LAWSUIT Part One
James Hord vs William Richards
Administrator of the estate of Simon Miller
Simon Miller was the father in law of both men.
James Hord's wife, Mary Susan Miller was a daughter of Simon's first
marriage and Lydia Miller, a daughter of his second marriage.
The marriage of James Hord to Mary Susan is outlined
in the depositions in this lawsuit. The content of the depositions and
the places that they were taken are of interest to the researcher, in that,
they show relationships to the family, the location of the family and
the distances covered from Virginia to Kentucky to get the depositions.
This is quite lengthy and is copied in it's entirety as much as is
possible. The entire case was not available to us, however, it is assumed
that the final deposition of this case was not in favor of James
or his heirs, among whom were his sons in law, Thomas Brooks and James
Withers.
We have found evidence that this suit continued into the late 1820's
after our Thomas Brooks was in Missouri.
[See Hord information page for James Hord will, etc.]
JAMES HORD born January 28, 1736 in King George County, Virginia,
died before September 23, 1803 in
Culpeper County, Virginia was the son of Thomas Hord and Jane
Miller.. [1st cousins]. He married Mary Susan
Miller who was also his first cousin, about 1759/60. She was
the daughter of Simon Miller III and his first wife
Isabella Miller, who were also cousins. These two families
were intermingled through several generations. The
spelling will differ from one document to the next, however, most
spellings seem to be Hord, not Hoard. Often, the
spelling of Hoard is in the various county records that have been
copied from the original document they were the
parents of four children: See Hord appendix for ancestry of
James Hord
1. James Hord
2. Ann Hord who married James Withers
3. Jane Hord married Thomas Brooks/Brookes
4. Frances who married a Slaughter.
James Hord sued the estate of his father in law, Simon Milller for
a portion of the estate he claims he was promised
at the time of his marriage to the daughter of Simon Miller. A long
drawn out lawsuit followed the initial suit.
After the death of James Hord in 1803, this suit is taken up by
the heirs named in the will and continues over
another twenty odd years. This starts with the
Bill of Compaint against the Miller estate, William Richards,
administrator. It is copied as nearly as the original as possible.
Bill of Complaint James Hord Plaintiff vs William
Richards Defendant
Hord vs Miller/Richards Lawsuit Chancery Court, Fredericksburg,
Virginia
To The Worshipful Court in Spotsylvania in Chancery “Siting”.
Humbly complaining “Sheweth” unto your Worships your orator
James Hord that some short time before
he intermarried with Mary daughter of Simon Miller the daughter
of Simon Miller the said Simon Miller promised
and agreed that if your orator did marry the said Mary that he the
said Simon would give him, immediately, two
likely negroes and at his death would give him as much as
any child he had, to which promise he called Aron
Bledsoe, Moses Bledsoe and James Cunningham as witnesses, and your
orator further states that the said marriage
did take effect and the said Simon Miller hath departed this
life about in the month of November 1799.
That about the time of his death he was seized in fee of about 2600
acres of land in the County of Culpeper and
Stafford with many valuable improvements-thereon, and also possessed
of about forty five or more slaves, a
Quantity of money and a Bond of William Richards for between three
and four hundred pounds all of which he has
given to William Richards who intermarried with one of his
daughters Lydia. He hath also given to the said
Richards the price of a mare sold by the said Richards for twelve
to fifteen thousand weight of tobacco and various
other things and has appointed the said Richards the executor
who hath taken on himself the Execution of the
will that the said Simon Miller at the tine of his death left four
children, to wit, Simon, Mary who intermarried
with your orator, Nellie who intermarried with Thomas Strother,
and Lydia who intermarried with William
Richards. That your orator hath applied to the said William Richards
in a friendly way and requested him to carry
into execution the said promise but he hath refused which is contary
to equity. In consideration whereof and in as
much as your orator is without remedy but in a Court of Equity,
may it please your Worships to “compell” the said
William Richards , who he prays may be made Defendant to thid bill,
to make a full and perfect answer thereto,
and that you will decree that he shall preform the promise
of the said Simon by praying and delivering to your
orator as much of the estate which was of the said Simon Miller
as will be equal to the portion of the most favored
child, and that yuo will grant unto your Orator much further relief
as to your worships shall seem agreeable to
Equity and Conscience, and your Orator shall ever pray.
