My blog has been rather quiet recently. The excuses
reasons are numerous: working on house projects, vacationing, helping others
with research, writing another Jollett family history book, blah blah blah.
Then an email arrived to spur me back into the ring, but
it was not a result of “cousin bait” doing its best to lure new contacts who
might share photos and stories about our common ancestor. No, the email was
from someone who will remain a stranger. Still, I am grateful for what he had
to tell me.
“Ron” and a friend had recently purchased an old box of
weaving drafts. They are making it their mission to identify the women that
wrote them and learn their story. One of the drafts was signed by Miss Frances
Jollette and another by Fannie E. Jollett, same woman. One more was written on
reused paper with a note on the back:
 |
| While I do not know the circumstances of this transaction, I suspect Henry Sampson was son of Smith Sampson, who would have been Fannie's cousin. Smith's mother and Fannie's mother were sisters. |
Not surprisingly, when Ron Googled “Frances Jollett,” my
blog popped up. What he learned from my blog about Fannie Jollett was not much,
just the bare minimum: a year of birth, the name of her mother, and her
association with a few family members. No real story. Not even a date of death.
Ron’s email reminded me that I have not thought about
Fannie Jollett in quite some time. She has always been just a minor character in
the drama of my family tree. Yet she is the star in a minor contradiction that
has me puzzled. Let me start from the beginning.
Fannie was born in Orange County, Virginia in 1822, the
daughter of Tabatha Jollett. Just going by the tick marks in early census
records when only the head of household was named, Tabatha was likely an
unmarried daughter of James Jollett and Nancy Walker Jollett. I do not see a
spot for an unnamed son who might have married a girl named Tabatha and left
her widowed before 1850, so I am sticking with my theory of “unwed daughter.”
In 1850, Tabatha and daughter Fannie were living in the household
of Elizabeth Jollett King (daughter of James and Nancy) and her daughter
Columbia. By 1860, Tabatha and Fannie were on their own in Greene County even
though they seemed to have no visible means of support. If Fannie earned a
living as a weaver, she did not declare it in the census. Elizabeth had moved
to Rockingham County to live with her daughter who married Thomas Marsh in 1853.
Tabatha apparently died before 1870, so it is no surprise
to find Fannie once again in the household of her COUSIN Columbia Marsh along
with husband Thomas Marsh and mother Elizabeth King. I emphasize “COUSIN”
because in 1878 when Elizabeth King died, Fannie - not Columbia - was the informant.
In the record, Fannie claimed she was Elizabeth’s GRANDDAUGHTER.
So there is the minor puzzle. How could Fannie be Columbia’s
COUSIN as well as Elizabeth’s GRANDDAUGHTER? I cannot come up with a scenario
that makes sense. If Fannie was indeed Elizabeth’s granddaughter, then Tabatha
was Elizabeth’s daughter making Columbia Fannie’s aunt, not cousin - unless,
Columbia was also Elizabeth’s granddaughter, of course. However, there is no
evidence of that being so. If Fannie was indeed Columbia’s cousin, then Tabatha
and Elizabeth were sisters (or maybe sisters-in-law). But then why did Fannie
claim to be Elizabeth’s granddaughter?
Since Fannie is such a distant relation, the puzzle has
not been important to me until now. That email revived my interest in this elusive
ancestor. I recalled that some time ago I found a chancery cause at the Library
of Virginia in which Peter Haynes sued Fannie Jollett for failure to make
payments on property she purchased from him.
It seems that in 1866 Fannie Jollett purchased from Peter
Haynes twenty-five acres two miles east of McGaheysville in Rockingham County,
Virginia. She promised to pay in four annual
installments, but apparently failed to follow through. Haynes claimed she was
wasting the land by selling off the timber thus making the property less
valuable. He further claimed that since she was insolvent, the only recourse
would be for the Court to seize the property and sell it.
The case became more complicated because Miss Fannie Jollett
had sold one-quarter of an acre to a group of men who wished to build a school.
While the group did not object to Fannie’s land being sold out from under her,
they considered their little purchase from her a good and valid sale.
Fannie did not just roll over. Her answer to Haynes was
that she had made some partial payments but did not pay the full amount
annually because she learned Haynes did not have a clear title to the property which
actually belonged to a man named Mathias Kersh. Kersh was then added to the
suit, but the evidence showed that Haynes was on the side of right. He did
indeed have a clear title to the property in question.
In 1873 it became clear that Fannie was losing the battle.
The question became whether she had paid Haynes anything at all, how much and
when, and whether to sell the 24 ¾ acres as one parcel or two. Counsel for the
defense brought in Fannie’s COUSIN Columbia Marsh as a witness. Here is part of
the deposition:
Question by Def[ense] Counsel. Do you know of your own knowledge of any
payment of money by the Deft [Defendant]
Frances E. Jollett to the Piff [Plaintiff] Peter Haynes on the land
mentioned in this cause if so state the amt. of said payment and the time and
place it was made.
Ans In the year
1868 or 1869 I saw Frances E. Jollett pay
said Haynes $40 at her own house.
2 By same Did
Haynes have the bond or bonds with him
Ans No Sir he did
not have them
3 By same Did Miss
Jollet take any receipt for the $40
Ans No Sir
4 By same Was it in the spring summer fall or winter
Ans In the spring
5 By same How many years ago was it
Ans It has been three or four years
and part of the deposition of Fannie Jollett in which she answered the same questions posed to Columbia:
Ta da - there it is. In her own words, Fannie confirmed she and Columbia were cousins and that Elizabeth King was Fannie’s aunt.
As for the death record in which it appears Elizabeth
King was Fannie’s grandmother, that misstep can be chalked up to any number of
reasons from nervousness to old age to clerk’s misunderstanding.
Oh, and if you are wondering, yes, the property was sold at
auction. Unfortunately, poor ol’ Peter Haynes did not live to see it, but the
property fetched enough to pay his estate and cover the costs of the lawsuit.
 |
| From Chancery Causes at Library of Virginia Rockingham Co 1877-48-C |
“Niece or Granddaughter?” is hardly the exciting research
question, but in following the advice to chase every clue even if it does not
look like a clue, I found an answer and much more.
This is my contribution to the Genealogy Blog Potluck Picnic.
Wendy
© 2017, Wendy Mathias.
All rights reserved.
