The following is related to the Howson Patent Litigation – related to the Going family of Stafford County & Fairfax County, Virginia.
HOWSON PATENT LITIGATION:
John Alexander who dies in 1677 acquired the 6000 acre patent from Robert Howson in November, 1669, which included the land from the present-day Rosslyn area in Arlington County to the Great Hunting Creek. John Alexander’s will dated October 5, 1677, devised this estate to his two sons Robert and Philip. John, Jr., had died during his father’s lifetime. In February, 1693, Philip Alexander conveyed to his brother, Robert, his half interest in the Howson Patent.
1669 Oct 21 – To all whom these present shall come I Sir William Berkley Knt Governour etc now know ye etc accordingly give and grant unto Mr. Robert Howson 6000 acres of land scituate lying and being in the freshes of Potomack river on the west side thereof above the dividing branch of the same beginning at a red oak standing by a small branch or run of W [Wampakan] opposite to a small Island commonly called and known by the name of my Lord’s Island [Theodore Roosevelt Island] Extending down Potomack river various courses 3152 pole making a south westerly line to a marked pohickory standing at a north point of a Creek named by the English Indian Cabin Creek which Creek divides this Land and a Tract of Land surveyed for John Mathews from the said Pohickory north west & by west up the said Creek & main branch 520 pole from thence north 1940 pole finally east 720 to the red oak begun at including several small Creeks or inlets for the said Quantity the Land being due the said Robert Howson by and for the transportation of one hundred and twenty persons into this Colony & To have and to hold etc Yielding & paying etc provided etc Given etc 21st Day of October anno 1669 annog. Domini R. C. 2. 21. WILLIAM BERKLEY
Land records of long standing, 1742-1770. p. 205. Fairfax County, Virginia
Conveyance to John Alexander:
1669 Nov 13 – Know all men by these presents that I Robert Howson of the county of Stafford Gent. do hereby assign make over and confirm from me my heirs Executors and adm’rs unto John Alexander of the said county Gent. his heirs and assigns for ever all and every part of this patent & the land therein contained it being for and in consideration of 6000 of Tobacco and cask received before the signing and sealing hereof of the said John Alexander. In witness whereof I hereunto subscribe my hand and set my seal the 13th of Nov 1669 An. R. 21.
Signed: ROBERT HOWSON LS.
Wit: Thomas Bunbury, Samuel Hayward.
Acknowledged and recorded 17 Nov 1669.
Copy Test. H Tyler cl. Staff.
Land records of long standing, 1742-1770. p. 205-206. Fairfax County, Virginia
Robert Alexander ( -1704)(son of John Alexander) served as a justice of the Stafford County Court. During his ownership of the Howson Patent there is no surviving record to show what use he made of the land. It was probably during his time that the names “Holmes” and “Pearson” were given to two islands included in the 6000 acre tract. This may be derived from John Holmes and Thomas Pearson who occupied them as his tenants. Robert Alexander’s will dated December 7, 1703, devised to his sons Robert and Charles in fee, his plantation on the upper side of Great Hunting Creek. Charles died intestate and without issue, and the sole ownership of the plantation became vested in Robert Alexander3 (1688-1735).
Robert Alexander and Frances had two sons:
1) Robert Alexander (1688-1735) who married Anne Fowke ( 1739)
2) Charles Alexander (1698- ) who died without issue
Robert Alexander (1688-1735) had several tenants living on the Howson tract. Richard Wheeler and William Griffin had plantation quarters on the Potomac River at the north end of the tract opposite Analostan Island (now Roosevelt Island). One Chubb, a tenant, had established a mill on the Four Mile Run which is mentioned in the Todd and Thomas Patent of 1719. Four Mile Run became a convenient division of the Howson-Alexander tract. In 1711 Robert Alexander3 married Anne Fowke ( -1739), daughter of Colonel Gerard Fowke and Sarah Burdett, and they had the following children:
1) John Alexander4 (1711-63) of Salisbury who married Susanna Pearson in 1734
2) Anne Fowke Alexander who married Captain John Hooe in 1726
3) Parthenia Alexander ( -1742) who married twice: a) Dade Massey in 1732, and b) Townshend Dade, Jr., in 1736
4) Gerard Alexander4 (1714-61) who married Mary Dent of Maryland
5) Sarah Alexander ( -1739) who married Balwin Dade in 1736
The Litigation over the Howson Patent begins after Robert Alexander dies in 1735.
1735 Apr 28 (written), 1736 Apr 13 (proved up) Last Will and Testament of Robert Alexander
Land records of long standing, 1742-1770. p. 214. Fairfax Co, Va
1740 Lawsuit: John Alexander v. The Estate of Robert Alexander, decd. Division of Land. The first notable litigation is in 1740 when John Alexander institutes a lawsuit for a division of the lands their father, Robert Alexander decd, left them in his will.
A US Supreme Court Case in 1814, describes the 1740 lawsuit as follows:
“In the year 1735, Robert Alexander departed this life, having first made his last will in which he devised as follows: ‘Item, I give to my daughter Parthenia Massey four hundred acres in Prince William county, according to my bond. Item, I give to my daughter Sarah Alexander, four hundred acres joining Parthenia Massey, the same length on the back line and the same breadth on the river.’
Parthenia survived her husband, Dade Massey, and intermarried with Townshend Dade. Sarah intermarried with Baldwin Dade, and was put into possession of the land devised to her.
John and Gerard Alexander were the only sons of Robert, and were the co-devisees of the bulk of his estate. In April, 1740, John instituted a suit against Gerard for partition; and to this suit Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, and Baldwin Dade and Sarah, his wife, were parties Defendants. A decree of partition was made, directing that the lands of the Dades also should be allotted to them to be held in severalty. Commissioners were appointed to execute this decree, with directions to report their proceedings to the Court.
Under this interlocutory decree the land was surveyed by Joseph Berry, and a division made. Four hundred acres were allotted to Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, and the same quantity to Baldwin Dade and Sarah, his wife. This allotment was made on the idea that north 6 west was the true back line. But as the Alexanders intended to institute suits for the purpose of recovering lands lying west of the north 6 line, it was agreed between all the parties that the partition then made should not be conclusive, but should depend on the suits about to be instituted. In consequence, as is presumed, of this verbal agreement, the survey and proceedings under this interiocutory decree were not returned; and in May, 1741, the suit was dismissed agreed.“
1741 Survey the Alexander family had done that they stopped from being entered into records by dismissing the division of estate (so they could try to move their line further west):
The following 1741 survey was done during John Alexander’s lawsuit for a division of Robert Alexander’s estate. The lawsuit was dismissed when siblings John Alexander, Gerrard Alexander & Parthenia Dade came to an agreement to wait and attempt to move their line further west before completing the division – so the division was dismissed in order to avoid a survey that might lock in the boundaries of their Howson Patent – so the survey was never entered into record as they dismissed the case.
1741 April – The following survey was done by Joseph Berry in the first and second weeks of April 1741 in what was then Prince William County, Virginia (which a year later became Fairfax County, Va).
The lines on the survey are faint, so click on the image to enlarge it to see the lines. Joseph Berry labels the map with A-F.
– “A” for the top NE part of the survey which was not in dispute.
– “B” is in the SE corner of the survey at tip of the peninsula which also was not in dispute.
– “C” is the SW border of the survey, again which was not in dispute.
The dispute was over which way the back line ran from “C”. Most in the area believed the line ran directly North, but the Alexanders or others had apparently argued at various times that the line ran 6 degrees NW, 12 degrees NW, or 15 degrees NW.
– “D” is 6 degrees NW if running from “C” to “D” for the back line of the survey.
– “E” is directly north – so 0 degrees NW, just straight North to the line on the Northern part of the survey.
– “F” is 15 degrees NW if running the line from “C” to “F”
1811-021 Nathaniel Pendleton v. Admx of Charles Alexander, etc. Arlington Co, Va.
Image 236 of 237 images. Library of Virginia Chancery Records Index online: https://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/
1758 Lawsuit: William Ramsay v. John Alexander. Fairfax County, Virginia.
The actual case has not been located in the records – but in the 1767 Carlyle v. Alexander case, surveyor George West refers to the survey done in the 1758 case of William Ramsay v. John Alexander, where the General Court entered a survey of the Howson Patent. This is the first known patent that details the back line of the Howson Patent. He incorporates the 1758 survey into his survey – showing where the 1758 Court found the Alexanders’ back line.
George West states in his survey “F – the place where the fourth corner of Howsen’s patent should be, by the judgment of the General Court, in October 1758.”
“F” is drawn on the survey done by George West and a line drawn back to Hunting Creek (labeled “B” on his survey) – which is at 0 degrees west – in other words the line goes directly north from “B” on Hunting Creek to the “F” location on the survey.
1767 Lawsuit: Carlyle v. Charles Alexander. Plea in Trespass. Ejectment. 1767 case in Fairfax Co, Va: AMINIDAL SEEKRIGHT (tenant of Carlysle) & JOHN CARLYSLE v. CHARLES ALEXANDER
(Facts of Case: John Carlysle had leased 800 acres of land on his property to Aminidal Seekright for 7 years on May 21, 1766. Aminidal Seekright then arrived at the 800 acre farm on May 23, 1766. Charles Alexander sent in one of his “employees”, a Mr. Timothy Dreadnaught to “by force of arms” remove Aminidal Seekright and eject him from the land. Charles Alexander was claiming the land was his. Aminidal Seekright resisted and remained on the land and brought suit. John Carlysle joined in the suit as it had to do with his property line).
Much of this lawsuit involves the 1215 acre Thomas and Todd tract where it appears that Charles Alexander had placed some tenants – which was west of the back line of the Howson Patent that had been defined in the 1758 Ramsay v. Alexander case. There are multiple witnesses produced, and much of the case is found in the Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770 in Fairfax County, Virginia.
In this case George West was the surveyor, and produced a survey with two of the points agreed upon – “A” on the far northeast was the mouth of the Wankopin Branch which was agreed by all. “B” was the far southwest of the patent at the mouth of Hunting Creek. The eastern part of the Patent followed the shoreline.
The question was how far west the final corner of the patent went. George West labels “F” as directly north from “B”, and states this is where the 1758 General Court decided in their survey. He labels “E” at 6 degrees west – which is what the Alexander family thought their back line was back in 1740 when they did their own survey pursuant to a division of land (the family “division” case they dismissed prior to court approval, because they were going to try and go further west). “D” is 17 degrees west, and is what the Alexander family was shooting for in the lawsuit – which would have increased their acreage from 5995 acres according to George West’s survey to 9197 acres. (Note: Apparently “C” was marked because Carlyle at some time during the survey thought the line ran to there, but later during the survey stated he was mistaken and it did not run in that direction – in the end, neither party was claiming “C” as the back line – but the surveyor included it on his survey because of what Carlyle had said during the survey).
The 1767 case went to a jury, and they found against Charles Alexander’s claim of his land being 17 degrees west – but they did agree to it being 6 degrees west (the line that the Alexander family originally thought their line was in their 1741 survey they never entered into record).
“The jury sworn to try the issue in this cause returned into Court and upon their oath say that the artificial bounds of Alexander’s land are from red B on Hunting Creek to black E, and thence to the mount of Wancopin branch at Black A, laid down in the surveyors plat returned in this cause and that the Defendant is guilty in manner and for as the Plaintiff against him hath complained and they do assess damages (crease in page cant read rest of line) … shilling besides his costs. Therefore it is considered by the Court that the Plaintiff recover against the Deft his term yet to come of and in the messuage or a tenement and lands with the appurtenancy in the declaration mentioned together with his damages aforesaid in form aforesaid assessed, and his costs by him about his suit in this behalf expended. and the said Deft may be taken and whereupon the Plt pray the writ of our Lord the King to the Sheriff of the said County of Fairfax to be directed to cause him to have his possession of his term aforesaid yet to come and to him it is granted returnable here.”
(NOTE: Several of the witnesses that the Alexander family produced spent some time trying to discredit the Going family’s patent for 1215 acres that they conveyed to Thomas and Todd in 1719. Much of the testimony the Alexander family produced made it clear that the Alexander family was aware of the Going patent from the beginning – at least starting in 1719 when it was conveyed to Thomas and Todd – and they did nothing about it for 40 plus years – no surveys done to confirm the lines of the Howson Patent, no suits against the Going family, and no suits against Thomas or Todd – they didn’t act on it until Thomas and Todd were dead, John Going had died in 1721, William Going had died in 1725/6, and most of the rest of the Going family had moved to North Carolina, Southern Virginia and South Carolina by the time this litigation began).
SURVEY OF HOWSON PATENT DONE IN 1767 DURING CARLYLE v ALEXANDER CASE
1767 Jan 1 – (Survey) John Carlyle v Alexander – disputed survey on Howson Patent. Fairfax Co, Va
In obience on a order of the worshipful Court of Fairfax dated 1st January 1767 I the subscriber did proceed to survey the land in dispute … The way the … laid off Thomas & Todd’s patent and which he claims is represented by the following letters x y z aa bb pp & thence up Four Mile Run to the beginning.
The way the Pltf has laid off the Defendant’s tract, taken up by having is represented as follows. Beginning at A thence down Potomack … the several meanders thereof including Hamton’s Creek, Four Mile Creek, & Ralph’s Gut, as the black dotted lines across these waters will appear; and so down the said meanders to B at the mouth of Great Fishing Creek; which, reduced to a direct? line, is S9 and 3/4 E 2198 poles. Thence up the meanders of the Hunting Creek and by the black dotted lines; which, reduced to a direct line is N 58 W 517 poles to C in the field of John West Jr. Thence near an ancient marked line, as … the plat, N 3 degrees 10 m W 1940 poles to D. Thence S78E 179 poles to the beginning at A; Which includes 5995 acres, 3 Rood, & 18 Perches.
The Pltf required me to go to the Hickory Bush at C and from thence to run a line N6W (near a line of ancient marked trees, as .. the plat which said line … N 7 and 3/4 W) 1940 poles to E. Thence from E S87E 345 poles to A the beginning. The quantity of land included between the N7 and 3/4West line, & the River is 7117 acres, 1 Rood, & 28 perches.
The Pltf required me to lay off Owsley’s patent as is represented by the letters ii kk ll mm. At the Pltfs request I have laid down Howsen’s Patent as it was adjudged in the General Court October 1758 in the suit Ramssay v Alexander, which is my newly represented in this plat by the letters A B C F.
The defendant’s survey for Howsens Patent under which he claims is represented by the letters A B C D from A to B is mentioned before in the pltfs survey; from B to C is N60 and 1/2 W 523 poles. From C to D is N10W 1975 poles near a line of ancient marked trees a in the plat.
From D to A is N87 and 1/2E 691 poles, which includes 9197 acres 1 rod 15 poles.
The Defendant required me to survey Stephen Gray’s patent for 370 acres which is represented by the letters cc dd ee ff gg hh & the meanders of Four Mile Run to the beginning.
I ran only the two first courses of this deed, when the Defendant desired me to lay down the remaining one. The Defendant required me to lay off William Strutfields patent for 534 acres, which is represented by a b c d e f g h i k. I only ran the two first courses of this Deed, the Deft having requested me to plat down the other courses.
The Deft required me to survey William Strutfield’s patent for 500 acres, which I did, and is represented by the letters ii, nn, oo, A. and up the river to the beginning. The Deft required me to survey Awbrey’s patent for 1261 acres, which is represented by l m a n o p q r s t u v w & thence to the beginning. I ran only the lines rs, st, tu, uv, vw, & wl, the remaining courses plotted at the Defts desire.
Note, where any disputes have arose on this survey between the Pltf and Deft I refer to my explanatory notes or table, and also to the particular entries made by each party. Which said entries I have copied in their own word. I have never had the deposition in my custody which are rqferred to, & therefore cannot be more particular.
Signed: George West, SFC
Figures: A Table to explain the Plat
1. a post of Chubb’s Mill
2. the place shewn by Charles Gfiffith, Charity Nodson & John Summers, where Chub & Lylard formerly lived, as tenants to Robert Alexander, grandfather to the Defendant
3. The place shewn by Owen Morris, Charles Griffith & Charity Nodson, where another of the said Robert Alexander’s tenants lived.
4. The place by Owen Morris his house, shewn by John Summers, Morris & Ball, where Edward Chub formerly lived & kept a Mill as tenant to Robert Alexander.
5. represents a Corn Field.
6. a poplar anciently marked with two chops nearly on the North side.
7. a red oak anciently marked as a fore & aft line tree
8. The place admitted by Mr Sebastian the Pltfs attorney, where William Griffeth formerly lived, as tenant to Robert Alexander.
9. George Boucher’s house a tenant to Robert Alexander.
10. The place shewn by Bumson? and Wheeler where formerly stood a tree near the Wankopin Branch as beginning of Alexander, see his deposition.
11. A red a black oak anciently marked as a corner, said by the Pltf to be corner to Baldwin Dade.
12. a hickory saplin anciently marked as a line between an ancient marked red oak & hickory, particularly noticed at the request of the Defendant by Philip Alexander.
13. a hickory saplin in a Valley also particularly noticed by him.
14. John Alexanders fences on which plantation this ejectment was served, which is admitted by the Defendant.
15. a wheat field laid down now in possession of John ___ (smudged), formerly owned by John M?_____ (smudged) tenant to Gerard Alexander by virtue of a ? granted to Robert Mills noticed at the Defendants request.
16. a large rock stone, noticed at the Plaintiffs request.
17. a poplar, standing between two springs, in the Deposition of Wheeler & Greenwood
18. A poplar stump standing about 12 yards from the bank of the River and near a small Gut with a bank across it.
19. an apple tree in the edge of the River bank, several of its roots washed bare, see Boylstone’s deposition
20. an apple tree on Pearson’s Island, washed down; see Bowling’s deposition.
21. a Walnut tree in the depositions of Bowling, Moxley & Rose.
22. a white ___ standing on the shore, see the depositions of Bowling & Moxley.
23. Mr Townshend Dade’s house laid down
24. Mr Robert Alexander’s house laid down.
25. Messrs Carlyle & Dalton Smith’s shop under the bank
26. the Town Warehouse & Point Lumley
27. John Alexander’s Overseer’s house
28. A point commonly called Gladding’s Fishing Point
29. The Sloop Point commonly so called.
30. The point of John West Jr his pacoson.
31. a Gut or Inlet noticed at the Defendant’s request, see the deposition of Greenwood.
32. a Spring called the Riverside Spring noticed at the Defendants request, see the Depositions of Bowling, Osborn, Talbot & Rose.
33. A white oak said by the Defendant to be anciently marked with one plain chop of an ax & one other not plain, see the depositions of Bowling, Osborn Talbot, John Talbot, Greenwood & Morris. The Pltf objects to this being a line tree, it not being marked as such.