The answer of William Ruchards to the Bill of Complaint of James
Hord:
The Defendent now and at all times hereafter saving and reserving
to himself all manner of benefit of exception to
the manifest errors, “Incertainties” and insufficiencies in
the said Bill of Complaint Contained for answer thereto
or unto so much there of as the Def”t [defendent] is advised
in material and necessary in the law for him to make
answer unto he answereth and saith that he knows nothing about the
promise of hte saiid SimonMiller to the said
Complainant referred to in his Bill, nor did he ever hear
of it until’ since the death of the said Simon Miller and
that when he did hear of it he was more especially surprised because
art the time the Complainant was engaging
in contesting the will f the said Simon Miller in Stafford County
Court and which he afterwards prosecuted in the
Fredericksburg District Court as will he made to appear to this
Worshipful Court, a contest which was quite
unnessary in the Opinion of the Defendent, if the Complainant was
really entitled to set up the promise he now for
the first time urges-- The Defendent acknowledges that the said
Complaintant did marry the daughter [Mary] of
the said Simon Miller by whom he got a young negro woman at the
time of his marriage out of abuot eight or nine
slaves which the said Miller possessed after deducting fourr which
he gave to his son Simon Miller, in cpmpliance
with his bond which is hereto annexed as part of this answer- from
which Young slave the said Complainant and
his children are now in possession of Twenty odd slaves- The
Defendent acknowledges that the sais Simon Miller
did make the last will and testement which is spoken of in the Complainant’s
Bill and thereby did appoint the
Def’t Executor and that he has taken upon himself the
Execution thereof, that the said Simon Miller at the tme of
his death was in possession of [blan space] slaves,
as will appear by reference to a copy of the inventroy of this
estate hereto annexed as a part of this answer, to which the Def’t
also refers for the amount of the Estarte of which
The said Simon Miller was possessed except his land on which he
lived containing about two hundred acres after
deducting one hundred acres which was claimed by an entry
of a Certain Fallace and Dowell which the
Defendent afterwards purchased for L 100, which he paid for himself
and has the Deed of Conveyance made to the
said Simon Miller, believeing that the said Miller would leave it
with the rest of his estate to the wife of the
Defendent, as he had frequently promised and as will appear he certainly
intended seventeen years ago by a will
Executed by him which is hereto annexed, as a part of this answer.
That long before the death of the said Simon Miller upwards
of seventeen years ago all the slaves except those
before mentioned, which the Df’t had of the said Simon Miller
were delivered to him by the said Simon Miller to
be and held for the benefit of his wife and children as their own,
and that the Lands derived from the said Simon
Miller by the Def’t has been from time to time placed on the Commissioners
of Tax Books in the name of the
Defendant as the request of the said Simon, as will appear
by reference to Certificates from the said Books hereto
annexed and other testimony to be advanced in this case. That it
is true that the said Simon Siller did on Some
occasions” interfer” with the said property but nevertheless’ it
was always understood that it was for the benefit of
the Def’t and his family, that with respect to the Bond that is
mentioned in the Complainant’s Bill, the Def’t
acknowledges that the said Simon Miller was in possession of such
a bond of the Defendents, which was given to
the said Simon Miller to “shew” what he could accumulate, [which
he was desirous of knowing] as is “evidented”
by his giving the bond back, to the wife of the Def’t, some time
before he died. That when it is considered that the
Def’t attended to all the concerns of the saiid Simon Miller for
upwards of twenty five years past until his death,
and that he gave a considerable portion of his estate to his children
from which at this time they are in possession
of very valuable stock of negroes without the trouble
or pains which the Def’t was, without accounting for his
predilection for the wife of the Def’t and her family,
It will not appear remarkable that he should have left her
the estate bequeathed her by his last will and Testament, The Defendant
having answered all the allegations in the
said Complainant’s bill, which he revised in material in the Law
for him to make answer unto he prays to be hence
dismissed with his reasonable costs in the Law in this behalf
most wrongly Sustained.
