennessee. A pregnant Mary Snodgrass Hall seeks an injunction to prevent her estranged husband, Alexander Hall, from selling her “negroes and her other personal property.” Mary represents that Alexander has “willfully and maliciously abandoned her” in her “delicate situation and day of trouble, forgetful of his own offspring disregarding his marriage vow and cold heartedly and fraudulently contriving and intending to pocket the whole entire property of your oratrix.” She charges that a “destitute” Alexander married her “to make property in a way more easy than to work for it” and that, before his 190 Reel 15 Tennessee departure, he sold two of her slaves to “Messrs Miller & Parks,” who were “in partnership” with John Osmunt “in buying negroes.” Her uncle, Edward Riell, bequeathed her a life estate in the slaves, who were also reserved for her sole and separate use by the couple’s marriage contract. In January 1847, Alexander informed the petitioner that he was going to Cleveland “to buy some coffee” and transact business with Osmunt, but he never returned. She fears that he will sell her remaining slaves and leave her and her infant daughter “without the means of subsistance.” In a related petition filed two years later, Mary seeks a divorce and asks that she be “restored to all the rights of an unmarried Woman.” 0248 (Accession # 21484724). Maury County, Tennessee. Andrew B. Walker asks the court to require the clerk and master to ascertain “whether [two] negroes were unsound and unhealthy” at the time he purchased them from the estate of the late Archibald Campbell. Walker represents that he purchased an enslaved mother and child at Campbell’s administrative sale and later learned that they were “unsound and badly diseased.” He asserts that the slaves are “wholly valueless” and asks that the sale be rescinded and his purchase money of $666 refunded. As evidence of his claim, he informs the court that Campbell’s widow and administratrix, Polly Campbell, originally sold the slaves to General G. J. Pillow, who returned them for similar reasons. 0257 (Accession # 21484725). Marshall County, Tennessee. William Hughes, administrator of the estate of the late David Carr, seeks an injunction restraining Charles Hardison and Thomas N. Barham from “prosecuting their claims” to a slave named Tobe. On 25 March 1841, David Carr paid Thomas Barham $500 for a half interest in Tobe, who was a blacksmith. Barham then “purchased or agreed to purchase or hired from said Hardison his half of said negro boy Tobe.” About 4 May 1844, Thomas Barham and his wife Sarah claimed Carr’s interest in Tobe, alleging that Carr had deeded his interest by gift to Sarah Barham on 16 October 1842. After Carr’s death, however, Hardison retrieved Tobe in Mississippi and brought him to Tennessee “by virtue of a pretended agreement” he made with Carr and Barham dated 19 March 1841. Hughes informs the court that Carr was deaf, mute, and illiterate and that the documents are therefore fraudulent, having been made without Carr’s full knowledge and consent. Hughes seeks the injunction until his claim to Tobe can be heard by the court. 0269 (Accession # 21484726). Marshall County, Tennessee. Samuel W. Penn declares that he is the court-appointed guardian of Oliver Payne, “an idiot.” Penn avows that “his said ward is the owner of a negro man named William and that this [is] all the property he has.” Fearing “that in case of death or any accident befalling said negro that his [Payne’s] chance of support ... would be entirely cut off and be thrown a burden upon his relatives,” Penn asks the court for permission to sell William, who is “quite valuable,” for a sum “the interest of which will be sufficient to support his said ward and will besides give a guarantee for his regular support.” 0282 (Accession # 21484727). Marshall County, Tennessee. Robert W. Hill died in 1832 leaving his property, which included slaves, to his children. He and his mother, Lydia Hill, owned one tract of land jointly. Lydia died in 1847, and now the heirs state that the property cannot be “advantageously divided” unless it is sold. They ask permission to sell the tract of land. Related documents include a report of sale of seven slaves in Hill’s estate, which yielded in aggregate $5,120.50. 0293 (Accession # 21484728). Marshall County, Tennessee. Josiah Duncan seeks to sell the property of his ward, Margaret Bigham. Duncan declares that Bigham, “an Idiot,” is “the owner of one negro man named Sampson and of about 23 acres of land”; he notes “that besides this she is worth only about $200.” Duncan contends that “the land is so situated as to rent for but little and that in case of the death of said negro her means of support will be greatly contracted.” 191 Reel 15 Tennessee Of the belief “that it will be to her interest that said land & negro shall be sold,” the petitioner prays “your honor to order a sale of the same on such terms as may be decreed best.” 0302 (Accession # 21484730). Marshall County, Tennessee. James Hughes, administrator of the estate of Alexander Hughes, seeks the delivery of three slaves he claims as the property of his testator’s estate. Two of the slaves in question were levied upon and sold in October 1844 as the property of Mary Allen “at the instance of one Brevard Huggins” and were purchased by Brevard’s son, James H. Huggins, with the understanding that Allen “should have the opportunity to redeem” them at a later time. Hughes argues that the sale was not valid, that Huggins acquired no title to the slaves, and that he is entitled to their possession in his administrative capacity. He cites a bill of sale from Allen to Alexander Hughes as evidence. The Hugginses maintain that Allen and her late husband, Thomas, conveyed the slaves at various times to Thomas’s cousin, William Allen, and to the late Hughes in order to defraud creditors. There is concurrently a suit pending in the chancery court filed by Mary Allen against the Huggins brothers. 0313 (Accession # 21484731). Marshall County, Tennessee. The heirs of Elizabeth Devins petition for a distribution of the six slaves in her estate. Devins died in January of 1847, leaving as heirs five children and one grandson. The heirs assert that the estate’s debts have been paid but that a division of the slaves “can not be effected without a sale” of said slaves. They ask the court to decree a sale and to divide the proceeds among them. 1848 0329 (Accession # 21484802). Shelby County, Tennessee. “Your petitioner Milly Brown, a free colored woman, respectfully represents to your Worships that she wishes to remain in the state of Tennessee under the provisions of the several acts of the General Assembly in relation to free persons of color—She states that she was born and brought up in this state and has never resided any where else—That all of her relatives, friends and associates are here and she is unwilling to be separated from them—She is also informed that if she is driven from here she will be forced to take refuge in a free state—This she is unwilling to do; for your worships know that, with all their pretended philanthropy for our race, the condition of the colored population in the free states is a deplorable one—Your petitioner also states that she has always supported herself—been peaceable, honest and industrous—and hopes that your worships will not drive her from the state of her nativity for an accident of birth over which she had no control—She humbly suggests that her life is as dear to her, her liberty as sweet, her love of home as pure and unsullied as that of the most favored in the land, and submits to your worships whether all these endearing ties are to be broken, and her life rendered worthless and burdensome for no other crime than that of being a mulatto.” [Transcription of petition.] 0336 (Accession # 21484803). Shelby County, Tennessee. David H. Jones, a recently emancipated free person of color, seeks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He submits “that he is engaged in a ... profitable business and is making a support for himself—that he has been and still is a preacher amongst the Colored people in this section of country.” Noting “that he has a wife a slave living in said County with whom he wishes to live,” Jones “prays your worships that he have permission ... to remain and reside in the said County of Shelby.” 0340 (Accession # 21484804). Davidson County, Tennessee. Ann Elizabeth Bennett and her brother, John Lanier Bennett, seek to recover slave property given to them by their late father, William Bennett. They report that in 1832 their father “made to them a deed of gift of certain slaves ... to have and to hold jointly for your Orators’ sole benefit and behoof, as a fund for their 192 Reel 15 Tennessee education and support.” They further point out that one of the slaves, a woman named Adeline, was hired out in 1844 to a Nashville resident and during said hire “complaint was made by him of her misconduct.” The Bennetts relate that Adeline was sold based “upon the strength of said complaint” and “this sale, though made with good motives ... was unauthorized, and, as your Orators are advised, was void.” The petitioners explain that Adeline has had two children since the sale, making the entire family worth $700 or $800, which is less than Adeline’s purchase price of $450. Having not received any of said purchase price or any of the hires generated by Adeline, the petitioners pray to have “said negro and her increase restored to them, as well as an account of her hire” or the defendants “pay to them the present value thereof.” 0347 (Accession # 21484805). Davidson County, Tennessee. Thomas T. Smiley asks the court to attach a slave named Francis and restore her to his possession. Smiley explains that he purchased Francis for $306 at a sheriff’s sale in April 1848 after her owner, Robert C. Dodd, became “insolvent & utterly irresponsible.” She was one of two slaves bequeathed in trust to Dodd by the will of his late father, William Dodd. After the sale and purchase, Dodd expressed a wish to redeem Francis “on account of his wife.” Smiley consented provided that Dodd repay the purchase money “in a reasonable time.” In September, however, Dodd and his two brothers replevied Francis and put her back in Dodd’s possession. While the suit is pending, Smiley asks the court to deliver Francis to a receiver, who will hire her out. 0357 (Accession # 21484807). Lincoln County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Abner F. Hudson seek “an equitable division” of his estate. They report that Hudson died intestate, “possessed of but two slaves,” and that “by the laws of Tennessee, said Slaves should be equally divided amongst and distributed to said widow and children of said intestate.” Jane R. Hudson Harrison is the widow and her two children, Susan and Joseph Hudson, are minor children “of tender years.” The heirs propose “that said Slaves may be divided by alloting to said minors jointly one slave” and one slave may be allotted to the widow. They also state that Hudson owned two tracts of land, a two hundred-acre parcel on which he resided and a 132acre tract “that can be advantageously rented.” They suggest that from the two hundred-acre tract “one-third of said lands may be assigned for dower” and “the balance of said tract of 200 acres of land not covered by the Dower, be sold and the proceeds equally divided between said minor children.” The petitioners “pray that commissioners be appointed to divide said slaves amongst complainants ... or that by a decree of this Court said slaves be sold & the proceeds equally divided amongst those interested.” 0361 (Accession # 21484808). Lincoln County, Tennessee. John E. Townsend asks the court to attach eight slaves currently in the possession of Sarah Freeman and to enjoin Freeman and Pleasant B. Sears from removing them from the state. Townsend explains that he purchased the slaves from Freeman for $2,550 in 1841 in Alabama. He allowed Freeman to retain the slaves “to gather her crop,” and she now refuses “to let him have them.” Townsend charges Freeman and Sears with “fraudulently combin[ing] together for the purpose of depriving [him] of said slaves & to cheat & swindle him out of the same.” While Townsend has instituted a suit for the slaves’ recovery in the circuit court, he now fears that the defendants will “run off or remove said slaves out of the State of Tennessee.” He informs the court that they “keep the slaves concealed” and confides that he will “in all probability” lose them without the court’s intervention. [The petition is missing a page.] 0366 (Accession # 21484809). Davidson County, Tennessee. The children of Olivia Cox seek a division of the slaves in the estate of their late uncle, Marmaduke Norfleet, “according to the interest of the petitioners.” Thomas Cox is entitled to two-sevenths of the total, L. B. Powell is entitled to one-seventh, and the remainder should be held for the four minor petitioners. They also inform the court that one of the slaves is in jail in Clarksdale, Tennessee. The petitioners 193 Reel 15 Tennessee amended their petition several weeks later seeking permission to sell two slaves, Jim and Aimwell, who “are in the constant practice of running away.” Both are now in the Davidson County jail. 0378 (Accession # 21484810). Smith County, Tennessee. John A. Sloan requests that defendant Agness Sloan “be required to give Security for the forth coming” of nine slaves in which she “was entitled to a life estate,” declaring “that at her death your orator was entitled to said slaves & their increase.” He admits that security is not necessary if Agness will keep the slaves in Smith County, “where your orator could have an opportunity of attending to and watching over their safety,” but he fears that defendant Martin Sloan “will shortly leave said county and that he intends taking said Agness and said negroes with him” to “places beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” The petitioner argues that Agness is “old, infirm and easly imposed on by the said Martin W. who is her son.” Noting that Martin “is in desperate circumstances,” John Sloan cites “that there is great danger in permitting him [Martin] to take said negroes with him.” He therefore prays that Agness “give bond & security” for the slaves or that “said negroes be placed in the hands of a receiver, and hired out annually for her support and comfort.” 0385 (Accession # 21484811). Washington County, Tennessee. The children of the late George W. Rutledge charge that the persons administering his estate have “mismanaged in a most shameless and reckless manner as regard many of the important parts of the business.” They report that their father left “a large and valuable estate, both real and personal consisting of lands, negroes fine horses and other valuable stock ... amounting to a sum of between twenty five and thirty thousand dollars.” They allege that the administrators and administratrix have conducted two sales of part of the personal property, including slaves and horses, whereby they “have become purchasers, directly or indirectly, and ... have been guilty of a violation of their duties and behaved in a manner which has been very injurious to the rights of complts.” In particular, they relate that Reuben, an estate slave, was “swapped off ... for another negro that was sold & by this means the said slave Reuben brot only $400 a sum greatly below his value as he can now be sold even in the depressed state of the market for negroes at $600 in cash.” The petitioners request that “said defts be decreed to pay over to complainants whatever sum ... may be deemed just for thier mismanagement of the said estate.” 0397 (Accession # 21484812). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Five children of the late Thomas Sanders seek a distribution of the slaves and money in his estate. One of the heirs, Francis Sanders Wilson, has recently married William H. Wilson, and she requests her “proportionable share” of the estate “being one sixth of the whole.” Sanders owned eight slaves and a sum of money, which, with interest since March 1846, now amounts to $150. The property is currently in the hands of Meredith Sanders, guardian of Sanders’ four minor heirs. 0401 (Accession # 21484813). Lincoln County, Tennessee. William Moffitt seeks to recover a slave named Sam, whom he claims is his property, but who is now in the possession of Milton Buchanan, the administrator of the estate of the late Robert Buchanan. Moffitt asserts that he gave Sam to his daughters, Judith and Elizabeth, in 1839. Sam was then sold and purchased at least four times before Moses Buchanan, Moffitt’s son-in-law, sent him in the fall of 1842 to live with the petitioner to care for him “on the account of his increasing age and infirmities.” In December 1842 Sam was taken from the petitioner “at the instance of Robert Buchanan, by virtue of an execution in favor of John McCollum against Moses Buchanan.” Moffitt and Moses and Robert Buchanan agreed that Robert would purchase Sam at auction and that, upon payment of “the residue of the purchase money out of his own funds,” Buchanan would convey Sam to Moffitt. Buchanan made the purchase, but never conveyed Sam to Moffitt. Moffitt asserts that at the time of the sale, Sam was assigned a value of $500 and is now “worth about 194 Reel 15 Tennessee $650.00.” He seeks an “injunction or attachment” to prevent the Buchanans from removing Sam from the state. 0408 (Accession # 21484814). Williamson County, Tennessee. Martin Forehand, the administrator of the estate of the late Robert W. Phipps, seeks permission to sell a ten-year-old slave named Philip. Forehand alleges that “the Estate aforesaid is at this time in debt in about the sum of $500.” Believing “it is necessary and proper to sell one of the negroes of said Estate to pay the debts thereof,” the petitioner “prays the Honorable Court to decree the sale.” 0413 (Accession # 21484816). Sumner County, Tennessee. Nancy G. Bush files a cross bill that claims the sheriff of Sumner County has falsely levied an attachment on her slave property. Bush cites that “an attachment issued from the ... chancery court against the property of the said Claiborne West,” but the slave woman and her three children who were seized are “her property and that they are not the property of Said Claiborne West and are not liable to his debts either directly or indirectly.” She points out that she “raised said woman from a child & has had said woman & her children in her possession & control all their lives.” She further reports that, even though she had hired out the slaves to West, “she never has never given or conveyed them ... to Said Claiborne West.” Charging “that her title to said negroes is perfect & complete in herself & are not subject ... to the debts of the Said West,” Bush asks that the defendants answer her charges and the slaves “be released from the operation of Said attachment.” 0420 (Accession # 21484817). Smith County, Tennessee. Phereby Braswell asks that her remainder interest in a slave named Evelina “may be secured by a decree of your honor.” She explains that her brother-in-law, Reuben Braswell, “prevailed upon” her father, Sherwood Evans, to loan him Evelina “to wait on” Phereby, who lived with him and her sister, Appy, and who had been “greatly afflicted with Rheumatism so much so as to be entirely helpless for the last twelve years.” Evans later formalized the loan by his will, which was probated in 1842, and which bequeathed a life estate in Evelina to Appy. Phereby now asserts that she was “not permitted to enjoy an equal benefit of the labor of said slave,” as Reuben and her sister allowed her “only to stay a part of her time at the house ... being thrown the balance of the time upon the hands of others.” She “has no doubt her father died under the belief that your oratrix was at the house of the said Reuben at that time enjoying a part of the benefit of the labor of said girl.” She now fears that Reuben plans to “run off said negro from the state.” He already tried to sell her to a third party who balked at the sale when he learned of Phereby’s title in remainder. She asks the court to attach Evelina and require Reuben to give bond and security “for the forthcoming of said slave.” 0447 (Accession # 21484818). Knox County, Tennessee. Sarah Arnold seeks a divorce from Dr. George M. Arnold, her husband of four years, whom she charges with adultery and violence against her. She insists that she “cannot live with her said husband and even her life be safe.” She brought to their marriage tracts of land, several slaves, and “a quantity of other property,” which she asks the court to decree to her “as Justice and equity will entitle.” The slaves were a gift from her grandfather, Samuel Todd, and left to her by her former husband’s will. She asks the court to enjoin Arnold from disposing of them. In addition to being “restored to all the privileges of a feme sole,” she asks the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus in order to bring before them her eleven- or twelve-month-old daughter, whom George Arnold “positively refused her the right to take with her.” 0454 (Accession # 21484819). Maury County, Tennessee. Martha Campbell and other “heirs & distributees at law of Robert Campbell” request that commissioners be appointed “to value & divide” twenty-nine slaves belonging to his estate. They confirm “that all of your petitioners have 195 Reel 15 Tennessee arrived at the age of twenty one & all deem it to their interest a division of said slaves should be made.” 0462 (Accession # 21484820). Washington County, Tennessee. Thomson Stuart, the administrator of the estate of the late John Clark, seeks assistance in settling the estate. He cites that “at the time of the death of sd John Clark, out of a family of twelve children ... nine of the twelve are now dead nearly all of whom ... have left very numerous & widely scattered family.” Stuart notes that Clark made certain advancements, which included slaves, to his children throughout his life and the value of these advances must be ascertained in order to ensure “a fair & equitable distribution of the fund yet remaining undisposed of.” He reports that “a large number of those interested in sd estate are non-residents” and “others are minors without Guardians.” Deeming “it essential to his own security as Adm & to a just & equal distribution of the assets in his hand,” Stuart prays “that the same be made under the direction of this Hon. Court” and that all known “Distributees & the heirs at law & representatives of the Decd children of the sd John Clark ... be made Defts to this bill.” 0474 (Accession # 21484821). Davidson County, Tennessee. Three daughters of Madison Napier ask the court to enjoin “all further proceedings at law in favour of” R. B. C. Spence and William Luten “in relation to the attachment & sale” of a slave named Jim. The girls, all under ten years old, are the joint owners of Jim, who was the “sole & separate” property of their mother, Mary Napier, who died seven years ago. The defendants have a claim against Madison Napier, Mary’s widower and the father of the complainants, and have taken Jim and placed him in jail as Madison’s property. The petitioners assert that “said boy is valuable & his hire is necessary for their maintenance & education.” They worry that Jim “is closely confined in Jail in a cold room & that his health & probably his life is endangered by such close & comfortless imprisonment.” They also ask the court to deliver Jim to the clerk and master “or some person as receiver, to be hired out & kept safely in the Country until the suit is disposed of.” A deposition from Henry Pratt reveals that Jim is a highly skilled mechanic, who worked at Napier’s Mount Etna Furnace in Hickman County. 0490 (Accession # 21484822). Smith County, Tennessee. Marmaduke Mason charges the administrator of the estate of the late Levi Squires and Squires’s legatees with fraud in the sale of an estate slave named Lucy. Mason purchased Lucy and her daughter, Prudilla, at a public auction where all but one of the defendants were present and “encouraged the bidding.” Mason realized that Lucy was “unsound and diseased” when she died three months after the purchase. He complains that the defendants represented Lucy as younger than she was, and pregnant, which he later found “was also untrue.” In fact, Lucy “was afflicted with derangement and irregularity in her menstrual discharges ... and ... was of a scrofulous habit.” Mason alleges that the family concealed Lucy’s situation and knew that “some five or six negroes of the same family” as Lucy “died at about the same age.” He asks the court to take an account of Prudilla’s value, which he is willing to pay, and that the balance of the purchase money be “enjoined perpetually.” He also prays that the “administrators be enjoined from transferring said notes and also from proceeding to collect them.” 0498 (Accession # 21484823). Maury County, Tennessee. Benjamin Fitzpatrick and Sarah M. Brown Fitzpatrick petition the court along with Sarah’s siblings and the minors’ guardian to divide seven slaves that are owned jointly by the petitioners. They declare that “Sarah M. has intermarried with your Petitioner Benjamin, and your petitioner Calvin S has arrived at the age of twenty one years and they are entitled to have their interest in said slave allotted to them in severality.” The petitioners ask the court to appoint commissioners “to divide said negroes ... and to set aside to the said petitioners each one share it being the one seventh.” 