34. another white oak referred by the Defendant to the depositions of Sampson Darnell, Bowling?, Morris, Greenwood, Backeran, & Spinks, to be anciently marked with 2 chops of an ax on the SE side.
35. a red oake anciently marked nearly on the North side with 2 chops, & also marked nearly on SW side with 2 chops; noticed at the Defendants request.
36. 3 white oaks standing by the side of a pond shewn by the Plaintiff as corner to James Robertson’s patent, and the beginning of James Brechen’s patent.
37. (skipped from 36 to 38 it appears – possibly skipped in transcription into the book)
38. a poplar anciently marked nearly on the North side with 3 chops, and on the SW side, Barke is chiefly defaced, which Mr Sebastian says was done by Lawyers for Blacking. The Defendant refers to the depositions of Greenwood & Bowling to be marked on the N, S, & E sides. The figures 36, 37, 39 & lines dotted there ….. represent the courses of Robertson’s patent, as I surveyed by direction of the Pltf.
39. Three Spanish Oaks, one of which is marked with 3 chops on the N, E & SW sides.
40. Two red oak saplins from one root, lately marked GM, supposes by John Hough.
41. a line of James Green’s Fence
42. James Green’s house
43. The edge of William Ready’s tobacco ground, a tenant to Mr Ramsay.
44. the plantation laid down of John Alexander, where this ejectment was served, admitted by the Defendant to be within the bounds of the Plaintiff’s land as now surveyed.
45. William Butsell’s house laid down at the Defendant’s request, lately recovered by James Robertson from Robert Alexander.
46. a Gum Tree
47. Mr Ramsay’s quarter fence.
48. a small field of Mr Ramsays
49. a red oak stump referred by the Defendant to Owen Morris his deposition
50. a white oak cut down as a timber tree, noticed at the Defendant’s request by P Alexander; and also that about this place several trees are cut down.
51. another white oak stump also noticed by P. A. in behalf of the Defendant
52. a place where P. A. desired me to notice that several trees were cut down.
53. a dead hickory in an open piece of ground anciently marked on the W side with two chops, the same tree is lately marked was a fore & aft line tree by the Plaintiff’s order to prevent his people from cutting it down, noticed by P. A.
54. a hickory stump in the Pltfs field, see Owen Morris’ deposition
55. at this place P. A. desired me to note that John Williams his plantation is on the left hand a tenant to Alexander; see depositions of Bowling, Osborn Talbot, & Greenwood
56. a field of the Plaintiff noticed by the Defendant.
57. a white oak stump particularly noticed by ____ (smudged at top left of page)
58. (smudged at top left of page) ___ noticed by P. A.
59. a charred oak? anciently marked with two chops of an ax nearly on a level on one side, not above on request … by P A to the depositions of Morris & Bowling.
60. these trees suposed to be marked for line of Simmons lease, admitted by Sebastian
61. a chesnut oak at Dade’s? or upper long ? anciently marked as a line, see Ball, Morris & Hardrey’s depositions.
62. a white ___ anciently marked as a line tree.
63. a white oak anciently marked as a side line tree.
64. a white oak anciently marked as a corner
65. an ancient marked Beach; which the Defendant says is corner ___; see Osborn Talbot & Greenwood’s depositions.
66. a small Spanish Oak said by Sebastian to be marked as a line; which P Alexander denies.
67. a red oak said by some to be marked with 2 chops with an ax on the North side, on the S side bark is off, noticed by P Alexander; see O Talbot, William Thomas, & William Bowling’s depositions
A – a red oak marked IA the beginning of Howson’s Patent at Wankopin Branch.
B – the mouth of Hunting Creek, the supposed second corner of Howson (no tree standing)
C – the place where the Plaintiff supposed Howson’s third corner stood, in John Wests field.
D – a white oak anciently marked, see the Depositions of Ball, Morris, Bowling, Summers, Greenwood, Gustowns?, Darrell & Boylstone.
E – The end of 1940 poles, no corner found.
F – the place where the fourth corner of Howsen’s patent should be, by the judgment of the General Court, in October 1758.
C – A hickory bush near the creek, at first admitted by the Pltff to be the third corner of Howsen’s patent, & afterwards denied by him to be so, for that C is Howsen’s third corner as he says.
D – near a stake in Jennings his field, supposed by the Defendant to be Howsen’s fourth corner
a – Two Lornn(sp?) Poplars on Four Mile Run Strutfield’s beginning,
x – and ancient marked hickory & red oak;
j – begin j of Thomas & Todd; see the depositions of Ball & Harding.
y – an ancient marked chesnut oak; see Ball & Harding’s depositions.
z – a stake near the corner of William Butsell’s fence.
aa – no corner found.
bb – an ancient marked white oak; see Ball, Harding & Morris’s deposition, as a corner of Thomas & Todd, and beginning of James Robertson’s land.
ii – the mouth of Rocky Branch, Owsley’s beginning; and also to Strutfield’s 500 acres.
kk – an ancient makred white oak.
cc – a Spanish Oak Stephen Gray’s beginning, see Morris his deposition.
nn – an ancient marked white oak on the east side of Brechen’s Branch marked with the letters WS & IA.
oo – an ancient marked red oak marked IA.
l – an ancient corner marked hickory, beginning of Awbrey.
u – a corner Chesnut tree.
t – a marked red oak.
A List of Papers delivered me by the Pltif vis:
1. a copy of Evan Thomas & John Todd’s deed from the proprietor for 1215 aces, dated August 3d, 1719.
2. a deed of lease & release from the same John Todd to John Awbrey for the said tract of 1215 acres dated the 2d and 3d of June 1738.
3. a copy of John Awbrey’s last will and testament dated Feb 5, 1743.
4. Deeds of lease and release from Owen Brady & Hanover his wife for one moiety of the said tract; dated the 1st and 2d day of May 1763 to the Pltf.
5. Deeds of lease & release from Francis Awbrey dated 1st & sd days of May 1763 to the Pltf for the other moiety of the said tract.
6. a deed of confirmation from Francis Awbrey to the Pltf dated May 12, 1762.
7. a copy of a judgment attained in the General Court, dated Oct 25, 1758. William Ramsay v John Alexander and a plat by which the said Judgment was obtained.
8. James Robertson’s deed of release to Simon Pearson dated Oct 20, 1731, for 432 acres & another tract of 800 acres joining thereto, both in one sheet of paper; attested by the Clerk of Prince Williams Court.
A list of Papers delivered by the Defendant:
1. A copy of Robert Howsen’s patent; from the Secretary’s office; dated Oct 21, 1669 for 6000 acres.
2. An assignment from the afsd Robert Howson to John Alexander dated February 13, 1669 for the said 6000 acres.
3. An attested copy from the Clerk of Stafford Court of a Plat & Survey made by Theodoric Bland for William Strutfield containing 534 acres, dated Nov 2, 1692
4. a copy of Proprietors deed to the said William Strutfield for the said 534 acres dated January 21st 1705.
5. a copy of the Proprietors deed to Stephen Gray for 378 acres dated July 17 1724
6. a copy of a Proprietors deed to William Strutfield for 500 acres dated Sept 2d 1709.
Signed: George West, SFC
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 60 & 61 Fairfax Co, Va
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D998-K?i=246&cat=193246 (Written description of survey)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D998-3?cat=193246 ( Detailed drawing of survey – snip below – click on link above for more detail – see drawing below done in this case)
MAP SHOWING WHERE PROPERTIES WERE LOCATED:
The following map is not exact (didn’t have my protractor out) so just an estimation based on the claims made. I have marked the map below with A, B, C, D, E & F. Points A & B were not disputed. The dispute was about how the line went from the known point on the Southwest portion of the Alexander land marked B – and whether it went from B to E, or from B to D. B to F is what the 1758 Court had Surveyed – and B to C was an incorrect assumption by Carlyle made during his survey that he later retracted during the survey – neither side seemed to be pushing for that location. Directly North leads to F. 6 degrees West leads to point E. 17 degrees West leads to point D (letters in red).
With line heading to E (North 6 degrees West) – this appears to be what the courts finally settled on, and gave the following acreage to the Alexander Family for the Howson patent:
1) Mr Gerrard Alexander 2959 acres
2) John Alexander 1421 acres
3) Townshend Dade land 400 acres
4) Baldwin Dade land 400 acres
5) John Alexander and Hugh West 220 acres
6) Harry ? 200 acres
7) Cpt Phillip Alexander 500 acres
8) Holmes Island 302 acres
9) Pearson’s Island 160 acres
TOTAL Acres: 6562 acres with line going North 6 degrees West to point (E) accounted for in below map – today’s estimates place the area at 8000 acres. The Alexanders were attempting to add another 50% to their patent by pushing their back line in the Howson Patent to North 17 degrees West (point D).
In 1771 Carlyle won his case and the court ejected Alexander from Carlyle’s land. They held that the survey should go to point E on the map above (which appears to be North 6 degrees West). In the end, the Alexander family ended up getting the approximate acreage the original patent granted. – but it appears they were attempting to increase their land size by about 50-60% seizing other people’s property by planting tennants on it, and claiming their back line was “undefined” and allowed them to do so.
The Alexander family received the 6000 acre Howson patent in 1669 and never appeared to file a their own survey defining the boundaries as was typically required. They used this fact to claim the land description in their Deed actually extended beyond the actual plat description, and were successful in several occasions in ejecting people from land they had purchased – often for decades. This “undefined” back line allowed the Alexanders to act in a predatory way, swooping in and taking land behind their back line whenever they wanted to extend their property holdings.
The first survey that eventually made its way into court was in 1741 where the options of a direct north back line, a 6 degree west back line, and a 15 degree west back line were drawn for the court. This survey was used in later court cases in 1771 involving John Carlysle, and in 1809-1814 case involving Parthenia Dade (an Alexander daughter who had married into the Dade family).
Finding of Jury and Court against Charles Alexander:
The jury sworn to try the issue in this cause returned into Court and upon their oath say that the artificial bounds of Alexander’s land are from red B on Hunting Creek to black E, and thence to the mount of Wancopin branch at Black A, laid down in the surveyors plat returned in this cause and that the Defendant is guilty in manner and for as the Plaintiff against him hath complained and they do assess damages (crease in page cant read rest of line) … shilling besides his costs. Therefore it is considered by the Court that the Plaintiff recover against the Deft his term yet to come of and in the messuage or a tenement and lands with the appurtenancy in the declaration mentioned together with his damages aforesaid in form aforesaid assessed, and his costs by him about his suit in this behalf expended. and the said Deft may be taken and whereupon the Plt pray the writ of our Lord the King to the Sheriff of the said County of Fairfax to be directed to cause him to have his possession of his term aforesaid yet to come and to him it is granted returnable here.
Unfortunately the Alexanders kept up their dispute of their back line and actually won some cases, ejecting owners from land they purchased. In 1809 they attempted to do this to a family member (Parthenia Dade). The case was appealed, and the US Supreme Court eventually found against the Alexander family in an 1814 case with Chief Justice Marshall issuing the following opinion AGAINST the Alexander family’s claim that their patent extended west any degrees in their attempts to confiscate other people’s lands:
1806-1814: Pendleton v. Alexander. Arlington County, Virginia – found in the Virginia Chancery Index online as Case No. 1811-021. It includes 237 images of pleadings, minutes, depositions, surveys and other records related to the case. It appears that the lawyers subpoenaed most, if not all, of the depositions from the 1767 Carlyle v. Alexander case, as they are part of the record as well. This case made it to the US Supreme Court where Justice
1814 March 12 – ALEXANDER v. PENDLETON
U.S. Supreme Court
Alexander v. Pendleton, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 462 462 (1814)
3 L.Ed. 624
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, as a Court of Equity.
The case, as stated by MARSHALL, Ch. J. in delivering the opinion of the Court, was as follows:
This suit was brought in the year 1806, in the Circuit Court for the county of Alexandria, for the purpose of quieting the title of Nathaniel Pendleton, the Plaintiff in that Court, to 83 acres of land contiguous to the town of Alexandria which have been in his possession, and in the possession of those under whom he claims, from the year 1732 to the present time.
Robert Alexander, being seized of a large tract, on part of which the town of Alexandria now stands, on the 17th of January in the year 1731-2, executed to Dade Massey, then about to intermarry with his daughter Parthenia Alexander, his bond in the penalty of 800l. with a condition that he would convey to his daughter Parthenia and her heirs, on demand, four hundred acres of land lying on Potomac, ‘beginning on the river side and from thence running to his back line, making a long square so as to have the same breadth on the river as on the back line.’
The marriage soon afterwards took effect, and she was put into possession of the land by the following bounds, that is to say: ‘Beginning at the mouth of Goings gut, on the river Potomac, and extending down the river so as to include four hundred acres of land between the river and the back line.’
The back line called for in the patent was a due north course; that by which Robert Alexander then held was north 6 west. Claims have been since successfully asserted which would vary the back line so as to run north 17 west. The Appellants insist that those who hold under Parthenia shall be compelled to extend to the back line, as now established, and proportionably to contract their line down the river, so that the parallelogram shall still comprize four hundred acres. Pendleton, who is a purchaser under Parthenia, insists on being limited on the west by the line north 6 west, which was the back line when the title of Parthenia accrued.
In the year 1735, Robert Alexander departed this life, having first made his last will in which he devised as follows: ‘Item, I give to my daughter Parthenia Massey four hundred acres in Prince William county, according to my bond. Item, I give to my daughter Sarah Alexander, four hundred acres joining Parthenia Massey, the same length on the back line and the same breadth on the river.’
Parthenia survived her husband, Dade Massey, and intermarried with Townshend Dade. Sarah intermarried with Baldwin Dade, and was put into possession of the land devised to her.
John and Gerard Alexander were the only sons of Robert, and were the co-devisees of the bulk of his estate. In April, 1740, John instituted a suit against Gerard for partition; and to this suit Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, and Baldwin Dade and Sarah, his wife, were parties Defendants. A decree of partition was made, directing that the lands of the Dades also should be allotted to them to be held in severalty. Commissioners were appointed to execute this decree, with directions to report their proceedings to the Court.
Under this interlocutory decree the land was surveyed by Joseph Berry, and a division made. Four hundred acres were allotted to Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, and the same quantity to Baldwin Dade and Sarah, his wife. This allotment was made on the idea that north 6 west was the true back line. But as the Alexanders intended to institute suits for the purpose of recovering lands lying west of the north 6 line, it was agreed between all the parties that the partition then made should not be conclusive, but should depend on the suits about to be instituted. In consequence, as is presumed, of this verbal agreement, the survey and proceedings under this interiocutory decree were not returned; and in May, 1741, the suit was dismissed agreed.
Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, remained in quiet possession of the four hundred acres devised to Parthenia by her father, according to those boundaries which had been marked out on the idea that north 6 west was the true back line.
Sarah Dade died without issue; on which event her land was limited to her two brothers John and Gerard, who entered thereon and continued to hold it according to Berry’s survey.
John Carlyle claimed the land west of north 6 west; and, in April 1766, commenced an ejectment against Alexander, who appears to have recovered part of the land between north 6 and north 17 west in a previous ejectment against one of his tenants. In May, 1771, a verdict and judgment were rendered in his favor.
In the year 1774, Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, instituted a suit against John Alexander for a title to the land mentioned in the bond of Robert Alexander. To this suit John Alexander filed his answer stating the death of Dade Massey leaving a son by Parthenia, her subsequent marriage with Townshend Dade, and the doubt who was entitled to the land, as the reasons for its not having been previously conveyed.
In the same year, Charles Alexander, son and heir of John, filed his answer in which he states the doubt respecting the back line, admits the north 6 west to be the present back line, and prays that, should a more western boundary be at any time established, he and his heirs might be at liberty to vary the boundaries of Parthenia’s land so as to conform to such future back line.
In 1776, a deed was executed by Charles Alexander to Parthenia Dade conveying 400 acres of land according to the bond of Robert Alexander. This deed specifies no boundaries and contains no stipulation respecting the future change of the back line. It would confirm the will of Robert Alexander, if that will wanted confirmation. In the year 1779, this suit was dismissed neither party appearing.
In May, 1778, Parthenia Dade conveyed this tract of land with no other description of the metes and bounds than was expressed in the bond and will of her father, to William Hartshorne, who took possession of the land and held it according to Berry’s survey, which makes north 6 west the back line.
William Hartshorne laid off the northern part of the tract from the river to north 6 west in twenty-three lots which he sold to various persons; and then, in May, 1779, conveyed the residue of the land, which incindes that in controversy, to William Harman, of Pennsylvania, by metes and bounds taking north 6 west to be the true back line.
In the year 1786, Mordecai Lewis, executor of William Harman, conveyed this land to Elisha Cullen Dick, who in 1796, conveyed eighty-three acres, the land now in dispute, to Henry Lee, who, in June, 1797, conveyed to Baldwin Dade, who, on the 29th day of December, in the year 1801, conveyed to Philip Fitzhugh, who, on the 18th of February, 1802, conveyed to Nathaniel Pendleton. In the same deed Fitzhugh conveys also to Pendleton three acres of land, other part of the tract of 400 acres, with notice that Charles Alexander claims north 17 west as the back line.
Previous to the conveyance from Baldwin Dade to Philip Fitzhugh, the said Dade had conveyed the land in controversy to Thomas Swan to secure a debt due to William Hodgson. Swan conveyed to William B. Page, in trust for Hodgson, who conveyed to Hodgson, who, in July, 1803, conveyed to Pendleton.
Soon after the decision in favor of Carlyle in May, 1771, Charles Alexander brought an ejectment for the same lands, and in 1790, a verdict was given in his favor, on which a judgment was rendered, which was affirmed on appeal in 1792. In 1796, Charles Alexander instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery in Virginia, for the purpose of altering the boundaries by which the land of Parthenia had theretofore been held, and of laying off that tract so as to extend it to north 17 west, thereby narrowing its breadth where it stretches towards the town of Alexandria, and giving it more length. To this suit, those under whom Pendleton claims, with others were made Defendants.
Charles Alexander, departed this life in the year 1806, and the suit has not been revived.
Nathaniel Pendleton being about to sell the land in controversy, tendered to Charles Alexander a deed for quieting the title; and, on his refusing to execute it, instituted a suit to compel him so to do. After the death of Charles Alexander this suit was brought against the Defendant, his widow and children.
In the Circuit Court a decree was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, from which the Defendants have appealed to this Court.
The cause was argued last term, by SWAN and JONES, for the Appellants, and by E. I. LEE and C. LEE, for the Appellee.
SWANN, for the Appellant.
The only question is, whether the long possession according to metes and bounds, gives a good title notwithstanding the claim of Alexander to carry his back line so as to run north 17 degrees west; instead of north 6 degrees west.