May 28th 1802
Depositions were taken from this point
in time at various places in Virginia
and also taken in Kentucky regarding
this lawsuit.
29 May 1802
Deposition of Simon Miller, Jr. taken at the house of William Young
in the County of Spotsylvania
Pursuant to a commission directed from the County Court of Spotsylvania
we have proceeded to take the
Deposition of Simon Miller in a suit depending in the said County
Court in which James Hord is Plt. and William
Richards, executor of Simon Miller, dec’d is Def’t., at the house
of William Young-Notice being first given and
proved, the parties being present.
This deponent of lawful age being first duly sworn deposeth and
saith that the day previous to the marriage of the
Plt. with Molly the daughter of the said S’d Simon dec’d- the Plt.
left the house of the s’d Simon in consequence of
some disturbance in the family and the s’d Simon dec’d followed
the said plaintiff and brought him back and the
said Plt. was married to his daughter the next day. That this deponent
never heard his father say that the negroes
Scylla and Mingo should be the property of the Plt. and wife, or
that he had given them to them, but this was the
General Opinion of the Neighborhood. Currently talk’d of and never
contradicted by the said Simon dec’d in this
Deponent’s presence that the said Aron Bledsoe had frequently told
this Deponent and others that the s’d Simon
dec’d had on the day of the said marriage given the Plt. two negroes
and a promise of an equal share of his Estate
on his death. That the Intelligence was circulated generally from
one to another through the neighborhood, that the
Plt. at the time of his marriage was a young man dependent
on his the s’d Plt’s father, and had no property to
support a wife.
That the Plt. lived for several months after his marriage in the
said Simon’s family and there was no displeasure
existing between the s’d Plt. and s’d Simon stood on good terms
with him as the Sons in Law who came
afterwards, and this Deponent further says that the Negroe wench
Scylla, st the time of the Plt. receiving them
from the s’d Simon had no child and had not for some
years after.
Question by the Dft: How long was it since you first heard of any
marriage promise and who did you ever hear
speak of it?
Answer: From the first time of hearing of such a thing was from
eighteen to twenty years ago, and I never heard it
from any person but Aaron Bledsoe, or such persons he had told it
to.
Question by the Dft: Was not Aaron Bledsoe on the day before the
marriage in a beastly State of Intoxication?
Answer: He was on the day before’ the marriage very drunk and I
missed him and went in search of him, and
found him fallen in between two stakes and would most certainly
died had I not released him.
Question by the Plt: Was Mr. Aaron Bledsoe drunk on the day of the
marriage and was he not sober on the
morning after?
Answer: No quite sober and further this deponent saith not
.Signed by Simon Miller
Given under our hands and seals this 29th May 1802
Killis Hord and W. B. Wallace
26th September 1803
Superior Court of Chancery- “holden” at the Capital, in the City
of Richmond, the 26th day of September 1803,
James Hord, Thomas Brooks and James Withers, executors and devisees
of James Hord Plaintiffs and William
Richards Defendant.
On motion of the defendant, by “counsil”, the court, this twenty
sixth day of September in the year of our Lord one
thousand eighteen hundred and three, on consideration of the bill
and answer, ordereth that the injunction awarded
the plaintiffs to inhibit the defendant from carrying off, selling,
or removing any timber or other tree, standing,
growing or belonging in and upon the two thousand six hundred
acres of land lying in the counties of Culpeper
and Stafford, devised by Simon Miller to the defendant, and from
selling or disposing of or removing out of the
limits of the commonwealth any of the slaves which were of the property
of the said Simon Miller at the time of his
death and devised aforesaid, to be dissolved as it is accordingly
hereby dissolved.
