The Library of Virginia (LVA) has digitized chancery court records for many of the counties of the Commonwealth.
From the LVA website:
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a chancery cause is a case of equity where “Justice is administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of common law. In layman’s terms, a chancery case was one that could not be readily decided by existing written laws. A judge, not a jury, determines the outcome of the case. These types of court documents are useful when researching genealogical information and land or estate divisions and may contain correspondence, lists of heirs, or vital statistics, among other items. Cases in chancery often address estate and business disputes, debt, the resolution of land disputes, and divorce.”
In other words, if you have one iota of an inkling that you have a family history connection to Virginia, you certainly want to review these records.
As it relates to my Turner family ties in Southampton County, Virginia, there’s this:
SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA LVA CHANCERY #: CO1845-006 Plaintiff(s) ADMX OF Benjamin Harrison ETC Catherine Harrison ADMX ETC Defendants(s) EXR OF Henry Harrison ETC
Surname(s)
Anthony (Enslaved)
Betsy (Enslaved)
Butts
Carter (Enslaved)
Charles (Enslaved)
Clara (Enslaved)
Discy (Enslaved)
Hannah (Enslaved)
Harrison
Henry (Enslaved)
James
Jim (Enslaved)
John (Enslaved)
Jones
Judy (Enslaved)
Martha (Enslaved)
Mason (Enslaved)
Sukey (Enslaved)
Susan (Enslaved)
Tom (Enslaved)
Just who are these folks? Well, Henry’s my 4th great-grandfather, and he, along with his sister, Betsey, were among the beneficiaries in the last September 10, 1853 last will of Edward P. Turner, deputy sheriff of Southampton County.
Genetic genealogy research has revealed the DNA connection among descendants of Henry and Betsey, and the traditional genealogy paper trail cemented the connections in the Fall of 2020, when the 1844 last will of Henry Harrison was discovered.
Henry and Betsey were the children of Martha, according to the will. Another child of Martha-Hannah, heretofore unknown, was also named in the 1840 document. Martha and her children, along with a number of other souls, were emancipated in Harrison’s will.
This did not sit well with Henry Harrison’s family, specifically his widowed sister-in-law, Catherine Harrison. She legally set about to wrangle back the valuable chattel that had been signed away by her legally “childless” kin.
The above-styled case was Catherine’s legal argument in the arena of chancery court.
FIRST, WE SAY THEIR NAMES:
ANTHONY
BETSY🍃
CARTER
CHARLES
CLARA
DICEY
HANNAH🍃
HENRY🍃
JIM
JOHN
JUDY
MARTHA🍃
MASON
SUKEY
SUSAN
TOM
Here is the complaint of the plaintiffs:
In Cir. Supr. Court of Law + Chy for Southampton
Note by Th.s S. Gholson counsel for Harrison’s + Wm A Jones
The pltffs in this cause claim by virtue of the will of Benja. Harrison Jr. There is no controversy or dispute as to the identity of the property, slaves +c-
Indeed it is admitted that the slaves mentioned in the complts bill are “Susan and her descendants.” The Bill admits that Henry Harrison survived his brother Benjmn. The question then submitted, comes properly before the court by a demurrer to the Bill—Have the pltffs as heirs +c of Benja. Harrison according to their own showing, right to recover the slaves in controversy?
The clauses of Benja. Harrison’s will bearing upon the question are the following.
“I give to my son Henry Harrison one half of my land, the part he now lives on, to him and his heirs forever. Also one negro woman named Susan with her present and future increase. Two feather beds and furniture—two cows and calves, one yearling—the horses and yearling he hath in his possession at this time—two ewes + lambs and six hundred and fifty to him + his heirs forever”
and the following
“If either of my sons should die without issue then + in that case I give all of the estate of every kind which I have given him to the surviving brother + his heirs forever”
Benja. Harrison (the son) died first-(several years ago) + left wife + children——the pltffs—-
The crux of the complaint is that the heirs of Benjamin Harrison Jr, brother of Henry Harrison, believed that they were entitled to the estate and enslaved of Henry. They cited a clause in the father, Benjamin Harrison’s 1807 will, that stated that the entire estate should be given to the “surviving brother” and his heirs forever.
