Some Johnsons in Goochland County, Virginia Chancery Court Cases By Bonnie Flythe August 2001 In recent months, the Library of Virginia has listed on its web site for the researcher the surnames of individuals involved in chancery court cases in several counties in Virginia. Fortunately, Goochland was one of them and this brief report is a summary of the information found in two of these cases. Many, but not all, Chancery Court cases involve disputes over an inheritance. For that reason, they may list all the heirs of a particular person and perhaps provide the only source of proof of kinship to be found in any record. In addition, the details of these cases sometimes provide us with a glimpse into the daily lives and activities of our ancestors. The first case I will describe is index number 1856-007 dated 1856. It was an action brought by George Johnson and Dabney Glass against Sally Johnson, David Johnson, Mason L. Mahanes, and Richard R. Cocke. The complaint stated that the plaintiff, George Johnson, was a son of Sally Johnson and that Dabney Glass, also a plaintiff, intermarried with a daughter of Sally Johnson. It also stated that Sally Johnson, defendant, had another son, David Johnson, and two other daughters. One of these daughters married Mason L. Mahanes and the other married Richard R. Cocke. The complaint filed by Dabney Glass and George Johnson also explained that Sally Johnson, daughter of George Toler, decd. could no longer take care of her property and affairs because of age. Therefore, she had decided to distribute her real and personal property to her heirs as long as they provided her with sufficient support to make her comfortable and also settled her debts. An agreement was written up on Dec. 26, 1849 and signed by all heirs except Dabney Glass. All of her personal property was included except some slaves who were subject to another suit brought by Richard R. Cocke. The complaint then said that Dabney Glass was willing to sign the agreement "made every effort in his power to do it" but that he was prevented from signing. He was subsequently not allotted a portion of Sally Johnson's property and was requesting that his share be distributed to him. The responses of the defendants indicate that Dabney Glass refused to sign the agreement when they sent an agent, William Matthews, to Culpepper County with it. For that reason, they agreed that the 1849 agreement was null and void and they wrote up another one. This one was signed by all but Glass in 1850 and according to it, all of Sally's property was to be divided among the heirs and each heir would give her $20 per year for her maintenance. Also according to this agreement, Sally Johnson would act for Dabney Glass in the division of her estate. When Dabney Glass heard of this, he supposedly threatened to go to Sarah Johnson house and along with George Johnson forcibly seize his portion of the property. On hearing of this threat, Sarah Johnson and the other heirs agreed to declare the 1850 agreement null and void. They then came to a verbal agreement about the disposition of the estate. As the case progressed, various depositions were taken and David Johnson's was particularly illuminating. No other document in a file of over 100 pages names the father of all these children and the husband of Sally Johnson, but David Johnson's deposition did. He described his mother as "widow of William Johnson the father of your Respondent who died many years ago leaving no estate so far as is known". In addition, David Johnson of Cumberland County included a copy of the 1822 Goochland County will of George Toler, father of Sally Johnson, in his Answer to the court. The deposition of William Wharton was taken and filed on Sept. 19, 1853. A portion of this deposition is excerpted as follows with spelling and punctuation as written in the original: "Question by George Johnson. What was the situation of Dabney Glass when William Matthews brought him the agreement to assign. Answer He was in a drinking frolic and had been for several days not fit to transact business of any kind after Matthews left Mr. Glass told me if he had been sober that he would have assigned the agreement without ___________ Question Did you persuade Matthews to stay a day or two until Glass became sober. Answer I did and Matthews stayed a day and a night longer and said he could stay no longer that he was compelled to get home to attend to the division that was to take place in a day or two So soon as Dabney Glass was able to go I went with him In March or April" By 1856, the nature of the case had changed. Dabney Glass of Culpeper County had died and his administrator, William Wharton, attempted to pursue his complaint. William Wharton was also the husband of Mary A. Glass, daughter of Dabney Glass and Elizabeth Johnson Glass. The other heirs of Dabney Glass were George H. Glass, Robert Glass, and James Cannon and Susan his wife. George