5th of October 1803. Superior Court.
On motion of the plaintiff, by his “counsil” and for reasons appearing
to the court, the order made in this cause on
the 26th day of September last is set aside.
06 March 1804- deposition of Bennett Noe.
The deposition of Bennett Noe taken in a suit depending in the High
Court of Chancery between the executors of
James Hord, deceased Complainants and William Richards, Defendant.
The deponent being first sworn, saith about Twenty Four years ago,
William Richards settled on the land, at that
time owned by Simon Miller in the County of Culpeper, near the point
of the Fork of the Rappahannock.
That in a few years after the said Richards took possession of the
said land, he commenced building grist and saw
mills on the same and made very costly improvements in erecting
houses, enclosing and clearing land, etc. That
this Deponent was on terms of friendly intimacy with Simon Miller,
deceased, and had frequent conversations with
him relative to his estate, his son in law, and their several
movements in regard to him the said Simon Miller. He
repeatedly told this Deponent that William Richards pleased him
so much by his superior industry and good
conduct, and behaved toward him with so much respect, that he,
the said Simon Miller should consider himself
bound by every principle of Justice and Affection to give to the
said Richards and his children a large proportion of
his estate.
That he, the said Simon Miller had already given , to the said Richards
the land on which he then lived as
aforesaid and hoped to see the said Richards improve the same, by
erecting thereon, mills, etc. That the Deponent
had frequently heard the said Simon Miller declare that he had given
to the said Richards all the slaves he had in
his possession, and that the said Simon Miller had no “farther”
Trouble in regard to the payment of Taxes, etc.,
for that he had fixed his Matter concerning the whole management
of the balance of his estate in the Hands of the
said Richards, who had agreed to supply him the said Miller
with every necessary provision to the support of
himself and his wife during their lives. That the said Richards
and family conducted himself as the complete
owner of the several slaves which he received of the said Miller
in his lifetime.
[Questions by the Defendant; William Richards].
Question 1. Do you know the current annual value of the saw
mills erected by the said Richards on the land
aforesaid?
Answer. I think that for the last fifteen years the “nett”
proceeds of the saw mills could not be less than Three
Hundred Pounds per Annum.
Question 2. Has not the said Richards “layd” out a large Capital
in horses, “waggons”, etc. to keep the said saw
mills at work?
Answer. He has at this time three teams of horses that were employed
in drawing Timber to and from the saw mills
before the Writ of Stay was to sustain him fro mcutting timber.
Question 3. Are the said teams now unemployed?
Answer. They are very often and when employed their profits or earnings
scarcely quit the Expense of their
equipment.
Question 4. Were you acquainted with James Hord who intermarried
with Mary Miller, daughter of the said
Simon Miller?
Answer. I know JamesHord very well and was often at his house.
Question 5. Did yuo ever hear him or anyother person say any Thing
respecting Simon Miller having made a
promise on the Marriage of the said Hord to give the said
Hord anyparticular portion of his the said Miller’s
estate?
Answer. I never did. I have frequently heard the said
Hord say that he had received of the said Simon Miller all
that the said Hord expected from him the said Miller.
Question 6. Did the said Hord ever supervise or overlook the Estate
of the said Simon Miller?
Answer. I have often heard the said Simon Miller say that the said
Hord would have ruined him if he the said
Miller had continued his estate under the conduct of the said Hord
and the said Hord repeatly told me that he had
had a grievous time in the service of the said Miller and that he,
the said Hord would not again sustain the
unpleasant and disagreeable attacks and scoldings of the said
Miller for all of his, the said Miller’s estate.
Question 7. Has not the said Richards erected a costly bridge across
the River Rappahannock in order to accomade
and promote the interests of the said mills?