196 Reel 15 Tennessee 0506 (Accession # 21484824). Davidson County, Tennessee. John B. Bosley, executor of the will of the late William Cloud, seeks “a proper construction to be put upon each and all the clauses of said will.” Bosley’s will directed that the petitioner hold two slaves, Becky and Ephraim, in trust “for the benefit of Siller and her four children Nurvey, Rufus, Neomy & William Francis & in trust for the use & benefit also of Nelson, Albert & David—all of whom are themselves negros & were formerly the slaves of the said William Cloud.” In March 1846 Cloud sold the said slaves “for the nominal consideration of one dollar” to E. W. Sehon of Ohio “for the purpose of having said negros emancipated or freed & not to convey any real, substantial interest to said Sehon.” Sehon manumitted the slaves by deed, to which Cloud’s will alludes by instructing Bosley “to procure their freedom by removing them to a free state or otherwise in case their free papers are not sufficient to procure their freedom.” Being “desirous to wind up said Estate,” Bosley now seeks the court’s direction in executing Cloud’s wishes. He also asks the court to order the sale of four additional slaves in order to distribute the proceeds among Cloud’s heirs. The court decreed that Sehon’s emancipation of the slaves was “invalid & ineffectual to establish their freedom in law,” but that, under the will, they were entitled to their freedom. The court then instructed Bosley to apply at the next term of court for their emancipation; the decree directed Bosley to remove the slaves to a free state and “there emancipate them according to the laws of the state into which they shall be removed,” should the Tennessee court refuse his request. 0532 (Accession # 21484825). Maury County, Tennessee. Elizabeth Hamilton seeks a divorce and alimony from her estranged husband, Alexander C. Hamilton, with whom she is “not willing on account of fear to live with ... any further.” She recounts the events of a particular evening where Alexander “seized her round the neck & choked her,” took a chair “& struck it down upon the table,” and followed her out of the house and “slapped her jaws violently.” She also charges Alexander “with adultery on at least one instance.” She seeks to protect her interest in eight slaves, whom she brought to the couple’s marriage; by an 1843 decree of the court, the couple holds said slaves for their “use & benefit ... during their joint lives.” In the event that Elizabeth dies before her husband, the court also directed that the slaves be divided between Alexander and Elizabeth’s father, Joseph Hassell. Alexander has purchased Hassell’s interest in the slaves and currently retains them. Elizabeth asks the court to direct the sheriff to seize the slaves “until the final hearing” of the court. 0560 (Accession # 21484827). Sumner County, Tennessee. William Mohorn asks the court to invalidate a deed of gift that he executed to his daughter, Pamelia. Mohorn informs the court that he “had been intoxicated, say some two or three months incessantly” before he moved from Virginia to Tennessee in 1845; when in a drunken state, he admits that he is “almost totally bereft of reason and a maniac.” Fearful that William would squander his property, his family persuaded him to convey the “family slaves,” whom he had inherited from his late father, in trust to Pamelia. William drunkenly believed that the conveyance reserved a life estate in the slaves for himself. Shortly thereafter, however, John Mohorn took the slaves from the petitioner’s residence in Tennessee, leaving William’s second wife, who was in “very delicate health,” without servants. She later left him for her family in Texas. After Pamelia married, her husband, John Daly, hired out the slaves claiming them through his marital rights. In his “destitute condition,” William now lives with his daughter and son-in-law, where he is forced to submit to Daly’s “most distant and unwarrantable treatment.” He fears that his filing of this suit will cause Daly to “run said slaves beyond the jurisdiction” of the court. He asks the court to attach the slaves, whose aggregate value is about $3,000, and to restore them to his possession. 0573 (Accession # 21484828). Bradley County, Tennessee. Anderson McMahan accuses his father-in-law, William McKissick Sr., and McKissick’s son, William Jr., of “running away” a slave 197 Reel 15 Tennessee named Maria, whom McMahan had loaned to his mother during her lifetime. After her husband’s death in 1821, Levicy McMahan came to live with her son, who promised to “support and maintain her in her life-time,” in exchange for “all her interest in the remainder” of his father’s estate. Although “far advanced in life,” the petitioner’s mother decided to marry McKissick, and the couple “concluded to move to the Hiwassee Purchase.” McMahan consented to permit Maria, “one of his best and most valuable negro girls,” to go with them “to wait upon [Levicy] work for her and render her comfortable, the ballance of her days.” McKissick convinced McMahan to deliver him a bill of sale for the slave, but it was “fully understood, expressed, and agreed that no title whatever to [Maria] was to pass to the said McKissick.” Levicy died in 1829, and McMahan, “out of kindness to the husband of his revered mother suffered [Maria] to remain” with the “distressed” McKissick. When McMahan later tried to retrieve Maria, he found that William Jr. had taken her to “parts unknown.” William Jr. successfully concealed Maria from the petitioner until 1846, when he learned that she and her two children were with William Jr. in Missouri. William Jr. has since sold Maria but retains possession of her children. McMahan asks the court to restrain the defendants from “further removing or disposing of” the enslaved children, to order the McKissicks to restore the slaves to him, and to account with him for Maria’s value and hire since his mother’s death. 0581 (Accession # 21484829). Rutherford County, Tennessee. George W. Smith, administrator of the estate of the late George W. Anderson, states that he “has in his possession, as administrator for distribution under said will about twenty slaves.” He further states that there are nine distributees, “all of whom are minors” except four who have either married or have “become of age.” Smith “prays your honor to appoint commissioners to divide said slaves by setting apart ... their shares of slaves, being four ninths of the whole number.” 0587 (Accession # 21484831). Giles County, Tennessee. Robert M. Brigg states that he is the security for Isaiah Ivey. Brigg explains that Andrew Forsythe invented and patented a hemp brake in 1842 and that “said Ivey having great confidence in the success of said brakes purchased of said Forsythe the right to make and sell the same for the states of Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, & Alabama.” Jacob G. Braden likewise “had confidence in its great utility” so the “said Ivey & Braden were to be partners in the said brake & its profits.” The petitioner declares that Ivey “came to the conclusion to rent a farm for the year 1843, hire negroes to work it & make a crop of hemp.” Since Ivey “was then insolvent,” Brigg relates that Ivey “could not hire negroes without security,” which Brigg reluctantly agreed to become. When the venture failed, Brigg reports that Braden, the other security, is “failing & refusing to pay anything” of the debts incurred. The petitioner therefore prays that Braden and Ivey be made defendants and “that your orator may have adequate relief in the premises.” [The petition is missing pages.] 0594 (Accession # 21484832). Giles County, Tennessee. James L. Norvel and William C. Mayfield ask the court to “perpetually enjoin” an “unjust, illegal & grossly usurious” judgment against Norvel in favor of Archibald C. White. White recovered the judgment for $624.50 in December 1847; Mayfield served as Norvel’s security on the bond. Norvel and White began business dealings in 1840. First White loaned Norvel several small sums of money and, in 1842 and 1843, Norvel hired several slaves from White, including Jack, Sam, and Allen for the sum of $225 in 1842 and Simon, Jack, Sam, and Allen for $300 in 1843. Norvel repaid a portion of the money in 1845, but White charged the “most enormous, illegal & unjust rate of interest,” and he fell behind in his payments. The petitioners argue that only $326.26 of the judgment is “justly due” White. They seek a writ of injunction to restrain White’s collection of the balance. 0606 (Accession # 21484834). Shelby County, Tennessee. Francis Burton, a free person of color, asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. Eighteen-year-old Burton states that she was born in Tennessee and “that she has a great many friends & acquaintances in said 198 Reel 15 Tennessee County,” with whose assistance Burton hopes to “obtain employment & thereby secure for herself a more comfortable subsistence.” The petitioner “therefore prays permission to reside in Said County of Shelby under the provisions of the Statute in Such Case made and provided.” 0611 (Accession # 21484835). Shelby County, Tennessee. Matthew Burton, “a free person of Colour,” asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He states that “he was born free in Tennessee ... and wishes to Continue his residence in said County because he is now engaged in learning the trade of barber in Memphis & believes he can learn said trade under more advantages” here than in other locales. Eleven-year-old Burton prays the court “to grant him permission to remain & reside in the County of Shelby.” 0616 (Accession # 21484836). Shelby County, Tennessee. Ellen Burton, a free woman of color, asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states that “she has been residing as a free person in the State of Tennessee” for a number of years and that she has two daughters “under fifteen years of age.” She notes “that she has many friends & acquaintances in Said County & She believes she can on that account procure a more comfortable subsistence for her family in Shelby County than Elsewhere.” Forty-year-old Burton “therefore prays your worshipful Court to grant her permission to reside in the County of Shelby.” 0621 (Accession # 21484837). Shelby County, Tennessee. Cely Burton, a free woman of color, asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states “that she was born free in the State of Tennessee” and that she “wishes to Continue her residence” in Shelby County. She notes “that owing to the number of her friends & acquaintances residing in Said County she believes she can procure a more comfortable subsistence in said County than elsewhere.” Twenty-year-old Burton “therefore prays your worshipful Court to grant her permission to reside in the County of Shelby.” 0626 (Accession # 21484838). Shelby County, Tennessee. William Henry Sikes, a free man of color, asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. He states “that he was born free in the State of Tennessee” and that he is “desirous of remaining in Said County for the reason that he believes he can more easily make a support in Said County than he can elsewhere.” Sixteen-year-old Sikes “therefore prays your worshipful court to grant him permission to reside in Said County.” 0632 (Accession # 21484839). Shelby County, Tennessee. Mary Ann Sikes, a free woman of color, asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states “that she was born free in the State of Tennessee” and that she “is desirous of residing in said County because she believes she can support herself more easily in said County than Elsewhere.” Fifteen-year-old Sikes “therefore prays your Honorable Court for permission to remain in Said County.” 0638 (Accession # 21484840). Shelby County, Tennessee. Agnes Sikes, a free woman of color, asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states “that she was born free in the State of Tennessee” and “that she desires to continue her residence in said County for the reason that she has many friends and acquaintances in said County and believes she can procure a more Comfortable subsistence in said County than she can elsewhere.” Twenty-oneyear-old Sikes “therefore prays permission to reside in said County of Shelby.” 0643 (Accession # 21484841). Shelby County, Tennessee. Hanna Sikes, a free woman of color, asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states “that she was born free in the State of Tennessee” and that she “is desirous of remaining in Said County for the reason that she believes she can obtain a more comfortable support in Said County than Elsewhere.” 199 Reel 15 Tennessee Nineteen-year-old Sikes “therefore prays your Honorable Court for permission to reside in Said County.” 0649 (Accession # 21484842). Shelby County, Tennessee. Alice Whitelaw, a free person of color, asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states “that she was born a slave in the Town of Bolivar ... in said state on the 22d February 1825 and remained the property of Mrs Margret Rogers for the space of (20) years.” Whitelaw reports that she has been “sold & transferred” many times, with her last owner being “William B. Morris of the city of Cinta & State of Ohio.” She states that “thereafter, to wit on the 26th day of Nov 1847,” she was “manumitted & set free” by Morris. Whitelaw submits “that she has resided in the city of Memphis for the space of four years and has ever conducted, herself with propriety, and in obedience to the Laws as she ever desires to do.” She asks the court to grant her “by order of your worshipful court privilege to remain in said state of Tennessee.” 0657 (Accession # 21484843). Shelby County, Tennessee. Jane Dougherty, a free woman of color, asks permission to remain in the state of Tennessee. She states that she has had several owners, the last one being William Morris, who “discharged her from servitude” on 2 February 1846. Dougherty’s reason for desiring to stay in said state is the fact that “her Mother who is very old and very much afflicted is a slave for life belonging to the estate of Wyatt Christian Dec.” She states that her mother is “utterly helpless” and that “your petitioner is her principle stay & protector.” Believing “if she were compelled to leave the state that ... her aged & afflicted mother would not receive that attention which her utter helplessness requires,” Dougherty prays that “she may be permitted to remain a citizen of this state.” 0664 (Accession # 21484844). Shelby County, Tennessee. Reuben L. Kay “wishes to emancipate his negro woman Phebe Reynolds, aged about 35 years.” Kay reports that Reynolds “has paid for her freedom, is honest, peaceable and industrious, and has amassed, by her own exertions, a considerable amount of property.” He further states that Reynolds “has been for some time married to a slave,” who is also a resident of the county. Attesting to her “high character,” Kay prays that Reynolds “be forever emancipated and discharged from servitude; and that she be permitted to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a free person of color in as full and ample a manner as if she had been born free.” He also asks that Reynolds “be permitted to remain in this state.” 0669 (Accession # 21484845). Shelby County, Tennessee. Phebe Reynolds, a free woman of color, asks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states “that she was born and brought up in a slave state” and has lived in said county “for many years.” She notes that “all her relatives reside in said county” and that “she is, and has been for some time, married to a colored man named Lewis the property of David Townsend ... That all these ties not only make her anxious to remain in this state, but would render life worthless any where else.” Citing that she “knows the habits and customs of the slave states, what is due from her to free white citizens under all circumstances,” Reynolds “humbly prays your worships to permit her to remain in this state.” 0677 (Accession # 21484846). Shelby County, Tennessee. Judy Pritchitt, a free woman of color, asks that she and her four children be allowed to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states that she “has been residing as a free person in the state” for a number of years and that all of her children “were born free in the state.” Believing that “she can procure a more comfortable subsistence in said County for herself & Children than she can elsewhere,” Pritchitt “prays your worshipful Court for permission to reside with her said children in the County of Shelby.” 200 Reel 15 Tennessee 0682 (Accession # 21484847). Shelby County, Tennessee. Hannah Dodds, a free woman of color, seeks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states that she “was liberated by one James Dodds in Shelby County” and that “she has resided in said county ever since.” Dodds points out that “she wishes to reside in said state because she was born and reared in a slave state—all her relatives and associations are here.” She notes that “if she is driven from this state she will be compelled to settle in some of the free states.” Feeling “that in no portion of our Government is the condition of the free colored race more deplorable than in the free states,” Dodds submits that “she would prefer to return to bondage under a kind master than to reside in a free state.” She “prays your Worships to permit her to remain in this state under the provisions of the several acts of the General Assembly.” 0687 (Accession # 21484848). Maury County, Tennessee. In her divorce suit, Elizabeth Hamilton details how her husband, Alexander Hamilton, used “violent language towards her & finally Seized round the neck & chocked it & then took a chair and Struck her down upon the table with all the furnature upon it & broke it all into pieces.” In addition, Elizabeth “has been informed & believes” that her husband “has not been faithfull to his marriage vows,” although she is not sure of the “Specific instances or times of his adultery.” Noting that the court decreed in 1843 that the eight slaves procured from her father “should be held, for the use & benefit of your Oratrix & the said Alexander C during their joint lives,” Elizabeth explains that her husband “is now in possession of all of said negroes Except Sophia—She has died & Letitia was Sold by him.” The petitioner charges that she “is entitled during her life to an Equal benefit of Said Negroes,” and she prays for a divorce and alimony. 0691 (Accession # 21484849). Williamson County, Tennessee. Thomas Crow, administrator of the estate of the late Nancy Lavender, seeks permission to sell two slaves belonging to her estate. He explains that Lavender “died the owner and possessor, among other things of two negro slaves” and “that other assetts of said intestate’s estate beside said two slaves [are] more than sufficient to discharge the debts.” As there are numerous next of kin, Crow asserts “that the said two slaves cannot be divided ... without a sale of the same and such sale is necessary to a division.” He “prays Your Honour to decree that said two be sold for the purpose of distribution.” 0698 (Accession # 21484850). Marshall County, Tennessee. Alexander Davis states that he and his brother James “are the joint owners of four negro slaves, towit Matilda, Lewis Mary & Linda,” who once belonged to Hezekiah Davis, the brothers’ father. Alexander, no longer a minor, represents that Mary Davis is the current guardian of James and that she has possession of the slaves and hires them out. He claims that the proceeds of those hires amount to at least $200–$300 and that he is entitled to half. In addition, he charges that “he was the joint owner of an other negro named Hannah that died and the said Mary Davis as guardian aforesaid refuses to account for one half expenses of the said negro while sick but seeks to make your orator pay the whole.” Seeking his just half of the slave property, the petitioner prays that Mary and James Davis be subpoenaed, that the slaves be divided, and that Mary Davis, as guardian, be compelled “to account to & pay over one half the proceeds of said hire & pay one half the expenses of said Hannah.” 0706 (Accession # 21484851). Marshall County, Tennessee. Susan Johnston, the widow of Robert Johnston, declares that she is entitled to a dower in the lands owned by her late husband as well as “to the one sixth part” of the slaves he owned. She notes that her husband died intestate in 1846 and that the court appointed her and one James Johnston as administrators of the estate. Johnston specifies that “she does not desire a third part of each separate tract of land assigned to her” but instead she requests that her dower “be set a part to her out of the said tract of land in Marshall County including the mansion house out houses 201 Reel 15 Tennessee improvements &c.” She asks that her children and their guardians be subpoenaed to answer her bill, that a writ of dower be issued, and “that Commissioners be appointed to allot & set a part the one Sixth part of said negroes to your oratrix and that she may hold them absolutely in severalty.” 0718 (Accession # 21484852). Marshall County, Tennessee. Drucilla Secrest seeks a divorce from her estranged husband, Tyra Secrest, whom she married in 1833, and custody of their seven children. For the first seven or eight years, Tyra Secrest treated her well except during occasional drunken bouts, but in the last six or seven years, he became so abusive that several times she was forced to leave the house. Drucilla reports that recently Tyra “has got into habits of almost Constant drunkenness—and has got to abusing his Children in a wanton & cruel manner.” A “man of fine estate,” Tyra has threatened “to take his negroes off” so as to prevent Drucilla “from getting alimony out of the same.” He owns at least eleven slaves and has “disposed of two of said negroes,” whom he received from Drucilla’s father’s estate. He also has “a large estate coming to him from the estate of his father who has lately died.” Drucilla seeks writs of attachment and injunction to prevent Tyra from “running off or disposing of his property.” She also asks the court to enjoin her father’s executors from paying her $1,000 inheritance to her husband. 0727 (Accession # 21484853). Marshall County, Tennessee. On 13 November 1834, William Pickins gave his sister, Betsey Ann Meece, and her children an eight-year-old slave girl named Juda and her future children. About 1838, Meece sold her interest in Juda to her brother, Hamilton Pickins, for $400. Meece died in 1848, leaving two daughters, the petitioners, Anna Jane Jones and Margaret Elizabeth Harris. The daughters and their husbands now allege that Hamilton Pickins “knew the extent of said Betsy Ann’s interest when he made said purchase,” but, since Meece’s death, Pickens has tried to persuade them to release to him their interests in twenty-two-year-old Juda and her three children, four-year-old Malvina, two-year-old Caroline, and six-month-old Adeline. The plaintiffs believe that Pickins will dispose of the slaves when he hears that they “are determined to insist on their rights.” They ask the court to attach the slaves and issue an injunction against Hamilton Pickins. They also ask the court to award the slaves to them and divide the slaves between the plaintiffs. 0740 (Accession # 21484854). Marshall County, Tennessee. Gabriel Long, son and administrator of the late Richard Long, informs the court that said Long died in 1848, leaving a contested will. He complains that, two years before his death, Long’s “artful & shrewd” grandson, Richard B. Long, defrauded his grandfather by “wickedly and unjustly” influencing the elder Long to sell him a slave named Elijah for $1 and the “love and affection” he had for him. Richard B. Long later exchanged Elijah “for the purpose of [obtaining] ... a younger and better slave,” a fourteen-year-old girl named Grace; Elijah was subsequently carried “by traders to parts unknown.” The petitioner asserts that the transaction was void due to Richard Long’s incompetence and that Grace therefore belongs to Long’s estate. He asks the court to subpoena Richard B. Long, to attach Grace so as to prevent Long from removing her, and to award Grace to Richard Long’s estate. In an earlier suit, Gabriel Long and his brother, Thomas Long, and James Shaw, son-in-law of Richard Long, complained that the eighty-eight-year-old Long was incapable of handling his own affairs. They charged that Long owns “a considerable amount of real & personal property,” including slaves. Citing that “his mind is greatly impaired” and “he has lost his memory to a very great extent,” the petitioners feared that he was “liable to be imposed upon and robbed by any one.” They thus prayed that “a writ of Lunacy may issue out of your honorable Court to inquire of the unsoundness of mind of the said Richard Long.” 0760 (Accession # 21484855). Marshall County, Tennessee. The “only children and descendants” of slaveholder Benjamin Thompson seek permission to sell a “tract of land and 202 Reel 15 Tennessee town lot” in Thompson’s estate with “the proceeds to be equally divided amongst your orators.” Thompson died in 1848, leaving his property to his children and grandchildren. They represent that they are “the only persons interested in the distribution of his estate,” and it is “manifestly to the interest of all of them” that the land be sold. Thompson’s will directs the manumission of his three slaves, Jerry, Bruce, and Maria, and instructs his executors to “take out of the money arising from the Sale of my property the Sum of One hundred Dollars to be by them expended in removing Said Negroes to a free State the Negroes to be allowed to take choice of the State to Which they will be moved.” [The petition is missing a page.] 0788 (Accession # 21484856). Marshall County, Tennessee. John Garrett, a resident of Tipper County, Mississippi, petitions for the return of a slave named Wilson, now in the possession of David R. Mitchell. On 1 January 1847, “one Mrs. Mitchell” sold a slave named Wilson to Dr. W. W. Cavenaugh [Kavenaugh]. Shortly thereafter, Cavenaugh “swapped or exchanged the said boy, Wilson,” with Garrett “for and in consideration of a negro woman.” In December of 1847, Garrett sold Wilson to A. C. Blair; shortly after the transaction, Blair returned the slave “on account of disease and unsoundness.” Garrett cancelled the transaction, but before Wilson came back into his possession, the slave absconded and was later found in David Mitchell’s possession in Marshall County, Tennessee. Mitchell claims Wilson as his property, and Garrett fears that he will try to sell him before the dispute is settled. Garrett asks that Mitchell be enjoined from doing so, that his title to Wilson be confirmed, and that Wilson be returned to him. In his various answers, Mitchell asserts that he holds Wilson’s title by virtue of a bill of sale from his mother, Isabella Mitchell, to him in 1838. 