H. Glass was guardian of Margaret E. Glass and David Glass, both underage at the time of the filing of these papers and also heirs. George Toler's will specified that the land that he lived on and its appurtenances would belong to Sally Johnson during her life and then would become the property of her five children " Betsey Glass the wife of Dabney Glass, David Johnson, Frances Johnson, Jane Johnson and George Johnson". At this time, the judge declared that only the widowed Mrs. Glass, as a child of Sally Johnson, had a claim to the property in dispute. Her husband Dabney Glass had no claim. Therefore, "The court doth adjudge order and decree that the original & amended & supplemental Bills be dismissed and that the parties respectively pay their own costs." This court case, in combination with other court documents, provides proof of the following relationships. William Johnson married Sally Toler (born 1781) on Dec. 29, 1798 according to Kathleen Booth Williams' Marriages of Goochland County, Virginia, 1733-1815. This couple were subsequently the parents of Fannie (b. 1803 m. Richard R. Cocke of Louisa County), David (b. ca. 1805 m. Susan Elizabeth Parrish), Elizabeth (b. ca. 1809 m. Dabney Glass of Culpepper County), George (b. 1811), and Jane (b. 1812 m. Mason L. Mahanes). The date of the death of William Johnson is not known, but occurred after about 1812 and before George Toler wrote his will in 1822. The fact that he left no estate accounts for the absence of court papers settling the estate. The 1850 Census for Goochland County shows, in the household of 69 year old Sarah Johnson, Jane Mahanes aged 38, Mason L. Mahanes aged 41, and Sally B. Mahanes aged 1 year old. Just when Sarah died is not known. The second Chancery Court case, index #1799-001, is from an earlier time period. In 1795, David Johnson Senr., administrator of Isham Johnson, dec. filed a complaint against David Johnson, Jr. and Agnes Johnson, sister of David Johnson, Sr. The plaintiff said that Isham Johnson in order to evade "an Enr" on his estate signed deeds for land and property over to David Johnson, Jr., but wrote a will before this death that distributed his property differently & without regard to the deeds. According to the plaintiff, Agnes Johnson lived with Isham Johnson before his death and along with David Johnson, Jr. took the personal papers of Isham Johnson and refused to allow the administrator, David Johnson Senr., to submit the will to probate. The destruction of the papers about Isham Johnson's guardianship of David Johnson, Jr. might also operate to the advantage of the defendant, David Johnson Jr. and to the disadvantage of the other heirs according to the plaintiff. Two separate replies were filed by the defendants. The reply of Agnes Johnson specified that Isham Johnson died on the 22nd. day of September in 1794 and was buried the next day. David Johnson, Sr. then demanded a copy of Isham Johnson's will, but Agnes denied that she had knowledge of such will. She said that when she asked Isham Johnson to make a will, he said "he had no body good enough to leave his things to" and that he further observed "that no body had any right to any thing on the plantation as long as this defendant lived, and if this defendant should dye let them ... Do what they please with them". Agnes Johnson also said that she had no knowledge of guardianship papers. The reply of David Johnson, Jr. explained that this defendant promptly gave to David Johnson, Sr. the deeds signed by Isham Johnson and that the defendant was not claiming any real or personal property conveyed by the deeds. David Johnson also stated that in 1779 and 1780 he made two contracts, one with his sister (unnamed) and the other with another sister's husband (both unnamed). These contracts settled a portion of his father's (unnamed) estate on the sisters in return for their agreement to release Isham Johnson from any claims they might have against him as their guardian. David Johnson, Jr. also said that in return for board with Isham Johnson, he labored for him without recompense. He also stated that he never knew of any will written by Isham Johnson. On one occasion, William Atkinson, James Cocke, Jacob Johnson and William Johnson provided depositions in this case. Bartholomew Turner, nephew and agent for Agnes Johnson, questioned them. James Cocke's deposition stated that there was no red pocketbook in Isham Johnson's chest where he kept his papers. David Johnson Sr. had claimed that the will was kept in a red pocket book in Isham's chest in his house. Jacob Johnson, son of Drury Johnson, decd. and nephew of Isham Johnson and the plaintiff, David Johnson, Sr., was also deposed and the plaintiff asked him "Did you ever hear the decedent say whether he had a will?". Jacob replied that in May of the year Isham Johnson died, he said that he did have a will in which he gave his land to James Johnson son of David Johnson