1 - Front Cover.p65 - ProQuest

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