John Gowen b. abt. 1670-1680 – d. abt 1721

(Y2) YDNA Group

Parents: (Note: Unknown – best guess)

• Father (possible): Thomas Gowen (b. aft. 1650 – d.  ? ) (Note:  this John Gowing died in 1721 – and was the first of this group of Going men to die (of John, Thomas, William, and James).   Stafford Co, Va will bk K’s index seems to indicate that William Going who died in 1726 may have been the executor of John Gowing’s estate.  Unfortunately, the actual will book does not survive – only the index survives.  William Going acting as executor of John’s estate may indicate that John Gowing was the “father” in this group of men… maybe one day they will find these books that were stolen during the Civil War). The assumption is that Thomas Going/Gowen was the father of John, William, and James – but this is not confirmed as there are no records indicating the actual relationship.
• Mother (unknown): ?

Children: (It is unknown if John Gowing had any children.  Certainly, his will would likely resolve that question.  Unfortunately, the Stafford County wills from that time are missing.  The index of the willbook survives, and indicates there is a will, and probate for John Gowing, so possibly, if that will book ever is located, we will know who his children/descendants were/are).  

Potential children in Stafford County, Va (of John Going b. 1680, William Going b. 1682, or James Going b. 1683):

• Thomas Gowen b. 1708-18 (NOT confirmed – could be a child of one of the other siblings of John Gowing b. 1680 – William or James)
• William Gowen b. 1712 – d. April 1792, m. Sarah Allen (NOT confirmed – could be a child of one of the other siblings of John Gowing b. 1680 – William or James)

Siblings:

• John Gowing b. 1680
• William Gowing b. 1682
• James Gowing b. 1683

Other Possible Sibling:

• Peter Gowen b. 1683 (NOT confirmed)

Going Family of Stafford County, Va: 

• Going family of Stafford County, Virginia

FACTS and EVENTS:

States and Counties to research: 

• State – Virginia
• State – Maryland
• Virginia – Westmoreland County – 1700s to early 1800s
• Virginia – Stafford County – 1700s to early 1800s
• Virginia – Prince William County – 1700s to early 1800s
• Virginia – Fairfax County – 1700s to early 1800s

FamilySearch’s tree page for John Gowing b. bef 1680:  https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/L4J4-K8J

Ancestry.com’s tree page for John Gowen b. aft. 1650:  https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/69705632/person/34521885824/facts

Early Life to Adulthood:

John Gowing appears to have been born about 1680 and one of three brothers (John, William, and James) who were members of a company of dragoons in Stafford County, Virginia.  In 1710 this same group along with Thomas Gowing was involved in a land transaction 1215 acres of land in Stafford County, Virginia.  Thomas Gowing’s transactions and court records are noted starting in 1693 – so it is assumed that Thomas Gowing is the father of this group of Gowings.

Stafford County Militia 1701/1702

(Note that John Gowing was under the command of Captain John West, and Lt. John West, Jr (showing two John Wests).  John Gowen is later mentioned in John West’s will in 1716 (see will below), bequeathing a gun and a horse he had purchased from John Gowen).

Some time between 1710-1719 – “William Goins, Thomas Goins, John Goins and James Goins“:  The Goins jointly received a land grant of 1,215 acres in Stafford County ” located on Four-Mile Creek adjoining Maj. Robert Alexander” about 1710.  Stafford Co, Va
http://ourberryfamily.com/berry/pictures/1719surveygoinsstaffordcova.jpg