Answer. The said Richards has erected a Bridge
across the said river which cost him upwards of Two Thousand
Dollars which Bridge would not be of much consequence if the SawMills
should be shut down or stopped for the
want of timber.
Questions by the plaintiffs.
Question 1. For whose benefit were those improvements of which yuo
have spoken?
Answer. Foer the Benefit of Captain Richards
Question 2. Are you acquainted with the land and the property
of Simon Miller in his lifetime and now in the
possession of William Richards?
Answer. I am because I lived on part of the land which I
of William Richards, during the lifetime of the
said Miller.
Queston 3. Do you know of the said William Richards having cut large
quantities of timber on that land, sawed
into “scantling” and plank and sold it?
Answer. He certainly has.
Question 4. Did he not continue to cut and sell the same from the
death of Mr. Miller until enjoined by the
Chancery.
Answer. He did.
Question 5. Have you any idea of the value of the timber, which
he has cut and sold, say as nearly as you can to
what value?
Answer. I cannot say with certainty, but suppose the value to be
about 1600#’s- before the death of Mr. Miller.
Question 6. Was not the timber growing on this land- what constituted
it’s greatest value- will not the land be of
small value if the timber is taken off ?
Answer. If the timber is taken off the land would be of little value.
Question 7. Do yuo know of Mr. Richards having sold any of
the negroes which were formerly the property of the
said Simon Miller, to answer his own purposes?
Answer. I know he has sold negroes which were formerly the property
of the said Simon Miller, to raise money for
the said Miller’s own benefit.
Question 8. Did you ever hear him, William Richards, declare that
he would sell the whole of Miller’s negroes or
words to that effect?
Answer. I never did.
Question 9. Do you know the names of the negroes sold by Capt. Richards,
if so, name them.
Answer. Their names were Berry, Daphne and her two children, Fielding,
Austin, Dicy and child, Nolen and
Thornton.
Question 10. Did not Capt.Richards some years ago sell a negro man
named George? To whom did this negro
belong?
Answer. He did sell a negro and I believe he belonged to Capt.Richards.
Question 11. Do you not recollect hearing Mr. Miller say that
he had directed Capt. Richards to make sale of the
said negro for the purpose of assisting him to pay for the land
bought of _________?
Answer. I do not recollect hearing Mr. Miller say so- nor do I know
that he was sold for the purpose above
mentioned.
And “farther” the deponent saith not.
The above deopsition was duly taken ans subscribed in our presence
for a Commissioner from the high court of
Chancery for the Richmond District. The plaintiffs and defendent
being present. Given under our hands and seals
the 6th March 1804. Signed by
R. F. Hooe and Nathan’l Fox [no place given].
13th March 1804
Deposition of John Strode
Pursuant to a Commission from the High Court of Chancery for the
District of Richmond, bearing date of the 9th
day of this month to in directed requiring us to examine witnesses
in a suit in C.Courrt depending. Wherein the
Executors of JamemsHord, dec’d, are the plaintiffs and William Richards,
defendent, we met this 13th day of
March at the house of Wm. Leonard Barnes, Innkeeper in the County
of Culpeper, the testator being present, we
proceeded to take the deposition of John Strode, aged about Seventy
years, who being first duly swornm deposeth
and saith:
That he has been acquainted with defendent Richards
for Thirty Five past years and knows that during all which
time, he has supopeted uniformly a fair unblemished character.
Interrogated by the denfendent’s council.
First. Do you know who it was that the defendent
Richards married?
Answer. Yes, she was the youngest daughter by a second wife
of Simon Miller a very aged wealthy and reputable
man of the County of Culpeper.
2nd. Did Simon Miller approve of the intermarriage of his daughter
with the Defendent and repose trust and
confidence in him and treat him with faternal affection?
