A Guide to the Bath County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1793-1919 Bath County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1793-1919

A Guide to the Bath County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1793-1919

A Collection in
the Library of Virginia


[logo]

Library of Virginia

The Library of Virginia
800 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-8000
USA
Email: archdesk@lva.virginia.gov(Archives)
URL: http://www.lva.virginia.gov/

© 2021 By The Library of Virginia. All Rights Reserved.

Processed by: Library of Virginia staff and field archivists

Repository
The Library of Virginia
Title
Bath County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1793-1919
Physical Characteristics
Digital images
Collector
Bath County (Va.) Circuit Court
Location
Library of Virginia
Language
English

Administrative Information

Access Restrictions

There are no restrictions.

Use Restrictions

Patrons are to use digital images of Bath County (Va.) Chancery Causes found on the Chancery Records Index available electronically at the website of the Library of Virginia.

Preferred Citation

Bath County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1793-1919. (Cite style of suit and chancery index no.). Local Government Records Collection, Bath County Court Records. The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

Acquisition Information

Digital images were generated from microfilm by Backstage Library Works through the Circuit Court Records Preservation Program.

Historical Information

Chancery Causes are cases of equity. According to Black's Law Dictionary they are "administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of common law." A judge, not a jury, determines the outcome of the case.

Bath County was named either for the many mineral springs found in the county or for the town of Bath in England. It was formed from Augusta, Botetourt, and Greenbrier (now in West Virginia) Counties by a statute passed on 14 December 1790 to take effect 1 May 1791. The county court first met on 10 May 1791. The county seat is Warm Springs.

Scope and Content

Bath County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1793-1919, are indexed into the Chancery Records Index . Cases are identified by style of suit consisting of plaintiff and defendant names. Surnames of others involved in a suit, including secondary plaintiffs and defendants, witnesses, deponents and affiants, and family members with surnames different from the plaintiff or defendant are indexed. Chancery causes often involved the following: divisions of estates, land, and and enslaved people, disputes over wills, divorces, debt, and business disputes. Predominant documents found in chancery causes include bills (plaintiff's complaint), answers (defendant's response), decrees (court's decision), depositions, affidavits, correspondence, lists of heirs, deeds, wills, business records or vital statistics, among other items. Plats, if present, are noted, as are wills from localities with an incomplete record of wills or localities other than the one being indexed.

Chancery causes are useful when researching local history, genealogical information, and land or estate divisions. They are a valuable source of local, state, social, and legal history and serve as a primary source for understanding a locality's history.

Arrangement

Organized by case, of which each is assigned a unique index number comprised of the latest year found in case and a sequentially increasing 3-digit number assigned by the processor as cases for that year are found. Arranged chronologically.

Related Material

Additional Bath County Court Records can be found on microfilm at The Library of Virginia web site. Consult A Guide to Virginia County and City Records on Microfilm.

See the Chancery Records Index found on the Library of Virginia web site for the chancery records of other Virginia localities.

Selected Suits of Interest

Causes of Interest are identified by local records archivists during processing and indexing. These causes are generally selected based upon guiding principles of having historical, genealogical or sensational significance; however, determining what is "of interest" is subjective, and the individual perspective and experience of the describing archivist will affect the material identified.

1833-024: George Mayse, etc. vs John Brockenbrough, etc.

Mayse is the owner of two lots in Warm Springs (Va.). The cause concerns the use of an alley to access the warm waters. [See also: 1833-023 Warm Spring Co. vs George Mayse, in which Mayse asserts his ownership of these lots (cause is actually a judgment and not a chancery suit).

1836-015: Robert Thompson vs Col. Adam Dickinson, etc.

Partnership concerning a gold mine

1838-004: John Fry vs George Mayse

Fry is concerned about the proximity of his tavern to Mayse's property since Mayse is erecting a stable on his property.

1841-004: Gabriel Cauly vs Adms. of William Douglas, etc

Concern a sdesipute in the rights of William Douglass' legitimate and illegitimate children.

1847-002: Mercer, etc. (enslaved) vs John Kelso, admr., etc.

Freedom suit concerning individuals enslaved by Hugh Kelso

1849-002: Commonwealth of Virginia for, etc. vs. William Wilson, admr., etc.

Acquisition by Wilson of individuals enslaved by Adam Bowyer. Residual of Bowyer's estate is owed to Literary Fund according to 1819 March 3 Act of Assembly--Section 5. Residual includes Wilson's administration of Bowyer's estate including hires and selling of enslaved persons.

1856-003: James Temple, infant, etc. vs. William Temple

Concerns a contract between brothers leaving Bath County to search for gold in California. Defendant counters that plaintiff had been placed under his care and that profits owned plaintiff belonged to their widowed mother.

1860-005: George Mayse vs David G. Wise and Charles C Francisco

All parties were partners in company, David Wise & Co. The Company purchased property in and around Bath County Courthouse, known as Warm Springs Co., Mayse is protesting against certain improvements his partners are making to Hotel and farm land on property. [Image 18 includes drawing of hotel. See also: 1871-018 For more on Warm Springs Company]

1863-001: William Frazier and John T. Randolph vs. Stephen A. Porter, etc.

Contract suit between parties concerning title to public watering places Rockbridge Alum Springs and Bath Alum Springs. As stated in bill, Bath Alum Springs is now dilapidated and has been taken possession of and used as barracks or quarters for soldiers of the Southern Confederacy.