Posts Tagged With: giles county

Land Grant, Giles County, 1811

Mitchel Clay, Jr
100 acres
Giles County

George Wm Smith, Esquire, Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, To all to whom these presents shall come Greeting: Know ye, That by virtue of Land Office Treasury warrant, number 3954, issued the 2nd day of June, 1804; there is granted by the said Commonwealth, unto Mitchel Clay, junior, a certain Tract or parcel of Land, containing One hundred acres by survey bearing date, the 14th day of November 1809, lying in the County of Giles, on the east side of New river, and bounded as followeth, to wit: Beginning at a pine on a ridge, and running thence, north fifty eight degrees east, fifty two poles to a hickory and two black oaks on a hill side: north fifty two degrees west, eighty eight poles to two pines on the top of a ridge: north seventy five degrees west, one hundred and one poles to a black oak on the top of a high ridge: south one degree west, twenty poles to a double pine on the same ridge: south sixty eight degrees west, fifty eight poles to three red oaks on the bench[?] of a hill: north forty five degrees west, seventy eight poles to two pines on the point of a ridge: north twenty five degrees east, twenty three poles to three little hickories on the top of a hill: north forty seven degrees west, fourteen poles to a pine: south thirty seven degrees west, twenty six poles to two pines: south twenty degrees east, sixty poles to three small red oaks about ten poles to Reuben Roberts corner on three white oaks: thence with, or nearly with said line, south sixty degrees east, eighty poles to a black oak and poplar: and thence south seventy eight degrees east, one hundred and sixty four poles to the beginning. To have and to to [word repeated] hold the said Tract or parcel of Land with its appurtenances, to the said Mitchel Clay junior, and his heirs for ever. In witness whereof the said George Wm Smith, Esquire Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hath hereunto set his hand, and caused the lesser Seal of the said Commonwealth to be affixed at Richmond, on the sixteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and eleven, and of the Commonwealth the thirty-fifth.

Geo: Wm Smith


Source: Land Office Grants and Patents, Giles County, Virginia, 1810 – 1811, p. 495 – 496, LVA microfilm reel 61, Library of Virginia

Categories: transcriptions | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

Report, Alexander Cantley of VA/WV

An extensive report on three generations of the CANTLEY family is now available in the “REPORTS” section.

Categories: narratives, West Virginia | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Deed, Giles County, 1806

This Indenture made February the 3d 1806 between Ralph Stewart
and Mary his Wife of Montgomery County and State of Virginia of
the one part and John Toney of the County of Montgomery and State
aforesaid of the other part Witnesseth that the said Ralph Stewart and
Mary his Wife for and in consideration of the Sum of one hundred and
eighty pounds to him in hand paid by John Toney the receipt whereof is –
hereby acknowledged have bargained and sold by these presents bargened
sold released delivered and confirmed unto him the said John Toney and to
his heirs one parcel of landing laying in Montgomery and Tazewell Coun-
ties on brush Creek a branch of blewstone branch of Newriver and bounded
as followeth. Beginning at three white oaks on the patent line on the bank
of the Creek and with the same west 20 poles crossing the Creek to a
white to a white [words repeated] oak North 52 degrees west 84 poles to a white oak
North 80 degrees west 160 poles to two cherry trees and Spanish Oak north
10 degrees east 80 poles crossing the glady fork to three white oaks East
150 poles to a Stake a corner of the patent line and leaving same –
south 26 degrees east 180 poles crossing the Creek to the beginning
with its appertainances to have and to hold the said Tract or Parcel
of land with its appertainances to the said John and his heirs for
ever as Witness whereof the said Ralph Stewart and Mary his Wife
has hereunto set their hands and affixed their Seals this day and year
above written Sign sealed and acknowledged in presence of

G Pearis                               Ralp Stewart {seal}
Charles Clay

Jonathan Toney                    Mary Stewart {seal}
George Pearis Junr

At Giles August Court 1806         This deed of bargain and sale from
Ralph Stewart and Wife to John Toney was proved by the Oaths of
the witnesses thereto and ordered to be recorded.