1849 0799 (Accession # 21484901). Washington County, Tennessee. In a supplemental petition, Gideon and twelve other persons of color seek the freedom promised to them by the late Charles Jones. They remind the court that they filed their original bill in 1844, arguing that the said Jones “made his last will & testament, whereby he directed that Yr. Orators & Oratrixes should be freed at certain ages & periods therein specified.” Their original bill also noted that the said Jones died in 1835 and that his wife Susannah died in 1840, “at which time nearly all of Yr Orators & Oratrixes were by the terms of sd will entitled to their freedom.” They “show that notwithstanding their right to freedom, they have been kept in servitude for from 9 to 10 Years ... beyond the terms which they were required to serve by the will of the sd Charles Jones” by the defendant, William Jones, who “is an intemperate & dangerous man.” Citing that several petitioners “are considerably advanced in Years & their freedom is likely to be of little benefit to them,” they renew their prayer “that their emancipation be declared by Yr Hon Court as prayed for in their original bill & that an account be taken of the hire due them respectively since the death of Mrs Susannah Jones.” They also beseech the court “to place them in the Hands of a Receiver ... & to direct him to Hire them out to humane persons who will treat them kindly & protect them from injury.” The related documents contain reports from the court-appointed receiver and clerk and master, which detail the hiring values of the petitioners from 1852 to 1867. In their 1872 bill, the petitioners represent that “by the result of the late civil war in the US, proclamation of President Lincoln acts of Congress &c, your Complainants were freed before the question presented by them to the Court was adjudicated”; however, funds that should compensate them for their hire while their suit was pending are “still undisposed of.” 203 Reel 16 Tennessee Reel 16 Tennessee cont. 1849 cont. 0002 (Accession # 21484902). Davidson County, Tennessee. Felix K. Zollicoffer, administrator of the estate of the late Leoner Williams, joins Williams’s two daughters in seeking a division of the three slaves in her estate. Sophronia C. Curren and her sister, Martha A. Kidd, are the sole distributees of the estate. In an amended petition, the petitioners seek a sale of the slaves, having decided that “said negroes cannot be conveniently divided.” They also represent that said negroes “are not suitable family slaves & have no such habits as would suit them in that respect.” They would like to reinvest the proceeds of the sale in “family servants.” Zollicoffer’s guardian’s report further stipulates that the newly purchased slaves be held “for the sole and separate interest of the said heirs ... and their children after their deaths.” The same report records details about the slaves’ hire, medical histories, and temperament. The packet also contains a petition filed in 1855 by Elizabeth Glascock to confirm the sale of a slave named Sarah to Martha A. Kidd. 0020 (Accession # 21484903). Williamson County, Tennessee. Laban L. Waters, administrator of the estate of the late Sarah Carsey, seeks permission to sell three estate slaves “for the purpose of distribution among the parties entitled thereto.” Carsey died on 7 March 1849, the owner of a twenty-five-year-old slave named Orres and her two children, Ellis and William, both under the age of ten years old. 0026 (Accession # 21484904). Davidson County, Tennessee. Horatio and Lucinda Brayton represent to the court that they are “willing & anxious to redeem” a slave named Anache, whom Lucinda holds in Mississippi as her “sole & separate” property. They explain that Lucinda, who “was in great need of money,” placed Anache “in the hands of her friend James Benham, to sell or mortgage for the purpose of raising the money for her.” Benham mortgaged Anache to Tolliver Dawson for the amount of $350. A few months later, Brayton’s attorney attempted to repay Dawson $375, but Dawson “would not receive it & refused to give up said slave ... for less than $550.” The Braytons inform the court that Dawson “follows the business of buying & selling negroes,” and, if he is not restrained, they fear that he will sell Anache “beyond the limits of this state.” Asserting that Dawson “bought her to sell again in the event that she was not redeemed,” they ask that “said negro be attached & held subject to the further order of this Court.” Asking the court to declare the transaction a mortgage, the petitioners also seek an account of Anache’s hire while in Tolliver’s possession and during the pendency of the suit. 0035 (Accession # 21484905). Williamson County, Tennessee. Jones Floyd seeks permission to sell two slaves in the estate of his late son, Josiah Floyd, who died on 22 September 1849. Floyd, the administrator of Josiah’s estate, asserts that said sale is necessary in order to pay his son’s debts, which amount to $700. He also reports that the estate “has a claim to three slaves in the State of Virginia, one of which is a runaway.” The petitioner believes that said estate is “insolvent, and he is unable to advance the value of said two slaves, out of his individual means, without a sacrifice.” 0043 (Accession # 21484906). Maury County, Tennessee. “To the worshipful, The County Court, in the State aforesaid The undersigned your petitioner, would respectfully represent to your worships that your honourable body at its April term, in the year 1846, Upon the petition of 204 Reel 16 Tennessee Benjamin Johnson, liberated or set your petitioner free, according to an act of the general assembly in Such cases made & provided. That your petitioner might remain as a free person of colour in the County of Maury & State of Tennessee. Upon entering into bond, as the Statute made & provided directs, which he did. And as the term of 3 years Specified in Said act, has now, or is nearly expired, your petitioner respectfully prays this worshipful court to grant to him again the privilege of remaining in Maury County & State aforesaid, as a free person of colour, in pursuance of an act of the general assembly passed in 1841 & 2.” [Transcription of petition.] 0047 (Accession # 21484907). Maury County, Tennessee. Francis H. Eddlemon asks the court to restore to his possession a slave named Gilbert, who is currently advertised for sale for the payment of the debts of Thomas G. Turner. Eddlemon purchased Gilbert from Turner in January 1848 and has had “the possession, control and management of said boy Gilbert from the time of said purchase until he was taken from complainant’s possession” while Eddlemon was “called from home” on business. In January 1849, Samuel Neely obtained a judgment for $100 against Turner, and the constable, William J. Jaggers, levied the execution upon Gilbert. Citing his bill of sale, Eddlemon asserts that Gilbert “justly” belongs to him. He prays that Gilbert be released from the constable’s custody and that an injunction be issued to restrain Neely, Jaggers, “and all other persons claiming” Gilbert “from selling said negro boy.” 0053 (Accession # 21484908). Sumner County, Tennessee. Albert McCall, administrator of the estate of the late Rebecca Blackmore, seeks permission to sell five estate slaves in order to distribute the money among the estate’s distributees. The slaves, who are “very unequal in value,” must be divided into six distributive shares, which McCall deems “impracticable” without a sale. 0058 (Accession # 21484909). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The children and heirs of the late William R. Mathews seek permission to sell their interest in a cotton gin “and a small piece of land attached thereto.” Before his death, their father contracted with his brother, Epps S. Mathews, to erect the gin “upon the dividing line between their respective tracts of land.” Each man was to furnish “an equal number of his own hands & horses to work said Cotton Gin; and the profits to be equally shared between them.” The petitioners now represent that “in consequence of the death of their said Father, the division of his estate, and the fact that the slaves will be hired out, the stock &c, sold, it will be impracticable to carry on said Cotton Gin.” Believing it will be “most beneficial” to them to sell their interest, they ask the court to authorize a sale. 0065 (Accession # 21484910). Lincoln County, Tennessee. Joseph W. Clarke asks the court to attach Thomas Sullivan’s interest in several slaves and a plantation “so that the same may be made subject” to a claim Clarke has against him. Clarke informs the court that Sullivan’s father, Cornelius W. Sullivan, died on 25 October 1846, leaving a life estate in five slaves to his widow, Mary. The petitioner asserts that, “under the law regulating descents and the Statutes of distribution of this State,” Thomas and his eight siblings are entitled “to have the slaves and plantation equally divided amongst them” at Mary’s death or remarriage. Clarke asks that Thomas’s “one undivided ninth part” in the property “may be subjected to the complainants aforesaid demand.” 0070 (Accession # 21484911). Williamson County, Tennessee. Mary J. Oglevie and her four minor children join the administrators of her late husband’s estate in asking the court to appoint commissioners to “allot and set apart to her” her interest in eleven slaves in the estate of her late husband, Jason W. Oglevie. A commissioners’ report reveals that said slaves had an aggregate value of $4,725. 205 Reel 16 Tennessee 0078 (Accession # 21484912). Rutherford County, Tennessee. “To the Hon Samuel Anderson Judge &C. The Petition of Elizabeth House a minor who petitions by her Guardian Alfred Blackman, and of James Batey and his wife, Ellen formerly Ellen House Your Petitioners represent that the said Elizabeth House and Ellen Beaty are the owners as tenants in common of several slaves, derived by distribution under the will of their late Father Hezekiah House decd—That said slaves have heretofore been held for them by their Guardian, Alfred Blackman That by the marriage of Petitioner Ellen, with the said James Beaty, it has become necessary to divide said slaves, that the share of Each may be held in severalty They therefore pray your Honor to appoint Commissioners to divide said slaves between Your Petitioners, Elizabeth House and Ellen Beaty.—And they will pray &c.” [Transcription of petition.] 0082 (Accession # 21484913). Davidson County, Tennessee. The children of Lucy Gaines seek to protect their “interest in remainder” in a slave named Jim, “a very valuable man worth ... seven or eight hundred dollars,” whom they fear “will not be forthcoming” at their mother’s death. Jim is the son of a slave named Betty, who was one of several slaves bequeathed to their mother by their grandmother, Frances Henderson. The petitioners report that “some twenty years ago” their mother’s husband, Thomas L. Gaines, sold “all his interest in said slaves to one Thomas D. Porter,” who possessed the slaves “& their increase” until his death. Jim has recently come into the possession of “one James H Wilson,” who claims him as his “absolute property” under a purchase from Porter “or from some person who derived title from him.” The petitioners “have heard” that James “is upon a plantation or farm owned by said Wilson in Mississippi.” They ask the court to enjoin Wilson “from selling or otherwise disposing of said slave in any manner so that the rights of your orators & oratrixes may be defeated.” They also ask the court to attach Jim and to require Wilson to “give security” to have Jim “forthcoming” at Gaines’s death. 0091 (Accession # 21484914). Rutherford County, Tennessee. William S. Butler, administrator of the estate of the late Samuel Patterson, seeks permission to sell an estate slave named Maria and her three-week-old child, Susan, in order to discharge the debts of the estate. Butler obtained permission by “a former decree of the court” to sell certain slaves; however, a slave named Sam noted in the decree was “unfit for sale, on account of disease.” As Sam is “still diseased,” he prays that Maria and her child be sold “for the purposes aforesaid.” 0096 (Accession # 21484915). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Benjamin Clayton, administrator of the estate of the late Peter R. Vaughan, seeks permission to sell two estate slaves named Emaline and James in order to discharge the estate’s debts. 0101 (Accession # 21484916). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The widow and children of the late Hardy Simmons seek a division of four slaves, whom they “own in common as the heirs and distributees” of Simmons. They represent that the slaves “can be better divided between them by setting apart the slaves” belonging to Simmons’s two minor sons, William and Henry Simmons, “in conjunction”; the boys’ share would then be held by Eli Sea, their guardian, until they become of age. 0107 (Accession # 21484917). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The widow and minor children of the late Samuel Patterson join his administrator, William S. Butler, in seeking a division of “the twenty or more” slaves in his estate. With the exception of two female slaves ordered to be sold by a former court order, the said slaves “or such of them as are of sufficient size” are currently hired out for the present year. Once they are returned to Butler’s possession, the widow, Camilla Patterson, asks that her share of the slaves be allotted to her. 206 Reel 16 Tennessee 0113 (Accession # 21484918). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The executors of the will of the late Jonathan Currin ask the court to appoint commissioners to divide the estate’s twenty-seven slaves among Currin’s heirs. In particular, they desire them “to set apart to Horace P. Keeble and Cassandra C Keeble,” Currin’s recently married daughter and her husband, their portion of the slaves. The petitioners represent that “there is no necessity for said negroes to be kept together.” The estate includes several enslaved families. 0119 (Accession # 21484919). Davidson County, Tennessee. Henry Strother asks that the property of his sister, Helen Strother, and her husband, George Strother, be attached and subjected to a debt that his sister owes him for her portion of the purchase price of a slave named George. Strother reports that the siblings agreed to purchase Charles, who “was affected ... with something like a tremulous palsy” and was assumed to “bring very little” at the estate sale of their late father, Judd Strother. Helen requested that Henry “bid off said slave, to prevent him from being sacrificed” and told Henry that she would join him in the purchase “& be half owner of the slave.” Henry cites that he is “very anxious to get rid of” Charles, who “has behaved himself very badly since said purchase.” To this end, Henry sent Charles to Georgia, where he was jailed for “some criminal offence, which occasioned your orator some expense”; he has also run away causing Henry additional expense. The petitioner complains that he has received “no remuneration” from Charles’s services and deems the slave “from some cause either of nature or accident ... to be so perverse & unmangeable & wicked as to be almost totally worthless.” He seeks compensation from Helen for her half of the purchase price and subsequent expenses, which she “has refused & still refuses to pay.” Although Helen and George have moved to Alabama, Henry points out that his sister owns “an undivided half” of a town lot in Nashville out of which he can be compensated. 0128 (Accession # 21484920). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Walter S. Lowe ask the court to appoint commissioners to “assign set off and put” Lowe’s widow, Nancy A. M. McGill, in possession of her dower. Lowe’s estate consists of lands and nine slaves “to be divided equally between” McGill and Lowe’s two minor children, James Henry Lowe and Elizabeth Henrietta Lowe. 0133 (Accession # 21484921). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Mary Sanders and Aurilla Francis Lannom, children of the late Levi Lannom and sole heirs to his estate, join the executors of Lannom’s will in seeking a partition of the land and a division of the slaves in Lannom’s estate between them. They inform the court that, at Lannom’s death, “said land and slaves descended to your Petitioners ... jointly and in equal proportions.” 0139 (Accession # 21484922). Williamson County, Tennessee. Albert R. Cartwright, administrator of the estate of the late Lewis Turner, reports that Turner died intestate and “leaving ... neither widow, or children or the descendants of such.” His next of kin and distributees are comprised of four living siblings and the children of five brothers and sisters, “who died previously to the death of Lewis.” Cartwright now asks the court to order a sale of the sixteen slaves in the estate “for division and distribution among the several claimants thereof.” He maintains that the “unequal ages and value of said slaves” prevents him from making a division “without a sale thereof.” 0147 (Accession # 21484923). Lincoln County, Tennessee. A. A. Greer, Robert C. McEwen, his wife, Mary A. E. McEwen, and W. T. Ross, administrator of the estate of the late Ebenezer McEwen, ask the court to confirm Mary A. E. McEwen’s sale of a slave named Eliza to Stephen Hart. Ebenezer McEwen mortgaged Eliza to Mary McEwen in 1847 in order to secure the repayment of a $400 loan. Mary McEwen derived the money she loaned Ebenezer from the sale of five slaves, who were her “sole and separate” property. After Mary McEwen took possession 207 Reel 16 Tennessee of Eliza, Eliza “became threatened with a disease called scrofula.” “Apprehensive that said slave might not be worth the $400,” Mary McEwen “determined to sell her for the best price” she could obtain. Hart purchased Eliza in 1849 for $500, “her full value.” The petitioners also ask that Ross “be released from all liability for said $400” and “the same be settled on” Mary McEwen. 0151 (Accession # 21484924). Maury County, Tennessee. The heirs of the estate of the late Charles J. Sowell, who died in the Republic of Texas in 1840, seek permission to sell the estate’s twelve slaves in order to divide the estate equally among the heirs. They report that Sowell’s widow, Elizabeth D. Sowell, “has controlled and managed the entire property up to the present time and has by reason of such sale and management laid herself to account for the proceeds of the property in her hands.” Sowell’s daughter, Mary Jane, who has recently married David A. Aikin, particularly “desires to have her share in the estate decreed to her.” They ask the court to order Elizabeth Sowell to “pay over the amount due” them. 0160 (Accession # 21484925). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The heirs of the estate of the late Walter Wade ask the court to appoint commissioners to divide said estate, which includes eighteen slaves. Wade’s widow, Susan P. Wade, is entitled to one-eighth of the slaves; his six surviving children, “husbands and wives ... considered as one,” are each entitled to one-eighth; and two grandchildren, Granville N. and Elizabeth T. Wade, are jointly entitled to the remaining eighth. The petitioners point out that Walter Wade advanced a total of five slaves to three of his children during his lifetime, and they ask that the commissioners charge them “as a part of the shares of those to whom the advancements were made.” 0170 (Accession # 21484926). Sumner County, Tennessee. James Butler, administrator of the estate of the late Elizabeth Boyle, petitions the court to set aside an arbitration committee’s ruling concerning a slave title dispute involving John Boyle, other members of his family, and the estate. Butler explains that his testator “swapped” slaves with John Boyles “several years before her death”; Elizabeth gave John a slave named Craft, whom she had purchased from James Alderson, and received from John in return a slave named Sarah, who has since had two children. After Elizabeth’s death, John Boyles took possession of Sarah and her children, claimed them as his own property, and has since dispersed the slaves among his children, giving Sarah to his son, James, and giving Sarah’s children to his daughters, Jane and Mary. After Butler attempted to regain the slaves and Boyles refused to surrender them, the parties eventually agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration. Butler claims that a particular member of the committee “was so partial to the Oposite party” that he refused to grant Butler a new hearing after a majority of the arbitrators consented to his request. He now asks the court to invalidate his arbitration bond and to “decree him Sarah and her two children and the hire of the Same Since the death of the Said Elizabeth.” 0181 (Accession # 21484927). Lincoln County, Tennessee. William T. Ross and Clement C. Clay Jr. ask the court to attach a slave named George and hold him subject to the payment of a $200 debt owed them by John and James Harton for “their joint services rendered as attorneys in defending” George against a charge of burglary. George, who “is owned by one or both of said defendants,” was acquitted of the charge at the November 1849 Term of the circuit court in Lincoln County. The Hartons are nonresidents of Tennessee but “have an interest in said negro,” who is now in Lincoln County but whom the petitioners fear the Hartons will remove “beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” They ask that the court decree “said amount due” and that “George be sold and the proceeds applied to the payment of all the Costs hereof and to the debt of Complainants.” 0186 (Accession # 21484928). Maury County, Tennessee. The children of the late Hezekiah Ward ask the court to order the sale of Ward’s real estate and a division of his slaves “according 208 Reel 16 Tennessee to the interest of the several parties.” At his decease, Ward’s property was to be divided between his widow, Elizabeth Ward, and their children. A son, Hillary Ward, previously petitioned the court to have his “interest in the negro property” of his late father set apart for him. The remainder of the property was then held “in common” by Elizabeth Ward and the other children. Elizabeth Ward has recently died, and the property is now in the hands of her administrator, James M. Mitchell. The Ward children seek a settlement of their late parents’ estates. 0193 (Accession # 21484929). Bedford County, Tennessee. James L. Scudder asks the court to protect his remainder interest in several slaves until the termination of his mother’s life estate in the same. Scudder explains that his grandfather, William O. Whitney, bequeathed a trust estate in two slaves named John and Susannah to his widow for the benefit of their daughter, Harriet P. Scudder, provided that she afterwards divorce her husband. Scudder’s mother accepted the contingency, and after her divorce, the legacy vested in her during her natural life. The petitioner now complains that his grandmother and the executors of his grandfather’s will allowed John and Susannah to be sold through a succession of illegal maneuvers in order to evade creditors. Both slaves are now in the possession of George Kimbro. Susannah is rumored to have had seven children, and Scudder estimates “their probable aggregate value” along with John at $2,500. He fears that Kimbro will take said slaves outside the court’s jurisdiction. He therefore seeks writs of injunction and attachment in order to secure “that they shall be forthcoming” at his mother’s death. 0209 (Accession # 21484930). Maury County, Tennessee. Sally Smith, a free woman of color, seeks permission to remain in Maury County, Tennessee, with her two children, Robert and Christiann, where she “can the better make a support for herself and children.” Smith explains that she “has been living in the county and State aforesaid for a great number of years” and “did live with one Jacob Rogers, for a great while previous to his death” during the summer of 1849. She insists that her two children, both under the age of fifteen years, shall not “become a tax upon the county aforesaid” and that she now “Stands prepared and ready to give good and sufficient security as by Statute made and required in such cases.” She also asks that “certificates of her freedom be granted her.” 0212 (Accession # 21484932). Smith County, Tennessee. John N. Jordan, trustee for his wife and son, Nancy N. Jordan and John B. Jordan, seeks an injunction to prevent William Young from selling a seven-year-old girl named Oliff, whom Nancy Jordan’s father, John B. Hughes, gave to him to hold in trust for Nancy and John’s use. The said Young recently “sued out an execution” on a judgment against Jordan, and the constable of Smith County threatened to levy on Oliff as Jordan’s property. While Jordan was away from his home in Kentucky, the constable prevailed upon his wife and son to execute a delivery bond “to prevent the removal of said negro,” and Oliff remained in Jordan’s possession. He now fears, however, that she will be sold unless restrained by the court. He insists that Oliff is “trust property” and in no way “bound or liable” to the “individual & proper debt of your orator.” He asks the court to protect “the trust set forth in said deed,” to cancel said delivery bond, and to perpetually enjoin Young from selling Oliff “by virtue of said execution.” 