The bond to convey to Parthenia in 1731-2, calls simply for the back line; R. Alexander’s will in 1735, devises the land to her by the same description; and the deed of confirmation from Charles Alexander in 1776, still refers to the back line. Whatever should be the back line of Alexander’s tract, was to be the western houndary of Parthenia’s 400 acres. In 1740 a suit was instituted for partition, in which Parthenia was a party. A survey and partition was made, but was not acted upon by the Court, because the parties all understood that the back line was unsettled, and the partition then made was agreed to be temperary, and to be reformed if the back line should be carried farther to the westward than north 6 degrees west. This agreement, although verbal, was binding on Parthenia, at least so far as to prevent her possession from being considered as adversary to Alexander as to that part of the land which might be taken away upon settling the back line.
There was therefore no adverse possession until 1778, when Parthenia sold to Hartshorne. From 1778 to 1796, when C. Alexander instituted his suit in the Court of Chancery in Virginia, to after the boundaries of the tract, there had not been 20 years of adverse possession. If Pendleton had looked back to his title he would have found that it was never conveyed by metes and bounds, prior to 1778, and that the question of boundary was still unsettled. He purchased while that suit was pending, and therefore must be presumed to have had notice of the claim.
E. I. LEE and C. LEE, contra.
This case is not affected by the question, which was the true back line of Alexander’s land. Neither Parthenia nor those claiming under her, were parties to any suit in which that question was litigated, and cannot therefore be bound by any decision on that point. At the date of the bond, and of Robert Alexander’s devise to Parthenia, he held only to the line north 6 west. The conveyance is to be taken most strongly against the grantor. In 1776, when C. Alexander made the deed to Parthenia, he held only to the same line, and it had been at that time established as his back line by a judgment in the year 1771.
If there were sufficient evidence of a parol agreement, it could be only an agreement to re-convey the land, if the back line should be settled further to the westward. Being a parol agreement to convey land, it would have been void by the statute of frauds.
If Pendleton had notice of the pendency of C. Alexander’s suit in chancery to alter the boundaries, yet that suit was afterwards discontinued, and there is no evidence that Hartshorne, or those claiming under him, had notice of the claim until after they had made their purchases. Pendleton holds their rights, and can protect himself by their want of notice.
JONES, in reply.
There was nothing in the title to deceive purchasers. There was sufficient evidence on the face of the deed to show that the possession was temporary. They all refer to the back line of Howsen’s patent; and every purchaser would necessarily enquire where that line was. Upon the enquiry he would find either that the line was in dispute and unsettled, or that it had been settled at north 17 degrees west.
The agreement was merely evidence of the nature of the possession, and was no more affected, in this respect, by the statute of frauds, than would be a simple declaration of the tenant, that he held not adversely to, but under, R. Alexander.
If the title is to be quieted, it must be upon the principle that long possession by certain metes and bounds, induces a presumption that some deed had been made conformable to the possession. But such a presumption is rebutted by the agreement.
MARSHALL, Ch. J. after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
‘The being an application to restrain a person from the assertion of title in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the prayer of the bill ought not to be granted in a doubtful case; but if the case be a clear one, the interposition of equity is allowable; and the situation of the land adjoining a growing city, the number of persons who are consequently interested in the settlement of the question, and the numerous titles which depend on it, give it peculiar claims to the attention of the Court.
By the laws which govern this case, a possession of thirty years under some circumstances, and of fifty years, under any, constitutes a title against all the world. The Appellee claiming under a possession perhaps from the year 1732, certainly from the year 1741, has a complete title, unless something can be alleged by the Plaintiffs in error which shall deprive him of the advantages of that possession.
It is urged that the contract of 1741, between the Alexander’s and the Dade’s, made the latter trustees for the former with respect to that portion of the land included in Berry’s survey, which they had agreed to surrender in the event of establishing a more western back line. And that, therefore, in computing time, we must commence with the sale from Parthenia Dade to William Hartshorne, in May, 1778.
Had the land continued in possession of Parthenia Dade and her heirs, the question whether this contract was of unlimited duration, or contemplated some particular suit then intended to be brought, would merit consideration. But as the contract does not appear on the title papers, but was verbal, a purchaser for a valuable consideration could not be affected by it unless he was a purchaser with notice. Finding Parthenia Dade in the quiet and undisturbed possession of four hundred acres of land, forming a parallellogram, limited on the west by the line north 6 west, he had a right to consider that line as established, so far as respected the land of Parthenia. He was not bound to know that a private parol agreement existed, which would control the possession. This trust therefore no more passed with the land to Hartshorne, than would any other secret trust of which he had no knowledge.
The various suits which have been instituted by, and against the ancestors of the Appellants cannot affect this cause, A suit not prosecuted to a decree or judgment is not constructive notice to a person not a pendente lite purchaser; and were the law otherwise, those suits, until that instituted in 1796, would convey no notice of the private agreement made in 1741. A knowledge of the suits therefore would not imply a knowledge of the trust; and possession for fifty years, though with knowledge of a better title, if adversary, constitutes a good defence against that title.
In 1796, Charles Alexander instituted a suit against sundry persons claiming the land in controversy for the purpose of altering the boundaries which had been held by Parthenia, and those claiming under her, from the year 1732, and which had been surveyed under an interlocutory decree made by the Court of Chancery, in the year 1741. In defending themseives against this claim, the purchasers of the land had a right to unite the possession of Parthenia Dade to their possession, without being affected by a secret trust of which they had no notice. If upon the trial of that suit a possession of fifty years could not have been established, and if the Court should have been of opinion that this was not a case in which an adversary possession of thirty years would have constituted a bar, the merits of the title would have been necessarily investigated. But if Charles Alexander had permitted that suit to be dismissed, and had filed a new bill, he would not have been at liberty, in the computation of time, to avail himself of the pendency of the former suit, unless he could have connected the two suits together. The law is the same where a suit terminates by abatement and is not revived, such a suit takes no time out of the act of limitations. The title of Pendleton therefore has from that act all the benefit which can be derived from a possession from the year 1741, when a possession ostensibly adversary by metes and bounds unquestionably commenced, to the institution of this suit in the year 1806. The deduction which the laws of Virginia make from all computations of time in consequence of the war of the revolution, will not be sufficient to take this case out of the act of limitations. The Appellees title, being secured by a possession of more than fifty years, is unquestionably good, and it is proper that the doubts which hang over it, should be removed. There is no error in the proceedings of the Circuit Court and the decree is affirmed.
The 1806-1814 case file can be found at the Library of Virginia’s Chancery Court Index online: Case No. 1811-021. Arlington County, Virginia. https://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/ (Link to Library of Virginia – Chancery Court: Pendleton v. Alexander case of 1811-021 – depositions were transferred into this case from 1767 depos):
(pgs. 1-18: Petition, Answer, and costs sheet on 1809 case).
(pgs. 19-35: Additional Answers filed by Charles Alexander and wife Francis Alexander).
(pgs. 57-79: Various depositions taken in 1767 re case and land)
(pgs. 79-82: Charles Griffith’s deposition on May 8, 1767 is page 79 through 82 of link);
(pgs. 87: David Thomas’ depo on April 9, 1768 re Thomas Going)
(pgs. 94-96: Indenture of Parthenia Dade – daughter of Alexander – for land in dispute – describes one landmark as “Goings Gut” in description).
(pgs. 97-104: Indenture in 1771 Mouth of Goings Gut landmark in sale of property by Dade)
(pgs. 110-113: Lee Massey depo in Alexander case, depo taken in 1809 mentions Going Gut)
(pgs. 121-122: 1748 Act creating City of Alexandria – starts with sixty acres of land).
(pgs. 163-164: 1809 survey mentioning Going’s Gut).
(pgs. 176: 1767 Carlyle v Alexander case with judgment in 1771) – Admiral Seekright against Charles Alexander
(pgs. 178-185: Petition describing dispute in 1809 case description of allegations, Goings Gut again referenced).
(pgs. 187-189: 1776/77 Lee Massey release regarding the disputed land)
(pgs. 198-203: 1767 Pleadings in case against Charles Alexander and minutes of court and motion)
(pgs. 205-210: 1810 interrogatories and answers of George Griffin).
(pgs. 214-216: John Alexander’s questions and answers to depo Qs in 1809).
(pgs. 223-225: Record of case in 1771 and judgment against Charles Alexander).
(pgs. 226-227: Deed of Charles Alexander in 1778 re land with Prothenia Dade (Robert Alexander’s daughter)
(pgs. 228-229: Dick deed in 1790 re land).
(pgs. 230-233: 1790 and 1809 deeds re land in dispute).
(pgs. 234-237: Alexander case drawings of surveys done).
John Alexander of the Alexander family had received 6000 acres of land from Robert Howson on Nov. 13, 1669.
In 1748 an Act was passed to create the city of Alexandria – starting with 60 acres of land. The city was a success. As it grew, the land around it became more valuable. Charles Alexander inherited much of the land in 1735.
In 1735 Robert Alexander died. He had the 6000 acre tract of which he left 400 acres of this land to his daughter Porthenia Alexander, who later married Dade and then Massey.
Around 1766, Charles Alexander tried to rent to tenants on parts of the land that were, according to other landowners, outside the bounds of the Howson Patent tract. According to the US Supreme Ct opinion, the Alexanders thought their land ran 6 degrees NW along the back line, but made a secret agreement in 1741 to dismiss a lawsuit about a division of land, so that they could try to extend the land to 17 degrees NW from “C” on the survey above – and if successful, they could partition the land to include the additional land they would obtain by extending the line westward.
Admiral Seekright & Carlyle filed suit against Charles Alexander in the 1771 case, and received a judgment to eject Charles Alexander’s tenants who were illegally on Admiral Seekright’s land. The Court established where Alexander’s line should be. The judgment also included damages against Charles Alexander of one shilling, plus costs of 50L.121, plus 15,372 lbs of tobacco.
Charles Alexander continues after this case to claim land further west despite John Carlyle winning his case against Charles Alexander, establishing a “line” where the Alexander land ended.
In what appears to be a legal maneuver to overturn the prior cases against him (and gain access to land beyond his line), Charles Alexander then files multiple other suits of ejectment in other courts against tenants who were actually clearly on his land. Charles Alexander was able to convince some courts his line actually did not run due north or even 6 degrees north on the back side of his patent, but ran up to 17 degrees northwest (which was beyond the line that the courts in 1771 said his land should be) – this increased the acreage of the original patent by up to 60%.
Porthenia Alexander never received a deed for her inheritance of 400 acres due to her secret agreement with her brothers John and Gerrard Alexander to wait until they could try and extend the back line from 6% to 17% NW. Her mother, Sarah, had a “life estate” on the 400 acres until she passed away. When she did pass away, Porthenia asked for her deed to her inheritance. Charles Alexander, son of John Alexander, inherited John Alexander’s estate after he passed away. Charles Alexander did not want to give Parthenia her deed, as the line was still doubtful in his mind – he was hoping he could still extend it further west. When he finally did, he gave her a deed to land that was beyond the line of the tract – Charles Alexander claimed this was part of the estate. Porthenia filed suit to get land that was actually on the estate. Charles Alexander gave Parthenia her deed, but in it he did not describe the bounds of the land, so it did not clear up where the western boundary of her land would be. The land was conveyed several times to unknowing recipients, where eventually Pendleton came into possession and filed suit.
Part of the 1766 case involved the Going patent of land for 1215 acres. A 1719 patent indicates that Thomas Goin, John Goin, William Goin & James Goin had conveyed this 1215 acres of land to Evan Thomas and John Todd some time in or before 1719. It does not appear that the Alexanders ever filed suit over the back line until after Robert Alexander had passed away in 1735. Charles Alexander produced witnesses to say that Robert Alexander was indeed running tenants on the said land, and that Gowing, Thomas, Todd, and others knew it. Charles Alexander seems to be arguing that even if his plat did not run to the area in dispute, that he ran tenants on that land for such a long time, and that everyone knew it, so therefore he is the owner by adverse possession.
The jury found against Charles Alexander – they heard the evidence, and must not have believed Charles Alexander’s evidence that he hoped would show that the Alexander family had openly showed ownership of the land in dispute. From the evidence, it appears just the opposite. Others had lived on the disputed lands since 1719 or before, and continued to do so up until the 1760’s, and in fact several lawsuits had occurred previoulsy, including one in 1741 where a survey was done by a court to try and settle one of the disputes. This survey was used in later cases.
DEPOSITIONS IN 1767 CASE – CARLYLE v ALEXANDER:
1767 May 8 – Deposition of Charles Griffith aged 70 years p. 281-287(Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
Charles Griffith depo, aged 70 or thereabouts
… of Loudoun County, formerly of Stafford now called Fairfax County … between John Carlyle Plaintiff and Charles Alexander Deft, May 8, 1767 – sworn for the Defendant Charles Alexander …
… saith that about 43 years ago he was overseer for one Phillip Noland and that Majr Robert Alexander grandfather to the present Charles Alexander came up from Boyeshole and called in at the said Nolands House (Note: about 1724) when a conversation relative to the said Alexander’s land happened and the said Noland then told Alexander that one Robertson the Goings and several others had surveyed and taken up land within his great pattent, upon which the said Alexander seeming angry swore he would make them suffer and let them know his land run a great way further out than they imagined,
… he this deponent further saith that when Noland told Majr. Robert Alexander that the Goings were taking up and surveying his the said Alexanders land he the said Alexander replied to the said Noland that he had a great mind to turn the molatto rascals (who were then his tenants) off his land – and that he would (when he had a little time) survey his land and shew them how his land run (Note: The Goings sold the 1215 acre survey to Thomas & Todd in 1719 according to land records)…
… he this deponent further saith that about the latter end of the same year the aforesaid Noland and one Francis Awbrey had conversation about the said Alexanders land and he the said Noland then told the said Awbrey that he did realy believe that there was no vacant land thereabouts for that all the land from Great Hunting Creek quite up to Berchen tract of land was included in Alexanders great pattent and that he the said Noland never understood that there was any vacant land thereabouts for if there had been any it would certainly have been taken up before his the said Awbrey’s time
… he this Deponent further saith that about 42 years ago old Hugh West and he rode up to the inhabitants a little below the Lower Falls of Potomack (Note: about 1725) and in this journey over Four Mie Run at the upper horse path they called in at a tenant on the side of a hill which the said West told him this Deponent was the land of Majr Robert Alexander and the said West who was then a Sheriff for Stafford or at least acted as one had precept to serve on the said tenant who the said West told him this Deponent was a tenant to Majr Robert Alexander grandfather to the present Defendant
… he this deponent further saith that the said West went privately ot the the said house which was then entirely surrounded with trees except about three or four thousand corn holes that were cleared round the house which house is now down but stood as this deponent thinks very near the spot of ground shewn by Owen Morris and from this deponent to George West the surveyor
…he this deponent further said that from that house the said old West and he took a horse path North Westerly which went by the place John Alexander Junr now lives and from thence along a path near the said Robert Alexanders back line as he the said Hugh West told him this deponent over several Branches to the said inhabitants a little below the lower Falls of Potomack
… and this deponent saith that as he and Mr West rode along, he this deponent asked the said West if there was any vacant land thereabouts to which the said West replied there ws not any from Great Hunting along Harris’s line quite up to Brecken – as he the said West thought about this line the said West and he were crossing a branch which Branch the said West said was Brichins Branch and the said West then told him this Deponent that Majr Robert Alexanders and Brichins lines run into eachother as he the said West understood
… and that the said Deponent saith that old Mr West told him that from that place the said Robert Alexander’s land run down to the river to the Island called Mason’s Island
… this Deponent further saith that on their return they came down on the said Alexander’s river side tenants to Four Mile Run at the lowermost horse ford from which place they rode up four mile run by a mill to a house where one old Chubb and Lilliard lived at which place old Hugh West had some business
… he this Deponent further saith that West told him that the said house was on Majr Robert Alexander’s land which said house this Deponent saith was at or very near the place shewn by him John Summen and Charritee Noeson to George West the Surveyor.
… he this Deponent further saith that on his and Wests return from where Chubb and Lilliard lived as they were crossing the lower ford of Four Mile Run by the Fishing Stops he this Deponent asked how far Alexanders land run up the said Four Mile Run to which Mr West replied that he thought it was very near a mile up Four Mile Run to Majr Robert Alexanders back line grandfather to the present Defendant
… he this Deponent further saith that he well remembers that one old Colter and one Ballenger told him that from the Lower ford up Four Mile Run to Alexanders backline was near a mile.
… he this Deponent further saith that about forty three years ago he was in company with one Stephen Gray’s widow and one William Parker which Parker told him he was son to the said Widow and they told him that Stephen Gray had taken up a tract of land almost joining Majr Robert Alexander’s land was near against the end of Mason’s Island.
… and this Deponent further saith old Colo Mason father to the present one John Straughan, Richard Wheeler, Thomas Chapman, Peter Guin, John Musgrove and several other old standards whose names he does not at present recollect told him this deponent that the beginning of Alexanders land was opposite the said Mason’s Island formerly called My Lords Island upon the mouth of a Branch and that from that Branch it run into the woods two miles and better.
… he this Deponent further saith that old Peter Guin, Noland, John Musgrove and James Ball advised him particularly not to take up or concern with the land there abouts (which this Deponent wanted to do) for that all the land from Great Hunting Creek six or seven miles up a straight line quite to Brichins Branch was all included in Alexanders, Brichins, and Masons pattent. This Brichin as this Deponent things was a clergyman.
… he this Deponent further saith that he well remembers he was at a race in the same year where the Goings were who then had running horses and that the old people were talking about the Goings taking up Alexanders land and selling it to Thomas and Todd which land the old people then said was in Alexanders back line or at least the greatest part he well remembers that at the same time the old people said that as soon as Alexander should make a survey they would find it was in Alexanders land and that they would lose the greatest part of it.
… At the same time this Deponent saith the people was laughing and said if it were not for the Alexander’s land the Goings had sold to Thomas and Todd they said Goings would not be so lavish of their money of which they seemed to have a great plenty at that time.
… Being asked by the Pltf at what time it was that he rode with Mr Hugh West when he was Deputy Sheriff says that it was in the year 1726 or 1727 as well he remembers and then he was well acquainted with the neighborhood about Four Mile Run, and had been so about three years before that time. And hath constantly lived about Occoquan ever since, but never knew anything of the settlement made by Doctor Dunghill.
… This Deponent says that about the year 1743 he purchased three beeves of Thomas Whitford who then lived on Four Mile Run but he does not remember particularly where abouts his house stood either on the upper side of the run or the lower side but thinks it was on the upper side.