A very interesting aspect of the complaint was the statement, “Indeed it is admitted that the slaves mentioned in the complts bill are “Susan and her descendants.” Also, the reference is made ad infinitum about Henry dying “without lawful issue.” To me, the totality of this reads as parentage and legacy for Susan’s children/descendants.
After the official complaint, case law was presented. The following cases were referred to:
Timberlake vs. Graves 6 Munf. 174
Gresham vs. Gresham 6 Munf 187
and —Didlake vs. Hooper Gilm. (184)
also—-Callava vs. Pope 3 Leigh 107
Catherine Harrison and the other plaintiffs didn’t stop at case law, they subpoenaed the emancipated souls named above at least three times as a legal tactic to win the case:
Sadly, according to the February 3, 1845 subpoena, it was reported that Hannah had died, so was not able to be served. This would explain why she, unlike her siblings Henry and Betsey, is missing from subsequent census records. I now know to check for Hannah’s name in the Southampton County death register for early 1845. Perhaps there are even more answers there. As it is, this chancery case is amazing and revelatory in so many ways.
After all was said and done, in 1845, November Term, the final word was given:
+ Hon. JW Robinson: Opinion is continued..
My opinion then is, that Henry Harrison has as much right to sell or convey the slaves in question as he would have had if he had bought them with his own money, And I am consequently of opinion that the children of his brother Benjamin can sustain no claim under the clause of the will above referred to~. Hon: Robinson
—-B.W. Leigh who says, “Whether the limitation over to the “surviving brother” was good in its evaluation or {illegible} Benjamin Harrison or his representation can maintain no claim to the slaves in question because he did not survive his brother——-
B.W. Leigh
So there it was. Catherine Harrison and her children were of the belief that because they were heirs of Benjamin Harrison Jr that they were entitled to the estate of Benjamin’s late brother, Henry Harrison. However, the counsels interpreted the clause included in Benjamin Harrison Sr’s 1807 will to the letter. Because the “surviving brother” was Henry (as Benjamin Jr had died several years before 1844) Henry had all the rights to do as he wished with his estate, which happened to include emancipating sixteen souls, “Susan and her descendants…”
Was the fallout over? What happened to the other emancipated souls? Were they all able to remain in Virginia?
The searching and answers for those questions are a situation for another day…
The Genealogy Situation Room
The Genealogy Situation Room 
A classic genealogy “gold mine”!
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I first read this case, I was initially under the impression that Catherine merely wanted the slaves (I’m your cousin, Betsey was my fourth-great-grandmother, so we’re fifth cousins!) until I read the summons; where it was stated that Susan, Martha, Mason, and Martha’s children, Betsey, Henry and Hannah (our fourth great-grandparents and their sister) had been emancipated as per Henry’s will. Yet, at the time, none had been emancipated. In his final days, in January 1944, Henry made several deeds to Edward P. Turner, William A. Jones, and John Jay, and someone named Claud (to whom Hannah was sold). In these deeds, Henry used his land and our ancestors as collateral, should he default on his debts. While Henry died before the first days of March of that year, well before he could pay them fully back, it should be assumed that he was not planning to die, as he had stated in the clauses of one of these deeds that he would have a part of the necessary money ready by mid-March. Henry’s death caused him to be unable to pay back his debts, and his lands and the enslaved people were sold by Henry’s executors to Edward P. Turner and Claud. While Susan’s children, Jim, Charles, and Mason, as well as their children and Martha’s children Betsey, Hannah and Henry were all sold, it is not known what happened to Susan and Martha. From Henry’s will, it might be speculated that Mason and Martha were his biological children; while Susan’s other children, Jim and Charles, were not set free by Henry (in fact, Henry’s will stated that they should be owned by their own mother), Henry’s will not only requested that Susan and her daughters Martha and Mason be freed, but that the entirety of the estate he had inherited from his father be given to them. The rest of his land (purchased) would be bequeathed to Anthony, who would be freed; yet in the event of Anthony dying without lawful issue, Martha and Mason would inherit. There is thus reason to believe that Martha and Mason, and perhaps Anthony as well, were Henry’s children with Susan. While it is unknown what happened to Martha and Susan following Henry’s death (only that Martha’s children were sold to Edward P. Turner), it is known that Anthony disappeared, likely escaping, according to the same court summons where it is stated that Hannah had died.