0220 (Accession # 21484933). Maury County, Tennessee. David C. Gillespie asks the court to compel John B. Winn to “perform his contract” by carrying a slave named Jane “out of the state or near the state line & then keep her himself or dispose of her by sale or otherwise.” He also seeks an injunction restraining Winn from permitting Jane “to run at large.” Gillespie explains that he sold Jane to Winn “upon the express condition” that Winn “dispose” of her beyond the limits of the state. The “uncontrollable, wicked & vicious” slave struck such fear in Gillespie that he was willing to accept $525 for her, a price “much less than her actual value.” Winn, however, 209 Reel 16 Tennessee refuses to carry her off and “has the hardihood to assert in the face of his contract that it was never his intention” to do so. Gillespie insists that this “wilful violation” of their contract “exposes him, & his family [and] his property to the vengeance of sd negress,” who has already threatened to kill her own child, “the property of your orator,” and whom he fears “would burn his house down.” Citing her “inflamed” passions and “her purposes aggravated by being sold,” he confides that he does not know “at what moment he may feel her vengeance.” In the event the court decides not to enforce the contract, Gillespie asks the court to rescind it and restore Jane to his possession. 0240 (Accession # 21484934). Bedford County, Tennessee. Richard Bandy, Enoch D. Rushing, George W. Bandy, and William D. Hill, endorsers on a bill of exchange for Washington Short, ask the court to enjoin James H. Locke, the last endorser on the bill, from prosecuting a suit against them for “non-acceptance & for non-payment” of the $4,500 debt. The petitioners explain that Short had the bill discounted by the bank “under the pretext of purchasing slaves in Virginia for this and the Southern Market.” The Bank of Tennessee later filed suit against the petitioners and Locke, but “by some arrangement” with the bank, Locke brought suit “in his own name” against them. The petitioners believe that Locke received at least partial payment for the bill from Short before Short moved to Missouri, but Locke has not given the money to the bank. Arguing that Short’s slave trading activities are “in violation of law and against the public policy of this state,” they assert that the bill is “void.” A related petition reveals that the court granted a judgment of $5,128.67 in Locke’s favor. 0256 (Accession # 21484935). Davidson County, Tennessee. The children of Lucy Gaines seek to protect their “interest in remainder” in several slaves, whom they fear “will not be forthcoming” at their mother’s death. The slaves were bequeathed as a life estate to their mother, Lucy Gaines, by the 1816 will of their grandmother, Frances Henderson. The petitioners report that their mother’s husband, Thomas L. Gaines, “about twenty years ago,” sold “all his interest in said slaves & their existing & future increase to one Thomas D. Porter,” who possessed the slaves “as his absolute property till his death.” Porter’s widow and children kept the slaves and their increase “until recently” when the widow “lately pretended to sell them to one Richard Polk,” who “was & is wholly insolvent & paid nothing for said slave & promised to pay nothing.” They charge that Porter and Polk have been “removing them from place to place” and their whereabouts are now uncertain “as they have been on the wing for sometime past.” The petitioners ask the court to enjoin Porter and Polk “from selling or removing or otherwise so disposing of” said slaves. They also ask the court to attach the slaves and require the defendants to “give security” to have them “forthcoming” at Gaines’s death. 0269 (Accession # 21484936). Davidson County, Tennessee. Allen Thornbrough, administrator of the estate of the late Jesse N. White, asks the court to establish and “set up” White’s “undivided interest” in six slaves brought to his marriage by his widow, Mary McMurray White. Thornbrough asserts that White became “the legal & proper owner” of the slaves “by virtue of his marriage.” Mary White currently holds one of the slaves as her dower, while the other five are in the possession of the guardian of White’s children from her former marriage to William McMurray. Thornbrough complains that they both “refuse to give them up or allow your Orators right or claim to any portion” of them. White’s estate is insolvent so Thornbrough also asks the court to enjoin all creditors from commencing and prosecuting suits against the estate and for permission to sell the estate’s right to the slaves. 0279 (Accession # 21484937). Davidson County, Tennessee. Sachfield Maclin, Henry Driver, and Mary Maclin Park seek a distribution of the proceeds from the sale of five slaves belonging to the estate of the late Sarah Maclin. They remind the court that William Driver, administrator of Maclin’s estate, obtained a previous court order authorizing the sale. They report that petitioner 210 Reel 16 Tennessee Henry Driver became the “highest, last & best bidder” at a public sale of said slaves by a bid of $1,662. William Driver, however, “refuses to pay over” the proceeds to the heirs, claiming that Henry Driver is insolvent. The petitioners maintain that “there is no reason why said estate should not be distributed.” 0286 (Accession # 21484938). Bradley County, Tennessee. Robert M. Swan, executor of the estate of Samuel Swan, seeks to prevent James H. Johnson and Mathew Knox from claiming three slaves. When Swan’s father died in Knox County in 1818, he left most of his estate to his wife “for her benefit and support during her natural life.” After her death, any remaining property passes to the surviving Swan children. In May 1849, Swan brought his mother to live with him. He also brought Burr, Nelson, and Westly, the sons of two estate slaves, “to wait attend & afford assistance to the widow.” Recently, however, James H. Johnson and Mathew Knox have come to Bradley County claiming the three slaves by right of a deed of trust executed by Mrs. Swan. Johnson and Knox claim absolute title to the slaves and plan to take them back to Knox County and sell them. Swan argues that his mother is “old Feeble & weak-minded near Eighty years of age” and “Wholy incapable to make contracts or dispose of property.” He also points out that she had no legal right to dispose of the slaves absolutely, since she only has a life estate in them. Swan asks the court to void the deed of trust and to enjoin Johnson and Knox from “interfering with said negroes in any manner what ever,” even suing for possession of them, until his case is settled. 0301 (Accession # 21484939). Williamson County, Tennessee. Sarah Haley, “a feme covert,” seeks a divorce from her husband, Wyatt Haley, with whom she lived one month before he sent her away on a “horse he had prepared for her.” She informs the court that a month into their marriage, Wyatt declared “she might prepare to leave him for we ... can live together no longer.” She contends that “the reason” he “invited her to leave him” was because he was “impotent and incapable of procreation.” She avers that she has never had any “sexual communication with the defendant such as is usual in the marriage state.” She also complains that even though her husband has property worth at least $5,000, he “put up a notice at the store of Charley Williams in Eagleville notifying the public not to credit your Oratrix on his account.” She requests “suitable and proper alimony out of the property of the defendant,” which includes ten slaves. 0318 (Accession # 21484940). Blount County, Tennessee. Mary “alias Polly Williams” charges her husband, William B. Williams, with “gross and iniquitous fraud” before their marriage and seeks a divorce from his “bed and board.” She explains that William took advantage of her “not being able to read writing” by misrepresenting their marriage contract, which Mary believed was intended to secure to her “for her own benefit” the considerable property she inherited from her late parents. The document, whose “true contents” William concealed, instead “only binds said Williams not to sell the negros named in it without her consent.” She has left the home of her “irritated, cross and ill” husband, taking with her only “a small, filly and the old negro Chloe,” while William retains “a considerable part of her property,” including a slave named Tom. William has instituted suit to recover the filly and certain sums of money he thinks are due Mary from her father’s executors. She asks the court to enjoin him from “further prosecuting” his suit and removing her property outside the court’s jurisdiction. She also asks the court to order the sheriff to take Tom into his possession “for the benefit of your Oratrix.” 0327 (Accession # 21484941). Sumner County, Tennessee. Several distributees of the late William H. Garrison ask the court to ascertain their distributive share of Garrison’s estate. They complain that, after Garrison’s death in 1843, his widow, Mary Garrison, took possession of his “large real and personal estate” and “continued to move from place to place, so as to defeat the appointment of an admr who could legally settle up the estate.” During this time she “sold or disposed of” two of Garrison’s four slaves. They argue that William Johnson assumed 211 Reel 16 Tennessee administration of the estate “finally in 1844” and returned an inventory showing the two remaining slaves as “being in suit, or [their] title litigated.” The petitioners charge that Johnson has “failed and neglected to compel said Mary to account for and pay over the value of said property.” They contend that his suit is an effort “to protect himself against the payment of their just demand against him” and that he and Mary have reached a compromise in said suit in order “to defraud them.” They ask that an account of the estate “be taken by and under the direction” of the court. They seek their respective portions, “which would be one ninth each after accounting for advancements.” 0335 (Accession # 21484942). Knox County, Tennessee. The children of the late Jacob Butler, who are also his legatees in remainder, ask the court to enjoin the executors of their late father’s will from collecting notes from a previous sale of the estate’s slaves. They explain that Jacob’s widow, Martha Butler, obtained a court decree for a division of Jacob’s slaves in a previous suit. Commissioners recommended that the slaves be sold and the proceeds distributed. Butler’s executors, Jacob M. and Caleb Butler, conducted the sale and have since collected the notes for payment. The petitioners fear “a misappropriation of the funds which may have come” into the executors’ hands. They ask the court to order them to “surrender” said notes “to the hands of the Clerk & Master of your Court” and order the purchasers to pay over their money to the clerk and master as well. 0343 (Accession # 21484943). Bradley County, Tennessee. Margaret Twomey seeks a divorce from her husband of twenty-five years, Thomas L. Twomey. She complains that Thomas “wrecked” her happiness by commencing an “adulterous intercourse” with one Sarah Blackwell, a woman “who is said to live in a small house in the mountain, where she is visited by Complainants husband.” Thomas’s liaison with Blackwell has “caused an indictment against him for Lewdness, which is now pending, in the circuit court.” She believes that Thomas has “furnished Sarah with a part, if not all the means of a maintenance” and that Thomas is determined to sell his property, which includes slaves, “and leave for Texas” with Sarah. Margaret fears that she will be left “without house, home, or money.” She asks the court “to set apart” for her some part “of the negroes land and other property” from Thomas’s estate for her support. She also seeks an injunction to prevent Thomas from selling or removing his slaves beyond the state. 0358 (Accession # 21484944). Sumner County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Sarah McLin ask the court to set aside the previous sale of four estate slaves and order a new sale “under the Decree of this court.” They explain that McLin’s administrator, Henry Dobbins, “pretended that he was anxious to avoid the costs of getting a Decree” for the sale and proposed that the slaves “should be valued and Sold privately.” He prepared articles of agreement, which the heirs signed, giving Dobbins the authority to have the slaves valued and sold at private sale. The petitioners now assert that Dobbins, “instead of discharging his duties as agent & trustee,” decried the valuation and “made no suitable effort to make sale of them for the best price.” They accuse him of “using his exertions to depreciate their value with a view to get the negroes or a portion of them himself.” They charge that he indirectly became the purchaser of several of them and that he sold another to Charity Carr, one of McLin’s heirs. They ask the court to compel Dobbins to return the slaves so they can be sold properly, suggesting that the slaves “would bring $1800.” 0369 (Accession # 21484945). Giles County, Tennessee. Mary Williams seeks an injunction to prevent one of her husband’s creditors, Martin Sulzbacher, “& all officers & agents” from “disturbing her rights” to a slave named Lorenzo Dow. The petitioner explains that, before her 1823 marriage with an indebted Henry W. Williams, “marriage articles were accordingly drawn signed & executed” giving her a “sole & seperate Estate” in certain slaves “and other property.” 212 Reel 16 Tennessee One of the original slaves embraced in the contract, Charlotte, has since had a son named Lorenzo Dow, who has recently been levied upon at Sulzbacher’s “instance.” Mary calls the levy “wholly illegal” and asserts that “no right for the levy or sale whatever exists.” She asks the court to intervene and to protect her “sole & seperate” property. The court’s decree consolidated and “heard together” this case and a cross bill filed by Martin Sulzbacher against Mary and Henry Williams, which the supreme court dismissed. The text of the cross bill is not included in this transcript. 0380 (Accession # 21484946). Marshall County, Tennessee. A pregnant Milly L. Morris seeks a divorce and alimony from her husband, Joseph Morris, as well as custody of their child and of the unborn one “if said child is a female child.” Milly reports that Joseph “exhibited towards her a jealous suspicious dictatorial spirit,” governing their “domestic matters” by arbitrary rules, which he called “golden rules [that] were not to be varied from in any instance.” He found fault with her housekeeping and “treated her more like a slave or hired servant than wife,” noting that he told her that if she “was as obedient to him as Andrew [a servant] she would get as kind treatment as him.” Twice he forced her to work while pregnant; the second time she “warped a web of 65 yards which in streaching up her hands to reach the pins strained and fatigued her very much” causing her to have an “abortion” the following day. Finally, one of her husband’s slaves, Nelly, informed her that Joseph fathered a mulatto child named Mary. Joseph then “tryed to make the negro confess that complainant had quized the negro to get her to inform complainant all about the mulatto child.” He next talked over “the whole matter” in the presence of “two white Gentlemen ... denominating it a trial” and then gave Nelly 367 lashes until she was nearly dead. Asserting that Joseph owns seventeen slaves, valued near $10,000, she seeks “a sufficient portion of his property” for her own use. 0413 (Accession # 21484947). Shelby County, Tennessee. Loueza Harris, a free woman of color, seeks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. Harris declares that “she has been a resident of Shelby county for a long time—that she has friends and relations residing in said county and is very anxious to be and remain with them.” Desiring “the privilege of remaining and residing in said county,” the petitioner prays “your Worshipful Court she may be allowed” to continue her residency here. 0420 (Accession # 21484948). Shelby County, Tennessee. N. G. Curtis “is desirous of setting free and emancipating his negro woman slave, named Loueza Harris.” Curtis claims that the thirty-five-year-old slave “has served him well and faithfully and has earned by her services and good behavior a title to her freedom, and has fully paid out, in labor, her full value, and is an honest slave and of good character.” He “prays your worships that said slave Loueza Harris be emancipated and set free, he giving hereby his full assent.” 0427 (Accession # 21484949). Shelby County, Tennessee. Ethel H. Porter “desires to emancipate a slave named Adeline [Yates].” He describes the twenty-two-year-old slave as being “of light yellow complexion, low stature, weighing about 125 pounds.” Porter contends that Adeline “is peaceable, quietly disposed, of good temper & character & has long & faithfully served her master.” Believing that she “well deserves to be free,” the petitioner “prays that said Adeline may be permitted to be set free & so declared as by the law prescribed.” [Attached and related to this petition are bonds for John and Eliza Chubb, free people of color; however, their specific petitions for emancipation and/or for continued residency in the state are not included.] 0445 (Accession # 21484950). Marshall County, Tennessee. In a related case from 1848, Alexander H. Davis asked the court to divide the slaves from Hezekiah Davis’s estate between himself and the other heir, James C. Davis. The court agreed and gave Alexander Davis two women: sixteen-year-old Mary and fifty-year-old Matilda. In this case, Gideon B. Black petitions 213 Reel 16 Tennessee the court as guardian of Alexander Davis, “who is an idiot or of imbecile mind.” Black says that the two female slaves are Davis’s only property. Citing that “one of said slaves being an old woman and the other a girl they are of but little value” to Davis, Black asks the court to let him sell the slaves, “the proceeds of the sale to be applied to his [Davis’s] maintenance.” 0451 (Accession # 21484951). Shelby County, Tennessee. J. W. Faris “wishes to emancipate his negro man named Aleck McCoull.” Faris reports that “said negro man Aleck has paid for himself, and his submissive, orderly and industrious conduct entitle him to his freedom.” Faris further believes that “said boy is honest and obedient and ... will never, if emancipated, be guilty of a breach of the peace, or become chargeable to the county.” The petitioner “humbly pray[s] your Worships to decree that the said Aleck McCoull be emancipated, and restored to all the rights and privileges of a free person of color in as full and ample a manner as if he had been born free.” 0456 (Accession # 21484952). Shelby County, Tennessee. Phillip Thompson, a free person of color, seeks the emancipation of his sister Eliza and her two sons. He declares that he and Eliza “were born slaves for life, and that he has, with the fruits of his own labor, purchased his own freedom and the title to the slaves aforesaid.” He further argues “that his object for purchasing Eliza and her children was to secure their emancipation, and having now paid for them he is anxious to carry out this intention.” Thompson “would humbly pray your Worships to make a decree emancipating the said Eliza and her two children Wallace and Henry, and that they be restored to all the rights and privileges of free persons of color in as full and ample a manner as if they had been born free.” 0462 (Accession # 21484953). Shelby County, Tennessee. Eliza Thompson, a free woman of color, requests permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She explains that her brother, Phillip, recently applied for her emancipation and the emancipation of her two sons and that “she is anxious to remain with her brother, who has been disabled by afflictions to pursue his trade.” In this way, Thompson asserts that she will be able to aid “him to procure a living, and therby repay as far as she can the debt of gratitude which she owes him for purchasing the freedom of her self and children.” The petitioner “prays your Worshipful court to grant her the privilege of remaining, with her two children, in this state.” 0466 (Accession # 21484954). Shelby County, Tennessee. Cesario Bias “is desirous of emancipating” a forty-year-old slave named Lewis Morgan. Bias asserts that Morgan “has been a faithful obedient slave to your petitioner for years.” He notes that Morgan “has served your petitioner now for a long time and has earned for him more than his present value.” Believing “that he is a boy of good character and has always behaved himself correctly and properly,” Bias begs leave to request that the slave “be set free and emancipated agreeable to the acts now in force in this state.” 0473 (Accession # 21484955). Shelby County, Tennessee. Lewis Morgan, recently emancipated, seeks permission to reside in Shelby County, Tennessee. He reports that “he has been a resident of Shelby County for a long time” and “that he has a family in said County—and is very desirous and anxious to remain with them in Said County.” The petitioner humbly “prays your worshipful Court that the privilege of remaining and residing in Said County of Shelby be granted him.” 0478 (Accession # 21484956). Shelby County, Tennessee. Charles A. Leath “is desirous of setting free and emancipating his negro man slave named David Lawrence.” Leath claims that the thirty-five-year-old slave “has served him well and faithfully and has earned by his services and good behavior a title to his freedom and has fully paid out in labor, his full value—and is an 214 Reel 16 Tennessee honest slave and of good character.” He “prays your Worships that Said slave David Lawrence be emancipated and set free, he giving hereby his full assent.” 0486 (Accession # 21484957). Shelby County, Tennessee. David Lawrence, a recently emancipated free man of color, requests permission to reside in Shelby County, Tennessee. Lawrence explains that “he has been a resident of Shelby County for a long time” and “that he has a family residing in Said County.” Being “very desirous to be and remain with them,” the petitioner seeks “the privilege of remaining and residing in Said County which he respectfully prays your worshipful Court he may be allowed to do.” 0490 (Accession # 21484958). Shelby County, Tennessee. Emily Davis, a free person of color, seeks permission to remain in the state of Tennessee. She explains that “she has resided, with her husband, in this state for the last twenty years.” Davis points out that “she has, together with all the other free persons of color residing in South Memphis, been served with notice to give bond and security before your worshipful court, and obtain permission to remain in the state.” The petitioner “humbly pray your honors to grant her permission to remain in the State of Tennessee.” 0495 (Accession # 21484959). Shelby County, Tennessee. Samuel Brown, guardian of Thomas and Edwin Phoebus, seeks the sale of a slave named Dick, who belongs to his wards. Brown believes that the slave “is of bad disposition and habits who is constantly running away & subjecting his owners to repeated & serious expenses attending his recapture.” The petitioner points out further that Dick “is also addicted to drunkenness and ... he is of very little worth to said wards and is daily deteriorating in value.” Citing that Dick’s sale price “would be of far greater value to the said wards than the retention of said slave, Brown “prays your Honor that said negro may be ordered by the court to be sold.” 0501 (Accession # 21484960). Marshall County, Tennessee. In 1838 and 1839, William H. Patterson of Marshall County, Tennessee, incurred a $650 debt to John Mullagin of Alabama. The debt now totals $960.10 and is due, but Patterson has moved to Missouri, and “the ordinary process of the law cannot be served upon him.” Andrew Patterson, William’s father, died and left William a one-eighth interest in eighteen slaves. The will, executed by James Patterson, ordered that the slaves be divided among the heirs within one year of Andrew’s death. Mullagin fears that William and James Patterson are trying to sell their interests before the division “in order to cheat and defraud your orator out of his sd debts.” Mullagin has been told that James Patterson has some of William’s property, including money. He asks the court to subpoena James Patterson, to enjoin him from giving any of William’s property to William or his agents, to attach William’s property (including the interest in the slaves), and to award Mullagin his money out of William’s money or out of the proceeds of a sale of the slaves. 0515 (Accession # 21484961). Maury County, Tennessee. John Hayes and family seek the court’s sanction to mortgage trust estate slaves necessary to secure their purchase of property in the town of Columbia. They report that Robert Campbell conveyed eight slaves to James Thomas in trust for Ophelia C. Hayes “during her natural life for her support & maintenance, and for the support and maintenance of the children of the said Ophelia.” They further explain that “they are unable to give any security, nor have they any means sufficient to secure any portion of said purchase money” without the slaves in said trust. Believing “it is manifestly to the interest of themselves, their said children that they should be enabled to purchase said property,” the petitioners pray to court to “direct and order the said trustee ... to sanction said purchase and to pledge the said negroes to secure the payment of the purchase.” 215 Reel 16 Tennessee 0523 (Accession # 21484962). Maury County, Tennessee. Matilda Branden joins her husband Charles and their nine children in requesting to sell a twenty-two-year-old slave named Green. She submits that her father, George Murphy, gave her Green “for her sole and separate use during her life” by a “Deed of Gift” dated 22 November 1842. The deed stipulated that her heirs would inherit the slave at her death. As Green “is the only servant owned” by the petitioners, Matilda believes that “a female servant would suit ... much better, and be more serviceable to her now, and be more profitable and advantageous to the other Petitioners after her death, than the boy Green.” The Brandens ask that “some suitable person” sell Green “and with his proceeds, purchase a suitable negro woman, or a woman and child or children.” 