… he says soon after purchasing these Beeves Whitford came down to Belvois to cut stone and in conversation told this deponent he was afraid he should loose his land but this deponent understood or suspected it was for debt.
… the Deponent says that he knows nothing of the bounds of Alexanders land himself only as he has been told and further saith not.
Fairfax County May the 8th 1767.
This Deposition was taken and sworn to in the presence of the Plaintiff and the Defendants attorney before. John West, William Eayner..
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 281-287. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 May 8 – Deposition of Gerrant Tramill aged 65 years p. 256-258 (pages 259-260 missing in Fairfax book – but found in Virginia Chancery index but name is Jerrard Trammell)(date in chancery record shows this deposition to be May 8, 1767).
… deposeth that about 40 years ago Doctor Dunghill settled upon the lands taken up by Evan Thomas and John Todd.
… this deponent understood that Dunghill lived there by purchase or consent from Todd altho this deponent hath not understood that the said Dunghill made no payment nor procured or ad any deed as he did not live on the lands more than a year or two if so long.
… and this deponent never hear of his making any sale or disposition of it.
… and some years after Dunghill’s settling on part of this land Even Thomas came and settled on the land near and below where the plaintiff’s Mill is now erected.
… and soon after Thomas began to settle on the said land he died but whether he moved his family up first this deponent cannot certainly remember but knows his widow and family lived there after his death.
… and that there was no settlement or improvements made on the above land before the above settlement made for Dunghill.
… and by Thomas this deponent understood that Thomas devised part of this land to two of his daughters who intermaried the one with Robert King and the other with Thomas Whitford.
… and Whitford and King continued to live on the said land in right of their wives untill they removed out of these parts altogether which this deponent thinks was about or upwards of 20 years ago.
… this deponent saith that Todd out lived Thomas several years for that the said Todd was living and came to acknowledge or convey lands in Stafford County about 13 or 14 years ago as this deponent was informed by a letter from Col. Mason.
… the Deponent saith he believes there never was any division made between Thomas and Todd for that when Todd removed away Thomas seemed to expect to enjoy the whole land.
… the deponent says that old Simon Pearson had a lease of part of Alexanders land and one Samuel Vaughdry was Pearsons Overseer.
… and the deponent saith that the said Vaughdry got a timber tree which is mentioned in the deposition of Henry Cullum taken between Ramsay and Alexander and Pearson was angry and said it was without the line of Alexander and upon the lands of Awbrey.
… being asked how far Dunghill lived above the line run by Jinnings for John and Gerrard Alexander saith he cannot tell but supposeth it to be half a mile or more.
… and after making that survey & running that line by Jinnings, Edward Mastersons mill was recovered by John and Gerrard Alexander as this deponent understood inconsequence of the said line run by Jinnings.
… the Deponent saith that the settlement made by Dunghill and Thomas was several years before Robert Alexander grandfather to the defendant dyed.
… the deponent saith that he claimed the chain when Jinnings run Alexander’s line and saw no line trees untill they got up to Buckings below Brickings Branch but when the surveyor turned and run towards Potomack River they saw a marked tree or trees which they took little notice of saying they were _________,
… he saith the long course stopped below Brickings Branch and then run below the said Buckings Branch down to the river below the mouth of the Wankapin Branch.
… this deponent saith that some time before old Robert Alexander’s death there stood a house above where John George Boucher lives and on the same plantation and James Ball was put into the said house by Alexander as this deponent understood.
… and Awbrey procured a warrant and had a jury and Awbrey was put in possession and the said Ball turned out.
… and Awbrey continued in possession from that time.
… and the land was thought to be awbreys until Jennings survey and then Jennings took and included the land within Alexanders claim.
… and after the suit was tried in consequence of that survey the said Alexander got possession as the deponent believes.
… This deponent saith that he doth not remember that Robert Alexander attended at the time when Ball was turned out of possession and is almost certain that the said Alexander did not attend.
… the said deponent saith that he thinks that the suit brought and which occasioned Jennings survey was for Alexander to recover land which Awbrey held by purchase from Todd and this deponent further saith not.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 256-258. Fairfax Co, Va
1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Gerrard Trammell p. 301 (repeat of above)
1767 May 8 – Deposition of Owen Morris about 65 years of age (end of depo is signed Owen Roberts)
… being sworn deposeth that he heard John Ball, William Harding, Moses Ball and James Robertson say that the hicory where the surveyor began to survey was the beginning of Thomas and Todd’s pattent and in particular that he heard the said John Ball say so about 13 or 14 years ago that from the said corner hicory the surveyor run along a line of marked trees and found a marked corner Chestnut Oak and that in runing the second course he run through the plantation of William Butsfield and ended on the outside of his fence where the trees were cut down and stuck down a stake.
… and this deponent further says that James Robertson about 3 years ago recovered the said Butsfield’s plantation from Robert Alexander part of which said plantation is included in the survey now made by the Pltf for Thomas and Todd’s pattent.
… the deponent remembers that one Charles Story lived on the said plantation and if he was a tenant to any person this deponent thinks he must be a tenant to Gerrard Alexander and that from the north line to the said plantation is near a mile.
… that when Robertson recovered from Robert Alexander the said Alexander made no survey.
… the deponent also says that the marked corner white oak standing on the East side the lower long Branch was shewn this deponent by James Robertson as his beginning tree but this deponent does not remember ever to have heard whether it was or was not a corner of Thomas and Todd, but finding no corner where the stake was stuck down the surveyor went the last mentioned white oak and reversed two courses of Thomas and Todds pattent and came to the said stake.
… this deponent also attended when the defendant surveyed the North 17 degree west line from the hicory bush mentioned in Moses Balls depositions and found a thick line of marked trees as far as Four Mile Run which appeared to be antecedently marked and does not remember to have seen any tree in this line so small his thigh that was marked.
… This deponent being asked which was the most ancient marks the north or north 17 degree west line says he thinks no man can tell they both appear very ancient but this deponent see one tree upon the north line which appeared to marked long since the line in general. He allows there are more ancient marked trees upon the north 17 degree west line but that there are some trees upon the north line appear as old as any upon the north 17 degree west line. That in running the north line the surveyor stopt at the long branch and a marked corner hicory was discovered some distance to the left hand which the surveyor measured to and continuing the course a little further a white oak was found a little to the left hand marked as a corner which James Robertson agreed he marked as a direction to him how to take up land and from that white oak quite to the end of the course no line trees were found except a line of marked trees which this course crossed and which were allowed to marked for James Simmonds lease, but at the end of the course the surveyor came very near to a marked white oak, 3 chops on one side of this tree appeared fair and in the usual but if the other chops ever were marked on a survey they were not done in the usual manner, but this deponent thinks were done with a gouge and with a design to deface the said treee, but this deponent did not look quite round the tree and does not know whether it be a corner tree or not as this deponent see no marked trees leading from it untill the surveyor came to a large marked beech standing on a little run near the river.
… the deponent says that a water or Willow Oak which the surveyor measured to on this survey was shewn by Hugh West Sr now decd about 13 or 14 years ago as the beginning corner of Stephen Gray and that there was formerly a tree at the mouth of Rockey Run was deemed to be the beginning of Strutfields upper pattent and James Green lived near a mile to the westward of the north 6 degree west line run on this survey at the request of the Plaintiff the defendant also says that the line found on the North 6 degree west course is much younger than either of the other two back lines.
… and this deponent heard the present after John Alexander decd father to the present defendant to allow the said Alexander to go as far as the north 6 degree west line but the said Alexander refused it this offer was made upon a survey between Ramsay and the said Alexander
… and that near 40 years ago the stood a house where this deponent and Charles Griffith shewed the surveyor upon this survey upon the side of a hill but no person lived in it, and near that place there stands a house in which Robert King lived and in the land now cleared by the plaintiff above his mill there stood a hiccory marked which was cut down by this deponent or Thomas Talbut near upon the north 17 degree west line and not ver far from the tree reputed to be Stephen Grays beginning.
… being asked by the Plaintiff whether the river has not gained considerably upon the land he answers that so far as he attended the surveying the meanders of River which was as low as the mouth of Four Mile Creek the River has in some places gained and in some places lost but whether it has gained or lost most he cannot tell and further saith not.
Signed: Owen Roberts
Sworn to in the presence of the Pltf and of the Defts attorney this 8th day of May 1767 before Bryan Fairfax and William Eayner.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 289-268. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 June 1 – The Deposition of Thomas Coulter aged 65 years or thereabouts p. 274-276. (Deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index) … taken in the ejectment in Fairfax County Court between Charles Alexander Defendant and John Carlyle Plaintiff says he was born on the land of Robert Alexander grandfather of the Defendant and left the said land about 40 years ago but has always lived in the aforesaid County and within (according to his belief) 10 or 12 miles of this disputed land and has always understood that the beginning of said Robert Alexander’s land was near the Wankapin Branch
… and further the Deponent says he always understood from the old people ever since memory that from the beginning of Alexanders land aforesaid to where head corner of the said Alexander stood was two miles and better into the woods.
… he further says he knows where Chubb lived and that from where the said Chubb lived he has always understood from the old people particularly from the said Chubb it was near a mile or half a mile up Four Mile Run to Alexander’s back line.
… he further says he well knew one Stephen Gray and the said deponent says that Stephen Gray told him that he had taken up a tract of land on the back of Alexanders line.
… he further saith that he well knew one Rigbey who intermarried with Evan Thomas’s widow as this deponent understood.
… he further saith that to the best of his rememberance about 35 years ago more or less he was at the house of the said Rigbey and upon asking whose land it was he lived on he say that either the man or the woman answered it was Majr. Robert Alexander’s land who was grandfather to the present Defendant.
… he saith that he alwasy understood that Lilliard and Chubb were tenants to Alexander.
… and further saith that they lived on the lower side of the mouth of Long Branch.
… he further saith that Rigbey lived on the upper side of Four Mile Run.
… he further saith that old Chubb told him that from where he lived it was near a mile or half a mile up Four Mile Run to Alexanders back line.
… he further saith that old Chubb told him relitive to how far Alexander’s land run up Four Mile Run and that one old Thomas Clapham and old Ballenger who are now dead told him relative to the beginning of Alexander’s land these people he recollects to have mentioned the affairs but does not call to mind any other.
… He this deponent being interogated by the Plaintif saith he does not remember to have heard Chubb say that Alexanders back line run by the said Chubs house nor is he certain whether Chubb said it was a mile or half a mile to the back line from his house.
… he says he has heard that Evan Thomas took up land or bought land some where but thought it had been below Four Mile Run.
… he does not know what became of the said land.
… he never heard of Alexanders recovering any part of it being asked whether he knew that part of Thomas’s land was sold to Mr. Nathaniel Chapman says he knows nothing about it.
… he says he knew Thomas Whitford but does not know where he lived.
… he further says he heard there was a dispute between John Alexander and Awbrey since the death of old Majr. Robert Alexander, but does not know what it was about.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 274. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 June 2 – Deposition of Thomas Graford aged about 64 years p. 240-241 (Deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index, but there his name is Thomas Crawford) being sworn a witness … deposeth and saith.
… that about three or four and thirty years ago William Thomas who was said to be son of Evan Thomas then decd and one William _____ were making improvements upon Four Mile Run on a plantation and soon after one Rigby who had maryed Thomas’s widow and all the family came up there and lived and continued to live there untill Rigby run away.
… and after his running away Mrs Rigby continued to live on the same plantation and this deponent understood in conversation with William Thomas that his father Evan Thomas had devised the said land part to him and part to his other children.
… and the said children viz two daughters intermarried one with Robert King and the other with Thomas Whitford who lived upon the same tract of land part of which they respectively claimed in right of their wives as he heard from them.
… and Mrs Rigby King and Whitford continued to live upon this land several years.
… and this deponent as understood by them they looked upon the land as their own property and were not accountable to any person for rent.
… Being examined by the Defendant he says that the title house which he understood was built by Evan Thomas for his family to live in stood near the house the widow Rigby lived in.
… he says where Mastersons Mill stood is within about 100 yards of the two poplars on Four Mile Run.
… He says from where the Doctor’s tract emptys itself into Four Mile Run is near a mile up the said Run from the said poplars and further saith not.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 240. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 June 20 – Deposition of Michael Reagan p. 242 (deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index papers)
…this Deponent says he was told by Thomas and Todd and on Peter Guinn that the land belonged to them all three and this Deponent further saith that he allways undertood that the widow Thomas intermarried with one Rigbey and further saith not.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 242. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 June 29 – Deposition of William Gossom aged 69 years p. 239. (deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index)
… deposeth and saith that between 30 or 40 years ago Evan Thomas moved up and settled upon his land on Four Mile Run and built a small house for the reception of his family and dyed.
… and then this deponent went up and built a Tobacco house in which the said Thomas’s widow, who was this deponent’s sister, afterwards lived and married one Rigby.
… and this deponent’s sister continued to live on that plantation for several years.
… and that there was no settlement or improvements made on Thomas’s land before his settling there as above to the best of this deponents knowledge.
… and remembrance and during Mrs Rigby’s residence on the said plantation this deponent never heard of her meating with any interuption or having any dispute about her title.
… this deponent says one Doctor Dunghill claimed land out Thomas and Todd’s pattent about a mile above where Thomas had settled. That is to say about a mile higher up Four Mile Run. This land was claimed by the said Doctor by virtue of some contract with Todd as the deponent understood and further saith not.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 239. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 June 29 – Deposition of John Summers aged upwards of 70 years p. 250-253 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
… deposeth and saith that upwards of 30 years ago Evan Thomas came up and seated on Four Mile Run and on his own land as this deponent understood and soon died.
… and his widow and family came and lived on the same plantation for several years and held the land without any interruption.
… and about 2 or 3 and 20 years ago before which time Thomas Whitford and Robert King had intermarried with two of Thomas’s daughters and claimed part of the land.
… and when they were about to remove they sold the land they claimed to Mr. Hugh West for the use of Mr Nathaniel Chapman.
… this deponent says that he lived near where the Town of Alexandria is now situated many years ago. That is to say he settled there about 52 years ago and has never lived above seven or eight miles from the place ever since.
… and soon after he came up here to live he understood that Alexander’s back line crossed Four Mile Run very near Cubbs Mill and never heard that Alexanders claimed any further up Four Mile Run than Cubbs Mill untill the said Alexanders suit with Awbrey and others.
… he further says that the time he mentions above was sometimes called Alexanders back line and sometimes his North line.
… this deponent says Chubbs Mill was built by one Lilliard who died and Chubb married his widow and then the mill was called Chubbs mill.
… and both Lilliard and Chibbs were tenants to Alexander and lived on the East side the lower long branch.
… this deponent says that youn Lilliard near and on the upper west side of the long branch but lear’d no land except 100m for the house.
… and the said Lilliard lived there but a very short time.
… and this deponent never knew whether he paid rent to any person or no.
… this deponent believes he shewed the place or near it where the said house of young Lilliard stood to the surveyor on the survey between Alexander and Awbry.
… this deponent says that Doctor Dunghill was the first and Evan Thomas the second that settled on Four Mile Run above Four Mile Run above Chubbs mill and plantation.
… this deponent says that before the survey between Alexander and Awbrey which he attended he never knew that any person to the westward of the north line which run near Chubbs Mill ever was or acknowledged themselves tenants to Alexander.
… This deponent says that in making the survey of Simon Pearson’s land near where the Falls Church now stands he was with the surveyor and they began at a particular place and went round.
… and when the patent issued it called for a different beginning than that where the surveyor began.
… and this deponent says he understands that Alexander’s land runs as high up Potomack River as the Wankapin Branch.
… heard the Plaintiff say he would admit the said branch to be Alexanders beginning this deponent says on Jinnings survey the north line then appeared to be an old marked line.
… and this deponent follows the surveyor on this present survey along the said north line but saw no marked trees after the surveyor came to the white oak and hiccory till the end of the course and then ther was an old whit oak anciently marked on the south easterly side.
… the marks appeared regular like a land mark but the marks on the other side or sides of the said tree do not appear to be regularly marked as if done for a landmark nor can he tell whether the said tree was marked as a corner or not.
… The deponent says that he has heard the old neighbours say that Alexanders back line or north course run near Chubbs Mill and up the lower long branch.
… Being asked if he heard that old Marj Robert Alexander ever made a survey of his land answers that he never heard it to his knowledge for he removed from the River to the place where he now lives near 40 years ago which is seven or eight miles from the said back or north line tho its possible such survey might be made.
… and he not know it as he claimed no near it nor had any connection with any person concerned with it.
… he says he knows nothing of what happened relative to the disputed lands from 40 years ago till the dispute with Awbrey or that there was then any dispute about it.
… he does not remember whether the chops on the north line were closed up with the bark when Jinnings made his survey the deponent not expecting now to be asked such a question nor half the other questions that have this day been asked him.
… he further says that he saw no marked lines trees leading to or from the white oak at or near the head of the north line as he remembers.
… he also says that Chubbs Mill did not stand at the place the surveyor measured to but withon about 20 yards of it as well as he remembers and further saith not.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 250-253. Fairfax Co, Va
1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of John Summers aged 70 and upwards p. 303 (repeat of above)
1767 June 29 – Deposition of William Gladin aged near 77 years p. 263 (Deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index)
… deposeth and saith that when Howson’s patent was about to be divided that John and Gerrard Alexander in company with one Capt Berry about 25 years ago began at a hicory on Hunting Creek and run a line and marked as they run by which line then made the said land was divided between all the claimants.
… and this deponent then understood it was the back line of the pattent but it was not marked before tha time and further saith not.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 263. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 June 29 – Deposition of Moses Ball aged about 50 years p. 276-281 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
… being sworn deposeth that the hicory corner shewn the surveyor on this survey as the beginning of Thomas and Todd was shewn to this deponent by his brother John Ball as such beginning upwards of 20 years ago, and the said hiccory has been generally allowed to be such beginning.
… this deponent never heard it objected to altho he cannot recollect the names of many persons who called it Thomas and Todds beginning.
… the Defendant himself admitted it upon this survey.
… the deponent also says that a marked white oak on the east side of the lower long branch taken notice of by the surveyor was shewn as the beginning of James Robertson by Capt John Minor now decd near 20 years ago and the reason of its being shewn the said Minor was about to make survey for Ralleigh Downman who claimed land out of Robertson’s pattent and this deponent himself shewed the said tree when Robertson made his survey with Robert Alexander about 4 or 5 years ago and the surveyor then procured to survey from it and the survey answered very well altho there was no line trees nor corner found until they came to the Doctors Branch or upper long branch where they came to a hiccory and two white oaks marked as a corner.