Answer. I believe that Mr. Miller did not at the time first approve
of the marriage, and that chiefly because the
Defendant Richards was no so wealthy as he wuld have wished for
his Daughter, but the S. Defendant soon became
conspicuous for his prudence activity Industry and economy as well
as the marked tenderness and affectionate
attention to his wife; inso much, the said Mr. Miller in consideration
of His good conduct took into favor and
reposed I believe every trust and confidence in His fidelity and
abilities; and which for Mr. Miller appeared to be a
most happy and fortunate circumstance, as he was declining in life
, and many things to transact and settle and do
with divers people and no other firend or relation qualified
as the Defendant, or be willing to encounter the task.
The Defendant took upon hisself to all appearances very professionlly
illegible inportant trust; which he
discharged as this Deponankt believwes very faithfully, much to
the satisfaction of the D’s father in law Miller.
3rd. Do you recollect at what time Mr. Miller gave the land and
slaves now in dispute to the Defendant?
Answer. I believe it was about the year 1780 that hie went into
possession of them, of the manners or conditions on
which he became “possest” of them I never did hear from Mr. Miller
himself, but his wife, the late Mrs. Miller
informed me this deponant in the year following that her Husband
had given Wm. Richards the land we were
then on, meaning where he now lives and a certain number of slaves
in consequence of his kind good behavior to
his wife, her Husband and Himself- and this way a matter very
generally known spoke of and understood among
the friends relations and acquaintances of the parties, as
a consideration for the great care and attention which the
Defendant on all occasions paid the Mr. Miller’s interest
and to his person and to HIs Lady who were both very
old and in a manner destitute of any other cordial and affectionate
Relief.
4th. How much land and how many slaves do yuo suppose Mr. Miller
on the conditions above mentioned gave to
the Defendant?
Answer. I suppose about 800 acres of land and about Twenty
slaves of different ages and descriptions.
5th. What quality was that land, and at what time were the improvements
thereon?
Answer. The land is thin as to soil, but it has advantages of water
for erecting mills; but has little or no
improvements thereon worth mentioning.
6th. What do yu think it was worth per acre in that unimproved state?
Answer. Mr. Miller just before that time had offered 100 acres of
the best there including water for the purpose, not
in money, bu tin work,; but the undertaker failed to do the
work within thew disputed time, in consequence, that
bargain was off; the balance of the land except for Timber was at
best of small value, perhaps about Eight
Shillings per acres or not quite so much.
7th. Who piad the taxes of said land and slaves?
Answer. The Defendant Richards and that always in his own name,
and not that of Mr. Miller’s, at least for the
last Forteen or Fifteen years.
8th. Do you believe that the defendant Richards was on the whole
any “gainer” by accepting the said land and
slaves under the foregoing conditions?
Answer. I do believe to a man of the Defendant’s enterprise and
activity had at that time been unemcumber’d of
the care and attention which he seemed bound to pay to Mr. Miller
and his Lady in their helpless state on account
of his having to accepted the land and slaves, he might and
in the opinion of this deponanrt certainly would at this
time by his industry acquired not only more equal proportion of
the estate in question but certainly abundantly
more; and this deponant does further fully believe that on the above
terms the Defendant would have accepted of
the P’ estates. If it were not for the further consideration
of paying respect to the aged parents for his Lady,
gratifying and pleasing Her, by the comfort, care tenderly
and attenton he on all occasions discovered to them,
which was at this deponant’s firmely believes and remembers in that
cordial and affectionate manner which
lenghtened out their days and made them easier and happier. Much
less has he in the opinion of this deponant
gone to make such impressive improvments as he has, on that very
poor land. [End of this Deposition]
March 27th, 1804 Superior Court
On the motion of the defendant by “counsil” the court, this twenty
seventh day of March, 1804, after considering
the bill, answer, and exhibits and examination of witnessess, and
hearing counsel in opposition to the motion,
ordereth the injunction awarded to the Plaintiffs to inhibit
the defendant from carrying.......same wording as
above..........[?] be disolved as to four fifths of the land,
as it hereby accordingly disolved; and the court
“appointeth” Robert Slaughter, John Thorn and William Gray, or any
two of the commissioners for th epurpose of
laying of the four fifths of th esaid land; liberty is reserved
to the defendant to repeal the motion for a further
disolution of the injunction at the next term.