1850 0534 (Accession # 21485001). Williamson County, Tennessee. The eight heirs of the late Robert W. Phipps declare that they “are the owners in common” of eleven slaves. Three of the petitioners “desire to have their respective interests in said slaves allotted and set apart to them.” The estate’s administrator reports “that said estate has not as yet been finally settled up but that he has sufficient assetts to settle the same without the slaves and that he has no objection to the distribution of said slaves among the petitioners.” Nancy, William, and Montgomery Phipps therefore ask that suitable commissioners be appointed “to allot and set apart the one eighth part in value to each of them of said slaves.” 0541 (Accession # 21485002). Maury County, Tennessee. Samuel B. Lee seeks relief from an “unjust and fraudulent judgment” made against him. Lee explains that he sold a forty-year-old slave woman named Louisa and her child to Agnes Rodgers in 1845 for $400. Lee warranted Louisa as “sound and sensible”; two years later, “she was taken sick and died.” In December 1848, Agnes Rodgers, her daughter Elleanor Ross, and her son-in-law Edward Ross filed suit in circuit court for “a breach of the warranty of soundness contained in said bill of sale.” Elleanor Ross testified at the trial, claiming “she had no interest in the result of the suit either directly or indirectly,” but she attested that Louisa was “wheezing and ... had phthysic” [consumption] before the sale. Lee surmises that the jury ruled against him based on Elleanor’s testimony. The sheriff seized some of his land to settle the judgment. Lee charges that Elleanor’s testimony was “without truth or foundation” and that she is the main beneficiary of the suit. He asks the court to enjoin the sheriff and the defendants from further action to collect the award won in the circuit court. 0552 (Accession # 21485003). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Mathias Fox, administrator of Elizabeth Fox, seeks permission to sell the two slaves in his late mother’s estate. He informs the court that the two slaves are “Martha a girl about Seven Years of age and Jackson a boy about nine months old.” Citing that Elizabeth Fox left eleven children as her heirs, the petitioner states that “Said Slaves are unsusceptable of a division among Said heirs and that it would be manifestly for their interest that they Should be Sold for a division of the proceeds of Sale amongst them.” 0556 (Accession # 21485004). Rutherford County, Tennessee. William B. House seeks his share of seven slaves. House petitions with his three younger siblings Martha, Ambrose, and George, and their guardian, Joseph Watkins. The House children explain that they inherited seven slaves from their father, Robert House. The children currently own the slaves “equally and jointly,” but they “are now Subject to distribution among your Petitioners each Share and Share alike.” William House has reached the age of twenty-one and “is desirous to have his share of Said Slaves Set apart to him.” The petitioners ask the court to appoint commissioners “to Value Said Slaves-and set apart to your petitioner William B House, his distributive Share of the same.” 216 Reel 16 Tennessee 0561 (Accession # 21485005). Williamson County, Tennessee. Mary Tennessee Kinnard Crump, widow of John O. Crump and daughter of the late George Kinnard, seeks a division and distribution of her late husband’s estate; the estate includes a claim on the estate of her late father. Crump’s mother, Catharine Kinnard, survived both her husband and son-in-law. In 1845, Mrs. Kinnard made a settlement with her five children, in which the petitioner and her late husband received two slaves valued at $450. Her husband exchanged these two slaves two years later for a slave named Fanny, alias Ann, who has since had a child. Mary Crump asserts that she is now entitled to Fanny and her child. Claiborne Kinnard, her brother and administrator of her late husband’s estate, however, has taken possession of the slaves, insisting that “said estate is entitled in some way to your oratrix’s said individual interest, as legatee of said George Kinnard, deceased.” She contends that she “has a right to elect on which estate to assert her claim, and she elects to assert claim to the property so divided and sold, against the estate of said John O. Crump.” She asks the court to ascertain the proper course of distribution and to order that “the surplus of said estate” be divided and distributed among said owners thereof. 0569 (Accession # 21485006). Rutherford County, Tennessee. Whitmel Ransom, administrator of the estate of the late Gideon M. Ransom, seeks permission to sell the slaves in the estate. The petitioner reports that Gideon died intestate in August 1850 in Davidson County, leaving his mother and seven siblings as his only heirs, “he never having been married.” Whitmel Ransom informs the court that his brother owned five slaves: sixty-three-year-old Ned, eighteen-year-old Isham, eighteen-year-old Peter, twenty-year-old Jane, and three-year-old John. Since “Said Slaves are unsusceptable of a division amongst the Several distributies,” Ransom represents that “it will be necessary to Sell all of them for a distrabution of the procedes of Sale” among the heirs. He asks the court to order the sale “upon Such terms as to Your honerable Court Shall Seem right and proper.” 0574 (Accession # 21485007). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The heirs and administrators of the estate of the late William Goodman pray for permission to sell the slaves in Goodman’s estate. The petitioners inform the court that William Goodman owned seventeen slaves ranging in age from infancy to fifty years old. They request that the court allow them to sell these slaves, because they “Cannot be beneficially divided amoungst them the distributies.” After the sale, the administrators can divide the proceeds among the heirs. 0579 (Accession # 21485008). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The children of the late Benjamin Ransom seek the distribution of eight slaves inherited from their father. The children inform the court that Benjamin Ransom died in 1844, and his will directed that, when Joseph Ransom, the youngest child, turned twenty-one years old, “all his slaves not otherwise specifically devised, should be equally divided between his children.” They attest that Joseph is now twenty-one years old. Eight slaves—Ned, Martha, Joshua, Mary, Overton [Overall], Frankey, Chany, and Moses—”were not specifically devised but left to be equally divided.” The petitioners also explain that Benjamin Ransom purchased his late brother John’s share of the said slaves and receives two shares. Another brother, Gideon Ransom, “has been declared a Lunatic by the County Court of Rutherford County,” so his guardian Benjamin should also take possession of Gideon’s share. The petitioners ask the court to appoint commissioners to divide the said slaves. 0586 (Accession # 21485009). Williamson County, Tennessee. Agathy Sally Marr sues by her husband and next friend, Nicholas L. Marr, to sell a dangerous slave, whom she received from the estate of her late father, Nicholas Perkins. Her father’s will directed his executors to “allot & set apart” twenty slaves for her use, retaining legal title to the slaves until certain conditions were met. The executors did so, giving her a slave named Tom as one of the said slaves. The 217 Reel 16 Tennessee petitioner declares that Tom has “a very bad character” and is “supposed & believed to have instigated & been concerned in the poisoning & killing of a child of your Oratrix.” She relates that Tom was tried in the circuit court but acquitted due to lack of evidence. Currently, Tom is “confined in the jail of Williamson County for safe keeping.” The petitioner declares that “under the Circumstances, your oratrix would not feel safe in again taking said slave home, to live on the same place with herself, & is desirous he should be sold.” The executors, however, “make some difficulty” about selling him, because the will prohibits removing any of the testator’s slaves from the county. The Marrs pray the court to order the sale. 0601 (Accession # 21485010). Davidson County, Tennessee. Michael Callaghan, executor of the estate of the late Phillip Callaghan, asks the court to arrest Lyman and Jane M. Tarbox and to retrieve two slaves and some other personal property belonging to the estate. The petitioner states that Phillip Callaghan’s personal property included two slaves (ten-year-old John and sixyear-old Chesterfield), “a mantle time piece of the value of $50.—a feather bed worth $20—& a portrait of the testator’s first wife worth $50.” He exclaims that Lyman and Jane Tarbox “within the last twenty four hours, seduced from the care & possession of the agent in whose keeping your orator had placed them the two negroes John & Chesterfield ... that between the hours of 10 & 12 to day they went by a back door into the house of his said agent & fraudulently & furtively carried off said clock feather bed & portrait.” He alludes that the Tarboxes are “of low means & irresponsible for any damages in their torts or contracts” and that they are planning to flee back to their home state of Texas “or other parts unknown.” Callaghan contends that he will incur great expense pursuing them and will not recover the value of the property because of the defendants’ poverty. He therefore asks the court to arrest the Tarboxes and retrieve the estate property, holding both the property and the defendants until the case is tried. 0607 (Accession # 21485011). Williamson County, Tennessee. William P. Yarbrough, executor of the late William Yarbrough Sr., asks the court to help settle accounts and to determine the inheritance rights of various heirs. His father died in 1825, leaving about sixty-five acres of land and various personal property, including slaves. Yarbrough left most of his estate to his wife Leanah [Sarah] during her life or widowhood, directing his executors to sell everything after her death and divide the proceeds between his four sons and two daughters. The will bequeathed life estates to his daughters, estates that would pass absolutely to their children. Leanah died in 1849, and the petitioner needs to settle accounts with her estate. Yarbrough also has questions about the inheritances. Several Yarbrough sons have died, devising parts of their inheritances to their sisters. The petitioner does not know what kind of interest his sisters have inherited, “whether an estate for life & then over to their children or absolutely since the death of said Leanah.” He “prays your honor to declare what is the correct construction ... of the testators will as relates to said Rebecca Bennett & Elizabeth Cockburn.” 0617 (Accession # 21485012). Knox County, Tennessee. Fifty-seven-year-old Sarah M. Price seeks support from her estranged husband and her just share of their property. She explains that she married Charles W. Price in 1817. She laments that “untill he got in the habit of drinking to excess she had no fears but they would spend the remainder of their lives together, as they have lived agreebly” for almost thirty years. Three years ago, however, her husband “drove her off telling her that every hour she staid her life was in danger.” Sarah, fearing that “in his drunken hours he would take her life,” left him. For the past three years, she has rented land less than two miles from her husband’s property and has supported herself by “her own exertions” and the labor of the slave she brought to the marriage; however, she “has for some time past been afflicted with Rheumatism so as to render her unable to labour as she has heretofore done.” She asks the court to set aside “a suitable part” of Price’s property for her support, “out of the power of her said husbands controll.” She specifically asks for the slave she 218 Reel 16 Tennessee brought to the marriage, and she requests an injunction to stop Charles from disposing of any property until her case is settled. 0626 (Accession # 21485013). Rutherford County, Tennessee. George E. Johnson, administrator of the estate of the late Lewis Johnson Jr., begs leave from the court to sell a slave. The petitioner informs the court that his intestate never married or had children, but he did have seven brothers and sisters, who are his heirs. Johnson states that “his intestate owened at his death a negro man named Hobb aged 22 Years That it will be necessary to Sell Said Slave for distrabution amongst the Said Several distributies.” He asks the court “to grant him an order to Sell Said Slave upon Such terms as to Your honerable Court Shall Seem right and proper.” 0630 (Accession # 21485014). Bedford County, Tennessee. James H. Locke disputes several transactions arising from a sale of the trust property of Richard Bandy. He alleges that Bandy created the trust to “hinder and delay” in the collection of a bill of exchange for which Locke received a judgment at an earlier term of court. Locke reports that the sheriff returned the judgment as “no property to be found,” a charge Locke gainsays as fraudulent. He maintains that Bandy and Enoch Rushing had “perhaps ten thousand dollars—the proceeds of a drove of negroes sold by them in the South with which they could have paid the debts in said deeds of trust.” He asks the court to enjoin the multiple purchasers of eight trust slaves from paying “any monies or effects owing by them” and to require the sheriff to hold the slaves “subject to the further order of the court.” 0643 (Accession # 21485015). Williamson County, Tennessee. Minerva B. Swanson, the widow of James Swanson Sr., claims a portion of her late husband’s estate. Minerva’s first husband, William B. Theobald, bequeathed his entire estate, including a number of slaves, to her for life. She married James Swanson Sr. in 1847, and, in 1848, Swanson became the administrator de bonis non of the rest of Theobald’s estate. James Swanson Sr. died intestate in April 1850, leaving property and slaves in Tennessee and Mississippi. Minerva asserts that Swanson only held Theobald’s property as administrator, never in such a way “as that his marital rights attached thereto.” Swanson’s administrators, however, disagree, claiming the property by right of marriage for Swanson’s estate. Minerva asks the court to grant her ownership “in her own right” of the slaves and property that were bequeathed to her by Theobald’s will. She also informs the court that four of the defendants claim to be Swanson’s illegitimate children. They maintain that he legally recognized and legitimated them, making them heirs to his estate. She demands that they prove their claims “by strict legal evidence.” If the claims are valid, she asks the court to decide how to divide Swanson’s estate and to set apart her share to her. 0657 (Accession # 21485016). Washington County, Tennessee. Eliza Brooks and her daughters, Sarah and Eliza, seek their freedom. In 1844, Eliza’s husband, Robert Brooks, a free man, contracted with Charles H. Deakins to buy her freedom. Deakins “was anxious to emancipate her,” but was “unable or unwilling to bear the whole expense of emancipation”; he agreed, however, to sell Eliza, worth “at least five hundred dollars,” to Brooks for $175. In order to pay on time, Robert Brooks borrowed money from Shelby T. Shipley, and he executed “a note, bond, mortgage, bill or sale or other instrument to said Shipley.” Brooks could not repay the loan, so Shipley and later holders of the note claimed Eliza and her children. Eliza argues that the goal of the sale was emancipation and that these men “or any other intelligent Citizens knew or ought to have known that in a civilized and Christian State like Tennessee, the laws will not tolerate a contract so monstrous as that of a husband selling his wife or a parent his child.” She asserts that her labor over the past three years has repaid the holders of the note. Currently, Charles Greene claims Eliza and her daughters. Eliza asks the court to emancipate 219 Reel 16 Tennessee them. She also asks the court to enjoin Charles Greene from disposing of her, her children, or the note in any way until the matter is resolved. 0673 (Accession # 21485017). Bedford County, Tennessee. Flora L. Ewing Cheatham, a minor suing by her guardian Milton P. Wheat, seeks the return of her seventeen-year-old slave named Porter. Flora inherited Porter in 1844 from her father James Ewing. On 10 November 1849, Flora married Nicholas P. Cheatham, also a minor, but she left him after a month or two. She claims that she fled, because his language to her was “such As a Gentleman would not employ to his Slave Much less his wife” and his conduct was “marked with Cruelty and inhumanity.” Flora is suing for divorce in Kentucky, where she and her husband live. Flora charges that her husband and father-in-law “Secretly and Fraudulently abducted ... Said Slave Porter and Clandestinely Run Him off” to Tennessee, where they sold him to Joseph Thompson, a slave trader. When Flora’s agents found Thompson, he suggested placing Porter in jail for safekeeping until the matter was settled. Flora charges that “about The witching hour of midnight he [Porter] was mysteriously Spirited away by a Son of Said Thompson” and was hidden by Thompson’s business partner. Flora declares that she never assented to a sale, and she argues that Kentucky laws bar her husband from claiming Porter by marital rights. Flora asks the court “to decree, that Said Slave Porter, shall be delivered up to your Oratrix; Or that She be paid his full value, and in the mean Time ... to grant the States Writ of Injunction to restrain Said Thompson and Little, from Selling or Removing Said Slave, Beond the Jurisdiction of this Court.” 0692 (Accession # 21485018). Washington County, Tennessee. Susannah Tipton, “widow & Relict of one Samuel Tipton,” sues the executor of Samuel’s estate. Samuel’s 1833 will gave her a life estate in three slaves—Bob, Antony, and Mary—as long as she remained a widow. James Tipton, the executor of Samuel’s estate, never delivered the slaves to her as directed by the will; instead, he hired them out himself and kept the proceeds. In 1849, Susannah gave her son Abraham Tipton power of attorney, and he persuaded James to agree to return the slaves. Abraham, however, had been elected to the state senate. While he was in Nashville for the legislative session in November 1849, James instigated “a Jury of inquisition ... to inquire into and report upon the mental Condition of your Oratrix.” The jury ruled her mentally sound, but James persuaded the court to appoint a guardian for her on the grounds of “physical debility” and a supposed request from Susannah herself. Susannah denies having made such a request and argues that the county court had no authority to revoke the power of attorney given to Abraham. James now refuses to give the slaves, now four in number, to Abraham or account with him for their hire over the years. Susannah asks the court to enjoin James and the other seven defendants, who owe money for hiring the slaves, from settling accounts until the court decides her case. She also asks the court to award her the slaves, to hand them over to Abraham, and to compel James to pay over all money arising from their hire. 0716 (Accession # 21485019). Smith County, Tennessee. Two heirs of the late Mary Simpson ask the court to appoint an administrator for her estate and to compel a third heir to account for and surrender the deceased’s property. Sarah Terry and Mary Washer, suing with their husbands, inform the court that they are daughters of Mary Simpson, who died intestate in 1847 or 1848. They claim that their mother died possessed of “several valuable slaves,” land, livestock, a crop, and furniture. Sarah and Mary charge that their brother, John Simpson, took possession of Mary’s estate and “is now claiming the same or the most there of as his own property.” They ask the court to force John to account for and surrender the property to an administrator. The plaintiffs allege that “if sd John had any Idea, that complainants would proceed to try to secure sd slaves or to have an administrator appointed who would seek after sd slaves and sd estate, that he would run them or move them beyond the reach and jurisdiction 220 Reel 16 Tennessee of this court.” They therefore seek an injunction against John to prevent him from removing or disposing of any property, particularly the slaves, until the case is settled. 0725 (Accession # 21485020). Sumner County, Tennessee. Jane Shepherd, petitioning through her next friend, Joseph R. A. Tompkins, urges the court to protect her small inheritance from her husband’s creditors. Jane’s father, James Miller, died intestate in 1848, “leaving a considerable estate, both personal & real.” Unfortunately, his estate is indebted, and there are nine heirs, so she expects to receive no more than “five or six hundred dollars.” Jane laments that her husband “is in debt and, that all of his estate except what the law allows him has been taken & sold under execution, and that he is yet considerably involved.” She fears that her husband’s creditors will seize her inheritance when she receives it. She has already lost a slave girl named Mary, given to her by her father when she was still single. Jane asks that her inheritance “be settled upon herself, to be in no wise subject to the Controle, or debts of her husband.” In addition, she asks the court to issue an injunction against Joseph Miller, the administrator of her father’s estate, to prevent him from giving any of her inheritance to her husband until the court decides the case. 0732 (Accession # 21485021). Williamson County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late William Bond petition the court to distribute the estate slaves and to sell Bond’s land after assigning his widow her dower from the land. William Bond died intestate in 1850, leaving twenty heirs—his widow, seven sons, four daughters and their husbands, and three granddaughters. Morris L. Bond, administrator of the estate, believes that he can pay the estate’s debts and the administrative costs from other assets. He “is willing that said slaves be divided” among the heirs, provided that they all give a “refunding bond to pay their share of any other debts” that might be discovered. The petitioners also report that William Bond owned two tracts of land containing about 250 acres. Nancy Bond, the widow, “is entitled to dower in said real estate,” and the other heirs believe that the land remaining after her dower is set aside cannot be divided evenly. They ask the court to set aside the widow’s dower and to sell the rest of the land, distributing the proceeds to the other heirs. 0739 (Accession # 21485024). Smith County, Tennessee. Samuel C. Bridgwater, executor of the estate of Francis Pride, seeks the court’s interpretation of Pride’s will and instructions for executing it. The executor asserts that Pride’s “primary object of Solicitude was the emancipation of his Slaves in Tennessee ... or otherwise to provide for their comfort and happiness in the best manner practicable.” Pride’s will ordered the emancipation of his slaves if they could remain in Tennessee or move to Illinois. The laws have changed, however, since Pride wrote his will. “The last Tennessee Legislature repealed all laws authorizing the emancipation of slaves upon any other conditions except under the act of 1831, which requires bond and security in double the Value of the slave, that he or she will leave the State immediately.” In addition, “the Constitution and laws of the state of Illinois have been so amended or altered as now to prohibit the introduction of free persons of color there to live, or to prohibit their emancipation when carried there as Slaves.” Bridgwater asks the court to involve Pride’s heirs—and the slaves, if necessary—in the case, to interpret the will, and to direct him how to execute its provisions properly. In his will, Pride described one group of his slaves as “one family and the Servants I have commonally kept together as my family.” The clerk and master’s 1856 report of hires refers to the same group as the “Yellow lot of slaves.” 221 Reel 17 Tennessee Reel 17 Tennessee cont. 1850 cont. 0002 (Accession # 21485025). Bradley County, Tennessee. John B. Eldridge sues to reclaim property. Eldridge explains that Jesse Mathews died intestate in 1843 “as well as he now remembers.” In September 1850, the county court appointed Eldridge to administer Mathews’ estate. Eldridge charges that Thomas J. Mathews, son of the intestate, “forced the ... widow to leave the ... farm and late residence of his said father” and took control of the entire estate. Mathews sold some of the property and “the balance he used as his own and has sold and disposed of the same privately as best suited his convenience.” Eldridge also claims that Mathews fraudulently sold several slaves belonging to the estate and has used the others without paying for their hire. The petitioner further charges that Mathews took money and financial documents on hand when his father died. Mathews refuses to return any property or account for it. Eldridge requests that the court compel Thomas J. Mathews and his alleged associate William Reed to account for and return all property belonging to the estate of Jesse Mathews. He also asks for an injunction against Mathews to prevent him from “selling or removing” the remaining slaves. 0021 (Accession # 21485027). Knox County, Tennessee. Martha M. Gault Weaver, suing by her brother and next friend, Theodore M. Gault, seeks to prevent her estranged husband from depriving her of support. The petitioner reminds the court that she has filed a chancery suit against her husband, John Weaver. The suit alleges “adultery on his part & shameful & cruel neglect” and asks for a separation from bed and board, with alimony. Fearing that her husband would try to thwart her request for alimony, Martha obtained an injunction to prevent him “from selling or in any manner disposing of his property until further order of the court.” She alleges, however, that John has sold his two slaves to Joseph Wallace “in defiance” of the injunction and “with the fraudulent purpose of depriving petitioner of the benefit of any recovery she might make.” She also charges that Weaver intends to get his share of his father’s estate and “abscond & leave the country.” The petitioner asks the court to arrest her husband “to answer the contempt of the process of the court in violating the said writ of injunction.” She also asks the court to seize the slaves sold by Weaver and his inheritance, unless one of the defendants posts bond and security. 