1 - Front Cover.p65 - ProQuest

Reel 22 Tennessee
0014 (Accession # 21486002). Washington County, Tennessee. W. S. Riddick and Laura Clem
Riddick petition the court for their share of the slaves belonging to the estate of the late Nancy
Clem. They contend “that they are entitled to a portion of said Negroes or their proceeds, as
your complainant Laura ... is the Lawful daughter of the said Nancy Clem.” The Riddicks reveal
that the said Clem received a slave family from her father “by his Deed of Gift” on 30 March
1848. The deed stipulated that upon her death the trustee, Peter Miller, “was to convey the said
Negroes, and their increase to the Children of the said Nancy Clem.” The petitioners point out
that Nancy Clem died about 17 May 1854 and that “the said Peter Miller has not yet conveyed
to your Complainants the said Negroes, or any part of them.” The Riddicks request that the
court “will direct and decree a division of said Negroes and that the same be sold to the highest
bidders, so as to give all an equal portion.”
0024 (Accession # 21486003). Bradley County, Tennessee. A group of the heirs and
distributees of the late Simion Eldridge ask that the property in his estate be sold and that the
proceeds be divided among the interested parties. They point out that the chancery court ruled
in their favor on a bill filed by a portion of the petitioners on 30 July 1850 and that the estate
slaves “were all ordered to be delivered up to Complainants Rice & Ballew as administrators of
Simion Eldridge deceased.” They further cite that the 1859 supreme court affirmed this decision
and set aside and “declared fraudulent” certain deeds and bills of sale submitted by other heirs.
The petitioners submit that the cost of said suit amounts to several hundred dollars, which the
supreme court ordered “to be paid out of the estate.” They represent “that it will be necessary to
sell some of said negroes to pay up the cost of the suit, and attorney fees, and in case it turns
out that the raising of young negroes exceeds the hire of the other negroes, then the difference
will have to be paid and in that case some negroes will have to be sold for that purpose.” They
therefore believe “that it will be manifestly to the interest of all said heirs to have all said negroes
sold and divide the proceeds thereof amongst those entitled to receive it.” Twenty-two of the
thirty-four slaves belonging to said estate are twelve years old or younger.
0033 (Accession # 21486004). Knox County, Tennessee. Jim Hickey, a man of color, prays that
“an injunction may issue restraining the Sheriff of Knox County from selling your Orator” to
satisfy certain judgments. Hickey, by his next friend, Charles J. McClung, recounts that he and
his wife were once the property of the late Cornelius Hickey, and, as such, the clerk and master
of the chancery court “sold your Orator and his said wife at public sale for the sum of two
hundred dollars” to one M. W. Williams. The petitioner asserts, however, that “this purchase was
in appearance only, for by the kindness and generosity of a number of gentlemen in Knox
County, your Orator had been presented with the sum of two hundred dollars, with which to
purchase his freedom and that of his said wife,” and he avows that said Williams “did not
advance one cent out of his own means towards” the said purchase. He further alleges that
Williams “always admitted that he had no right to hold your Orator and his wife as slaves, but
that said purchase was made upon an express agreement to afterwards emancipate them.”
With Williams insolvent and no longer in the state, Hickey states that he has been levied upon
for Williams’s said debts. He therefore seeks a perpetual injunction restraining said executions
and a decree “declaring and establishing your Orator’s freedom.”
0045 (Accession # 21486005). Giles County, Tennessee. Malcolm McDonald, executor of the
estate of the late James C. Esselman and former guardian of his minor children, seeks to enjoin
a judgment in favor of William McClure, the husband of Esselman’s daughter, Harriet, and the
children’s current guardian. McDonald reminds the court that McClure won a decree against him
in September 1860 for the value of certain notes he received on the children’s behalf. McDonald
now informs the court that he “claims a credit” on one of the notes for “the loss of service of
Dave one of said hired negroes, for the balance of the year 1858 from April.” A related petition
335