1716 John West’s will in Stafford Co, Va. mentions John Gowen
In the name of God Amen. I, John West of Stafford County, sick and weak of body, but thanks be to God, of sound and perfect memory and understanding do make, will and consitute this my last will and testament. Imps’s. I recommend my sould to God, hoping through his mercy, a full remission of my sisn, a joyful resurrection and etermal happiness thro’ the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ my Saviour.   *Item. My body I recommend to the earth from whence it proceeded, to be decently buried at the discretion of my Executor, hereafter named. * Item. I give, grant and bequeath to my Grandson, Hugh West, 300 acres of land, lying on the North Side of Aquatink Creek, to him and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten, the aofresaid 300 being that land that I purchased of William Green and in default of such heirs, I give, grant, and bequeath the said 300 acres unto my Grandson, John West, and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten. * Item. I give and bequeath to my afs’d grandson Hugh West 3000 lb. Tob’o when at the age of twenty one. * Item. I give and bequeath to my grandson John West, 313 acres of land lying on the north side of great Hunting Creek, being the land I bought of John Simson, to him and his heirs of his body lawfully begotten and in default of such heirs lawfully begotten, my will is that the aforesaid 300 bequeathed unto my Grandson, Hugh West, and the 313 acres of land to John West, be given granted and bequathed unto my loving son, John West, him his heirs and assigns forever. * Item. I give bequeath and bequeath unto my aforesaid Grandson, John West 3000 lbs Tobacco when at the age of 21. * Item. I give and bequeath unto my daughter-in-law, Ann Turley, 300 acres of land being the plantation where Edward Carter lived, to her and the heirs of her body lawfuly begotten and in default of such heirs, to my sons, John West, him his heirs or assigns forever. * Item. I give and bequeath to the afores’d Ann Turley, 3000 lbs at the day of her marriage or at the age of sixteen. * Item. I give grant and bequeath to Benjamin Blake, fifty acres of land, being the plantation where John Summers, now lives, to him and his heirs lawfully begotten, and in default of such heirs to his brother, John Blake, to him and his heirs lawfully begotten. * Item. I give grant and bequeath to Jno. Blake 50 acres of the aforesaid tract, to him and heirs of his body lawfully begotten and in default of such lawful heirs my will is that the afs’d 100 be granted given and bequeathed to Burr Harrison, son of Capt. Thomas Harrison, to him his heirs or assigns forever. * Item. I give grant and bequeath to my loving son, John West, three Negroes called Dennis, Glascow and Silan and all my plate.  * Item. I give grant and bequeath to my loving son, John West, all my lands and real estate on Hunting Creek branches, about 2000 acres, him his heirs or assigns forever. Likewise 500 acres at Pumunky, likewise all my lands above the Falls of Potomac and 100 acres below the aforesaid Falls and my plantation after my wife’s natural deceased and all my other real estate, on the south side of Hunting Creek, not otherwise given or bequeathed to him the afores’d son, John West, his heirs or assigns forever.  * Item. I give and bequeath to Will Harrison, Jun’r, a young horse about three years old, bought of John Gowen, after my deceased immediately.  * Item. I give and bequeath after my deceased to Thos West, two cows and calves.  * Item. I give and bequeath to Burr Harrison, the son of Capt. Thomas Harrison, the gun that I commonly use. * Item. I give and bequeath the gun I had of John Gowen to James Turley.  *  Item. I give John Turley my Long gun.  * Item. I give grant and bequeath to my godson, John Symmonds, the son of Thomas Symmonds, 100 acres of land, his father now lives on and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten and in default of such lawful heirs, my will is that the aforesa’d 100 acres be given, granted and bequeathed to my son, John West, him, his heirs or assigns forever.  * Item. I give and bequeath to Seith Harrison, the wife of Capt. Thomas Harrison, after my deceased, 500 lbs. tob’o, to buy her a mourning ring. * Item. I give and bequeath to Seith Anderson, the daughter of Jacob Henderson, two cows and calves, at my deceased.  * Item, my will and pleasure is that my negro Bastin be set free at my decease and that he have one flock bed and furniture and one iron pot and land to work on in the fork of great Hunting Creek branches during his natural life.  *  Item. I give and bequeath at my deceased to Seith Lucas, 1000 lbs. tob’o.  * Item. I give and bequeath to William Custer, Davis Innes and Francis Ballenger, the one half of the debts due to me per accounts. * Item. I forgive Robert Blake, all the debts he owes me per accounts or otherwise and I give to the aforesaid Robert Blake, one suit of Druggit apparell, two shirts, two pr. of stockings, one hat and as much new jersey as will make him a suit with trimmings to it. * Item. I give grant and bequeath to my loving wife, Elizabeth West, her heirs or assigns, one negro girl called Combar. * Item. I give and bequeath to my loving wife, Elizabeth West, the plantation I now live on during her natural life and after he decase, to my loving son, John West, him, his heirs or assigns as aforesaid. *  Item. My will and pleasure is that after my just debts and legacies are paid, that my persoanl estate not given, except Pegg hereafter mentioned, be equally divided between my loving wife, Eliza and my loving son, John.  * Item. I give grant and bequeath mulatto Pegg, during the time of her servitude to my wife, Eliza West, her heirs or assigns, whom I appoint constitute and ordain, whole and sole ex’x of this my last will and testament, revoking renouncing disproving and disannuling all other Testament or Testaments heretofore made if any such can be found, and I ordain my loving friend, Capt. Thomas Harrison and Wm. Simon, to be assistants unto my wife, Elizabeth West, and that my wife bring up and educate my son, John West, in the reformed religion according to the Doctrine of the Church of England and in case of failure, that my good friend the Reverend John Frazer, take special care of his sound education at the charge of the estate herein mentioned. This is my last will and testament. I publish, sign and seal this 16th day of Nov. Anno Dom. 1716.  * John West  * Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of us:  James Turley, Lewis Saunders, David Annise, Mary Mitchison, Eliz. Woodward * ……. At a Court held for Stafford County the 13 day of Febr in the year of our Lord 1716. The last will and testament of John West, Gent. dec’d, was presented in Court by Eliza West, widow, his ex’tx, who made oath thereto and being proved by the oaths of Lewis Sanderson, James Turley and Elizabeth Woodward, witnesses thereto is admitted to record and upon the motion of the said Elizabeth West and her performing what is usual in such cases, certificate is granted her for obtaining a probate thereof in due form.  Test. F. Fitzhugh, Clk Court – The will is located here: Land Records of Long Standing, Fairfax Co, Va p. 208: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-K?i=91&cat=193246 …. 1744 Nov 2 is the will of John West Jr. – Stafford Co, Va. Will is located at Bk M, p. 411: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PF-DKQJ?i=477&cat=366578 , Inventory at Bk M, p. 425: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PF-DKW7?i=484&cat=366578 (The will of Major John West can be found in Fairfax County, Virginia Land Records of Long Standing, 1742-1770, page 208; the will is also found in “Extant Wills from Counties Whose Records Have Been Destroyed,” Genealogies of Virginia Families, Volume IV, page 615-617; also see Stafford County Deeds, 1699-1709. p. 202, 204-205. For information showing Sarah as the wife of John West see, SCD 1699- 1709, p. 327, and for information showing Pearson West as a son of John West see SCD 1699-1709, p. 248.)   Bk Z, p 202: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PF-DKWX?i=105&cat=366578 , Bk Z, p. 204-05:  https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PF-DK9J?i=106&cat=366578 , Bk Z, p. 208: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PF-DKJH?i=108&cat=366578 ,  Bk Z, p. 248: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PF-DVYR?i=128&cat=366578 , Bk Z, p 327: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PF-DKQT?i=167&cat=366578 ,
1716 John West’s will in Stafford Co, Va. mentions John Gowen.
Item. I give and bequeath to Will Harrison, Jun’r, a young horse about three years old, bought of John Gowen, after my deceased immediately. Item. I give and bequeath the gun I had of John Gowen to James Turley. Stafford Co, Va
http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.usa.states.virginia.counties.stafford/1628/mb.ashx