0029 (Accession # 21485028). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The administrators and heirs of Turner Delbridge seek to have the remaining slaves of the estate assessed and part of those slaves set aside to one of the heirs. The petitioners state that Turner Delbridge died intestate in 1844, leaving a widow, Susan, and five children. The Delbridges inform the court that the estate includes “Several Slaves for life and that all Your petitioners have heretofore received their distributive Shares of Said Slaves ... except the petitioners James Delbrige and Edward Delbridge.” Susan Delbridge, guardian of her children, holds five slaves for James and Edward. Since James Delbridge has now reached the age of twenty, the petitioners want him to receive his inheritance. They ask the court “to appoint a Suitable number of Commissioners to value Said Slaves and to Set apart” to James Delbridge his share. 0035 (Accession # 21485029). Maury County, Tennessee. Fanny Duff and her children seek to protect their rights to six slaves. In 1834, Fanny’s father, John Blackwell Sr., gave Fanny and her husband John a life estate in two two female slaves named Darcas [Darcus] and Sarah. 222 Reel 17 Tennessee Fanny’s children will inherit the slaves and their increase after Fanny and John die. Darcas has since borne four children—Sarah, Calvin, Amanda, and Jefferson. John Duff has sold Sarah, Amanda, and Jefferson to the other defendants, who claim to be their “Absolute” owners. John Duff is “insolvent,” and Fanny fears he will sell the remaining slaves if not prevented. She also worries that the purchasers, John McNeeley and Leonard Pheobus, intend to sell the slaves or remove them “beyond the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Tennessee.” Insisting that these slaves “are necessary to enable her to support her family,” Fanny asks the court to prevent the sale or removal of the slaves. She also asks the court to award “the use and possession income and profits of said Slave Sarah and her said increase” to her for her family’s support and that she or some other trustee take charge of the slaves. 0044 (Accession # 21485030). Giles County, Tennessee. The heirs of the late Alexander Black seek to settle Black’s estate. Alexander Black died intestate in 1849, leaving an estate containing about 208 acres of land and twenty-three slaves. Black’s heirs include his widow Tabitha, four sons, two daughters, and one granddaughter. Quincy Black, administrator of the estate, is ready to settle his accounts and distribute the slaves, but he needs to confirm the value of slaves, horses, and money advanced by Black to several of the children. He also needs to settle accounts with the estate of his brother, Leroy P. Black. He asks the court to order an account of the advancements and to appoint an administrator for Leroy Black’s estate. The heirs state that Tabitha Black has not received any dower land from the estate. They contend that dividing the land to provide a dower would lessen the value of all the land. Instead, they propose that the court allow the widow “in lieu of her dower to keep possession, and use & cultivate the whole of the said tract of land” for the rest of her life. 0058 (Accession # 21485032). Williamson County, Tennessee. The Planters Bank of Tennessee seeks payment of a debt by a sale of the debtor’s slaves. The bank’s solicitors inform the court that the bank won a circuit court case in 1843 against Samuel W. Gentry and Sutherland S. Mayfield. The court awarded the bank $2,796.27 damages, plus costs of suit. At the time, the sheriff found no property to seize to pay the judgment. The bank avers that “Samuel W Gentry is wholly insolvent and therefore is not made a party” to the suit, but it has learned that Mayfield had nine slaves. Mayfield supposedly sold the slaves to several of his creditors, but the bank asserts that the bills of sale were “intended and operated” as mortgages. It claims that several of the slaves “always remained in the possession of said S S Mayfield” and that he has paid off large amounts of the mortgages. The solicitors ask the court to discover how much Mayfield still owes to these creditors and who actually owns the slaves and their increase. If Mayfield still owns the slaves, the bank prays that the court will order them sold to pay the money owed it. 0066 (Accession # 21485043). Shelby County, Tennessee. Sarah H. Leath, “a citizen of Shelby County,” desires to manumit her slave Charlotte. The slave was “born in the family of your Petitioner & has all her life performed & rendered unto your petitioner & her family services of the most meritorious & faithful character, & by her industry has been enabled, apart from doing her regular service to her mistress, to lay up a fund of money for the purchase of her freedom.” Sarah notes that “these considerations, meritorious services & ... $400 paid in money by the said Charlotte to your petitioner induce her to pray your Worships to Concur with your petitioner in granting freedom to the said slave.” 0070 (Accession # 21485044). Shelby County, Tennessee. Charlotte Leath, former slave of Sarah Leath, petitions the county court for permission to remain within the county. She declares that “she has lived all her life time in the family of her late mistress, who owns several of her children, and that your petitioner is very much attached to her children to the white family with which she has been all her life connected, & that in case of sickness or distress or misfortune in 223 Reel 17 Tennessee any way she should look to her White folks to take care of her, which she has no doubt they would do.” Leath adds to her prayer that “she knows of no other home, & would be much distressed to be compelled to leave her native state & thrown among strangers.” 0076 (Accession # 21485045). Shelby County, Tennessee. Milly Swan, a free woman of color, asks the court to emancipate her ten-year-old stepdaughter, Harriot, who is a slave. Swan declares that Harriot is “of good & unimpeachable character and industrious habits” and is “a resident of said County.” Based on “the love and affection entertained by your petitioner for the said Slave Harriot,” the petitioner requests “your Honl Court ... to manumit & set [her] free from all the duties of servitude which said slave owes your petitioner” and that Harriot “be allowed to remain in the state of Tennessee.” Included with this petition is a bond whereby George Swan, Milly’s brother, is bound as an apprentice to Milly until age twenty-one “to be taught and instructed ... to do and perform manual labor about a farm.” Also attached is a register of free people of color that lists the names and occupations of seventy-one persons. 0090 (Accession # 21485046). Shelby County, Tennessee. Britt Hines, a free man of color, asserts that in 1835 he purchased “a negro woman named Martha and a boy named Sam—wife & son of your petitioner.” He reports “that it was agreed & understood at the time of said purchase that your petitioner should emancipate and make free the said Martha & boy Sam, & also any Issue or children that the said Martha should give birth to thereafter.” Being “desirous & anxious to emancipate the said Martha & her children,” Hines prays that his wife and three sons may be set free. 0099 (Accession # 21485047). Shelby County, Tennessee. Martha Hines, a free woman of color, requests permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She declares that she “has been a resident of the state of Tennessee since 1830.” Noting that “her said husband is now engaged in a profitable business in this state & cannot well leave,” Hines “prays that your worshipful body will grant her and her three children permission to remain in the state.” 0106 (Accession # 21485048). Shelby County, Tennessee. Benjamin McClenon, a free man of color, represents that in 1834 “he removed from the State of Georgia to the Town of Jasper in the County of Marion Tennessee at which time & place he presented his certified letters of emancipation.” McClenon reports that Marion County “then & there granted to him a duly certified copy of the order of emancipation with the permission to remain in the State of Tennessee.” The petitioner explains that he moved to Shelby County in 1836 and unfortunately “on the way down lost his certified copy of emancipation.” Being “a man of good moral character & of industrious habits & good respect among his neighbours,” McClenon prays “your Worshipful Court to grant unto him letters of emancipation anew & permission to remain” in the state. 0113 (Accession # 21485049). Shelby County, Tennessee. William Armour, a free man of color, “wishes to emancipate his slave Rachael.” Armour asserts “that Rachael is his wife, and that he purchased [her] for the express purpose of having her emancipated.” He humbly prays “that the said Rachael may be emancipated and restored to all the rights and privileges of a free person of color in as full and ample a manner as if She had been born free.” 0121 (Accession # 21485050). Shelby County, Tennessee. Rachael Armour, a free woman of color, represents that she “has resided in the state of Tennessee for the last thirty years.” Noting that her husband William “also resides in the said state under the authority and by the permission of your worshipful court,” Armour “would pray for permission to remain in the said state of Tennessee.” 224 Reel 17 Tennessee 0127 (Accession # 21485051). Shelby County, Tennessee. “Your petitioners Joseph Toney and his wife Mary Ann (formerly Mary Ann Sikes) free persons of Colour pray your worships to allow them the priviledge of remaining in Shelby County, and also to allow their child Ann Elizabeth now about 9 months of age to remain with them, upon their Complying with the laws now in force in such Cases. April 1st 1850.” [Transcription of petition.] 0131 (Accession # 21485052). Marshall County, Tennessee. Samuel Penn, guardian of Oliver Payne, an “idiot,” reports that “he has in his hands $875 ... arising from the sale of the slave William.” Penn “is of opinion that it would be to the interest of the said idiot that a part of said funds should be vested in the purchase of a young female slave,” and he seeks the court’s permission to do so. 0134 (Accession # 21485053). Shelby County, Tennessee. Jacob Moon declares that “he is now the owner and possessor of a female slave named Ruthie Anna Maria.” He asserts that she “has been living in this state, for and during the last eighteen or nineteen years.” Moon recounts that “she desirous of her freedom ... was purchased by one Marcus B. Winchester ... under an agreement that he would emancipate her, so soon as, by her industry, she should have re-paid him for the money expended in her purchase.” The petitioner explains that Winchester conveyed the slave to him “subject to this condition” and that “that condition has now been complied with, on her part.” Thinking “that she is a fit subject for emancipation; will demean herself, properly; will support herself, and not become a charge upon the county,” Moon asks “that an order be made emancipating said slave.” 0141 (Accession # 21485054). Shelby County, Tennessee. Ruthie Anna Maria, a recently emancipated free person of color, seeks the court’s permission to reside in the county. She asserts that “she has been living within this state, for eighteen or nineteen years.” She also points out that she has fulfilled her obligation to repay “the monies expended in her purchase.” Desiring “the privilege of remaining within this county and state,” the petitioner promises that “she will demean herself properly; will support herself, and not become a charge upon the county.” 0146 (Accession # 21485055). Shelby County, Tennessee. Simeon Marsh “makes known to this worshipfull court his full consent to the emancipation” of his fifty-year-old slave named Ralph. Marsh asserts that “said slave is desirous of his freedom” and that he “has been living in this state for the last thirty years.” Citing that Ralph is “industrious, honest peaceable, and of good habits and character,” the petitioner requests the court to emancipate his slave and to “permit said slave to continue to reside in the county of Shelby and state aforesaid.” 0150 (Accession # 21485057). Shelby County, Tennessee. Rev. John H. Gray and Billy Armour seek the court’s confirmation of Billy’s emancipation. Gray informs the court that he purchased forty-year-old Billy Armour in July 1848 for $700 from John D. Armour, “with the intention of emancipating and manumitting the said Billy.” Gray “is now the more inclined to this by reason of the industrious services and good and orderly character” of Billy. The petitioners assert that Billy Armour has met all the requirements for emancipation established by the state legislature. They explain that Billy plans to move to Liberia “so soon as he may do so,” but he wants to remain in the county for now. He has two sons, still slaves, “whom he desires to purchase and take with him to the colony or state of Liberia.” The petitioners report that the “purchase contract has already been made” and that Billy is “industriously employed, by honest labor and good and orderly conduct, in raising funds for this purpose.” 0165 (Accession # 21485058). Shelby County, Tennessee. “Your petitioner Lucretia Toney a free person of Colour prays your worships to allow her and her child James Henry Toney now 225 Reel 17 Tennessee about 11 years of age the priviledge of remaining in Shelby County Tennessee upon their complying with the laws now in force in such cases April 1st 1850.” [Transcription of petition.] 0169 (Accession # 21485059). Shelby County, Tennessee. Vina James, a free woman of color, seeks permission to remain in Shelby County, Tennessee. She states that “she has with her under the age of fifteen years four children” and that “she is now comfortably situated among her friends.” Believing “she can more easily provide a support for her family than by removing to another state,” James “prays your worshipful Court to grant herself & her children” leave to reside in the state. 0174 (Accession # 21485060). Shelby County, Tennessee. Maria Batt, a free woman of color, requests permission to remain in Tennessee. She asserts that “she was emancipated by the will of her master James austin of Giles County in the year 1840.” Noting that “she has sisters & brother in said state & has procured herself a Comfortable home,” Batt asks the court to grant her permission to continue “her citizenship of” Tennessee. 0178 (Accession # 21485064). Sumner County, Tennessee. John and Walter Lockwood and William A. Odell, New York merchants, seek to collect money owed to them. In 1842, they “recovered a judgment” in Mississippi for $4,615.99 against two of the defendants, Nathaniel G. and Daniel W. Nye, but the sheriff found no property to seize. Shadrick [Shadrack] Nye, father of Nathaniel and Daniel, died in the spring of 1850 in Sumner County, Tennessee, leaving his entire estate to his widow Elizabeth during her life or widowhood and to his four children after her death or remarriage. Nye’s estate contains about 550 acres of land and eight or nine slaves. Claiming that Nathaniel’s and Daniel’s interest in the personal estate is “the only means” available to pay the debt (now $6,915), the plaintiffs ask the court to order their interest sold. To accomplish this goal, they ask Elizabeth Nye, widow and executrix, to disclose the contents and value of the estate. They also ask for an injunction to prevent the Nyes from selling or removing the slaves until the case is decided. 0204 (Accession # 21485065). Sumner County, Tennessee. Administrator William Lockett seeks to settle the estate of his father-in-law, James Horsly [Horsely]. When Horsly died in 1839, he left his estate to his widow Jane for her life and to his seven children after her death. Jane Horsly and several of the children moved to Missouri, taking four estate slaves with them. Over the past eleven years, Jane and four of the children have died. Four heirs remain: James and John Horsly in Missouri, and William Horsly and William Lockett (heir to his late wife’s portion) in Tennessee. They agreed to leave the slaves in their respective locations with the heirs living in those states, and the Missouri heirs paid money to Lockett’s co-administrator, William Horsly, to equalize the shares. Lockett complains that William Horsly has not shared with him that money or the hire of the Tennessee slaves. Horsly has claimed that he “exhausted” the money to pay estate debts, but Lockett avers that the Missouri heirs should help pay any remaining debts. Lockett asks the court to compel the other heirs to settle the estate. He also asks that the four Tennessee slaves “be either sold or divided” between himself and William Horsly. 1851 0227 (Accession # 21485101). Williamson County, Tennessee. Mary Y. Owen seeks a divorce from Richard A. Owen, “a man of disilute and dissipated habits,” whom she married in January 1837. Although Mary “conducted and demeaned herself toward him as a kind affectionate and obedient wife,” Richard treated her with “great cruelty and inhumanity all of which she bore for the sake of her children.” He eventually drove her from their house, and then “took into his house and home” another woman with whom he has been “guilty of diverse and repeated acts 226 Reel 17 Tennessee of adultery.” Mary informs the court that Richard is “entitled” to a “considerable number” of slaves from the estate of his late father, Jabez Owen. She asks the court to enjoin the administrators of her late father-in-law’s estate from selling the slaves. She finally seeks alimony, custody of the couple’s four children, and the status of a feme sole. 0243 (Accession # 21485102). Davidson County, Tennessee. The heirs of Benjamin Allen seek an accounting of the estate from the executors of Allen’s will, Samuel M. Allen and M. Shadrach Allen. The petitioners inform the court that Allen “wished & intended that all his property including his negros & real estate, should be valued or sold and that their value or the proceeds of such sale should be equally divided between all his children.” They maintain that, with two exceptions, the slaves in Allen’s estate were taken at their valuation “by those to whom they were willed.” The other slaves were sold with certain lands and perishable property, for which the executors are liable “to the sum of” $3,635.62. They assert that the executors should be held accountable for other debts owing the estate and that the advancements Allen made to children in his lifetime “should have been regarded by the executors in their settlement with the court as so many debts due the estate.” They also inquire as to who should be charged with the hire of a slave offered to Benjamin Allen “if he would move to Davidson [County].” They finally ask the court to order the executors to “pay over to” them the portion of the estate to which “they may respectively be entitled.” 0255 (Accession # 21485103). Rutherford County, Tennessee. George W. Smith, administrator of the estate of the late George W. Anderson, joins Anderson’s children in asking the court to appoint commissioners “to set apart” Henry Anderson’s portion of his late father’s slaves. Anderson’s will stipulated that his children “shall have their shares when they become of age or should marry.” The petitioners inform the court that Henry Anderson has recently arrived at the age of twenty-one and now “desires to have his share of said slaves set apart to him.” A commissioners’ report reveals that Anderson owned twenty-one slaves, whose estimated value totals $7,128. 0260 (Accession # 21485104). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The children of the late William Brady ask the court to appoint commissioners to divide the slaves in their father’s estate. The children currently own four slaves as tenants in common. The eldest child, George T. Brady, has recently come “of age” and “is desirous of having his share laid off to him in Severalty.” Brady owes his former guardian, Edwin A. Keeble, $81.65 for furnishing “necessary clothing,” which he would also like to reimburse. A commissioners’ report estimates the value of the four slaves at $2,100. 0263 (Accession # 21485105). Lincoln County, Tennessee. John W. Gragg joins his mother, Jane Gragg Wilson, in seeking permission to sell a slave named Gilford, who belonged to his late father, John Gragg. Gragg’s 1842 will bequeathed Gilford to his widow “during her natural lifetime or widowhood”; at her death, Gragg directed his executors to sell Gilford and divide the proceeds among his children. A later clause in the will, however, restricted Gilford’s sale until after Jane’s death. Jane Gragg married her current husband, Matthew Wilson, in 1849. The petitioners now inform the court that they “freely relinquish to said children” their interest in Gilford. They ask the court to direct the sale and order “the proceeds distributed to & equally divided” among Gragg’s children. 0268 (Accession # 21485106). Rutherford County, Tennessee. The widow, children, and administrator of the late Blunt Jorden seek permission to sell six slaves in Jorden’s estate in order to pay the debts “now pressing against the Estate.” Jorden’s debts amount to “between twenty five hundred and three thousand dollars,” and the family has “no means of paying them 227 Reel 17 Tennessee without the sale of a portion of the Slaves of which he died possessed.” One of the slaves, Joshua, is a thirty-year-old blacksmith. 0273 (Accession # 21485107). Davidson County, Tennessee. William H. Barlow seeks to regain possession of a slave named Caroline, whom he traded with Daniel B. Boling in exchange for a slave named Lafayette on 24 November 1837. Barlow complains that Boling represented Lafeyette as “a likely, healthy and valuable boy, perfectly sound and trustworthy,” when, in fact, the slave was “wholly unsound in body” and subject to “violent and protracted fits.” In addition to Caroline, who at the time of the trade was almost four years old and worth $350, Barlow gave Boling “one sorrel horse, one bay horse, and clay bank mule.” Barlow now worries that Boling has gotten his property “without consideration” and removed it from the county. He insists that he has “a right to possession of his property ... and to be indemnified by the said Boling if such property cannot be obtained.” Deeming the trade “null and void by reason of the fraud,” Barlow asks the court to attach the property of the insolvent Boling and to restore to him “his property in its value.” 0280 (Accession # 21485108). Maury County, Tennessee. The surviving family of Almond [Almon] Chaves, a free person of color, ask the court to compel Chaves’s administrator, Basil B. Satterfield, to render an administrative account of the estate. They inform the court that Chaves died intestate in 1848 in Hickman County without a wife or children. They further report that Chaves possessed a sixteen-year-old slave named Jonathan and “perishable property,” including livestock and “the crop for 1848,” worth $1,500. The petitioners charge that Satterfield has sold Chaves’s perishable property, hired out Jonathan “from year to year,” and collected “all the debts due his intestate.” Satterfield has returned but one account of sales, returned no account of hire, and made no settlement with the clerk of court. The petitioners, residents of North Carolina, insist that they are “the only persons interested in the distribution of the estate.” They therefore demand that Satterfield account with them for the estate and “deliver up said slave Jonathan.” 0286 (Accession # 21485109). Rutherford County, Tennessee. William A. Ransom and John A. Crocket, administrators of the estate of the late John Ransom, seek permission to sell three estate slaves “for distribution amongst the heirs of the said intestate.” They inform the court that there are twelve distributees of said estate and that “said negroes are unsusceptable of a divition amongst them.” They therefore seek an order to sell eighteen-year-old Isaac, twentyyear-old Matilda, and Matilda’s infant child. A commissioner’s report reveals that Matilda’s child had died by the time the slaves were sold at auction, less than a month after the petition was filed. 0291 (Accession # 21485110). Knox County, Tennessee. Charlotte, Ellen, and George, slaves belonging to the late William Townsend of Alabama, seek an injunction to prevent the executors of Townsend’s will from selling them or removing them beyond the jurisdiction of the court. The petitioners inform the court that Townsend’s will instructed that his slaves “be taken to some State where they could be set free & have all the benefits & privileges of free persons of color.” The petitioners reveal, however, that said executors “clandestinely removed your orators starting them in the night” for Tennessee for the purpose of “selling or disposing of them as slaves.” They fear that William Cain is “on his way to the South or west to sell them which conduct is a direct violation of the provisions of sd will.” They intend to file a bill against Cain “to obtain their freedom,” but, in the meantime, they ask to be placed in the court’s custody while their suit is pending. The petitioners comprise three generations of the same family. 0297 (Accession # 21485111). Williamson County, Tennessee. The children of the late Samuel C. and Nancy Hughes ask the court to allot and “set apart” to Sarah Ann Hughes McClellan her 228 Reel 17 Tennessee portion of their parents’ estate. They children are the owners in common of four slaves “which descended to them” upon their parents’ deaths. Sarah Ann has recently married Robert J. McClellan. The children’s guardian, Brice M. Hughes Sr., currently holds possession of the slaves. Noting that each child is entitled to a one-fourth share, they ask the court to decree a division of the slaves. 