The remainder of this action was not found.
September 10, 1807 Superior Court
This cause was heard on this bill, answer, exhibits and examination
of witnesses and argued by counsel, on
consideration whereof the Court “adjudgeth and decreeth” that the
bill of the plaintiff be dismissed as it is
accordinly dismissed and that the pay to the defendant the cost
by him in his defense.
September 11, 1807 Superior Court
The plaintiffs by counsel prayed an appeal from the decree
prounounced in th cause on yesterday which is allowed
on their entering into bond with sufficient security
in the Clerk’s Office of this county in the penalty of Two
Hundred Dollars during the present term for the prosecution thereof.
June 19, 1813.
Thomas Brookes, William Brookes, Alexander Brookes, James Brookes
and Robert Brookes, heirs of Thomas
Brooks, James Hord, surviving executor of James Hord ankd James
Withers as Plaintiffs against William Richards,
executor of of Simon Miller, dec’d, defendant.
Agreeable to a decree of the Court of Appeals Certificate by the
Clek in these words “Virginia to wit” at a court of
Appeals held at the Capital in Richmond this eleventh day of March
1813, ThomasBrookes, William Brookes,
Alexander Brookes, James Brookes and Robert Brookes, James Hord
surviving “ excor’ ” of James Hord, dec’d,
and James Withers “appets” against William Miller “ excor’
” of Simon Miller dec’d “appec” and James Hord,
dec’d, and Thomas Brooks, William Brookes, Alexamder Brooks, James
Brookes and Robert Brookes, heirs of
Thomas Brooks who was a devisee of the said James Hord deceased
“appets” against William Richards, “aaec”
upon revived appeals, from decrees pronounced by the Superior Cuort
of Chancey held in Richmond the tenth day
of September 1807 in two suits, on onke of which, Thomas Brooks
and James Hord, “ excors’ “ of James Hord and
James Withers were Plaintiffs, and apellee in the first suit was
defendant, and in the other, James Hord, Thomas
Brooks and James Withers “ excors’ “ and devisees of James
Hord, dec’d were plaintiffs, and the apellee in the
second suit wasdefendant. For reasons appearing to the COurt, the
decrees entered in these causes on yesterday are
set aside whereupon came the parties, by their counsel, and the
court havingmaturely considered the transcripts of
the record of the decrees aforesaid, and the arguments of counsel
is of opinion that the marriage promise in the
Bills mentioned, being sufficiently proved by the testimony
, and not being shown to have been abandoned in the
part of the said James Hord, dec’d, the apellants are entitled to
recover one fifthe, or a child’s part, of all of the
estate, real and personal, to which the said Simon Miller, was
entitled at the time of his death, including what may
have been held by any person or persons claiming as volunteers under
him; and that an account thereof ought to
be taken, under the direction of the Court of Chancery; including
in the same, the lands, negores and other
property given by the said Simon Miller to the appellee or to any
of his other children, the said James Hord, dec’d
being included at their respective values at the time, the
same being severally made, that standard of value being
applicable to the lands given, under the peculiar circumstances
of this case and including also the bond of the
appellee to the said Simon Miller, in the deposition of Killis Hord
mentioned unless the same shall be shown to
have been paid, or otherwise, sastisfactorily discharged; and that
one fifth part thereof ought to be decreed to the
applellants, includsing the advancements of land and negroes to
the said James Hord dec’d, as proved by the
testimony, but whereas it is alleged by the appellee, that he was
a bona fide purchaser of the eight hundred acres of
land in the proceedings mentioned, by having been induced by the
said Simon Miller and his family, and to render
to him and them, various and important services, and that
he has in consequence thereof made thereon vakuable
and extensive improvements, and that the appellee was a purchaser
of other land ankd certain slaves of the said
Simon Miller;it hterefore shall be lawfull for the said Court of
Chancery to enquire into the facxt of such purchases
respectively,and whether the same were bona fide and for a fair
consideration, and if it shall thereupon be found
that such purchases were made by the appellee as aforesaid, the
property so found to have been purchased shall not
be estimated as a part of the estate of the said Simon Miller, deceased;
but in the event tht the contrary shall be
found to be the case, and that no purchases have been made as aforesaid
not any bona fide gift thereof; in the
lifetime of the said Simon Miller, decd, then and in that case the
appellee
3rd day of October 1817- Commonwealth of Virginia to the Marshal’
of the Superior Court of Chancery for the
Fredericksburg District-
Greetings: You are hereby commanded to summon Thomas
Humphreys, executor of William Richards, deceased,
to appear in the Town of Fredericksburg, at the Clerk’s Office of
the Superior Court of Chancery, to be directed by
law to be holden in said town, on the first Monday in January next,
to “shew” cause, ............................