1719 Aug 3 – 5-212: Evan Thomas and John Todd both of Stafford Co, reveive 1215 acres in Stafford Co on Four Mile Cr adjacent to Mr. Robert Alexander, land formerly surveyed for Thomas, John, William, and James Goins. This land is apparently sold to Thomas and Todd by the Goins according to depositions regarding the land taken in 1767 of Charles Griffith and David Thomas. http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021 . Surv. by Mr. Thomas Hooper. 3 Aug 1719. p. 69.  (pages 369 and 370).  1719 info on Going family ownership of 1215 acres in Stafford Co, Va. 1719 Aug 3 – Thomas Evans 1215 acres, Book 5, p 212 (Survey on p. 69) https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSYD-VSGG-9?i=520&cat=414338

John Going dies some time in 1721 according to the index to Stafford County, Wills, Administrations and inventories.

1721 -1730 – Stafford County Wills, Administrations, Inventories, Etc. 1664-1760, lists the following entries involving John Gowen/Goin and William Gowen/Goin estates in Stafford County, Va. Will book K is currently lost, but its index has been found.

The index shows the following information regarding John and William Goin’s wills and estates after they died. John Goin appears early in the book, page four, so appears to have died in 1721, and William Goin in 1725 (confirmed by Ambrose Going’s deed to Catherine), his inventory appears to be returned around 1726/27. (Note: I have not seen a William “Gowry” anywhere in Stafford County records – the inventory for William Gowry is on pg 268, and the estate account for William “Goin” is on p 269. These appear to be entries for William Goin”.

This also raises the question of whether John Goin and John Gowry are the same person. I lean towards them being different people – but it is possible the will for John “Goin/Gowry” was entered twice – I have seen it happen many times before for one reason or another, the dates given are estimated based on the location in the will-book the index shows the entry to be. Both John Goin and John Gowry die very close in time, and both have inventory entries that overlap in time. John Goin has an inventory entry on page 139, and John Gowry has a divisional inventory on pg 141 – which would mean they were back to back – or very close to being back to back entries – often seen with estate entries – where the inventory, sales, and estate division are shown one after the other for a deceased person’s estate entries.

1721 – John Goin. Page 4, will; p. 76, inventory; p. 139, inventory.
1722 – John Gowry. Page 25, will.
1723/24 – Gowry, —-. Page 63, will.
1724 – John Gowry. Page 117, inventory; p. 118, Division [sic]; p. 141, Divisional Inventory..
1724 – Straughan, —-. Page 77, a/c v. Goin’s Estate.
1727 – William Goin. Page 253, inventory; p. 269, Estate A/c.
1727/28 – William Gowry. Page 268, inventory.
http://interactive.ancestry.com/48444/VAWillRecords-002260-369/350278?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.com%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3dFLHG-VAWillRecords%26gss%3dsfs28_ms_db%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26gsln%3dGoin%26gsln_x%3d0%26MSAV%3d1%26uidh%3dm37&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults&rc=85,1964,157,1991#?imageId=VAWillRecords-002260-369 

Stafford County, Virginia – Will Book K’s index (actual Will Book is missing)

Stafford County, Will Book K, Index

HOWSON PATENT LITIGATION:

• Howson Patent Litigation in Stafford, Prince William & Fairfax Counties, Virginia

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).

A survey was done in 1741 showing the following land if the line went directly North (E). It showed that directly North that the Alexanders had 6562 acres of land. Their original Howson patent said it was supposed to be 6000 acres. The Alexanders were claiming that the line went 17 degrees west to point (A) – which would have given them at least another 4000+ acres of land (approximately). It would have taken a majority of the Carlyle land, all of the Chapman and Awbrey land (marked in yellow – this was the Thomas and Todd land they had purchased from Thomas Going, John Going, William Going and James Going), and it would have taken several other people’s land that they had held for over 40-50 years in many cases:

With line heading directly north – this gives the following acreage to the Alexander Family for the Howson pattent:

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 directly North to point (E) accounted for in below map – today’s estimates place the area at 8000 acres. They were attempting to add another 50-60% to their patent by having an “undefined” back line.

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 (directly North). Unfortunately, when looking up the Howson litigation involving the Alexander family, researchers always seem to claim the Alexander family “won” the cases. This could not be further from the truth. They lost the case. They ended up getting what they originally were granted – but they were attempting to almost double their land size by illegally seizing other people’s property 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 survey. They used this fact to claim the land description in their Deed actually extended beyond the actual plat, and were successful in several occasions in ejecting people from land they had owned, at times for decades.  This “undefined” back line allowed the Alexanders to act in a predatory way to swoop in and take 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).

1771 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).

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 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.

Unfortunately the Alexanders kept up their shennanigans and actually won a few cases, ejecting rightful owners from their land. In 1809 they attempted to do this to a family member – 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:

1814 Case – ALEXANDER v. PENDLETON

12 U.S. 462
8 Cranch 462
3 L.Ed. 624
ALEXANDER AND OTHER
v.
PENDLETON.
March 12, 1814

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 rofers 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.