0303 (Accession # 21485112). Davidson County, Tennessee. William Scruggs and Mary Barksdale, children of Finch Scruggs, seek to protect their remainder interest in a slave named Jamima and her children under the 1798 will of their great-grandfather, James Scruggs. The will bequeathed a life estate in Jamima to their father and gave the slave and her “issue” to the petitioners at Finch’s death. After his relocation from Virginia to Tennessee “many years ago,” Finch sold his interest in the slaves to one Mary Matthias. Finch is currently eighty years old, Matthias has since died, and Jamima has given to birth to several children, who are now in the possession of Isaiah Stull as his “absolute property.” Stull has hired out Jamima’s children, Kitty, Jane, and Solomon, for the current year. Scruggs and Barksdale sue Stull and the two hirers of the slaves, seeking an attachment and “bond & security for the forthcoming of said slaves” at Finch’s death. 0314 (Accession # 21485113). Davidson County, Tennessee. Michael Callaghan seeks the court’s “judgment & intervention” in constructing the will of Philip Callaghan, who died in July 1850, leaving a widow and four minor children. Citing the will’s “many ambiguities,” Callaghan seeks direction in disposing of his testator’s property, including three slaves named Sally, John, and Chesterfield. In particular, he is uncertain whether eleven-year-old John should be sold in order to raise a fund to pay a specific legacy to Callaghan’s daughter, Ellen. Callaghan’s children live in Texas, California, Alabama and, Tennessee and, being minors, need “the care & guardianship of your honorable Court.” 0326 (Accession # 21485114). Lincoln County, Tennessee. Claiborne A. Freeman asks that “the pretended contract for the sale of” a slave named John be declared “void & recinded.” He asserts that “he was the owner of a likely negro man aged about seventeen years worth at least nine hundred dollars,” whom he had hired out “for the present year.” Freeman further recounts that on 8 May 1851 “he came to the town of Fayetteville & indulged in the use of spirituous liquors untill he became completely overcome with liquor.” He confesses that he “was so drunk he was not senseble of any thing he done” and that “he was wholly incapable of attending to any kind of business.” The petitioner charges that the defendants took advantage of his “excessive intoxication” by inducing him to trade his slave John for a sixty-year-old slave named Hannah, “worth about $100 at present.” Freeman also avows that “neither the body or the signature” of the purported bill of sale “is in his hand write.” Citing that “he was so drunk he did not know what he was doing,” the petitioner argues “gross fraud and immorality on the part of said Moores & Thomson.” Freeman therefore prays that the bill of sale be set aside and that “your complt may have his negro boy John delivered to him.” 0333 (Accession # 21485115). Davidson County, Tennessee. Granville P. Smith seeks to recover the value of a female slave named Louisa, whom he sold to Thomas H. Johnson “about three years since.” He informs the court that he traded Louisa with Johnson’s agent, John C. Penticost, for a slave named Ann of comparable value. After the “purchase,” he “became aware that the negro woman would not suit his object in buying her and he therefore determined to sell her.” To avoid the trouble and expense of separate conveyances, he wanted Penticost to transfer the bill of sale to the subsequent purchaser. Ann, however, “could not be favorably disposed of in the Nashville market,” so he sent her to New Orleans where John Carroll purchased her for $450. Shortly after the sale, Carroll was sued for Ann’s recovery, on the ground that Johnson’s title, which he received from Jeremiah and Margaret E. Austell, was 229 Reel 17 Tennessee “fraudulent.” Carroll was thereby “evicted and deprived of her,” and Smith was compelled to refund Carroll’s purchase price. Smith now charges that Johnson defrauded him, being “well aware” he had “no valid title” at the time of their transaction. Having received “no compensation” for Louisa, Smith seeks the court’s interposition. 0345 (Accession # 21485116). Davidson County, Tennessee. John Hugh Smith, administrator of the estate of the late B. R. B. Wallace, asks the court to take an account of Wallace’s personal property and of the estate’s assets and debts. The estate’s previous administrator obtained an order from the court to sell Wallace’s five slaves, but the court later set aside the order for sale of three of them; one of the slaves, Mary, has since died. Smith also informs the court that the books for Wallace’s blacksmith business “were very irregularly kept” and that at the time of his death, Wallace “was largely indebted to various persons.” He maintains that the assets of the estate are “insufficient to pay the debts against [it].” He asks for permission, if necessary, to sell Wallace’s house and his remaining slave to pay said debts. He also seeks an injunction against Wallace’s creditors and requests that the administration of the estate “be transferred to this Court.” 0354 (Accession # 21485117). Davidson County, Tennessee. Thomas C. Rutherford asks the court to compel Herman Cox, administrator of the estate of the late Richard Wright, to “hand over” constable receipts related to the hire of four of Rutherford’s slaves. Rutherford explains that Wright acted as his agent in hiring out the slaves to Eli Woods and D. McGuire in October 1848. Shortly before he died, Wright placed Woods’s note in the hands of William H. Clemons, a constable of Davidson County, for collection. Cox later did the same with McGuire’s note. The court awarded judgments in Wright’s favor in both cases. Rutherford now complains that Cox holds the constable’s receipts for the notes “as assets in his hands for the payment of” Wright’s creditors. Rutherford maintains that the notes were taken out solely in consequence of Wright’s agency and that Wright “did not regard the said notes as his property.” Cox refuses to surrender the notes and “seems desirous” that Rutherford file a claim and become a creditor of the estate. Meanwhile the constable refuses to pay the debts unless Rutherford can produce the receipts. Rutherford therefore asks that the court enjoin Clemons from paying Cox any monies and that Cox relinquish the receipts. 0362 (Accession # 21485118). Maury County, Tennessee. Martha A. Andrews, suing by her next friend, James H. Thurmond, seeks to protect her property from her dissipated husband. Martha states that, before she married Littleberry B. Andrews, she and her sister owned “an undivided interest in three slaves”—Jack, Mahala [Mahaly], and her child. Currently, the slaves are in the possession of Andrew T. Gray, Martha’s guardian. Martha’s sister and brother-in-law have petitioned the court to distribute the slaves. While Martha supports her sister, she does not want to lose her interest in the slaves either to her sister or to her own husband Littleberry. Martha represents that her husband “is improvident and addicted to the Vice of intemperance.” He is trying to obtain possession of her share of the slaves and has already pledged it to pay debts. Martha asserts that “if he should succeed in getting it into his possession, he will waste the whole amount of it, in less than twelve months.” Martha asks that “her interest in said slaves be settled upon her for her sole and separate use” and that the court enjoin the defendants “from doing any act” that would give the slaves to her husband. 0369 (Accession # 21485119). Williamson County, Tennessee. The executors of the estate of the late Nicholas Perkins ask the court to partition Perkins’s eight slaves between his daughters, Malvina Perkins Richardson and Mary Thomas Perkins, who is a minor. Nicholas Perkins died in February 1848. 230 Reel 17 Tennessee 0374 (Accession # 21485120). Williamson County, Tennessee. Philip A. Owen asks to have his share of four slaves set apart and allotted to him. Owen owns the slaves jointly with his four minor siblings. 0380 (Accession # 21485121). Williamson County, Tennessee. John B. McEwen, administrator of the estate of the late Elinor Prior, asks the court to decree “a sale of the said slaves Bob, Sam, and Dolly for the purpose of distribution among those entitled thereto.” Prior died “without children or the descendants of such” and “from the number of the next of Kin ... said slaves cannot be divided in the mode pointed out by law.” McEwen requests that, if Dolly, who is upwards of sixty years old, cannot be sold, then she should “be put up and sold to the person who will agree and obligate himself to support and take care of her [for] the least sum of money.” 0386 (Accession # 21485122). Overton County, Tennessee. Andrew Wilson seeks to protect his interest in several slaves, whom he mortgaged to his brother, Reuben Wilson, in September 1841. While the brothers and their eleven siblings share an interest in the slaves as their patrimony, the slaves and their “increase” have resided with their mother “under a family contract,” which has recently ended with their youngest brother’s arrival at “full age.” Wilson explains that “pecuniary embarrassment” necessitated the mortgage, but that his brother expressly agreed to allow him to redeem his interest in the slaves “whenever he should tender defendant an equal amount of property.” Andrew complains that Reuben now “sets up the fraudulent pretence” that their arrangement was an “absolute sale.” He and “perhaps the other heirs” have caused the slaves to be sold at auction and the proceeds from the sale are now in the hands of two commissioners. Andrew insists that, at the date of the sale, he was “young giddy necessitous and improvident” and that his brother, who was many years older and “possessed of great shrewdness and cunning,” took advantage of him. “Ready and willing” to repay Reuben, Andrew now asks the court to take an account of the value of the advanced property, to enjoin the commissioners from paying over the proceeds from the sale, and to ultimately “set aside” the mortgage. 0397 (Accession # 21485123). Williamson County, Tennessee. Thomas M. Clardy asks the court to attach David Patillo’s property, including a slave named Rachel, and to enjoin Patillo from selling or removing the property outside the court’s jurisdiction. Clardy explains that he became security for a $500 note Patillo used to purchase land from B. W. Lane. The note is about to become due. Clardy informs the court that, “for several days past,” Patillo “has been engaged in selling & disposing of his property as fast as possible.” He insists that, “within in the last day or two,” Patillo has “absconded & carried with him” four slaves and other property. Clardy fears he will be “compelled to pay said debt” unless the court intervenes and restrains Patillo in his course. Clardy also points out that Patillo’s wife, Frances, has recently sued David for divorce and alimony and caused the court to attach Rachel, who has been in Frances’s possession in another county in Tennessee. He asks the court to ascertain the debts due Patillo and the whereabouts of his property “so that a sufficiency of the estate ... may be subjected to the satisfaction of the debt upon which your orator is bound.” 0402 (Accession # 21485124). Davidson County, Tennessee. William Scruggs and Mary Barksdale, children of Finch Scruggs, seek to protect their remainder interest in a slave named Jemima and her children under the 1798 will of their great-grandfather, James Scruggs. The will bequeathed a life estate in Jemima to their father, and gave the slave and her “issue” to the petitioners at Finch’s death. Finch brought Jemima to Tennessee from Virginia “many years ago,” where she had “issue a female child.” Finch then sold his interest in the slaves to one Mary Matthias [Mathews]. While in Matthias’s possession, Jemima had at least nine children; 231 Reel 17 Tennessee the slaves passed to Matthias’s four children at her death. Thomas Matthias received Delila and her two children, Elijah and William, whom he has recently sold to Guilford Read. The petitioners now “require a discovery of the number, names & ages of her children,” as Read “refuses to recognize your Orators interest therein.” They “seriously apprehend” that the slaves will be “removed, or sold & lost” to them. They ask the court to protect their “present right of future enjoyment,” by attaching the slaves and compelling Read to post “bond & security for [their] forthcoming.” Six years later Scruggs and Barksdale filed another bill against Read, complaining that he and his security, Samuel M. Allen, had failed to execute bond as required by the earlier decree. They further complained that the men had failed to deliver the slaves to the clerk and master as required in default of bail. Deeming them “guilty of contempt,” they ask the court to require Read and Allen to bring the slaves “within the Jurisdiction of this Court or that they be charged with their value.” 0414 (Accession # 21485125). Williamson County, Tennessee. Sarah E. Armstrong and her minor sister, Ann L. Baugh, seek permission to obtain a division of “a negro man slave named Arthur,” whom they own as tenants in common. The sisters derived Arthur’s title “from one Lemuel Pope who died some years ago.” They inform the court that Arthur is the “only slave at present owned by them in common, the negroes which came to them from their father having been divided before they obtained possession of this one.” Since Arthur cannot be divided, they ask the court to decree his sale “upon such terms and conditions as to your Honor shall seem right and proper.” 0424 (Accession # 21485126). Bradley County, Tennessee. William H. Swan seeks to restrain Robert M. Swan from “disposing of” any slaves or “other property” in his possession or control in which his brother, Samuel, “may have an interest.” William Swan explains that Samuel signed a note promising to pay him $220 on 24 March 1841. Later Samuel became entitled to a distributive share in his late father’s personal estate, “consisting mostly of negro slaves.” The petitioner now informs the court that Samuel has “no other effects ... out of which said note can be satisfied, unless this distributive share can be reached.” He speculates that Robert Swan “holds said slaves, ten or twelve in number for distribution according to the terms” of his testator’s will. He finally asks that Samuel Swan’s property be sold and that the proceeds, “so far as necessary,” be appropriated to the satisfaction of said debt. 0429 (Accession # 21485127). Lawrence County, Tennessee. William Lucas asks the court to order the foreclosure of two mortgages and “cause an account to be taken as to the amount” he owes Joseph Miller. Lucas explains that in 1841 he mortgaged his slave named America to Miller in order to secure a debt of $500. The pair agreed that America would only remain in Miller’s possession as security until he repaid the debt. A year later Lucas was indebted to two local merchants, who caused the sheriff to levy upon Lucas’s slave Pinkney. At the constable’s sale, Miller agreed to purchase Pinkney; again, the men agreed that Lucas would have the “privilege of redeeming” him when he repaid the purchase money. Miller now informs the court that, although he is ready to redeem both slaves, Miller has “disregarded” their contract and sold America to William Parks. America has had three children, and the family of slaves is now worth between $1,300 and $1,400; Pinkney is now worth $800. Lucas asks the court to order an account to ascertain what he owes Miller, how much he has already paid him, and “for the services of said slaves.” He finally asks that the court “reinvest title to the same in your orator.” 0437 (Accession # 21485128). Williamson County, Tennessee. The two youngest children of the late Wright Stanley petition the court for a construction of Stanley’s will “and of the rights and liabilities of the respective devisees and legatees in said will.” The petitioners believe that their father’s “bounty” has been disproportionately distributed to his children. They submit that their brother and two sisters, who reached twenty-one years of age well before them, have received 232 Reel 17 Tennessee their shares of the slaves, land, and profits from their late father’s estate. They now ask the court to compel the executor of the will “to come to an account and pay over” their equitable share of the estate. The estate’s profits include the rents and income from Stanley’s real estate and the wood and timber thereon. They ask the court to ascertain the “rights interest and estates and liabilities of all parties under said will.” 0454 (Accession # 21485130). Williamson County, Tennessee. James Carothers and his son, Wiley B. Carothers, seek to dissolve their partnership with Patrick Erskine and ask that “proper accounts be taken” of the firm’s assets. The men entered into a partnership in 1850 “under the name & style of Carothers & Erskine in the business of purchasing & selling slaves.” James Carothers furnished $14,040, “including two negroes valued at $1000,” which his partners took to Virginia to invest in the purchase of slaves to be sold in the south. The pair returned with a “gang” of twenty-four slaves purchased for $11,707.50. After picking up two additional slaves in Tennessee, they headed south where they sold all but one slave, a man named Lewis, “who is not in good health.” They assert that “the whole cost of slaves bought and sold by the firm” amounted to $12,820, and the gross proceeds of the sale amounted to $17,757.50. The petitioners inform the court that “the balance of the property assetts or funds of said firm is or ought to be in the hands of the defendt Patrick A. Erskine.” They complain that Erskine has used a “great portion” of the money and has not repaid James his principal and interest. Citing that Erskine has “absconded from” the state taking with him “said moneys or the proceeds thereof,” they ask the court to attach his property and have “said slave Lewis ... & what is coming to them decreed to them.” 0466 (Accession # 21485131). Montgomery County, Tennessee. Cave Johnson asks the court to compel William Chilton to compensate him for a debt out of his interest in the estate of the late James N. Dortch, the first husband of Chilton’s current wife. Johnson explains that he won two judgments against William in October 1850, but he has been unable to collect his money because William has no property. The petitioner informs the court that Robert Chilton, William’s brother and the administrator of Dortch’s estate, has “not as yet delivered over” Mrs. Chilton’s inheritance. The estate’s slaves, which number between ten and twelve, are currently hired out for the present year. Although Robert Chilton agreed “more than twelve months ago to pay sd debts out of the estate,” he has recently applied to the court to surrender his administration of Dortch’s estate. Johnson now asserts that Robert has not delivered William’s portion of the estate “for the purpose of delaying and hindering the creditors of the said William from collecting the debt.” He asks the court to intervene. 0472 (Accession # 21485132). Davidson County, Tennessee. William and Keziah Everett Cagle seek an injunction to prevent Sally Everett and Laban Abernathy from selling or removing a slave named Betsey. The petitioners explain that they and Keziah’s father share a remainder interest in Betsey after Sally Everett’s death. Keziah’s father, Simon Everett, laid out money for the purchase of a slave in 1829. David Abernathy then conveyed a slave named Harriet to Laban Abernathy to hold in trust “for the use & benefit of the said Simon Everett & his wife Sally” during their lifetime; Sally Everett later sold Harriet after Simon’s death. Sally eventually purchased Betsey with part of the proceeds from the sale. The Cagles now insist that Laban Abernathy, who “knew of the sale & consented to it,” ought to be “as responsible as if he had actually made the sale himself.” While Sally currently has Betsey in her possession, the petitioners fear that she is planning on selling her. In addition to the injunction, they also ask the court to require Sally to post bond for Betsey’s “forthcoming.” 0481 (Accession # 21485133). Franklin County, Tennessee. Johanna Houston asks the court to attach a slave named Eliza and to “give your Oratrix a decree for said negro woman Eliza and for her hire.” Houston, a recent widow, explains that her father, William Smith, deeded Eliza and 233 Reel 17 Tennessee another slave, Milly, to her in 1819. At the time Johanna was married to her husband, who was “a drinking man and a spend thrift,” a fact “well known to her said father.” She informs the court that her father deeded the property to her only, “showing that it was his intention to exclude the martial rights of her said husband and secure the property to her and her children or assigns.” She complains that, during his lifetime, her husband “continued to dissipate and spend her property,” including Eliza whom he sold to Woodruff Parks without her consent. She claims that Parks has had possession of Eliza for “19 or 20 years,” and she fears that he will “run her off so that she will probably be lost to your oratrix.” Confiding to the court that her husband left her “in a very destitute condition with a large family to raise” and that Eliza is a “family slave of great and peculiar value,” she seeks the court’s assistance in recovering her property. 0492 (Accession # 21485135). Williamson County, Tennessee. Naomi Johnson seeks a divorce from her estranged husband, Jesse W. Johnson, whom she married in 1839. She claims that he is addicted to the use of “ardent spirits,” which promotes treatment towards her “so cruel and inhuman as to render it unsafe and improper for her to cohabit with him.” He uses language towards her “a gentleman would not use towards his slaves” and has repeatedly accused her of infidelity “even with a negro in the presence of her mother.” The petitioner informs the court that she has four slaves derived from the estate of her late father, whom she claims as her “sole and separate” property; however, when she left Jesse to “seek protection in the house of her mother,” her husband “swore that if she attempted to move off one of the negroes he would kill her.” She asks to be restored “to all the rights of a feme sole” and that the slaves be “set apart or restored to her.” 0502 (Accession # 21485136). Davidson County, Tennessee. William M. Alexander asks the court to issue a writ of inquisition to the sheriff to “Summon a Jury to ascertain and report what is the mental state” of his eighty-two-year-old father, Thomas Alexander. The petitioner fears that his father, whom he calls “a person of unsound mind and mentally incapable of managing his own affairs,” will “waste his estate for want of sufficient mental capacity to take care of and manage the same.” Thomas Alexander owns “some fifteen negro Slaves” and several hundred acres of land. 0511 (Accession # 21485137). Bedford County, Tennessee. Jordan C. Holt, Benjamin Moseley, and Jordan C. Holt Jr. seek an injunction restraining the collection of a debt. They submit that Holt purchased a slave named Frances from the estate of the late Rebecca Fisher in April 1850. Frances was warranted as healthy; however, soon after the purchase, Holt discovered “that she was afflicted with consumption or some other disease,” of which she died within a few months. Holt maintains that Frances “never rendered him any service whatever, but on the contrary was during all that time a heavy charge.” The petitioners believe that Fisher’s heirs and administrator knew of Frances’s illness; they claim “in fact one of them, Lewis Gaunt in conversation with your Orator about her, in effect admitted it but falsely pretended that she was pregnant and alleged that her illness was caused by her pregnancy alone.” Fisher’s heirs and administrator have recently instituted a suit against the Holts and Moseley, demanding that they pay for the slave. Holt has refused, insisting “that this Honl. Court will not compel him to pay his money for nothing, or for a diseased and dying negro.” Therefore, the petitioners pray that the heirs and administrator be perpetually enjoined from collecting payment for the slave. 0524 (Accession # 21485138). Washington County, Tennessee. Robert Love seeks the court’s advice on the proper execution of his late parents’ and sister’s wills. Love’s father, Thomas, died in 1832, leaving an estate of property and slaves to his widow and children. The widow, Anna, sold two estate slaves and gave a slave named Peggy and her children to her son-in-law, Benjamin Dulaney; however, Dulaney may not have been entitled to the slaves because his wife, Mary Love, was a minor at the time and by the provisions of Thomas’s will, his heirs were 234 Reel 17 Tennessee only eligible to receive their inheritance upon reaching majority. Anna Love died in 1843, leaving all her property and her share in her late husband’s property to the petitioner and his siblings. The petitioner’s sister, Seraphina, has also died, leaving her own estate. Robert Love has now incurred many expenses on behalf of the estates “in maintaining, clothing, supporting, and educating” minor siblings and in “raising and clothing young negros,” yet he is still uncertain on the proper division of the estates’ properties and slaves. He contends that “the said three wills are so intimately connected that it is necessary they should all be before your Honor in order to the correct ascertainment of the rights of the parties and the proper settlement of the business of said estates.” 