brother of the deceased. Jacob Johnson claimed that Isham Johnson "observed that Boys now a days did not know what to do with land, and therefore he should give his land to this deponents' Uncle David". The following excerpt does cast some doubt on the David Johnson Sr.'s actions and motives: "Question by the agent aforesaid, did not David Johnson the present plaintiff after the death of Isham Johnson offer to employ you to give evidence for him in this case. Answer--------- David Johnson the present pltff came to the house of this deponent one day (since the death of the decd.) Intoxicated and addressed himself to this deponent in terms to the following effect do not you remember Jacob that I promised to give you the little mare that Tommy Smith has, if you would swear something clever for me when you give your deposition--- she is gone--- if you will speak something clever for me I will do something clever for you---- I replied I would not do that for your estate and Uncle Isahm's both together--- this reply was produced by an apprehension that the said plaintiff wanted me to forswear myself. Question by the Pltff--- Did not a part of the heirs of the decd threaten to sue me as admr. and reserve you as a witness in the suit? Ans. James Cocke one of the heirs of the decd (in case the died intestate) did observe that he meant to bring suit-- and that this deponent knew more of his Uncle Isham's affairs than any other person, he ought to be a witness against the admr. William Johnson, son of David Johnson, Sr. stated in his deposition that he told Isham Johnson that he may sell his land and that Isham Johnson expressed concern. Isham Johnson did not want to see the land sold out of the family "for he had given his the deponent's brother James the remainder of his land--- further this deponent saith that at the last or next to last harvest preceding the decedent's death he this deponent heard the deceased observe to the deponent's brother James, who was then cutting wheat for said decedent, the following words ' cut on Jimmy for you are now at work upon your own land-----' Among other papers filed in the suit, was a partial accounting of the estate of James Johnson, Jr. Isham Johnson and Benjamin Johnson were guardians of David, Nancy and Molly Johnson from August 1772. They paid for the education of these three for seven years. The Douglas Register listed several other children of James Johnson and Mildred Mims, but they were not mentioned in any of the papers filed. Mary Price, David Saunders, Stephen Sampson, Jr.(nephew of Isham, David Sr. and Agnes), Benjamin Shepherd, Nancy Johnson and Johns Price also gave depositions. Most of these depositions did not include any new genealogical information, but were basically about the possible existence of Isham Johnson's written will. However, John Price's statement was that he knew of no red pocket book, but that there was a yellow prayer book with papers in it. Agnes Johnson had lived and died in his house and the book which she had "was stuffed with papers, which seemed to be James Johnson's (father to Isham Johnson), but these papers were in his opinion of no value". John Bradshaw's deposition stated that "Jacob Johnson told him Isham Johnson decd had a will and had given his land to James Johnson son of the plaintiff and further informed him that he intended to alter his will and give his land to his brother David Johnson the Plaintiff". There does not seem to have been a final decision on the part of the judges in this case. David Johnson Sr. the plaintiff was dead by July of 1798 when William Johnson filed an accounting of his estate with the court. It is very clear from all of these papers that Isham Johnson, David Johnson Sr. and Benjamin Johnson were sons of James Johnson the Elder and Agnes Johnson was his daughter. James Johnson, Jr. son of James Johnson the Elder died in 1772 and left several children including David Johnson, Jr., Mary Johnson and Nancy Johnson. Mary Johnson married John Price and her aunt Agnes Johnson lived with Mary and John Price for the last few years of her life in Louisa County. David Johnson, Sr. apparently wanted to be sure that his son James was the heir to Isham Johnson's land. Isham does not seem to have written a will that anyone ever saw, but his brother David was quite single minded in his hunt for it. Perhaps, if he could "prove" that a will existed and was destroyed by Agnes and David Johnson Jr. then he could have any intestate estate settlement set aside. At the very least, he could argue that Isham's land by rights belonged to David's son James. This did not work. Isham's property was distributed equally to all his brothers and sisters or their heirs. These individuals are described at length in the article James Johnson, the Elder, and Some of his Descendants of Goochland County, Virginia. It seems clear from both of these cases that drinking and suing don't mix!