March 12th.

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 lend 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 1809-1814 case file can be found here: http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021 (Link to Library of Virginia – Chancery Court: Pendleton v. Alexander case of 1811 – depositions were transferred into this case from 1767 depos:
(p. 1-18: Petition, Answer, and costs sheet on 1809 case).
(p. 19-35: Additional Answers filed by Charles Alexander and wife Francis Alexander).
(p. 57-79: Various depositions taken in 1767 re case and land)
(p. 79-82: Charles Griffith’s deposition on May 8, 1767 is page 79 through 82 of link);
(p. 87: David Thomas’ depo on April 9, 1768 re Thomas Going)
(p. 94-96: Indenture of Parthenia Dade – daughter of Alexander – for land in dispute – describes one landmark as “Goings Gut” in description).
(p. 97-104: Indenture in 1771 Mouth of Goings Gut landmark in sale of property by Dade)
(p. 110-113: Lee Massey depo in Alexander case, depo taken in 1809 mentions Going Gut)
(p. 121-122: 1748 Act creating City of Alexandria – starts with sixty acres of land).
(p. 163-164: 1809 survey mentioning Going’s Gut).
(p. 176: 1767 Carlyle v Alexander case with judgment in 1771) – Admiral Seekright against Charles Alexander
(p. 178-185: Petition describing dispute in 1809 case description of allegations, Goings Gut again referenced).
(p. 187-189: 1776/77 Lee Massey release regarding the disputed land)
(p. 198-203: 1767 Pleadings in case against Charles Alexander and minutes of court and motion)
(p. 205-210: 1810 interrogatories and answers of George Griffin).
(p. 214-216: John Alexander’s questions and answers to depo Qs in 1809).
(p. 223-225: Record of case in 1771 and judgment against Charles Alexander).
(p. 226-227: Deed of Charles Alexander in 1778 re land with Prothenia Dade (Robert Alexander’s daughter)
(p. 228-229: Dick deed in 1790 re land).
(p. 230-233: 1790 and 1809 deeds re land in dispute).
(p. 234-237: Alexander case drawings of surveys done).

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 her 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.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D997-X?i=102&cat=193246

1767 May 8th – Deposition of Owen Morris aged about 65 years. p. 264-268 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
… 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 hiccory the surveyor run alon line of marked trees and found a marked corner – chesnut 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 Butsfields plantation from Robert Alexander part of which said plantation is included in the survey now made by the Plt for Thomas and Todds 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 metioned 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 mentoned 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 up 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 stop’t 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 whit 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 Simmond’s lease but at the end of the course the surveyro came very near to a marked white oak three 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 tree 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 Senior now dec’d 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 Strutfield’s 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 JA(?) after John Alexander dec’d father to the present defendant to allow the said Alexander to go as farr as the north 6 degree west line, but the said Alexander refused it.
… this offer was made upon a survey made between Ramsay and the said Alexander
… and that near 40 years ago the stood a house where this deponent and Charles Griffith shewed the surveyro upon this survey upone 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 cutdown by this deponent or Thomas Talbut near upon the North 17 degree west line.
… and not very far from the tree reputed to be Stephen Gray’s beginning being asked by the Plaintiff whether the river has not gained considerablyupon 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.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-W?cat=193246

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 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 …
… 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 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.
Charles Griffith
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..
Wm Eayner..
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-L?i=125&cat=193246

1767 May 8 – Deposition of Gerrant Tramill aged 65 years p. 256-258 (pages 259-260 missing in Fairfas 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.
Gerrard Trammell.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-N?i=114&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Gerrard Trammell p. 301 (repeat of above)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-N?i=135&cat=193246

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.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-T?i=122&cat=193246 

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.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-X?cat=193246

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.
Michael Reagan
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-6?i=107&cat=193246

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.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D997-X?i=102&cat=193246

1767 June 29 – Deposition of John Summers aged upwards of 70 years p. 250-253 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancer 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.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-J?i=111&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of John Summers aged 70 and upwards p. 303 (repeat of above)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-6?i=136&cat=193246