… when the surveyor set of from Hunting Creek to run the north or northerly lien of Howsons Pattent he run from a hicory bush some distance and then angled to a marked white oak
… and in running the said lien on this survey it came in dispute about the age of it and one William Greenwood said that a tree which the company then stood by appeared to be as old marked as the marks on the North 17 degree line …
… this deponent knows that Evan Thomas settled on Four Mile Run not as a tenant to any person but on lands supposed to be his own and at this deponent believes at his death the said Thomas devised it to among his children and his widow and the said children enjoyed the said land without interruption until the sold it to Mr Hugh West for the use of Mr Nathaniel Chapman.
… and this deponent never knew or hear that the Alexanders claimed land to the westward of their north line untill their dispute with Awbrey and that no person before that dispute who lived to the westward of the said north line ever acknowledged themselves as tenants to the said Alexander to this deponents knowledge.
… he further sayd that he well remembers that Mr Sebastian atty for the Plaintiff waid that there was just below a gut in Gerrard Alexanders Island a knotty poplar that about 30 years ago stood within about 10 or 11 yards from the River Bank and when the surveyor came to the place there was a polar … which was cut down.
… the deponent says that he once see Chubb in the house on the west side the long branch but does not know whether he lived there or not, this deponent never being there at any other time.
…. the deponent says he did not know Evan Thomas as he died so very soon after he came up here to settle.
… the deponent also says that he always understood that the tree mentioned in the survey as a corner to Thomas and Todd and admitted the Plaintiff was likewise the beginning of Robertsons land which land or part of it the said Robertson had sold to one Downman to which tree the surveyor angled to from the north course.
…. he further sayd that from Stephen Grays beginning up the run to Doctor Dunghills place was half a mile or better to the westward of said tree and nearer a mile than half a mile.
… Phillip Alexander atty for the Deft objected to Moses Ball’s relating in this deposition whatever William Greenwood said as Greenwood will be sworn himself and further saith not.
Signed: Moses Ball
This witness has attended 18 days. Fairfax. The above deposition was taken and sworn to in the presents of the parties this 29th day of June 1767. Certified under our hands. John West. Charles Broadwater.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 276-281. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 June 30 – Deposition of Osborn Talbot aged 43 years p. 270-273 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
… in an ejectment in Fairfax County Court between John Carlyle Pltf and Charles Alexander Deft sayd as he and Richard Wheeler were crossing Brichings Branch and had ascended the hill that the said Richard Wheeler upon being asked by the said Talbert on whose land they were answered on old Robert Alexander’s and that the corner tree of the said Robert Alexander’s land stood about 30 or 40 yards from a stake now stuck up at the intersection of the Defendants North 17 degree west course and East course and that the said tree was at the same time lying down as he was told by the said Wheeler but did not go see the tree the stup and part of the body to be seen as Wheeler said this conversation happened between 19 or 20 years ago.
… to have seen but one young thriving tree on the Defts back line which was a gum said by Owen Morris a corner of Townshend Dade’s land.
… the line run which goes near the place shewn to be where Chub Mill stood … above Four Mile Run
… Col Eartyle asked James Robertson whether he knew anything of the marking of the afsd white oak and the said James Robertson answered that he marked the said white oak in order to take up land
… he saw no marked trees except the line trees of Robertson’s land and line trees of Simmons’ lease as called so by Mr Sebastian
… he remembers on 3 sides and believes it was marked with a narrow ax which said tree Mr Sebastian to the best of his remembrance said was a corner tree of John Awbrey’s land and that the letters IA were on the tree
… reexamined by the Plaintiff says he lived in Maryland and about 19 or 20 years ago came over to Virginia to Henry Brents to work and about mid summer on returning to Maryland had lost himself and had taken a path to the Falls of Potomack instead of turning down to Rock Creek and met one Richard Wheeler and asked him if he was in the right road to Rock Creek who answered no, but said he could put the deponent in the say on his return and the deponent went with him along as the Falls Road goes now and the deponent was then informed by Wheeler that Alexander’s corner was at a place he then pointed to about 30 or 40 yards of the place where the stake now stands in Jennings cornfield that it was about 12 or 14 years after that before he came to Virginia to reside during which time the deponent did not go by this place again but used to go direct road to Rock Creek …
Signed: Osborn Talbot
This witness has attended for 13 days.
Fairfax. June 30 1767 this day the above witness was sworn in the presence of the parties and examined before us. John West, Charles Broadwater
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 270-273. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 July 1 – Deposition of Sampson Darrell High Sheriff of Fairfax County aged 55 p. 292-294 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
… says that he saw the north 17 west line run by the Defendant and says that it was very antiently and regularly marked as far as Four Mile Run and that he saw only two antiently marked above Four Mile Run on the afsd course one of which was a Spanish Oak some distance below the stake stuck up on this survey which the said deponent says was marked fore and aft and was near the line …
… he does not think that the white oak that Greenwood shewed him which the said Greenwood told him was a tree at the head of the North 2 1/2 course which tree Greenwood told him that same of the company looked upon to be marked ever had an edge tool in it …
… he was particularly duced to take notice of the said tree by Philip Alexander attorney for the defendant.
… he does not remember who to be one of James Robertsons line of trees
…. the surveyor had passed the said tree and was called back by the Defendant he thinks near a quarter of a mile and he thinks the surveyor angled to the said tree. He further saith not.
Signed: Sampson Darnell
Attended one day. July the 1st 1767. This deposition was taken in the presence of the parties and sworn to before us. John West, Charles Broadwater.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 292-294. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 July 1 – Deposition of William Green aged 33 years p. 243-250 (Deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index, but name is William Greenwood)
The deoposition of William Green aged 33 years taken between Charles Alexander Deft and John Carlyle Plt in the present ejectment pending in Fairfax Court …
… saith that has understood that his father lived on the now disputed land about 45 years ago as he hath understood and he well remembers to have heard his father say that the Wankapin Branch was either the beginning or ending of Alexander’s land
… he this deponent further saith that Mr Carlyle and Mr Sebastian admitted that the hicory bush from where the Defendant began to run his back course was the corner of one of Alexander’s courses.
… he this deponent remembers to have seen many very ancient marked trees on the Deft back course as far as Four Mile Run and does not remember to have seen any above Four Mile Run except two one of which Mr Benjamin Sebastian Attorney for the Plaintiff said if it was a marked tree, it was marked with a howell and the other was admitted by some of the company to be a marked tree, but the bark being by some accident pulled off the other then the company disputed whether it was marked or not, but this deponent doth not think that they were marked as a land mark.
… He this deponent further saith that many of the trees on that course were rotten and many of their tops blown off which he thinks proceeded from age.
… he this deponent further saith that on the said course above Four Mile Run there is a very ancient Spanish Oak marked a little below the stake stuck in Jennings old corn field.
… he further says that there is another very ancient marked tree not noted by the surveyor but discovered since the survey as a side line between the afsd parties oak and the stake stuck in Jennings corn field.
… he further says that the Old Spanish Oak above mentioned was marked as near before and aft as many other trees on the said back line.
… he likewise remembers that it appeared to be marked at the same time and with the same instrument as the other trees on the said back line which appeared to be marked with a very large ax.
… he likewise remembers that from the stake in Jennings cornfield the deponent desired the surveyor to run a course to the Wankapin Branch and well remembers that in that course soon after they left the cornfield they fell on several very ancient marked trees which appeared to be marked about the same time and with the same instrument, towit a large ax as the trees were marked on the Defendant’s back course
… this deponent likewise remembers that the Plaintiff made several attempts to take the Old Spanish marked oak from the Defendants back course by running other peoples courses.
… he likewise remembers that the course of Robertson’s patent run in order to take away the Spanish Oak fell short a considerable distance.
… he likewise remembers that after the course expired the Plaintiff desired the surveyor to continue the course till he came to the Spanish Oak which the surveyor did.
… he well remembers that the surveyor when he came opposite to the Spanish Oak the said Spanish Oak was a considerable distance to the right hand of the Surveyor.
… he this deponent further saith that the trees marked on Robertson’s course from the pond appeared to be marked with a very small ax or Tomahawk (as the Plaintiff Mr Carlyle admitted on the survey.
… he further says that he thinks that the Spanish Oak above mentioned rather belonged to the Defendant’s back course than to Robertson’s line as a corner for these reasons for that the trees marked on Robertson’s course with a very small as and the said Spanish Oak with a large ax and for another reason that if the said tree belonged to Robertson as a corner he thinksit would be marked as such for another reason because the trees during the survey was on the surveyors left hand and that old Spanish Oak was when Robertson’s course was run a considerable distance to the right hand of the surveyor
… and he further says that Mr Carlyle mentioned that that tree must be the corner of Robertson’s for that there were three Spanish Oaks.
… he this deponent remembers it was observed by the company that that could be no inducement for that there were many places that had Spanish Oaks not only where the marked Spanish Oak stood but likewise where Robertson’s course expired.
… he likewise remembers that the said Spanish Oaks were no ways near together.
… he remembers that neither of the other trees were marked only a tear on one of them which he does not know whether it was done with an ax or not.
… he this deponent further says that he well remembers that the Plaintiff began to run aa course from the afst hicory bush (which was admitted by Mr Carlyle to be one of the courses of the Defendant’s course) which course they said run a north course and continued to run some distance into the woods and no marked trees till on John West directed the surveyor to angle to a tree about 40 yards on the right hand of the surveyor.
… he this deponent further says that from that tree he heard John West desire the surveyor to alter his course which he this (Deponent understood was done) from that which he first begun and continued the altered course entirely through.
… he further says that or this altered coures he remembers to have seen many marked trees till they came to a corner hicory and a corner white oak a little above the said corner hicory.
… he further says that from the said hicory and white oak to the expiration of the altered course which is near 2 miles he saw no other marked tree except some which crossed the line and were admitted by Sebastian attorney for the Plaintiff to be the line trees of one Simmons.
… he further says that he is satisfied that the trees on the altered course had no connection with the course they first set out with and that if they had continued their first course the surveyor would have crossed the line or altered course reversed and it did not go to the bush the Plaintiff first begun at.
… he this deponent further says that he was particularly desired to take notice of the trees on the altered course which he this deponent did.
… he remembers in particular that the trees on the altered course did not appear any ways so ancient as the trees on the back line claimed by the defendant.
… he this deponent well remembers there was not one youn thriving tree on the defendants back line except one gum which was said by some of the company to be a corner to Townsend Dade’s land as laid off by the Alexanders ….
Signed: William Greenwood
The above deposition was taken and sworn to in presnce of the parties July 1, 1767 before John West, Charles Broadwater.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 243. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 July 1 – Deposition of Robert Boggess Sr aged 61 years p. 254-256 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
… in an Ejectment in Fairfax County Court between Charles Alexander Deft and John Carlyle Plaintiff … John Awbery sent for this deponent on his death bed to take care of his daughter and his estate and further told this deponent that there was likly to be a suit or that there was one between him and the Alexanders relating to the bounds of their lands and told him this deponent to spare no pains or money in order to support the suit and that there was an old corner tree of the Alexanders near Brechins Branch and line which he said was either down or rotten and that he was afraid the Alexanders would be able to prove the said corner tree and likewise told him at the same time that if the Alexanders should prove that corner tree he should lose the land where Woodridge lived at…
… the same time he mentioned something about Todds land but the said deponent does not recollect what he this deponent says
… that one James Robertson also told him that the Alexanders corner tree was near Breechings Branch but that the tree was rotten and that they could not prove it. This conversation he the said deponent happened between him and Robertson a little after the death of the said John Awbrey
… he this deponent says he was induced to ask this question of Robertson in order to see how the title of Awbreys land were but the deponent says in finding the wife of Awbrey afsd a bad woman he declined being concerned with the Estate.
… the deponent further says that one Richard Wheeler was an old stander and lived on the Alexanders land as he was informed, he says that in the time of William Payne was Sheriff, Gerrard Alexander offered him 10 pounds to procure a writ of adquoddamnum to dock the intail of the said Alexanders land. The writ was procured and this deponent attended and a jury was summoned and met at Chapmans Quarter but went to the Eastward towards the River about one, two or three hundred yards to be upon the land which he was informed was the Alexanders by Mr Sebastian before they swore.
… he sais that Richard Sturman summoned attended and swore the jury and Gerrard Alexander gave the deponent a double loon for his trouble and John Alexanders name at his request was inserted in the writ.
… he does not remember whether the writ was filed up or remained blank
… as to the quantity of acres of land he does not remember any line being shewn
… he knows that Watson kept a store at Wheelers where the said Wheeler was a tenant to Alexander as the deponent has been informed.
… he the said deponent does not remember to have heard a word about Alexanders back line being in or near the place where the jury was sworn and further says he told the jury after they had valued the land that they had valued it too low for that he had land about that place and should get little for it but what he then said was out of a jake for he had no title to any land near that place or any dispute about any
… this deponent says he was not employed by Alexander to deceive or impose upon the jury as to the value of the land but he understood that Mr Sebastian was to pilot the jury.
… and further saith not.
Signed: Robert Bogges.
July 1, 1767 this deposition was taken in the presence of the parties and by consent before me. Charles Broadwater
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 254-256. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 July 1 – Deposition of John Frizzell aged 41 years p. 288 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
… was chain carrier on a survey made by John Mauzey for John Alexander father to the present Defendant and that the said Mauzey began to survey a course which run about a quarter of a mile above where the Masterson’s Mill stoood and continued the same course very near to the place where the stake is now stuck up in Jinnings Corn Field … they found an old tree lying on the ground rotten which tree the said Mauzzey and company supposed to be the corner tree of the aforesaid course as the number of poles there ended … (down to the Wankapin Branch) … at the same time that he was at law with Awbrey and that he made the survey in order to see how his land laid and that the said Alexander said if he lost the dispute in the Country he would appeal to England the said deponent says that the survey was made 18 years ago this Fall coming … the tree was entirely rotten … the company conceited of the said surveyor John Alexander, Joe Bowling and one Savin whom he understood was an overseer to the said John Alexander he says he does not believe that there were any other people there tho there might possibly be and he does not remember to have seen any line trees on that survey …
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 288. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 July 26 – Deposition of Guy Broadwater aged 90 years (Deposition in Virginia Chancery Index – missing in Fairfax Book – likely was on one of the missing pages of that book)
… saith that about 40 odd years ago as well as this deponent remembers Majr Robert Alexander came up with on Joe Berry in order to survey as he was informed by old John Straughan.
… and this deponent further saith that several years afterwards one old James Robertson desired him to survey a piece of land agreeable to a warrant and carried him this deponent into the woods to an old marked line tree which Robertson told him was on the North line as mentioned in Alexanders patent.
… and he this deponent saith he run the course agreeable to the warrant and saw no marked trees, he remembers he desired the said Robertson to mark the aforesaid tree as a corner, but does not remember whether he did or not.
… he likewise remembers that Robertson told him that notwithstanding Alexanders patent called for a north course still the said Alexander claimed north 14 west.
… He this deponent further saith that he has always heard that Alexanders beginning was at Wankapin Branch.
… He this deponent further saith that he has heard it sid in the neighbourhood that one Thomas Brummit son in law to old James Robertson burnt down a corner tree of Breckins land.
… He this deponent further saith that he understood the said land that Robertson desired him to survey was afterwards sold by the said Robertson to one Dowman and afterwards was got by the said Robertson from Dowman again.
1767 – Townshend Dade called to give evidence, objected p. 261
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 261. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 Sept 25 – Deposition of Francis Awbrey aged 54 p. 261-263 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
… taken between Charles Alexander Deft and John Carlyle Pltf in the present Ejectment.
… this deponent being first sworn saith that he was summoned for the Plaintiff in the present ejectment but after some conversation had passed between the Deponent and the said Carlyle he the said Carlyle discharged him.
… he further saith that his brother John Awbrey and they were crossing Brickings Branch where the Road to the Falls from Alexanders now crosses and his brother told him then that Alexander’s line crossed the branch where the said Road does and at the same time pointed to a tree and told him that was one of them.
… he further says that his brother John Awbrey confessed there was an agreement between Thomas and Todd, towit that Thomas was to have the lower part and Todd to have the upper part of that tract of land which lies above Four Mile Run but that division was not according to law he would not stand to it.
… he further says that he has heard it frequently said and does believe that Todd settled the upper part in consequence of that agreement above confessed by his this deponents brother.
… he further saith that he does not recollect to have heard anybody mention that Alexanders corner stood above Brickings Branch but Robert Boggess.
… and that not till he the said Robert Boggess was sworn in the present dispute that the way that John Awbrey confessed there was some agreement relative to a division between Thomas and Todd was in a dispute between John Awbrey and one Thomas Whitford who claimed part under Thomas by marriage of one of his daughters and wanted the said Awbrey to agree to a division but Awbrey said he would have the whole land as it had never been divided according to law.
… he further says that he ahs heard and does believe that in consequence of the division Todd sold one Dr. Dunghill who settled the upper part.
Signed: Francis Awbrey
This witness attended one day traveled from Loudoun 42 miles.
This deposition was taken in the presence of the Plaintiff and Phillip Alexander attorney for the Defendant, but John Carlyle the Plaintifff reserved leave to accept to the same at the trial certified under our hands this 25 day September 1767. John West, Charles Broadwater
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 261-263. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 Sept 25 – Deposition of Francis Ballenger aged 50 years p. 268-269 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
… taken between Charles Alexander Deft and John Carlyle Pltf in the present ejectment ..
… being first sworn saith he was born on the land of the Alexanders and has lived in the County ever since.
… he further saith that one old James Simmons that served his time with old Robert Alexander grandfather to the present defendant and one old William Griffin who are both dead told him about 36 years ago that the corner to the said Alexander’s land stood above Brichens Branch on a level piece of ground and now from there to the mouth of the Wankapin branch.
… and further saith that the said William Griffin was an Overseer for the said Robert Alexander and some time after he was Overseer he seated a place a little below the mouth of the Wankapin Branch as a tenant to the afsd Robert Alexander between 30 and 40 years ago.
… he further saith that he well remembers where one Chubb and Lilliard lived and that they were tenants to the said Robert Alexander
… he further saith that Chub lived on the lower side and Lilliard on the uppers side of the long branch very near the place where he this deponent shewed on Gerrard Bolling
… he further saith that there was an old house on the side of a hill on the same side of the Branch where Lilliard lived before a certain Evan Thomas settled that place.
… he further saith that the said house stood very near the place which this deponent shewed Gerrard Bolling
… he further saith that in them days there was no tenants quite up to Brichins Branch (except where Chapmans Quarter is) but what he always w informed were Alexanders tenants.
… he further saith that he has heard the old standards say that when Alexanders land was run out it would take in the place where Chapmans Quarter was.
… he likewise has heard the old people say that a certain old Francis Awbrey had taken up land inside of the said Alexander’s land.