Given that the executors in the will were the defendants, including one William A. Jones who was involved in the deeds rendering Edward P. Turner the owner of Jim and Charles, and that these deeds were publicly available; one should suppose that Catherine was aware of the slaves’ continued bondage.
legally speaking, were Catherine making the case that the slaves were her property, it would be imprudent to refer to them as “emancipated slaves,” as the reasoning would hold that, even if Henry’s property were to transfer back to Benjamin’s family, it would not include the slaves, as the transfer would be simultaneous with them ceasing to be considered property. As Catherine would be concerned with the deeds by which Henry’s land was sold, she likely saw the sale of the individuals who should have been freed, it would make no sense for her to refer to them as “emancipated by Henry’s will.” It is therefore entirely possible that Catherine and other Harrison siblings were seeking to argue that they were Henry’s rightful lawful heirs, and therefore would be entitled to Henry’s property. Upholding the will as paramount in deciding the fate of Henry’s estate would require acknowledging that Henry had freed all of the slaves. This would explain why Catherine and the other Harrison’s might refer to those in bondage as “emancipated by the will of Henry Harrison,” even though they surely knew those individuals had been sold: their case was that Henry’s will was paramount, and that all of Henry’s wishes be fulfilled.
maybe I’m just grasping for straws in what is a fundamentally depressing situation: Henry’s children, who should have inherited his estate, were instead sold like Henry’s pigs and oxen. It was heartbreaking to go from the belief that Henry had emancipated my ancestors and left them his heirs, to the awareness that Edward P. Turner, the man who bought Betsey and Henry, would be proven by Ancestry DNA as the father of Betsey’s daughter Elizabeth Ann (Little Betsey). At the time of her entering Edward’s possession, Betsey was 15, and he was in his 40’s. It’s an incredibly depressing scenario, and in reading it, I was just grasping for some happy ending. The closest I could get was that it was determined that the sale of Henry’s land was enough to pay back the debts, so the acquisition of Mason, Jim, Charles, Susan (Sukky), Lucy, was unlawful, and it is recorded in the Virginia registry of free coloured people that they were all emancipated in January 1854, after bringing forth a suit against the executors, claiming that the sale of the land was more than satisfactory to pay for Henry’s debts. However, Betsey and Henry were not freed. It is not known why this is the case; perhaps Henry’s debts to Edward P. Turner were so great that the land alone was not enough to satisfy the debt, or perhaps it is that Henry made the sale of Betsey and Henry not collateral, but absolute, preventing them from claiming that Turner had not needed to collect them as collateral. Regardless, it is good to know that the rest of their family were freed and compensated (albeit meagerly, $300 per individual) by Henry Harrison’s executors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wonderful to connect, thank you for stopping by and sharing so.
•Yes, those deeds were certainly his attempt to control some aspect of his life in his final days.
•Excellent point, that Henry had set a schedule for partial payment.
•This means that the legal measures were not preemptive protection for our ancestors, but rather a remedy in response to the debt that Henry’s death had left behind. Thank you for the clarification.
•I also believe that it is more than possible that Mason and Martha were Henry Harrison’s biological children. His generosity and consideration for them (including their mother, Susan) was conspicuous. His allowances for Jim and Charles (as you mentioned) —not so much.