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.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-R?i=116&cat=193246

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.
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

1767 June 29 – Deposition of Moses Ball aged about 50 years p. 276-281 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-J?i=123&cat=193246

1767 June 30 – Deposition of Osborn Talbot aged 43 years p. 270-273 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-G?i=120&cat=193246

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)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-P?i=131&cat=193246

1767 July 1 – Deposition of William Green aged 33 years p. 243-250 (Deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index, but name is William Greenwood)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-6?i=107&cat=193246

1767 July 1 – Deposition of Robert Boggess Sr aged 61 years p. 254-256 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-P?i=113&cat=193246

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 …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-C?i=129&cat=193246

1767 – Townshend Dade called to give evidence, objected p. 261
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-H?i=115&cat=193246

1767 Sept 25 – Deposition of Francis Awbrey aged 54 p. 261-263 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-H?i=115&cat=193246

1767 Sept 25 – Deposition of Francis Ballenger aged 50 years p. 268-269 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-7?i=119&cat=193246

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.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-C?i=129&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Jeremiah Hamton aged 50 or upwards p. 294-299 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-K?i=132&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of David Thomas aged 70 odd p. 299-301 * (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
… the Deponent says that one Johnn Wilcoxon came over from Maryland about 45-46 years ago with an intention of taking up land and he reembers that one old Benjamin Talbert used to be often at Capt. Simon Pearsons about the time that Wilcoxon came over to take up Land the Deponent says that he heard the said Pearson tell one Thomas Going that he had been taken 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 Plantation were different plantations and were some distance apart
… the Deponent being asked by the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff whether Lilliard paid rent to Robert Alexander says he does not know for that Lilliard ran away a year or two after he had settled on the afsd Plantation
… He further says that Thomas’s family were not interrupted as he know 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 …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-S?i=134&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Benjamin Talbert aged 65 p. 303-310
… 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 Sion Pearson to shew him the back line of Robert Alexanders land grandfather to the present Defendant …
… 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 …
… they came opposite to the place where James Green lives ….
… Pearson told them that from the said white oak the line run to the Wankapin Branch …
… the aforesaid back line belonged to one William Strutfield … the said Strutfield had run a small part of his land inside of Alexanders land …
… 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 … Ballenger told them that the said line was the back line of Alexanders land … the said line ran over Brichins Branch to a corner tree …
… 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 …
… 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 …
… 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 happened some years after Pearson shewed …
… 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 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 Gran 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 see the said bound tree above Brichens Branch about 10 days before and had his hand on it …
… about 30 large odd years ago … some marked trees that were on the line … by Mr George West Surveyor … he asked a man who lived over the Branch in the Old Fields near Chubb Mill … 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 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 frequently came over from Maryland to Virginia …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-6?i=136&cat=193246

1768 June 11 – Deposition of William Boylstone aged 66 p. 310-314
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-F?i=140&cat=193246

1768 June 11 – Deposition of Benjamin Sebastian aged 62 p. 314-328 *
… 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 Staughan 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 …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-9?i=142&cat=193246

1768 – Deposition of (witness objected to) p. 328
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99X-S?i=149&cat=193246

1809 May 8th – Deposition of Rev. Lee Massey aged 76. (Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

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)
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

1809 July 24 – Deposition of Col John Alexander aged upwards of 20 years
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

1810 May 28 – Deposition of Ignatious McFarling (Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

1810 – Deposition/Interrogatories of George Gilpin (Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

See following links for additional research that has been done on the Going/Goyen/Goyne family.

1) Carroll H. Goyne, Jr:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GOWEN/2001-07/0994197255
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GOWEN/2002-02/1014656685
2) The Gowen Manuscript:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/nl199111.pdf
3) The Gowen Manuscript:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/Gowenms133.htm

John Gowry same as John Gowin? Research:

(Other John Gowry info:  https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/john-gowry-information/ ).

Y-DNA:  See the following page for Y-DNA results for this line:

Y-DNA information for Goyen:  https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/y-dna-for-goyen/

Y-DNA matches (most distant known ancestors of people we match – have common paternal ancestor with these people):  https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/ydna-matches/