… he further says that in some short time after Evan Thomas sent up his people to settle that place above Four Mile Run he heard that old Robert Alexander grandfather to the present defendant was dead.
… being asked by the Plaintiff he further saith he never heard any of the old people say ALexanders line run by old Chubs Mill.
This witness attended one day.
Signed: Francis Ballenger
The above deposition was taken in presents of the Plft and Phillip Alexander atty for the Deft this 25 day of Sept 1767. Certified under our hands. John West, Charles Broadwater
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 268-269. Fairfax Co, Va
1767 Sept 25 – Deposition of Ferdenand ONeal aged 50 years p 289-291 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
… saith that he lived upon the now disputed land above Four Mile Run three years with one Whitford about 25 years ago … the said Whitford and one King who claimed part of the land in the dispute many times say that they were afraid the Alexanders would come in upon them they likewise told him that one old James Robertson had distroyed the corner tree of the said Alexanders land above Brickings Branch … the told him it was in order to secure a tract of land which he the said Robertson sold to one Downman … they told him that Alexanders would take away Chapmans quarter when ever he surveyed … that the said Whitford and King told him that when the heard the Alexanders were about to bring suits against the Awbreys and others that they were afraid that the Alexanders would find out that old James Robertson had distroyed their corner tree above Brichings Branch and that if they the said Alexanders did find it out they would take away part of their land … the said Whitford and king told him … they sold their land to old Hugh West (who is dead as he this deponent is informed) that the reason that induced them to sell to the said West was that they were afraid the Alexanders would find out the distruction of the above mentioned corner tree above Brichings Branch … they Whitford and King should loose part of their land … some short time after … West purchased from the said Whitford and King for Nathaniel Chapman … he carried the chain when Jinnings made the survey between the Alexanders and Awbreys and begun at a Hicory Stump shown by one Thomas West and Run a line which crossd the mouth of the Long Branch that goes into Four Mile Run … the company agreed that the markd trees on the said line belonged to old Francis Awbrey’s line … about 21 years ago … West bought the land of Whitford and King also the Long Branch mentioned … emptied itself in Four Mile Run some small distance above where one Chub and a Mill as the company said … witness travelled from Loudoun County 40 miles.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 289-291. Fairfax Co, Va
1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Jeremiah Hamton aged 50 or upwards p. 294-299 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
… says that there was a house westward of the mouth of the long branch that empties itself in Four Mile Run near Chibbs Mill and that he was informed that one Lilliard lived in the said house as a tenant to Robert Alexander grandfather to the present Charles Alexander.
… that William Thomas son of Evan Thomas and himself this deponent were waiting one day near the house one day where Lilliard lived and the deponent says that the said William Thomas told him at the same time that the said Robert Alexander had settled Lilliard in the said house as a tenant to him the said Robert Alexander but the deponent says that William Thomas told him that he claimed the land on which the said house stood and as the said Lilliard was gone he would take possession of the said house and would be bound that said Alexander should never have another tenant there
… The deponent says that William Thomas told him that Robert Alexander grandfather to the defendant had settled Lilliard in the afsd house as a tenant to him before Evan Thomas’ family had settled on Four Mile Run.
… the deponent says that William Thomas claimed part of the land in dispute.
… the deponent says that one old Richard Wheeler who is dead told him that one James Robertson had persuaded him to take up land on the long branch which he the said Wheeler said he was afreaid to take up as he understood that Majr Alexander’s land cornered above Brichins Branch
… the deponent further says that Wheeler told him that he applied to the said Alexander to know whether he would be safe in taking up land on the long branch afsd and the deponent says the said Alexander told him he would not be safe as his line went above Brichins Branch.
… deponent says that Wheeler told him that Robertson took up the said land afterwards that he the said Robertson wanted him to take up
… the deponent says that he carried the chain in the dispute between the Awbreys and the Alexanders and that one John Minor decd shewed a hole near Hunting Creek (where the said hicory had grown) as the corner of Alexander’s land and from the said hold the surveyor ran a line which ended above Brichins Branch and from the said hole there were many antient marked trees as high up as Four Mile Run
… the deponent says that both Mauzy and Jennings surveyed the Alexanders land and that he does not recollect which of the two surveyed when these two marked were found westward of the branch afsd calle Brichins
… Richard Wheeler shewed a lying down tree near the mouth of Wankapin Branch and nearly opposite the lower end of Mason’s Island … Wheeler told him he had been shewn by Chapman as the beginning of Alexanders land
… the Alexanders and Dade’s made a division and that he understood from Gerrard Alexander and Townshend Dade that the said division was to be void in case they establishe the north 17 degree west line but that the division was to be binding if they were confined to the line they divided by
… Joseph Berry surveyor divided the land and that when the division was made the Alexanders had brought suit to establish the said north 17 degree west line or that they intended to bring suit.
… he believes the lien the Dades and Alexanders divided by went by the name of the North 6 degree west
… soon after he came up to live here that the Awbreys had taken up land and that he saw some marked trees on the lower side of Four Mile Run near Chibbs Mill which marked trees he the deponent was told were Awbreys trees.
… he came into these parts about 34 years ago and that he does not know who carried the chain with him when Minor shewed the afsd hold at which time he says Jennings was the surveyor.
… he heard the Defendants admit that when Mauzey surveyed it was a private survey.
… the division between the Dades and Alexanders was made to the best of his knowledge the Spring after the hard winter.
… he heard some say that the line trees below Brichins when Jennings surveyed the land were Strutfields trees and other said they were Alexanders
Signed: Jeremiah Hampton
This witness attended two days and travelling from Loudoun fifty miles
Fairfax. This deposition was taken in presents of the parties the 9th day of April 1768.
Certified under our hands. John West, William Adams
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 294-299. Fairfax Co, Va
1768 Apr 9 – deposition of David Thomas aged 70 odd p. 299-301: (1771 Howson Patent litigation, Carlysle v. Alexander) The deposition of David Thomas aged seventy odd taken in an ejectment depending in the county court of Fairfax between John Carlyle Gent Plt and Charles Alexander Deft.
He this depont being sworn for the Deft says that John Lilliard lived westward of the mouth of long branch that empties itself into four mile run near Chubb Mill and that he settled that place about forty odd years ago. He further says that Lilliard told him that when he did pay rent he was to pay it to Majr. Robert Alexander grandfather to the present Charles Alexander for the house and plantation he held westward of the mouth of long branch aforesaid.
The deponent further says that there was a house on the side of a hill to the westward of Lilliards tenement in which house one Vines lived forty odd years ago. The deponent says that Lilliards tenement and Vines’s were settled seven or eight years before Evan Thomas’ family settled on four mile run the deponent says that one John Wilcoxon came over from Maryland about forty five or six years ago with an intention of taking up land and he remembers that one old Benjamin Talbert used to be often at captain Simon Pearsons about the time that Wilcoxon came over to take up land.
The deponent says that he heard the said Pearson tell one Going that he had been taking up land which he thought had been taken up before, the said Thomas Going having first told Pearson that he the said Going had been taking up land. The deponent further says that Evan Thomas’s family’s plantation and Vines’s plantation were different plantations and were some distance apart. The deponent being asked by the Plt whether he knew that the land Going had been taking up was in that neighborhood answers he does not know.
Being asked further by the Plt whether Lilliard paid rent to Robert Alexander says he does not know for that Lilliard run away a year or two after he had settled on the aforesaid plantation. He further says that Thomas’s family were not interrupted as he knows of after their settlement on four mile run and that he understood by the said family’s conversation that they pretended to hold as far as the long branch. The deponent further says that he knows nothing about Lilliards paying rent to Robert Alexander, only what Lilliard himself told this deponent about the affair and further saith not.
This witness attended two days; Fairfax Sct; This deposition was taken in the presence of the parties this 9th April 1768 certified under our hands. ; John West and Wm. Adams.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 299-301. Fairfax Co, Va
1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Benjamin Talbert aged 65 p. 303-310 (1771 Howson Patent litigation, Carlysle v. Alexander)
The Deposition of Benjamin Talbert aged 65 or thereabouts taken in an Ejectment between John Carlyle, Gent Plaintiff and CHarles Alexander Defendant in the present Ejectment pending in the County Court of Fairfax.
– The Deponent being first sworn for the Defendant says that about 46-47 years ago he and one John Wilcoxon came over into Virginia and that the said Wilcoxon came over with an intetion of taking up land on the River and he applied to Capt Simon Pearson to shew him the back line of Robert Alexanders land grandfather to the present Defendant.
– The Deponent says at the same time towit about 46-47 years ago the said Pearson carried Wilcoxon and this Deponent to a hicory tree on Hunting Creek and told them that said Hiccory Tree was a corner tree of the said Alexanders land from which hiccory tree the Deponent says Pearson carried them at the same time along a line of antient marked trees untill they came opposite to the place where James Green lives and to the westward of the said Green’s place and told them that the said line was the Back line of the aforesaid Robert Alexander.
– The Deponent says that Pearson told them when he stopt shewing the said line that the said line ran a mile further to a bounded white oak over Brichins’ Branch and that he said the said Alexanders held to that line.
– The Deponent says that Pearson told them that from the said white oak the line run to the Wankapin Branch.
– The Deponent says that in going up the line Pearson shewed, they saw a line which crossed the said line shewed by Pearson and that Pearson told them that the said line which crossed the aforesaid back line belonged to one William Strutfield and that the said Strutfield had run a small part of his land inside of Alexander’s land which part the said Pearson said the said Strutfield must lose.
– The Deponent says that Alexanders back line as shewed by Pearson was older marked than Strutfield’s line which crossed Alexander’s back line and that Alexander’s line was marked with a larger tool.
– The Deponent says that Pearson offered to shew the said bounded tree over Brichins Braanch to Wilcoxon but Wilcoxon would not go any farther than opposit to where James Green now lives.
– The Deponent says about a year before Pearson shewed the aforesaid back line one Francis Ballenger who is now dead was with this deponent looking for their horses and they came across a line tree and afterwards one or two more all standing on the same line Pearson had shewn him afterwards and that the said Ballenger told them that the said line was the back line of Alexanders land and that the said line ran over Brichins Branch to a corner tree as he had been informed.
– He further says that one James Going and Gabriel Adams came out as Pearson was shewing Willcoxon and told him the said back line and he remembers that Going at the same time agreed that Robert Alexander held to the back line which Pearson was showing. But he was of opinion that as Alexander held two or three thousand acres more than his papers called for, the said Alexander would not be allowed to hold more than his papers mentioned.
– He remembers that Gabriel Adams likewise agreed that Alexander held to the said back line at the same time.
– He remembers at a muster it was disputed whether Alexander would be allowed to hold to the aforesaid back line and some were of opinion that Alexander would be allowed to hold to the said line and others were not, as it gave Alexander more land than his papers mentioned.
– He says that Tom Going confessed that Robert Alexander held to the said line but he was opinion that he would not be allowed to hold ore than his papers mentioned.
– The Deponent says that James Going told Pearson of it had not been for the speeches and Pearson and some of the neighbors concerning the back line of Alexander they would not have sold their rights, this conversation he says happened some years after Pearson shewed the aforesaid back line.
– And he remembers that Going asked Pearson how he came to possess himself of some of the same kind of land and Pearson told him that he was safe in purchasing as the mann was able to make him whole in case it should be taken from him.
– The Deponent says he heard Pearson says in taking up some land he has crossed the back line he shewed of Robert Alexander and had taken up a small quantity inside of the said back line which part he expected to lose.
– the Deponent says that when the conversation happened between Pearson and Going, Pearson told Going there was a difference between taking up and purchasing and Going told Pearson that if he had known as much before as he did now he would not have sold his right.
– The Deponent says that it was agreed by every person about 46 or 47 years ago that Robert Alexander held to the line Pearson shewed Wilcoxon but the dispute was about the quantity which the said Alexander held more than his papers mentioned.
– The Deponent says that Stephen Gray who is dead carried him about 44 years ago to a Red Oak opposite to the lower end of Masons Island formerly called My Lords Island and told him the said Red Oak was the beginning tree of Alexanders land and desired him to go with him the said Gray in quest of the said bound tree at Alexanders land which Gray told this Deponent stood above Brichens Branch as he had been informed by all the old neighbours.
– The Deponent says Gray told him he had a warrant to take up some land and did not care to lay his warrant until he knew the bounds of Robert Alexander’s land.
– The Deponent says Gray and he went up a line of antient marked trees which line of antient marked trees he says Gray told him he had been shewn in places as high up as the said branch as the bounds of Alexanders land and that after they crossed Brichens Branch they saw two antient marked trees which appeared to be marked like the rest of the trees they saw in coming up.
– And the Deponent says Gray told him he had never been shewn the line higher than Brichens Branch but all the old people agreed that the said line ran above Brichen Branch to a bounded white oak.
– The deponent says he went to Thomas Going the day after Gray and he had been looking for the said bound tree which bound tree the Deponent says Gray and he could not find and upon his describing the place where they had looked for the said bound tree Going told him he had come damnable near to it and that he was surprised Gray and he did not find it and that if Gray would give him a Black Horse he possessed he would shew him the said bound tree which bound tree the deponent says the said Going told him this deponent stood above Brickens Branch.
– The Deponent says he told Thomas Going he was apprehensive the said bound tree was down and Going told him that it was not, for that he had seen the said bound tree above Brichens Branch about 10 days before and had his hand on it.
– The Deponent says he saw about 30 large odd years ago some marked trees that were on the line run from the hicory on the long branch by Mr George West Surveyor in the present dispute. He saith that at that time the bark had not grown any that was perceivable.
– He further saith that at the time he saw the trees he asked a man who lived over the Branch in the Old Fields near Chubb Mill who had been Running Land and the man answered that the Awbreys had been runing land a day or two.
– He further saith that Tom Going the day after Gray and this Deponent had been looking for the said corner told him he could find it the Darkest night that was.
– He further saith that the man who lived in the old field told him that he supposed the Awbreys had been marking the trees.
– He further saith that he has been in this place near 50 odd years.
– He further saith that the trees on the line shewn by Capt Pearson was marked, but sparingly above Four Mile Run, but thick marked below Four Mile Run.
– He further saith being asked by the Plaintiff that the trees spoken of as Awbreys Trees he took to be the same for that before George West run the line from the Hicory, he shewed some of the company on the survey the said trees which he had seen before.
– He says that the man told him that the Awbreys had been marking lived about a quarter of a mile above the lower ford of Four Mile Run and to the Eastward of the long branch.
– He further saith that he was not acquainted with Chubb or Lilliard.
– He further saith that he was acquainted with one King who lived not far from Four Mile Run, and no other person near the said Run.
– He further saith that he has lived in the neighborhood about 8 years but has been acquainted in the neighborhood 50 odd years and lived about a mile and a half from the disputed land on the Maryland side and opposite to the land of the Alexanders.
– He further says being asked by the Plaintiff that he frequently came over from Maryland to Virginia and before he was married and not so often since which time of marriage was about 47 years ago & further saith not.
Signed: Benjamin Talbert.
This witness attended two days.
Fairfax. This Deposition was taken in presence of the parties the 9th day of April 1763. Certified under our hands.
Signed: John West, William Adams.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 303-310. Fairfax Co, Va
1768 June 11 – Deposition of Benjamin Sebastian aged 62 p. 314-328 (1771 Howson Patent litigation, Carlysle v. Alexander)
… in the year 1731 he was imployed by Majr Robert Alexander grandfather to the Defendant to live in his Island as his overseer being the Island now held by Mr Phillip Alexander and this deponent lived there that year and was also imployd by the said Robert to receive his rents which the deponent did as far as lay in his power agreeable to a list delivered him by said Robert the names of the tenants being Judith Ballenger, James Going, Sarah Young, Sarah Amos below Four Mile Creek and Edward Chubb, Richard Middleton, William Boylstone, John Straughan, Adam Straughan, Edward Earpe and Richard Wheeler above the said creek where were all the tenants then living on the said Alexanders tract of land the bounds of which is now in dispute …
… as well as this deponent can remember that there was not at that time one tenant or house to the westward of the North line run on this survey except one small logd house side to be built by one John Lilliard who wa son-in-law to Chubb and before that time had lived with the said Chubb as this deponent understood by the neighbours …
… Deponent knows not where this deponent lived the year following with John Straughan and the year after that this deponent became a tenant to Alexander on promise of a lease which this deponent never got from said Alexander in his life, but after his death got a lease from Gerrard Alexander son to the said Robert to whom that part of the said land was divised by virtue of which lease this deponent now holds the plantations and lived thereon and in the neighborhood near 38 years …
… deponent never knew any of them to have any tenants on the west side of the North line run by the surveyor on this survey till one Robert Mills became a tenant to Gerrard Alexander tome time after the recovery made in the General Court by John and Gerrard Alexander agt Nathaniel Chapman, Awbrey and others and the land so least to Mills lay some part within the North line but the greatest part of it to the westward of that line …
… the deponent says that when John and Gerrard Alexander brought the first ejectment against Champan, Awbrey, etc, in the General Court they imployed John Mercer to prosecute the same as the informed this Deponent and this deponent served the ejectment on the person in possession among whom was one Mark Thomas overseer for Chapman …
… but when Mercer understood that Chapman was concerned he informed the Plaintiffs in that suit that he could not prosecute it against Chapman as he had been long retained or concerned in all said Chapmans business whereupon they rather than contend with Chapman or give up the said Mercer to plead the cause against them they agreed and gave Chapman their bond to reconvey to him whatever land they should take from him by their recovery in that suit all which was agreed to by Chapman and Mercer and Chapman declined making and defence as the said John and Gerrard Alexander informed this deponent and they recovered judgment in that suit against the several Defendants … for which Chapman was greatly complained of by some of the other Defendants who depended greatly on his management in the cause ….