                    Teste
                    John MC Taylor


Source: Giles County Virginia Deed Book A:12-13, LVA microfilm reel 1, Library of
Virginia, Richmond.

Note: This deed was recorded in Giles County, even though the land was in Montgomery and Tazewell counties and the grantor/grantee were listed as residents of Montgomery. Giles County was formed the year this deed was executed. Changing boundaries certainly contributed to this situation.

Categories: transcriptions | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Chancery Case, Giles County, 1813

John Peters and wife etc. vs. Executors of Mitchell Clay
Chancery Court, Giles County, VA, 1813

“The separate Answer of Mitchel Clay ^Jr to a bill
in Chancery exhibited by John Peters & Sally his
wife in the County Court of Giles against the
said Mitchell Clay Jr. Charles Clay William
Clay & Henry Clay as executors of Mitchell Clay
decd. this deft Mitchell Clay Jr reserving to himself
the benefit of the usual exceptions to the many
untruths and uncertainties contained in the compt
bill, for answer thereto, or as much as he is advised
is necessary for him to answer saith – That
he never heard his father Mitchell Clay decd promise
to give to his daughter Sally the negroes Phebe & those
mentioned in the Complainants bill but on the contra-
ry he hath frequently heard him say that the
said John Peters never should have a negro of
his, that he did not like him so well and this
defendant further states that he never to his recollect-
tion heart of the said gift or promise untill at
^or shortly after a certain time when the said Mitchell Clay
decd at a certain time when he lay sick lay sick and expected
to die a demand of the said negroes was made
thro a certain [party?]. And this deft also states
that, the demand so offended the said Mitchell
that he would not permit his daughter Sally
nor the said Peters to enter his house, for some
time, after, And this deft states that he had
reason to believe that neither the father nor mother
of the said Sally were willing to the said Marriage
And that they never would have consented to it
but by and thro the persuasions of this deft
and others, And that this deft has heard the said
Mitchell state the following reasons, that some of
the family were crooked and deformd footed, that
it was reported that the father of the said John
Peters had been security in the county that he had
moved from and that he was about to put all
his property out of his hands, And this deft
states that he expects to be able to prove that some
of the family connections ^of the said Clay were unwilling to go to
the wedding alledging as the reason that the marriage
was so displeasing to that said Mitchell that he
would breed a disturbance in the company.
This defendant admits that the said Mitchell
Clay shortly before his decease made his last will
and Testament now of record in the County Court
of Giles which deft prays may be taken and
made a part of his Answer wherein he
devised the said negroes to this deft Charles Clay
William Clay & Henry Clay as therein stated.
This defendant states that he never did at
any time in his life exercise or endeavor to exer-
cise any influence whatever over the said Mitchell
Clay in making the said will – and Testament
nor the codicil thereto annexed further than that
on a certain time me mentioned to the said Mit
chell, that he thought he had hardly give this
Deft and Wm Clay a fair chance as he the sd Mitchell had pd
some money for Chas and Henry, that the said Mit
-chell replied that made no [----?], he would do as he
he [repeated word] thought proper with his own to which
observation this deft [properly] acquiesced. This deft
states that the said Sally bestowed no more labor
in nursing and raising the said Mose, nor other
-wise than was her bounden duty, as a child –
This defendant positively denies any and all the
allegations in the said Compts. bill which goes
to charge him with conduct fraudulent iniqui
-tous or unjust, and having fully answered the premises
in the Compts. bill so far as he is at present
able to do prays that he may hims be dis
missd with his costs in this behalf expended.”


Source: “The Separate Answer of Mitchel Clay,” original document in case file 1812-00, Chancery Court of Giles County, VA, viewed in the Archives Research Room, Library of Virginia, Richmond.

Categories: extracts | Tags: , , | 4 Comments

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. The Adventure Journal Theme.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.