•Yes, there is very good reason to believe that Anthony, Martha and Mason were children of Henry Harrison and Susan.
•Census records do reveal that Martha stayed in Virginia after Henry Harrison’s death. According to the 1860 U.S. Census, Martha and her two sons (Simon and Jerre-Jesse?) were living next to Simon Turner (brother of Edward P. Turner and Elizabeth K. Turner). In fact, Simon-Edward-and Elizabeth were all living next to each other on the West Side Nottoway River, according to that record.
Martha would be known as Martha Harrison and Martha Turner. She may have been in some type of relationship with Simon Turner and some or all of her children may have been fathered by Simon. The DNA testing results for myself and a number of known Turner cousins has suggested that Simon Turner is the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) amongst a number of us.
In 1870, a 50 year old Martha was living in the household of her younger son, Simon, and his family (wife-Hester; daughter-Mary). Simon’s descendants identified as Native American on a number of official records. Our ancestors passed down their knowledge of having indigenous Nottoway blood.
In 1880, Martha is living very near her son, Simon, and his growing family (wife-Hester; daughters—Molly, Rose, Lila, Lue B.). Martha remains elusive after 1880.
•To me, it seemed that Catherine believed that the last will and testament of her late husband’s father superseded everything.
•Excellent point that Catherine et al. surely had not considered. Or maybe it was, because taking everything back to Benjamin and Henry’s father’s will was their legal route.
•Not all of Susan’s descendants were sold. Mason petitioned for a while to stay in Virginia. Martha and her son Simon Turner did, also. After a time, Mason, her husband—Simon Harrison (whom she “purchased” from one of Catherine’s sons) and her children left Virginia and settled in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
•I agree that strategy was at play in their acknowledgment of verbiage of Henry’s will—certainly not the spirit of it.
•You’re not alone in grasping for straws. I had hoped all of Henry’s last minute legalities were protection in some way for our ancestors. Turns out, twas just business as usual. Further, as DNA bears out—Edward P. Turner fathered a child with his own niece, Betsey. The happy ending (for us as descendants at least) is that no matter these obstacles, our ancestors endured so that we could be brought forth. As Dr. Henry Louis “Skip” Bates quipped to Russell Wilson (who has Southampton County, Virginia Turner family ties), “Can you imagine being a Black person named Turner living in the same county as Nat Turner?”.
•For their part, having resilience and a fighting spirit surely helped Mason, Charles, Susan and Lucy in their legal battle. Perhaps just as much, it helped that they were not blood tied to the Turners.
•Upon information and belief, my theory is that because Henry and Betsey were children of Simon Turner (and so “nephew” and “niece” to Edward P. Turner), there was more resistance to their leaving.
It is certainly good to know that the rest of their family was freed and compensated at all, especially given the times.
That’s the very interesting thing about genealogy. For every answer we receive, we gain two more questions. That’s “the situation,” so it seems.
Sincerest thanks to you for not only stopping by, but for parsing through this voluminous matter and taking the time to share such valuable insight. Please be encouraged and assured that our family history continues to be written. The peaks and valleys of the narrative are merely chapters in a larger story. Wherever the story goes, it belongs to us.
Thanks again! 🧬
——Barbie
LikeLike
Mason is my Great Great Maternal Grandmother ( Grandmother’s Paternal side)
My Maternal Grandmother, Louella Loretta Mayhew- Harrison-Whetts was born in Christiana, PA on July 06, 1883, passed away on October 08, 1976.
Parents: Mother,Nancy Jane Mayhew, Father, John Harrison ( born free in 1849 in Southampton, VA to Mason Harrison – They came to Chester County, PA when John was about six)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for stopping by and for sharing this lovely information. I have seen the Ancestry family trees and accordingly, your Louella is my 2nd cousin 5x removed. We’re 2nd cousins 7x removed, in turn.
It is wonderful to reclaim history.
LikeLike