… the Deponent says that ssometime in the Spring of the year 1733 Evan Thomas and his son William Thomas and one William McHoney came to Four Mile Run and settled and began to make a plantation on the North side of the said run and on the west side of the lower long branch and build one small logg’d house at which time there was not any other house on the land now claimed by the Plaintiff … except the small house said to be built by Lilliard as afsd that Evan Thomas soon after died and his widow removed up & maryed one Hugh Rigbey a shoe maker who after they built other houses made use of the logd house for a shop and continued to live there for several years …
… and this deponent never understood they or any of them were lookd upon themselves as tenants to the Alexanders but on the contrary has heard the said Evan Thomas in his lifetime say that Alexander had not any title to go further westward than the north line …
… Thomas had taken up his land jointly with one John Todd who survived him and it was never divided as this deponent heard of…
… some time in the year 1741 John and Gerrard Alexander, Philip Alexander of Stafford County, Bauldwin Dade and Townshend Dade were about to divide the said land agreeable to the will of Robert Alexander decd and got one Joseph Berry a surveyor to divide it …
… this deponent was with them and carried the chain … they run from Hunting Creek N 6 to divide by Gerrard Alexander and John Straughan marked a line after the surveyor did not run out the full number of poles because he did not run so far as the surveyor did on the present survey and it was agreed that the division then made should not be binding or conclusive of their back or north line exept the part of Phillip Alexander which lay off all within the due north line …
… he further saith that Gerrard Alexander in the year 1743 being a divised that his land was intailed resolved to try if he could dock the initial and procured a writ for that purpose and imployed on Robert Boggess to manage the matter for him and gave him a double loon as he Alexander informed this deponent …
… the day before the writ was executed John Alexander came up from Stafford and joined in the matter to have the intail of both their lands docked … (continues on pg 319) …
… the deponent being interogated as to Robert Boggess’s character says he thinks he is a bad man and is confirmed in his opinion by Boggess’s behaviour in a dispute between him and this deponent about four or five years ago when the said Boggess upon oath denyed many fees which this deponent had charged him with denying at the same time that there ever were such suits when the records and proceedings in those suits clearly manifested the contrary and the said Boggess then proved articles or charges in account against this Deponent which were disproved by a disinterested evidence so that this deponent thinks the said Boggess forsworn himself in many different instances in that settlement and this deponent thinks the referees who settled that account will also prove it …
… the deponent remembers there was a difference between Majr Robert Alexander in his lifetime and James Robertson account of Alexanders holding or pretending to hold three or four thousand acres of land more than his pattent specified which Robertson looking upon to be surplus land gave Alexander notice to enter it or he Robertson would do it as this Deponent was informed by Majr Alexander in his lifetime by his son John and by John Straughan who had lived long on the land as a tenant …
… but when Robertson found that Howsons pattent which Alexander claimed did not include all the land which Alexander pretended to claim he Robertson entered and took up part of it as was and Evan Thomas and John Todd had taken up part of it before and Francis Awbrey took almose all the residue being along Alexanders north line as near as they could which land so taken up by Thomas and Todd is now claimed by the Plaintiff and the said Thomas or Todd or those claiming under them hath always been in actual possession of it from the year 1733 to this time except the part recovered in the ejectment of Alexanders against Chapman, Awbrey, and others that James Robertson had run a small distance within Alexanders north line and took in about 30 acres of Alexanders land and sold one hundred and ninety five acres out of this tract to Capt Simon Pearson who devised it to his daughter Susanna who intermarried with John Alexander the Defendant’s father, who finding out that part of it lay within the north line of Howsons pattent sued Robertson in the General Court and recovered damages about L15 for so much of land as lay within the north line and did not eve pretend to ask damages for any more altho the whole 195 acres lay within the North 6 degrees west line by which the Alexanders divided …
(Continues on with evidence doubting the line extending to 17 degrees which is what the Alexanders claimed from pg 324-328)
… 20 odd years ago Ferdenando Oneal in a conversation with this deponent confessed that he was convicted for perjury and transported for that offence into this country …
… Deponent is very much surprised that Benjamin Talbot should know or pretend to know so much of the lands … as this deponent who has lived so long upon the land never heard of him till within this 3 or 4 years and never remembers to have seen him in his life to know him from any other man …
… the deponent says the entry made by Gerrard Alexander was after his suit brought against Awbrey …
.. he served the ejectment mentioned in the former part of his deposition on one Joseph Dorsey who lived below Four Mile Run upon the plantation now occupied by one Reedy and that the ejectment was also served upon several other persons who resided on the lands in this dispute & understood by serving that ejectment that ejectment that the Alexanders claied to the north 17degree west line that about 10 years ago this deponent made an entry in the proprietors office for 400 acres of land between the north 17degree west line of Alexander and the lines Robertson and Col Mason who claims Owsley’s pattent and having let the said Entry lye so long in the office this deponent was obliged in the month of Sept 1766 to renew it and obained a warrant and in July last he sold it to James Muir in trust for Robert Adam and John Carlyle the present plaintiff by assigning over his right of the said warrant …
… Straughan has often told this deponent that he thought that Alexander had not any right to go so far to the westward as their pattent did called for a north course …
… he further says that he understood that Awbrey who claimed Strutfields pattent by purchase was never interrupted till about one year ago by Col George Mason since he surveyed Owsley pattent under which he claims the deponent says that the surveyor in running the north 2degree west line from a hicory bush on Hunting Creek was to the westward of th marked trees and so angled them …
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 314-328. Fairfax Co, Va
1768 June 11 – Deposition of William Boylstone aged 66 p. 310-314
… that upwards of 40 years ago he lived upon the lands of Majr Robert Alexander decd being the tract now in dispute with his this deponents father, and after this deponent married he removed from his father and became a tenant to said Alexander and lived as a tenant one year with Richard Middleton at the plantation where the present Robert Alexander now lives and that he paid rent for that year and Mr Sebastian collected the rents for Majr Alexander.
… this deponent cannot now recollect what year that was but remembers the year following the inspection law was in force.
… upwards of 40 years ago Majr Robert Alexander by one Joseph Berry a surveyor made a survey of the land now in dispute and that the surveyor frun from a hicory stump on Hunting Creek over Four Mile Run and along by where James Green now lives and stopt upon a levell near Awbrey’s Road leaving the place where James Green now lives to the left hand
… the Deponent further says that they run fro the end of that course down to the river and this deponent was in company and carried the chain some part of the way and did not see any line trees nor did he understand from Majr Alexander, Berry or any of the company they expected to see any but on the contrary seemed to agree there was no line trees
… he does not remember that then any persons settled at that time to the wastward of the long branch except one Doctor Dunghill who lived a considerable distance higher up Four Mile Run without the north 17 degree west line run upon this survey
… being interrogated by the deponent he says that about 40 years ago Robert Alexander run a course from a hicory stump on Hunting Creek which line run pretty near the two poplars on Four Mile Run
.. he always understood that Alexander claimed from the Wankapin Branch into the woods two miles and a quarter and that Alexanders tenants held a quarter of a mile upon the River and two miles and a quarter into the woods in their common way of talke
… one Whitford lived on the plantation where John Alexander now lives and that when Robert Alexander made that survey by Berry it was all woods and which survey included the place where John Alexander now lives.
… he has heard that the Awbreys run a lien near Chubbs Mill for Alexanders land 40 large odd years ago.
… Majr Robert Alexander run a course from the River to see where it intersected with his back course and that it overshot the place where the Road from Alexanderia to the Falls of Potomack now goes which said road crosses Brichins Branch but that none of the courses they then run ever went near the said Branch not within a quarter mile in this deponents opinion Strutfield saith they run to the River or from it at that time from a place about half a mile below the place where George West began to survey fro the beginning on this survey which beginning is near opposite the lower end of Mason’s Island.
… he always understood that Alexanders corner on Hunting Creek was a hicory
… when Majr Robert Alexander surveyed with Berry he did not mark any trees.
… he never heard that Alexanders line run by Chubbs Mill
… he understood from Majr Alexanders tenants that Alexanders land run from the River where Robert Alexander now lives into the woods two mile and better
… Chubb lived about 10 yards from his Mill
… Stephen Gray who was a tenant to Robert Alexander said that he claimed from the River two miles and a quarter into the woods and that the said Gray lived when Robert Alexander now lives
… course Berry run for Alexanders line … as far as he understood the Run North 9 degree west and that the Tenants paid 524 pounds of tobacco for rent for a single lot of 100 acres … those who held double lots of 200 acres paid 1048 and this deponent paid 524 pounds of tobacco as he held part of Middletons lot who claimed a double lot.
… about the time he held the tenants talk about their ? none of them had then cleared a mile from the River.
… there was no path leading as the Road from Alexandria to the Falls of Potomack now goes till within this 12 or 13 years past, that people before that time when they came down towards Hunting Creek they came round near a place called the hoe or hoehill and further saith not.
Signed: William Boylstone
Fairfax. This deposition was taken in the presence of the parties the 11th day of June 1768 who declares he has attended 11 days certified under our hands. John West, William Adams.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 310-314. Fairfax Co, Va
1768 – Deposition of (witness objected to) p. 328
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 328. Fairfax Co, Va
DEPOSITIONS IN 1806-1814 CASE – PENDLETON v ALEXANDER
1809 May 8th – Deposition of Rev. Lee Massey aged 76. (Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
1809 case – exact date uncertain – Deposition of Col. Francis Payton aged 44 years or thereabouts.
(about 2 and 1/2 pages then cut off)(Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
1809 July 24 – Deposition of Col John Alexander aged upwards of 20 years
1810 May 28 – Deposition of Ignatious McFarling (Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
1810 – Deposition/Interrogatories of George Gilpin (Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
Pleading & Minutes in the 1767 case:
Judgment in Carlysle v. Alexander Case:
1771 Aminidal Seekright (tenant of Carlysle) and John Carlysle v. Charles Alexander
Finding of Jury and Court against Charles Alexander: (Jury Verdict)
The jury sworn to try the issue in this cause returned into Court and upon their oath say that the artificial bounds of Alexander’s land are from red C on Hunting Creek to black E, and thence to the mount of Wancopin branch at Black A, laid down in the surveyors plat returned in this cause and that the Defendant is guilty in manner and for as the Plaintiff against him hath complained and they do assess damages (crease in page cant read rest of line) … shilling besides his costs. Therefore it is considered by the Court that the Plaintiff recover against the Deft his term yet to come of and in the messuage or a tenement and lands with the appurtenancy in the declaration mentioned together with his damages aforesaid in form aforesaid assessed, and his costs by him about his suit in this behalf expended. and the said Deft may be taken and whereupon the Plt pray the writ of our Lord the King to the Sheriff of the said County of Fairfax to be directed to cause him to have his possession of his term aforesaid yet to come and to him it is granted returnable here.
1811-021 Nathaniel Pendleton v. Admx of Charles Alexander, etc. Arlington Co, Va.
Image 176. Library of Virginia Chancery Records Index online:
1766 October (3d Monday Court in Fairfax Co, Va – beginning of case) – John Carlyle, Gent v. Charles Alexander. p. 233-239
Case Summary: … Aminidal Seekright by William Ellzey his attorney came and brought into the said Court there a certain bill against Timothy Dreadnaught in custody of a plea of tressass and ejectment of Farm and there are pledges of prosecuting to with John Doe & Richard Roe which bill follows in these words
… vizt Fairfax County towit – Aminidal Seekright complains of Timothy Dreadnaught in custody and a plea for that towit that whereas John Carlyle gentleman on the 21st day of May in the year of our Lord 1766 at the County aforesaid had demised granted and to Farm let to the aforesaid Aminidal one messuage or tenement with the appurtenances situate lying and being on Four Mile Run in the Parish of Fairfax in the County aforesaid containing 800 acres to have and to hold the messuage aforesaid with the appurtenances to the aforesaid Aminidal and his assigns from the aforesaid 21st day of May to the full end and term of 7 years from thence next ensuing and fully to be compleat and ended by virtue of which said demise he the said Aminidal afterwards towit on the 23d day of the aforesaid May entered into the tenement aforesaid with the appurtenances and was thereof possessed till the said Timothy afterwards towit on the day and year last mentioned at the County aforesaid with force and arms entered into the tenement aforesaid with the appurtenances in and upon the possession of the said Aminidal and the said Aminidal from his farm aforesaid. His said term therein being not yet ended yielded and amoved and the said Aminidal so yielded and amoved from his possession thereof held out and yet doth hold out and other enormities to the said Aminidal did then and there a contrary to the peace of our Lord the King his Crown and dignity and to the damage of the said Aminidal two hundred pounds Virginia currency and thereupon he brings this suit, etc.
… Sir I am informed that you are in possession or claim title to the premises this Declaration of Ejectment mentioned or to some part thereof and I being sued in this action as a casual ejector and having no claim or title to the said premises do advise you to appear at the next court to be held for the county of Fairfax on the 3rd Monday in October at the courthouse of the same county and then and there by a rule of that Court you cause yourself to be made Defendant in my stead otherwise I shall suffer judgment to be entered against mee and you will be turned out of possession. I am with great esteem your friend. Timothy Dreadnaught. To Mr. John Alexander tenant in possession.
… and at the same day came Robert Adam Sheriff of the said County and made return that he served this declaration in ejectment on John Alexander tenant in possession of the within mentioned land and thereupon Charles Alexander by Francis Dade his attorney came thereinto Court and prayed to be admitted Defendant in the room of the said Timothy Dreadnaught whereupon it is ordered by the Court with the consent of the attorneys for both parties that the said Charles Alexander be admitted Defendant instead of the now Defendant Timothy Dreadnaught who will immediately apear and receive a declaration and plea thereto the general issue and at the trial thereupon to be had the said Charles Alexander will appear in proper person or by his attorney and confess lease entry and actual expulsion and will insist only upon the title at the trial or that in default thereof judgment shall be entered against the Defendant Timothy Dreadnaught the casual ejector but further prosecution is to be staid against him untill the said Charles Alexander shall make default in any of the premises and by the like consent it is further ordered by the Court that the said Charles Alexander shall take no advantage against the Plaintiff for his not prosecuting upon the trial if occasioned by such default but that the said Charles Alexander will pay the Plaintiff his costs thereupon to be taxed and it is further ordered that the lessor of the Plaintiff be chargeable with the payment of costs to the defendant to be taxed or adjudged by the Court and the said Charles Alexander by Francis Dade his attorney comes and defends the force and injury when etc, and says that he is not thereof guilty and of this he puts himself upon the County and the said Plaintiff in like manner etc,
…therefore the Sheriff is commanded that he cause 12 free and lawful men etc, by whom the truth of the matter may be the better known to come hereon the 3d Monday in Sept next and who are not related either to the said Plaintiff or the said Defendant to recognize etc, make a jury of the Country between the said parties of the plea aforesaid because as well the said Plaintiff as the said Defendant have submitted themselves to the jury the same day is given to the said parties there etc,
… and now here at this day towit the 22d day of the said month in the year aforesaid Francis Dade moved to relinquish his appearance and issue entered yesterday for the Deft and to suffer the plaintiff to take the same Rule as if no appearance had been entered which the Court refused the same being opposed by the Plaintiff.
… and now here at this day towit the 15th day of December in the seventh year of the Reign of his present Majesty came the said Plaintiff by his attorney aforesaid and Phillip Alexander attorney for the said Charles Alexander offered an affidavit of the said Charles Alexander as he the said Philip offered to prove that he the said Charles knew there was an ejectment brought by the Sheriff against him and that he never employed Francis Dade as attorney to enter him Defendant which the court refused to hear being of opinion it was but of time and the proceedings thereof are continued between the said parties of the plea aforesaid and the Jury is respited between them before the said justices of the said County Court at the said County Court House until the 3d Monday in January next the same day is given to the parties aforesaid there etc,
… and now here at this day towit the 19th day of January in the year last mentioned came as well the said Plaintiff by his said attorney as the said Defendant by Phillip Alexander his attorney and because it is suggested to the Court that the bounds of the said land in the said declaration mentioned are in question by consent of the parties it is ordered that the surveyor of this County do go upon the land in controversy on the 23d day of February next if fair if not the next fair day and survey and lay out the lands in dispute having regard to all patents and evidences that shall be produced by either of the parties and report all matters of fact and evidences speciall to the next court and that he return to the Clerks office two platts of the said land before the day of hearing the same day is given to the parties aforesaid there etc.
… and now here at this day towit the 16th day of March in the year last mentioned came the parties aforesaid by their attorneys aforesaid and on the Defendants motion it is ordered that a dedimus be issued to take the Deposition of Guy Broadwater and the proceeds thereof are contained between the said parties of the plea aforesaid and the jury is respited etc. until the 3d Monday in April were
… and now here at this day towit the 24th day of March in the Eighth year of the Reign of his present Majesty came to the parties aforesaid by their attorneys aforesaid and the surveyor towit George West did return to the justices aforesaid a survey of the premises in dispute and his report thereupon and the proceedings thereof are further continued between the said parties of the plea aforesaid and the jury is further respited between them before the said justices of the said County Court at the said County Courthouse untill the 3d Monday in April next the same day is given to the parties there etc.
… and now here at this day towit the 20th day of June in the year last mentioned came the parties aforesaid by their attorneys and thereupon came also a jury towit Edward Payne, James Lain, William Linton, Samuel Tillit, Edward Dulin, Charles Brent, Robert Lindsay, William Halley Junr, Daniel Talbott, Abednego Adams, Gilbert Simpson Senr, William Brummet, who being elected tried and sworn to speak the truth upon the issue joind in this suit withdrew and by consent of the parties they are to adjourn to the house of Richard Arrell and be entertained at the expence of both parties and the Sheriff is ordered to attend the untill they agree on a verdict.
… afterwards towit the 24th day of the month and year aforesaid came the parties aforesaid by their attornies whereupon for certain reasons exciting as well the said justices as the said parties the said E.P. one of the above mentioned Jury is withdrawn from the panel and the rest of the jury are altogether discharged fro giving any verdict of and concerning the premises on condition of removing the cause to the general court by certiorari by consent of the parties notwithstanding the suit is at issue to receive a trial therewith the cause now depending between the said parties.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 233 (1766 – Carlyle v Alexander case)
MISCELANEOUS SURVEYS & RECORDS:
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. Fairfax County, Virginia:
Alexander & West 6, 7,
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 6 & 7 Fairfax Co, Va
1743 March 23 – Animadal Seekright v Henry Brent.
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. 6-9 Fairfax Co, Va
1746 Oct 21 – John Alexander & Gerrard & Awbrey (Howson Patent surveys)
… the demise of John Alexander and Gerrard Alexander.
Aminadal Thruston Pltf v. Henry Awbry an infant by Thomas Awbry his guardian Deft
Pgs. 11, 12, Record of surveys, 1742-1856. Fairfax Co, Va
Another Survey done in same case: (Howson Patent)
p. 21, 22, Record of surveys, 1742-1856. Fairfax Co, Va
Another Howson Patent survey:
p. 30? Record of surveys, 1742-1856. Fairfax Co, Va
Mason & McCarty 25
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 25 Fairfax Co, Va
Calvil and Awbrey 30, 31, 32
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 31, 32, 33 Fairfax Co, Va
Alexander v Ramsay 37
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 37 Fairfax Co, Va
Carlyle v Alexander 37 (Howson Patent with lines delineating different degrees NW)
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 37 Fairfax Co, Va
Alexander v Carlyle 39
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 39 Fairfax Co, Va
Sebastian v Broadwater 40
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 40 Fairfax Co, Va
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D998-D?i=227&cat=193246 (another page with survey)
Simon Pearson v Hues 41
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 41 Fairfax Co, Va
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99D-5?i=226&cat=193246 (another Simon Pearson survey)
George Mason Jr v Boggess 42, 43
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 42, 43 Fairfax Co, Va
Bryan Fairfax v Fleming Patterson 44
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 44 Fairfax Co, Va
Town of Alexandria
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. Fairfax Co, Va
Sebastian v Moxley 45
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 45 Fairfax Co, Va
George Mason Gent 50
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 51 Fairfax Co, Va
James Scott 51
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 51 Fairfax Co, Va
Robertson v Alexander 63
Record of surveys, 1742-1856. p. 63 Fairfax Co, Va
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. Fairfax Co, Va:
This book involves land suits in Fairfax County, Virginia related to several Virginia families. More than half of this book involves cases related to Alexander family litigation over their Howson Patent.