MARKHAM vs MARKHAM LAWSUIT:
This suit concerned several slaves that were gifts
to the daughters of Simon Miller, specifically, Alice
Markham, who died 1775. Although it is part of a different
law suit, it deals with depositions of the same people
involved in the Hord vs Miller/Richards suit and was
going on at the same time.
23 August 1806- Deposition of Mary Hord, aged about 69- at
the house of John West in Stafford County, Va.-
“A daughter of the late Simon Miller of Stafford County, Va.”
and “Whole sister of the mother” of William and
Lewis Markham. She said her father gave a negro to each of his son
in laws upon their marriage.
In 1786 Mr. Thomas Strother who married on the deponant’s
sisters was about to go to Kentucky and he asked
Mr. Miller if his gift to him was without resercvations and Simon
Miller acknowleged the slave was a gift.
23 August 1806- Deposition of James Hord- aged 35- at the home of
John West- stated “ about 20 years ago when
Mr. Thomas Strother decided to move to Kentucky, Mr. Simon Miller
told him that he [Miller] had no claim to the
negro given him. That Mr. Miller had given each of his married daughters
a nego when they married”, viz: Mrs.
Strother, Mrs. Hord and Mrs. Markham.
21 November 1807- deposition of Eliza Richards- aged 53- a daughter
of Simon Miller, deceased, late of Stafford
County, Va. She stated that “ she was under the impression that
the descendants of the slave given by Simon
Miller to John Markham upon his intermarriage with Alice, daughter
of Simon Miller, were to go to the children
of the said Alice upon the death of John Markham and that John Markham
had indicated to her that this was his
pleasure and intention”.
21 November 1807- Deposition of James Richards- aged 32. Taken at
the house of John West in Stafford County,
Va. He states at the time that John Markham sold the slaves
, Mr. Simon Miller, the father in law of John
Markham, “ was a very old man and never left his own house”; however,
Mr. Miller heard about the sale of the
slaves and took John Markham to task about it. Markham smoothed
it over, and Mr. Miller never knew the
differencce. [ slaves in question would have issue from the slaves
given to Alice Miller , wife of John Markham, as
a wedding gift from Simon Miller to his daughter ].
08 October 1808 the deposition of PeterConway, taken in Fauquier
County,Va. who describes himself as a brother
in law of John Markham, dec’d..
Question: Do you recollect that it was reported that Mrs.Alice Markham
was in a state of prgancy when she
married to the said John Markham, dec’d.
Answer: I do not remember that it was reported at the time
of her marriage, but I believe it was reported after her
child was born that it came before the usual time but how long before
I cannot say.
09 May 1811 in the County of Stafford, the deposition of Mrs. Jane
Markham, widow, aged 55 and upwards. She
married John Markham in April 1781.