0540 (Accession # 21485139). Maury County, Tennessee. Orphaned minor Anna Booker seeks to protect her inheritance by asking the court to uphold and enforce a deed of trust executed by her late father, Peter R. Booker, in 1848. Booker conveyed a 425-acre tract of land “together with about fifty slaves” to Winfield S. Rainy as trustee “to be held for the benefit of” his wife, Mary, “and his children by his said wife.” After the widowed Mary Booker married Washington Meredith, the couple petitioned the court to have the deed set aside. While the suit was pending, Mary Booker Meredith died, leaving Anna Booker the only issue of her marriage with Peter Booker. The court eventually ruled in Meredith’s favor, entitling him to Mary’s “distributive share of one half of” Booker’s personal estate. Anna, who was “of tender years” during the suit, now calls the decree “clearly erroneous” and asks the court to rehear the case. Two years later, Anna Booker filed a bill of review, detailing the ways in which her mother “treated said deed as a binding and valid disposition of the property” before repudiating it before the court. Anna insisted that it was never her father’s intention “to give to said Mary T. any part of said estate absolutely” and that she herself is “clearly entitled to all of said slaves under said deed.” Citing Rainy’s cross bill as “antagonistic to her rights,” she asks the court to reverse its earlier decree, preventing Meredith from selling the slaves and real estate to satisfy her father’s debts. 0577 (Accession # 21485140). Williamson County, Tennessee. Polly Sharpe and Nancy D. Jordan and their husbands seek a division of the property of the late James Allison. Sharpe is the daughter of Allison. In 1821, her former husband, the late Samuel N. Martin, who is also the father of petitioner Jordan, conveyed four slaves to Allison. By his will, Allison devised that the surviving two slaves of that group as well as his other slaves and property be divided among his daughters and their families. Some of Allison’s heirs have since died, making an equitable division of the property difficult. Especially under debate is a tract of land that Allison’s will ordered apportioned among his heirs. The petitioners pray that the other Allison heirs be made parties to this suit and that the court devise an acceptable division of the testator’s property. 0590 (Accession # 21485141). Bedford County, Tennessee. As administrator of the estate of the late Leighton Ewell, Abner L. Landis seeks a redivision of the slaves of the late John Ewell. By his 1824 will, John Ewell ordered that his slaves be put into a life estate for the benefit of his widow. He further ordered that his brothers, Leighton and Dabney Ewell, be named his executors. Leighton did not qualify, and he died leaving two children as heirs. In 1848, John’s widow relinquished her right to the life estate and had the estate’s slaves divided among the other heirs. Landis claims that Leighton’s estate had a right to be represented in this division; he charges that its omission in said division defrauded the estate of its rightful inheritance. Landis prays that the division of slaves be nullified and that the heirs, who received the slaves, be made to account for their numbers, names, and values. He further prays that the court order a redivision of the property. In their answer, the defendants state that Leighton’s estate has no claim to the slaves because John had advanced him approximately $355.66. In an amended bill, Landis states that he has been made administrator of the estates of three children of John 235 Reel 17 Tennessee Ewell. He claims that these heirs were not represented in the division of the slaves either, further denoting the need to void the original distribution. 0615 (Accession # 21485142). Smith County, Tennessee. The petitioners seek a distribution of their late father’s slaves. Prior to his death, Larkin Corley Sr. “pretended to make a conveyance” of his slaves to certain individuals. The petitioners believe this conveyance was “fraudulently obtained” by his wife, who took advantage of him while he “was in a state of intoxication.” They “further charge that in pursuance of this transaction, & to show the fraud practised on the old man ... Deft Nancy his wife, caused each one of the Children ... to hand him $10 in silver. When one would hand it to him, the old Lady would get it back from him & hand it to another who would hand it to the old man again, until they all pased the money round in that way.” However, “on his deathbed,” Corley “requested that his slaves with all the rest of his property should be equally divided amongst his children.” All of the petitioner’s sisters are willing to do this, but several of their husbands “claim said slaves” under the original conveyance. The slaves are now eleven in number and should be divided in some manner. Yet, because of the first conveyance, “there is a cloud upon the title of said slaves,” which “has a tendency to imbarris an Administrator so much so that no person can be found to Administer the Estate.” The petitioners pray that the court appoint an administrator “with power to take into his possession said slaves” and distribute them. 0622 (Accession # 21485143). Montgomery County, Tennessee. Agnes Shelton and her minor children, residents of Kentucky, seek the return of a slave named Flora. Shelton bought Flora and “all her increase” from Edmund Bradshaw in 1844 and allowed her husband, William, to act as trustee. William was then indebted to the merchants Kinkeard & Grant for $400–500. “In ignorance of her rights,” Agnes sold her interest in Flora and her children to G. Corban, William’s surety on his debt. Corban and William Shelton then brought the slaves into Tennessee and sold them to John Pope, a trustee for his wife and others, for $1,010. Agnes and her children pray that Pope be enjoined from selling the slaves out of the court’s jurisdiction and that the court set aside the sale. 0630 (Accession # 21485144). Bedford County, Tennessee. Joel and Polly Lowrance seek the return of a slave named John Solomon. Upon their marriage, Polly was the sole owner of a slave named Tempy, the mother of John Solomon. In 1840, Joel became indebted, prompting Polly to mortgage her slaves to John Fisher, who agreed to advance money for the debts on the condition that he get to keep the slaves in his possession until he was repaid. The Lowrances, “not understanding the form of a Mortgage; Executed to said Fisher a Bill of Sale for Said Negroes; for the precise amount of Money advanced, $403.75 ... Said Negroes at the time were worth considerably more.” Soon afterwards, Joel Lowrance fell ill and “Fisher came to see him; and whilst there persuaded your Orator to let him have the obligation which they held on him to deliver the negroes.” Two years later, the Lowrances requested the return of the slaves but Fisher denied them. Instead, he sold Tempy to “a negro trader, who soon after Took her out of the Country.” Fisher is now dead, and his heirs have advertised to sell John Solomon at public auction. Having “much more than paid” their debt, the Lowrances pray that their slave be returned to them and that the estate compensate them for the loss of Tempy. In the meantime, they pray that the estate be enjoined from selling John Solomon. 0645 (Accession # 21485145). Giles County, Tennessee. The Field family seeks to sell a slave and a tract of land. In 1842, Harrington L. Field executed a deed of trust to William Arrowsmith, part of which trust consisted of a slave “named Mille who for the last two or three years has been of but little if any value to your orators & oratrices, having contracted habits of running away & lying out for months, and at one time near twelve months.” They wish to sell Mille and put the profits towards the purchase “of another slave, or some other property.” In addition, the 236 Reel 17 Tennessee family owns a tract of land in trust in Pulaski, Tennessee, and “it would be to their Manifest interest to dispose of said tract of land, that they might remove to the state of Texas ... and the proceeds of the sale of said land ... could be vested in slaves.” They pray that the court allow the sale of the slave and the land and that Arrowsmith be “discharged from all further liability for said trust.” 0654 (Accession # 21485146). Washington County, Tennessee. James D. and Elizabeth J. Rhea ask the court to execute her late father’s will. Alfred Carter died possessed of “valuable lands, with Iron works & other valuable improvements” and slaves. By his will, his widow received a life estate in his land and slaves; upon her death, the slaves were to be divided among his sons, as he wished “to prevent them being thrown into numerous hands.” The will further stated that, after his debts were paid, all remaining property should be distributed among his six children. One clause states, “The heirs of Elizabeth J. Rhea to receive one sixth part of my estate.” The Rheas argue, “Strictly & properly the phrase ‘the heirs of Elizabeth J. Rhea’ has no legal fixed & determinate meaning, yr Oratrix Elizabeth J. Rhea being still living, & although the mother of several children, still in legal contemplation, a living person can have no heirs.” The Rheas believe that Carter did not mean that the property should “remain in abeyance & locked up during the life time of Yr Oratrix & then go to her heirs but on the contrary” but that it should go to Rhea now as a life estate held in trust for her children. The Rheas “pray that yr Honor will construe the sd will & direct its execution in conformity with the true meaning & intent of Testator.” 0673 (Accession # 21485147). Washington County, Tennessee. Wiatt, Rebecca, and their children, people of color, seek their freedom. Vachael Light, their late master, freed the petitioners by his will and the “intention of the sd. testator is shown by being three times expressed in the sd. will, thereby shewing that the sd. testator intended to leave no doubts on the minds of those who should see his sd. will that he meant not to leave any of your Complts. in bondage.” Further, it was the “long cherished wish of his life that yr. Complts., to whom he was much attached, should serve no one as slaves” after his death. By another clause in his will, Light left “all his household & kitchen furniture” to Rebecca, as well as the residue of his estate’s land. However, the testator’s son, Right Light, “has in direct violation of the wishes of his deceased father, gone to the County Court of Sullivan & taken out letters of administration on the estate of his sd. father.” Right Light has now sold the property devised to Rebecca and “has, by some means, procured an order ... to sell all the Complts.” The petitioners pray for an injunction against their sale and “that they may be secured in their right to freedom under sd. will.” 0680 (Accession # 21485148). Bradley County, Tennessee. Margrett Eaton seeks to be made administratrix of her late husband’s estate. When John W. Eaton died, the petitioner “was Lying very Low and sick so much so that she was unable to attend his burial and so continued untill after Letter of administration was granted upon the Estate of her deceased husband.” Consequently, Ahag Shamblin, “who was not the next of kin nor the Creditor of said deceased,” was granted the administration and has now taken possession of the estate’s slaves and other property. He has “carried off” four of the slaves and employs others “to his own use.” Eaton has also learned that “Shamblin is Insolvent not worth any thing of his own,” and she fears that he will abscond with the slaves. Eaton “is able & willing to give good & Sufficient security for the faithful discharge of her duties as administratrix.” She prays that the court revoke Shamblin’s fraudulent appointment as administrator and name her in the post instead. She further prays for an injunction against Shamblin, forcing him to return all of the estate property. 0689 (Accession # 21485149). Bradley County, Tennessee. Anderson McMahon seeks compensation for the loss of a slave named Mariah. McMahon’s mother and William McKissick 237 Reel 17 Tennessee Sr. intermarried about 1826 and removed from Cocke County. Before they moved, McMahon gave them Mariah “to wait upon and take care of his said Mother during life, with the express agreement between your orator and his said mother and husband” that he was to retain title to the girl. When his mother died, McMahon went to McKissick’s home to retrieve Mariah, “but finding McKissick distressed in mind, and being requested by McKissick to let said girl remain with him and cook for him until the marriage of one of his sons,” McMahon agreed. Several years later, he learned that McKissick had distributed some of his property “amongst his children” and that his son, William Jr., had taken Mariah and her two children to Missouri; thereafter, he learned that Mariah had been sold. Both McKissicks had full knowledge of McMahon’s rights yet they chose “to cheat or defraud your orator out of his said negroes.” McKissick Sr. is now dead and his son Abraham illegally acts as the executor, having taken possession of the estate’s “8 or 10 negroes.” McMahon prays that Abraham McKissick be ordered to submit an inventory of the estate and that he be enjoined from selling any of the slaves until further order of the court. 0701 (Accession # 21485150). Williamson County, Tennessee. The seven heirs of the late Nicholas Perkins seek to sell a slave from his estate. By his will, Perkins ordered his slaves distributed among his heirs. His daughter, Agatha Sally Marr, and her husband received twenty slaves, including a sixteen-year-old named Ann. Ann, who served as a nurse, was “impulsed by some motive” to give the Marrs’ infant daughter, Mary E. B. Marr, “a dose of Laudanum which caused the death of the child and said slave has been prosecuted in this court for the crime of Murder,” but she has been acquitted. Despite Ann’s acquittal, the Marrs are “unwilling to receive her again in their family.” The petitioners, in their capacity as estate executors, pray that they be permitted to sell Ann and be allowed to purchase another slave for their use. The petition is accompanied by testimony from Ann’s trial, including the testimony of several slaves. Mr. Nichols, the Marrs’ overseer, testifies that another slave named Tom may have compelled Ann to give the child an overdose. Nichols believes Tom and Ann may have been engaged in a sexual relationship. Several witnesses suggest that Ann may have poisoned the child because she did not want to accompany the Marr family on an upcoming trip to Alabama. 0749 (Accession # 21485151). Sumner County, Tennessee. George Zarecor seeks to set aside a ruling. In August 1849, he purchased a slave named Milly and her two children from Reuben Wright Sr. Wright represented Milly as “sound & healthy except for a short time before ... August 1849—that she was then under the care of Dr. Walton—and that there was not much the matter with her”; he also claimed that she was pregnant. Zarecor agreed to pay $650 for the slaves, paying $450 in 1849 and issuing a promissory note for the remainder. After the purchase, Zarecor learned that Milly had been unwell for some time, probably suffering from dropsy, and that “she had been sold several times as unsound property.” Zarecor opines that “said negro has been a dead expense on his hands from the day of his purchase until her death in August 1850.” Zarecor and Wright took their cause to arbitration where it was ordered “that Complt. should have a credit of $61.50 on said note—because said woman was not pregnant at the time of sale—and that defdt. should recover the ballance of said note with interest.” Zarecor believes that the arbitrators made the wrong ruling as it “was a strong case of fraud.” He prays that the award be set aside and that Wright pay him “damages for keeping said negro woman.” He further prays that Wright be enjoined from seeking judgment to collect the original award. 0756 (Accession # 21485152). Shelby County, Tennessee. Sarah Leath seeks to emancipate a slave named Sarah. Leath states that Sarah is “of yellow complexion and aged about twenty years.” The slave “has been an obedient faithful, and good servant—and her whole conduct towards petitioner, has been such as to create the desire in the mind of petitioner to reward her with her freedom.” Leath prays that the court allow the emancipation. 238 Reel 17 Tennessee 0767 (Accession # 21485153). Shelby County, Tennessee. William H. Eanes seeks to emancipate Nancy Smith, the slave of the late T. Lee Smith. The late “Smith died seized and possessed of said Nancy as his slave for life and that by his said last will it is provided that she shall be set free and emancipated and invested with all the privileges and immunities of a free person of color ... and further that all necessary expenses for securing her said freedom should be paid out of his estate.” As the estate’s executor, Eanes believes “that the provision aforesaid for said Nancy’s freedom is the first and foremost charge which he has imposed upon it” and he therefore prays that the court grant Nancy’s emancipation. A related petition reveals that Nancy is mulatto. 0773 (Accession # 21485154). Shelby County, Tennessee. “Your petitioner Tempe Hooper would state that she has been emancipated agreeably to the laws now in favor in this State at the present term of this Court—that she has been residing in this State for the last sixteen years and that she is anxious and desirous to remain in this State and in the County of Shelby— believing that she would not be enabled to support herself any where else—and also because her friends and relations all reside here in this State—She therefore prays to be allowed to remain in this State upon the Conditions required by law.” [Transcription of petition.] 0781 (Accession # 21485155). Shelby County, Tennessee. “Your petitioner, Bennet Repeto shews to your worships that he is a resident of the County of Shelby aforesaid, and that he is the owner of a slave named Tempe known as Tempe Hooper, and that he is desirous to set free and emancipate Said slave—that she has been a good and faithful servant and slave to him and has worked and labored faithfully for him and earned him a large amount of money—for which reasons he is desirous to set free and emancipate said slave. He therefore prays a decree of emancipation of said slave Tempe—and as in duty bound, he will pray &c.” [Transcription of petition.] 0792 (Accession # 21485156). Shelby County, Tennessee. “Your Petitioner Nancy a mulatto woman, lately the Slave of T. Lee Smith late of said County decd., who has been invested with the privileges & immunities of a free person of color by the last will & Testament of said T. Lee Smith duly proven in open court and admitted to record by order of your worshipful Court this day rendered, begs leaves to say to your worships, that for the reason that She respects and is attached to the citizens of this County and is well assured of kind treatment at their hands so long as she continues worthy of the same, which it is her wish and purpose to merit by good conduct, She is desirous of living in this county of Shelby, and therefore prays of the court the privilege of remaining and residing in the same upon the terms & conditions set forth in the laws of the State of Tennessee.” [Transcription of petition.] 0798 (Accession # 21485157). Shelby County, Tennessee. William H. Carroll seeks to emancipate a slave named John Brown. Carroll asserts that John is a faithful servant, who “has labored and worked industriously—and has fully paid and discharged the whole amount of his value to your petitioner.” For these reasons, Carroll prays for a decree of emancipation for John. 0803 (Accession # 21485158). Shelby County, Tennessee. “The Petition of John Brown a free man of color, emancipated at the third term of this Court would represent to your worships that he has been for a number of years a resident of the County of Shelby—that he has a family residing in said County with whom he is desirous and anxious to remain—and whom it is his duty to support—and that he has many other ties which bind him to the said County—and which render him desirous to remain in said County—and he therefore prays the Court that leave be granted him to remain in said County of Shelby, agreeably to the laws now in favor in this State and as in duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray &c.” [Transcription of petition.] 239 Reel 17 Tennessee 0808 (Accession # 21485159). Sumner County, Tennessee. Mary Barksdale and William Scruggs debate George Scott’s claim to a family of slaves. The petitioners are the greatgrandchildren of the late James Scruggs of Virginia. By his 1799 will, Scruggs bequeathed a slave named Jamima to Finch Scruggs, the petitioners’ father. The will further stated that upon Finch’s death, the slave should pass to the petitioners. In 1811, Finch sold Jamima and her daughter Caroline to Mary Matthias of Tennessee. Upon the death of Matthias, Jamima and her nine children passed to Rachael Matthias Stull and her husband; at their deaths, their daughter and her husband, the defendant George Scott, acquired Jamima and her daughter Hagar. The petitioners contend that Scott refuses to recognize their rights to the slaves elucidated in the will of James Scruggs. They assert that the sale of Jamima from Finch Scruggs to Mary Matthias did not negate their interests in the slave and her increase. Therefore, the petitioners pray that Scott be enjoined from removing the slaves from the jurisdiction of the court, provide an inventory of the slaves, and, at the death of their aged father, surrender the slaves to their possession. In his answer, Scott asserts that the sale from Scruggs to Matthias did, in fact, nullify the petitioners’ claims to the slaves because it was an absolute sale without conditions and, if Finch Scruggs claims otherwise, then he is committing fraud. 0827 (Accession # 21485160). Sumner County, Tennessee. William Horsly and William Locket petition for a settlement of the estate of the late Robert Horsly. The Horslys and Locket were together entitled to a one-third interest in a group of four slaves, Mary and her three children, Eliza, Sarah, and Martha. The slaves were part of the estate of the late James Horsly, the father of William and Robert Horsly and the father-in-law of Locket. Robert Horsly died “indebted some $400 or 500 he being a young man and was at college receiving his education at the time of his death.” William Horsly is acting as the administrator to his estate. The petitioners ask that the slaves be sold and the proceeds be divided equitably between themselves and the estate of Robert Horsly, and that the legacy received by Robert Horsly’s estate be used to pay his debts. They also ask that William Horsly, in his capacity as administrator, be made a defendant to a suit currently pending by William Locket against the other heirs of James Horsly. The related commissioners’ reports reveal that, after the slaves were divided, Robert’s estate received the slave Eliza, who was sold in April 1852 for $585. 0832 (Accession # 21485161). Davidson County, Tennessee. Ephraim H. Foster asks the court to emancipate “a certain mulatto Slave called James Thomas.” Foster informs the court that he has owned Thomas since 20 January 1834. He further acknowledges that he placed Thomas “in a barbers Shop, where he remained until he had learned his trade well.” Noting that the said Thomas “is now an adept in his business, and profitably employed therein,” the petitioner praises Thomas as “industrious, honest, moral, & humble & polite” and affirms that Thomas “has so conducted himself as to gain the confidence & the respect, the good wishes and the constant patronage of all who know him.” Foster concludes that Thomas “is a man of great worth in his place & that he would, as a free man, make a valuable, honest & excellent citizen.” The petitioner urges the court “to decree the freedom of said negro James according to acts of assembly in such cases made and provided.” 0835 (Accession # 21485162). Davidson County, Tennessee. Twenty-three-year-old James Thomas seeks permission to remain in Tennessee. Recently emancipated by Ephraim Foster “at the present term of this worshipful Court,” Thomas informs the court that he trained as a barber and “is now honestly and profitably employed in his shop in the town of Nashville, where he has a large custom & is trying to make a living by faithful attention to his business.” The petitioner believes that “if he is compelled, under the existing laws, to remove out of the State, he will be greatly damaged by having to Start anew in some Strange Country & rebuild a character he trusts he has already established in Tennessee.” He asks the court to allow him to 240 Reel 17 Tennessee remain in Davidson County, “exempt from the pains & penalties imposed by law upon free people of color, emancipated since the year 1831, and that on complying with its conditions, he may have all the priveledges & benefits confered upon such persons by the act of 1842.” 0839 (Accession # 21485163). Dickson County, Tennessee. James H. Martin seeks the return of a fourteen-year-old slave named Tom. Martin mortgaged Tom to William Miller in March 1840 for the sum of $300. Some time later, Miller “advanced to your Orator some more money upon a loan, the exact amount not now recollected, and took a mortgage upon said slave to secure the debt.” The mortgage had a provision “allowing your Orator time to redeem the Boy.” However, Martin believes this was unnecessary because the amount of money advanced to him did not equal Tom’s value. Now Miller claims ownership of Tom. Martin prays that Miller be made to answer these charges and that Tom be “redelivered” to him along with an account of his hiring fees while in Miller’s possession. 0848 (Accession # 21485164). Carroll County, Tennessee. William Long asks that a twelveyear-old enslaved girl by the name of Drusilla be sold to satisfy a debt. Long submits that on 7 March 1850 he “placed in the hands of Saml L Bridgeman the sum of eight hundred & thirty five dollars,” with the “agreement and understanding ... that Bridgeman was to take said sum with him to Missouri and lay the same out in a couple of Negro Boys for your orator.” He further reports that the said Samuel proceeded to Missouri, where he gave $600 to his father Nathaniel, who was willing to sell “a couple of negroes a girl & a Boy.” Long points out that Samuel did offer to refund the $600, “if your orator should not feel disposed to take said negroes.” The petitioner explains that he chose not to take the said slaves and that the said Nathaniel brought the slaves to Tennessee, where he “sold one of said negroes to wit the Boy & did not pay your orator one ce
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz