Chancery Suit – Amy & Nancy Preas against Joseph Preas Jr. – 1854 through 1906
There were 112 pages – I have condensed these pages to the following.
This Chancery suit began in 1854. After Joseph Preas Sr. died from a fever on 27 June 1853, his Will (which was written out two days before his
death) became an "Exhibit" in this case, as follows:
“I, Joseph Preas, of the County of Bedford and State of Va. of sane mind but infirm health do by this my last will and testament in disposing of my
property do will and bequeath my tract of land and all the appertanances there unto belonging to my two daughters, Amy and Nancy, and all my
stock of every description, together with all my house hold and kitchen furniture of every description, my two daughters having worked for and taken
care of me in my old age and the reason I give my boys nothing is they spent everything I had. My two daughters, Amy and Nancy, are to have the
above property for life and should neither of them marry nor have an heir the property that I have given them at their death is to be equally divided
among all my Grand Children, it is further more my wish that my two Grandchildren, Mary Anne and Joseph James Tate do remain with my
daughters
and live as they always have done in testimony where of I have hereunto affix my
mark and seal.
Witness,
signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of:
Matthias
O'Bryan
Joseph X (mark) Preas
(SEAL)”
Vicajah
Yellomy
When Joseph Preas Sr. died, he had living with him two daughters, Amy & Nancy, and two grandchildren – Mary Ann Tate and Joseph James Tate.
He was in possession of two tracts of land. One of which he was living on and the other that his son, Joseph Preas Jr., was farming and living on.
This Chancery Suit was to decide if ALL of the lands owned by Joseph Preas Sr. were to be given to Amy & Nancy or if only the tract of land that they
lived on with their father while the other tract was Joseph Preas Jr.’s.
Joseph Jr. argued that his father took fever, rapidly deteriorated, and hurriedly had the Will written so that his daughter’s, Amy & Nancy, would be taken
care of. And there was no intention of them taking the tract of land that he, Joseph Jr., was farming and living on. Joseph Jr. states that his father said
he was going to get a deed made up giving Joseph Jr. the land shortly before he died.
To bolster his claim, Joseph Preas Jr. took several depositions from men of the community, as follows:
“The Deposition of Henrey Baker – taken at James Mill in the County Bedford on the 25 day of August 1855 to be read as evidence on the trial of a
[court?] in chancery now [deliberating?} in the circuit court of Bedford county between Amy Preas and Nancy Preas plantiffs and John Preas,
Joseph Preas, William Preas, Thomas Preas, Mary Ann Tate & Joseph Tate defendants. The said witness being first duly sworn deposath and saith
as follows:
Question1 by the defendant Joseph Preas [JR]–
Did
you know Joseph Preas Sr. in his lifetime and what relation or connection was
there between you and said Preas?
Answer: I have known him for a long time & we was brother in laws.
Question
2 – by the same –
What do you know of the said Joseph Preas Sr. having given the tract of land whares his son the defendant in this suit, Joseph Preas [naculisis?].
Tell all he said about the land, when he said it.
Answer: I heard Joseph Preas Sr. say I think in the Fall of 1848 that he had fixt his son on the creek land and of he done well - he entended to give
that land to him. I further heard him say I think in 1850 that he entended to make a Will and said that he did not entend to mention the creek land
in the Will for fear of an [enbruption?] with the rest of my children. I further heard him say that he entended to make his son Joseph a Deed to the
land
as soon as convenient.
Question
3 – by the same –
How long has Joseph Preas the defendant [lived] on this land – being in the possession of the said land?
Answer:
To the best of my knowledge about twelve years.
Question
4
Has he always used and caterwauled it as his own? Has (he) erected any Buildings [upon it?]? If so, of what carecter of Buildings?
Answer:
I know of 2 tabaco houses built on the land and he was always used and
cultivated it as his own.
Question
5:
What
is the land worth now?
Answer:
I think the land is worth three dollars per Acre.
Question
6:
What
was it worth when the defendant, Joseph Preas, was put in possession of it by
his father?
Answer:
I suposeth one Dollar and fifty cents per acre.
Question
7:
Was
the(re) ever any Rente claimed by Joseph Preas Sr.?
Answer:
He toald me that he charged non.
Henrey “X” Baker
Also
the Depestions of Benjamin Neigbors at the same time and place.
Question
1: by the defendant
Did you know Joseph Preas Sr.?
Answer:
I known Joseph Preas Sr. for a long time.
Quest
2: How long have I been living on the land?
Answer:
I suposeth about Eleven years.
Quest
3: Did you Rente of me in 1845 and 1846 a parte of the same land that
I now live on?
Answer:
I did Rente a part of the same land you live.
Quest
4.
Did you see Joseph Preas Sr. during the time you was tending the land?
Answer:
I did see him and he never claimed any Rente of me whatever.
Quest
5.
What was the land worth when I came on the land?
Answer:
I suposeth one Dollar and fifty cents per acre.
Quest
6.
What is the land worth now?
Answer:
Few dollars per acre.
Benjamin “X” Neighbor
Also
the deposition of William Neighbors at the same time and place.
Question
1: by the Defendant
Did you ever know Joseph Preas Sr.?
Answer:
I did know Joseph Preas Sr.
Quest
2.
How long have I been living on the land?
Answer:
Eleven or Twelve years
Quest
3.
Did you ever hear Joseph Preas Sr. say anything about the land that I now
live on?
Answer:
I did hear Joseph Preas Sr say that his son was doing rite by
clearing of his land so that he could make his [saparte] at home.
Quest
4.
What was the land worth when I moved on it?
Answer:
I suposeth one dollar and fifty cents per acre.
Quest
5.
What is the land worth now with the emprovements on it?
Answer:
I suposeth – Eight Dollars per acre.
William “X” Neighbors
Bedford
County to wit:
The foregoing depositions was taken, subscribed and sworn to before the subscriber a Notary Public of said County at the time and place mentioned
in
the [completion?] of said Depostions.
Washington Howell N.P.
(signature)”
Of course, Amy & Nancy argued that their father intended that the two of them were to receive full ownership of ALL the land their father, Joseph Preas
Sr., owned.
Now, from the land records, we see that Joseph Preas Sr. purchased two tracts of land: one of 95 acres (approx) and the other a 300 acre tract (approx).
What is confusing with this Chancery Suit is that it only mentions the 301 acres and it isn’t clear if Joseph is living on part of this 301 acres or if he is
farming the 95 acre tract. We also have found a record that shows Joseph Preas Sr. selling off 65 acres.
On April 29, 1857, it was ordered that the 301 acres was to be sold by auction in two or more parts and that “this decree is without prejudice to the
defendant Joseph Preas [JR] to show that he is entitled to a part of the purchase money of the said Land, independent of his interest therein as
distributor”. It looks to me from this that Joseph Jr. was, indeed, farming at least part of the 301 acres mentioned. A William H. Preas, a Sheriff and
cousin of Joseph Preas, Jr., was made a commissioner by the court to sell the 301 acres.
On May 6, 1858, an entry was made in the Court that William H. Preas had sold the land in question and was then appointed “Receiver” to collect the
payments for the court. But, there is nothing written as to “Who” purchased the land. But, from the following Court entries, it looks as if Joseph Preas,
Jr. purchased it.
“On 1858 September 28th For reasons appearing to the Court this cause is continued until the next term
On 1859 April 28th For reasons appearing to the Court this cause is continued until the next term
On 1866 April 30th - Ordered that William H. Preas, the commissioner appointed by the decree of the 6th day of May, 1858, to collect the bonds
given
for the sale of the land in this cause, [whenever?] at or before the next term
after he shall have been served with a copy of this order why he should not be
attacked for failing to collect and make report of his collection as directed in
said decree.”
A problem occurs – Joseph Preas, Jr. died suddenly and without a known Will on 8 September 1860. Apparently the case was forgotten by everyone
or was just ignored until it came back to court on April 30, 1866 and the Judge realized nothing had been done on this suit since the sale in 1858. The Judge then calls upon William H. Preas to explain why nothing had been done, no payments received, and no report given to the court.
The following is proof that Joseph Preas Jr. did purchase the land:
“On 1867 May 9th - It appearing by the report of William H. Preas, Commissioner, that the purchase money for the land in the proceedings
mentioned has not been paid, and it being also represented to the Court that Joseph Preas the purchaser of the land has departed this life on motion
of the Plaintiffs it is ordered that Charles W. Preas, Martha A. Preas, Joseph N. Preas, Sarah Preas, John Preas, George H. Preas, Amy E. Preas,
Mahala F. Preas and Joel R. Preas, children and heirs of the said Joseph Preas and Jesse Howell the security of the said Joseph Preas for said
purchase money be summoned to court on the first day of the next term to show cause if any they can why the said tract of land should not be resold
and the proceeds applied to the payment of said purchase money.”
On 30 January 1868, the Court ruled that the land was to, again, be sold at auction to the highest bidder and the Judge appointed William H. Preas, as the
Commissioner, the responsibility to sell the land. But apparently something happened and the sale was delayed. On 8 February 1868, due to a motion
by the Plaintiffs (Amy & Nancy), the Court decided that a “New rule be awarded against John H. Preas and Charles W. Preas returnable to the next
term.” What exactly this “New rule” was is not explained.