(These cases have copies of past deeds, grants and wills that the litigants produce to prove their claims regarding the land involved in the lawsuit – so often goes back to deeds, grants and wills in the late 1660s up to the date of the case. Also included in many cases are detailed surveys with information in these surveys from both the Plaintiff and Defendant, and Depositions that may have information, such as the age of the deponent, or information given in testimony related to people living on or near land in the area in dispute).
1742 Sept 28 – John Snead of the County of Hanover planter & Susanah his wife of the one part and John Hartshorn of the Parish of Hamilton in the County of Prince William miner of the other part.
352 acres of land – Pohick Run – Parish if Truro – County of Prince William.
Granted to James Brechin by deed Jan 3 1716. By said Brechins last will and testament conveyed to William Brechins & James Brechins, John Reatherford and Ann Reatherford, James Freland, Jane Freland and was conveyed by the said to the afsd John Snead by deed of lease and release
Signed: John Snead
Wit: John Turley, Willim Williams, C Burns
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 2. Fairfax Co, Va
1743 July 21 – William Goodtike by John Hamilton his atty v. Thomas Badright in Pleas of Trespass & Ejectment
Samuel Canterbury tenant in possession
Ralph Faulkner by John Sturman his atty
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 6 lower lft corner. Fairfax Co, Va
1745 March 28 – Leonard Dozier v Daniel Thomas – Plea of Trespass.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 9 lower rt corner. Fairfax Co, Va
1746 Oct 2 – Leonard Dozier v Daniel Thomas
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 11 lower rt corner. Fairfax Co, Va
1753 John Thrustout by George Johnston his atty v. Thomas Holdfast in custody, of a Pleas of Trespass & Ejectment
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 35 upper lt corner, p. 15 lower rt corner. Fairfax Co, Va
Isaac Farrow v James Murray in ejectment
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 41 upper lt corner, p. 22 lower rt corner. Fairfax Co, Va
(pgs 42-43 missing)
William West deed to John Graham (first part of deed missing from pgs 42-43)
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 44. Fairfax Co, Va
1748 Nov 24 – John Graham to Isaac Farros deed 495 acres.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 45. Fairfax Co, Va
1691 July – Land Grant of 584 acres to George Brent of Woodstoke in Stafford Co Va
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 57-60. Fairfax Co, Va
1757 William Clifton age 53 deposition related to George Brent land lawsuit
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 60-62. Fairfax Co, Va
1757 deposition of John Snowden age 51 related to George Brent land lawsuit
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 62. Fairfax Co, Va
1757 deposition of John Carney aged 40 related to George Brent land lawsuit
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 63. Fairfax Co, Va
1752 grant regarding a grant given 1730 Dec 14 340 acre deed to Alexander McCarty via agent Col Robert Carter. Stafford Co, Va
Alexander McCarty soon after departed for England without any person to pay for quitrents and William Reagan son and heir of William Reagon now setting forth that the said Alexander McCarty did while he lived in this Colony carry on much mixt business in partnership with William Reagan his said father jointly …. obtaining my further grant on paying the arrears of quitrents and other legal demands … confirm unto the said William Reagan of Fairfax County
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 64. Fairfax Co, Va
1758 June – Benjamin Sebastian Gent by George Johnston his atty v Thomas Moxley, Plea of Trespass
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 68. Fairfax Co, Va
1737 June 26 – 464 acre deed & release from John Harll (or Harle, spelling interchanged in record on both people) of Prince William Co, Va planter to William Harll (or Harle) (last name appears to be spelled Hartt or Harte at times as well).
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 73. Fairfax Co, Va
1749 Jan 29 – Last Will and Testament of William Harle (or William Harte) of Fairfax Co, Va
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 77-82. Fairfax Co, Va
1755 Sept 9 – deed pursuant to Last Will and Testament of William Harle decd… between Charles Broadwater & Benjamin Sebastian exors of William Harle decd to Lee Massey for 200 acres of land
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 82-89. Fairfax Co, Va
1755 Sept 15 – Lee Massey deed to Benjamin Sebastian 200 acres of land
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 89-96. Fairfax Co, Va
1758 July 15 Deposition of Gerrard Trammell Sr aged 56.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 97. Fairfax Co, Va
1748 – John Ball by Benjamin Sebastian his atty v Daniel French Gent, Plea of Trespass
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 99. Fairfax Co, Va
1748 May 1 – deposition of Gabriel Adams Jr aged 33 years
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 113. Fairfax Co, Va
1748 May 1 – deposition of Michael Reggin aged about 49 years
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 113. Fairfax Co, Va
1748 April 16 – Deposition of Benjamin Newell aged 50 years
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 114. Fairfax Co, Va
1748 April 16 – Deposition of William Trammell aged about 44 years
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 115. Fairfax Co, Va
Aminidal Seekright by George Johnston his atty v. Absolem Dreadnought, plea of trespass and ejectment
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 122. Fairfax Co, Va
1741 Jan 15 – Winifred Lawrence and Moses Ball of Prince William of the one part, and John West of same County of the other part – deed for 30 acres
Jany 13 1747 – John West makes over this deed to John Carlyle mercht. (p 128)
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 125-128. Fairfax Co, Va
1748 Aug 21 – John West Gent to John Carlyle Gent deed for 30 acres
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 128-133. Fairfax Co, Va
(13th yr of George II) Aug 18 – Francis Randall and wife Hanah Ann by Lee Massy their atty v. Robert Boggess. Plea of Trespass
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 136. Fairfax Co, Va
(Book skips from pg 136-157, so pgs 136-156 are missing).
1697 May 10 – Last Will and Testament of William Clark decd recorded (will is missing because it was on pages 156 and before which are missing).
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 157. Fairfax Co, Va
1724 June 10 – John Mayfield and wife Frances of Essex Co, Va to Samuel Smith of same.
322 acres, part of 646 acres, conveyed by deed of gift from Mary Clark to her 6 children, William Clark, Elizabeth Clark, Ann Clark, Mary Clark, Jane Clark, and Frances Clark …
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 157. Fairfax Co, Va
1736 Oct 22 – Last Will and Testament of Ann Beckham of Parish of Lunenburgh and County of Richmond
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 161. Fairfax Co, Va
1729 July 14 – Thomas Kerfoot 210 acres to Francis Awbry
part of a pattent granted to Richard Normansell and by him devised by his last Will and Testament unto Col William Pearse late of County of Westmoreland who sold … to William Clark of said County … is descended and come to the aforesaid Thomas Kerfoot son and heir of Walter Kerfoot and Ann his wife. Said Ann is one of the daughters of the afsd William Clark … bounded by lands of George Eskridge and run of Pohick Creek …
Signed: Thomas Kerfoot
Wit: Simon Pearson, Edward Barry, Mathew Linnsmark
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 163. Fairfax Co, Va
1729 July 15 – Thomas Kerfoot to Francis Awbrey … 210 acres. Stafford Co, Va
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 165. Fairfax Co, Va
1736 Nov 10 – Samuel Kerfoot to Francis Awbrey 645 acres on Pohick Creek. Prince William Co, Va
Signed: Samuel Kerfoot
Wit: William Payne, John Melton, John Sturman
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 167-174. Fairfax Co, Va
1741 Feb 25 – Francis Awbrey to Robert Boggess both of Truro Parish, Prince William Co., Va
234 acres being part of a pattent for 2550 acres formerly granted to Richard Normansell and Martin Carlet dated 5 day of June 1666 … also the third part of 702 acres given and devised by the last Will and Testament of Richard Normansell to Col William Pearce of Westmoreland Co, who sold it to Mary Clark … after whose death the said 702 acres of land came to 3 surviving daughters of the said Mary Clark in copartnership, one of which said daughters viz Anne the eldest of them intermarried with Walter Kerfoot by whom she had issue Thomas Kerfoot her eldest son and heir, after the death of the said Walter and Anne sold his right to the said 702 acres to Francis Awbrey Gent late of PW Co decd by his last Will and Testament … devise the same to his son Francis Awbrey now party to these presents … by order of Prince William Co Court made in the lifetime of the said Francis Awbrey Gent divided into 3 equal parts by Richard Osborn, William Godfrey and Zepheniah Wade … the lower or eastermost art thereof alloted to the said Francis Awbrey party to these presents … being the 234 acres above mentioned … bounded: Pohick Creek, corner to said Normanselle and Scarlett’s patent ….
Signed: Francis Awbrey
Wit: John Smith, Joseph Moxley, Robert Lindsay, William Windsor.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 177-183. Fairfax Co, Va
1742 Dec 14 – John Smith of Truro Parish, Fairfax Co, to Robert Boggess of same 234 acres on Pohick Run.
Signed: John Smith
Wit: William Windsor, Susanah Lindsey, Jeremiah Windsor, James Coole, Thomas Graham.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 184-190. Fairfax Co, Va
1756 April 6 – John Smith of Fairfax to Robert Boggess of same 322 acres … conveyed by deed of gift from Mary Clark to her 6 children, William Clark, Elizabeth Clark, Ann Clark, Mary Clark, Jane Clark, and Frances Clark …. the said William, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane are since dead …. leaving no issue … fee simple of 645 acres vested in Ann and Frances surviving heirs …
Signed: John Smith
Wit: Henry Boggess Sr, Thomas Baylis, Vincent Boggess, John Boggess.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 190-194. Fairfax Co, Va
(First year of George III) May 20 – Sibyl West by George Johnston her atty v John Spinks. Plea of Trespass.
Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770. p. 195-204. Fairfax Co, Va
1735 Apr 28 (written), 1736 Apr 13 (proved up) Last Will and Testament of Robert Alexander
Land records of long standing, 1742-1770. p. 214. Fairfax Co, Va
Alexander Family History:
John Alexander1 who dies in 1677 acquired the 6000 acre patent from Robert Howson in November, 1669, which included the land from the present-day Rosslyn area in Arlington County to the Great Hunting Creek. John Alexander’s will dated October 5, 1677, devised this estate to his two sons Robert and Philip. John, Jr., had died during his father’s lifetime. In February, 1693, Philip Alexander conveyed to his brother, Robert, his half interest in the Howson Patent.
Robert Alexander2 ( -1704) is sometimes known as the founder of the Preston Branch of the Alexanders. He served as a justice of the Stafford County Court. During his ownership of the Howson Patent there is no surviving record to show what use he made of the land. It was probably during his time that the names “Holmes” and “Pearson” were given to two islands included in the 6000 acre tract. This may be derived from John Holmes and Thomas Pearson who occupied them as his tenants. Robert Alexander’s will dated December 7, 1703, devised to his sons Robert and Charles in fee his plantation on the upper side of Great Hunting Creek. Charles died intestate and without issue, and the sole ownership of the plantation became vested in Robert Alexander3 (1688-1735).
Robert Alexander2 and Frances had two sons:
1) Robert Alexander3 (1688-1735) who married Anne Fowke ( 1739)
2) Charles Alexander3 (1698- ) who died without issue
Robert Alexander3 (1688-1735) had several tenants living on the Howson tract. Richard Wheeler and William Griffin had plantation quarters on the Potomac River at the north end of the tract opposite Analostan Island (now Roosevelt Island). One Chubb, a tenant, had established a mill on the Four Mile Run which is mentioned in the Todd and Thomas Patent of 1719. Four Mile Run became a convenient division of the Howson-Alexander tract. In 1711 Robert Alexander3 married Anne Fowke ( -1739), daughter of Colonel Gerard Fowke and Sarah Burdett, and they had the following children:
1) John Alexander4 (1711-63) of Salisbury who married Susanna Pearson in 1734
2) Anne Fowke Alexander who married Captain John Hooe in 1726
3) Parthenia Alexander ( -1742) who married twice: a) Dade Massey in 1732, and b) Townshend Dade, Jr., in 1736
4) Gerard Alexander4 (1714-61) who married Mary Dent of Maryland
5) Sarah Alexander ( -1739) who married Balwin Dade in 1736
John Alexander4 (1711-75) of “Boyd’s Hole,” married Susanna Pearson (1717-88), daughter of Simon Pearson, on December 11, 1734. This John Alexander occupied Pearson’s Island and took his dividend south of Four Mile Rim. He later became a trustee of Alexandria and gave one-half of an acre of land for Christ Church; a deed for which was made by his sons after his death and confirmed by the Alexander family in 1795. He was a member of the Virginia Assembly for 1766, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, and was elected for the 1775 session, but died before attending.
John and Susanna (Pearson) Alexander had the following twelve children:
1) Robert Alexander5 (1735-37)
2) Charles Alexander5 (1737-1806) who married Frances Brown in 1771
3) John Alexander5 (1739- ) of Loudoun who married Elizabeth Barnes. This John Alexander5 was a lieutenant colonel in the Loudoun County Militia in 1781, and later moved to Kentucky.
4) Arme Alexander (1741- ) who married Charles Binns in 1754
5) Susarma Pearson Alexander (1744-1815) who married her first cousin Thomas Pearson Chapman (1745-84) in 1766
6) Gerard Alexander5 (1746-58)
7) Simon Pearson Alexander (1747- ) who died as an infant
8) Caty Alexander (1750-57)
9) Elizabeth Alexander who was married four times: a) John Luke, b) Alexander, c) ?, and d) B. Washington
10) Robert Alexander5 (1754- )
11) Thomas Pearson Alexander (1755-1817) who married Sarah
12) William Pearson Alexander (1758-1803) who married Sarah Casson
Charles Alexander5 (1737-1806) of Preston in 1771 married Frances Brown, daughter of the Reverend Richard and Helen (Bailey) Brown. It was during this time that Charles Alexander was involved in several lawsuits against him regarding him attempting to extend the boundary of the Howson Patent westward. Charles Alexander signed the Fairfax County Resolves in July, 1774. He was appointed a member of the Fairfax County Committee of Safety in 1774. He provided military provisions to the Virginia Militia in 1777. Charles Alexander was Fairfax Commissioner for State Aid in 1780 and president of the Fairfax Board of Overseers of the Poor in 1797.
Charles and Frances (Brown) Alexander had the following children:
1) Charles Alexander6 (1772-1812) of “Mt. Ida” who married Mary Bowles Armistead in 1800
2) John Alexander6 who died unmarried
3) Susan Pearson Alexander (1770-1856) who married George Chapman of “Thoroughfare” in 1799
4) Frances Alexander (1784-1856) who married William Thomas Swann in 1830
5) William Brown Alexander (1788-1846) who married his first cousin, Susan Pearson Brown
6) Richard Brown Alexander who died unmarried
7) Gustavus Brown Alexander (1800-1868) who married twice: a) Sarah Blair Stuart and b) Judith Blackburn
8) Lee Massey Alexander who died unmarried
Gerard Alexander4 (ca. 1714-61) of Abingdon took his dividend north of Four Mile Run and spent his hfe on the land assigned to him in the partition of his father’s estate. He lived in the house which subsequently was called Abingdon. Gerard Alexander was one of the original trustees of the town of Alexandria in 1749, a burgess from Fairfax County from 1751 to 1755, a justice of Fairfax County in 1742, and was known as Colonel Gerard Alexander. His will was proved in Fairfax County in 1761. When Alexander died, his northern dividend of the Howson tract was subdivided among his three sons Robert, Philip, and Gerard, Jr. Robert took the southern part; Philip, the middle; and Gerard, Jr., the northern part of the tract. A map on page 61 of the Fairfax County Record of Surveys: 1787-1856 portrays the division of this land. Descendants of the Columbus Alexander7 family owned land in present-day Arlington County until 1904.
Gerard Alexander was married to Mary Dent and they had the following children:
1) Nancy Alexander ( -1793) who married Fielding Lewis
2) Robert Alexander5 ( -1795) who married Marianna Stoddard
3) Philip Alexander5 ( -1790)
4) George Alexander who died as an infant
5) Gerard Alexander5 who married Jane Ashton. This Gerard Alexander was a trustee of the town of Brentsville in 1822.
6) George Dent Alexander ( -1784) who died unmarried. He was a surgeon in the Virginia Continental Line during the Revolutionary War. George Dent Alexander apparently had a child by Mary Robinson which his brother Robert Alexander5 provided for in his will proved in Fairfax County Court on February 18, 1793.
7) Mary Ann Alexander ( -1793)
Robert Alexander5 ( -1795), son of Gerard and Mary (Dent) Alexander, married Marianna Stoddard ( -1788), and they had the following children:
1) Robert Alexander6 ( -1793). He inherited the northern moiety from his father consisting of 545 acres of land. Simon Sommer, county surveyor, divided the Alexander estate as shown in Alexandria County Book 1, page 134. This Robert Alexander married Mariaime Trueman who later married Thomas Greenfield of Charles County, Maryland.
2) Walter Stoddard Alexander. He inherited Abingdon and the southern half of moiety consisting of 545 acres of land. He married Catherine Francesca (Francelia) Dade, daughter of Baldwin Dade and Catherine West, and had the following issue:
1) Columbus Alexander7 ( -1904) who married Rebecca Hay
2) Oscar Alexander7 who married Ellen Elizabeth Brawner
3) Walter Benjamin Alexander
4) Marianne Binns
5) Amanda Brawne
Philip Alexander5 ( -1790), son of Gerard and Mary (Dent) Alexander, had the following issue:
1) Philip Alexander6
2) George Alexander6
3) Gerard Alexander6 who married Matilda Douglass, September 2, 1819
4) Austin Alexander
5) Margen Noble
6) Ann Alexander
Gerard Alexander5, son of Gerard and Mary (Dent) Alexander, married his cousin, Elizabeth Ashton Alexander (1773- ), and they had issue:
1) Mary Frances Alexander who married William Cole
2) Edward Claredon Alexander, untraced
3) Sarah (Sally) Foote Alexander
4) Ann (Nancy) Foote Alexander
5) Henrietta Alexander who married Ely
6) Henry Ashton Alexander, untraced
7) Laurence Gibbons Alexander who married Martha Steele
8) George Douglas Alexander
9) Sigismunda Alexander who married Dr. William Rose