On 30 April 1868, the Court placed the following:
“On the motion of the Plaintiffs by Counsel the Court doth order that the rule heretofore awarded in this cause be enlarged until the next term as
to the Defendants Charles W. Preas, Martha A. Preas, Joseph W. Preas, Sara J. Preas, John Preas, George H. Preas, Amy E. Preas, Mahala F.
Preas and Joel R. Preas and the Court doth order that John N. Preas and Charles W. Preas be summoned to appear here at the next term to show
cause, if any they can, why the tract of land in the Bill mentioned purchased by Joseph Preas should not be re-sold and the proceeds applied to the
payments
of the purchase money due from him.”
After more delays for unknown reasons, possibly due to the lack of participation by the family of Joseph Preas Jr., this Chancery suit lingered for a
couple of years, as follows:
On
1 October 1868 - For reasons
appearing to the Court this cause is continued until the next term
On 29 April 1869 - For reasons appearing to the Court this cause be continued until the next term.
On 7 May 1870, the Court again ruled that the land was to be put up for sale by auction to the highest bidder. “James S Kasey Sheriff of Bedford
County and as such administrator of the said Joseph Preas, and by like consent James Henry Preas and Mary Preas infant children of William Edward Preas are made parties to this cause.” Apparently two more individuals were added to those who would receive funds from the sale of the land - (probably having been born since this Suit started sixteen years before). William H. Preas is again assigned the Commissioner to sell the land.
Now things really get a bit screwy and created yet another mess, causing another Chancery Suit concerning the wife of the deceased Joseph Preas Jr.,
Mahala Preas. [Thomas P. Preas Vs Mahala Preas] The meaning of this will become apparent shortly.
On 6 May 1872, William H. Preas was appointed “Receiver”, responsible for the collection of money from the sale of the land. Apparently he had sold
the land, received a small portion in cash for costs, made report to the Court and was responsible for the collection of the payments until they were paid
in full
On 13 October 1873, the Court apparently received a payment and it was ordered that William H. Preas was to deposit it in the Liberty Savings Bank.
On 6 March 1876, for reasons appearing to the Court, it is ordered that this cause be continued till the next term.
The payments apparently stopped coming in, as is shown in the following:
“On 6 September 1877 - On the motion of the Plaintiffs, and it appearing from the report of William H. Preas, Receiver, that John W. Wright, a
purchaser of a parcel of land heretofore sold under decree in this cause, is in default in the payment of the purchase money, it is ordered, that said
John M. Wright be summoned to appear here on Monday next to show cause, if any he can, why said land should not be re-sold, at his risk, for his default aforesaid.”
From the following Court ruling we now find out that the land of Joseph Preas Sr./Jr. was indeed sold in two different tracts – one tract of 105 acres to
John
M. Wright and 146 acres to Thomas P. Preas (the son of William H. Preas).
Here are the pertinent quotes from the ruling dated 12 September 1877:
“On 12 September 1877, the rule awarded on the fifth day of his term against John M. Wright a purchaser of real estate under decree in this cause,
to show cause why the same should not be re-sold for default in the payment of the purchase money. Lawiston A. Sale, Commissioner for the purpose
to make sale of tract of one hundred and five acres……..and it appearing from the report of William H. Preas, Receiver, that Thomas P. Preas has
paid the whole of the purchase money for the tract of land purchased by him under decree in this suit, the Court doth further adjudge, order and
decree, that Lauston A. Sale, who is hereby appointed a special Commissioner for the purpose, do convey by deed with special warranty, unto the
said Thomas P. Preas the tract of One hundred and forty six acres, one road and twenty six poles, heretofore purchased by him, at the proper costs
and
charges of the grantee.”
On 10 September 1878, the Court records show that L.A. Sale, the commissioner, sold the land but does not state to whom. L.A. Sale was also made a
“Receiver” to collect the funds due to the Court and directed to deposit such funds in the Lynchburg Insurance and Banking Company at its Agency in
Liberty.
On 3 September 1881 - For reasons appearing to the Court it is ordered that this cause be continued until the next term.
This was the last record shown for this Chancery suit. From all appearances, it does not seem to be complete and it is my guess it was forgotten. When
the Court decided to do some house cleaning on their records, they probably found this one and issued a “Final Decree” on 28 June 1906. Unless the
missing pages were misfiled, it looks to me they just closed this case out. If this isn’t the reason, it would be interesting to find out just what else went
on with the land Joseph Preas Sr. – 50 years after he died.
Earlier I mentioned a Chancery Suit, Thomas P. Preas against Mahala Preas. When you read that Suit you will see that it appears that Mahala Preas,
(wife of Joseph Preas Jr.) is the one that purchased the 105 or so acres. But Thomas P. Preas thought he saw a way to gain control of her land by
the use of the Chancery Suit you just read, saying that “HE” had purchased her land also and only “allowed” her to live on it since she was an old woman. Thankfully, the Court didn’t fall for it.