Hendrick

The lives of our ancestors are often seen as distant and not relevant to our contemporary lives. They are merely names and dates, words on a piece of paper or computer screen. Chancery causes, such as those preserved digitally at the Library of Virginia, can reveal much about long-ago family members: desires, passions, habits, even their health.

Cumberland County taverns were probably buzzing with rumors about the Hendricks and Womacks in 1779. The Hendricks were well known tavern kee

womack descendant chart_web

pers and William Womack was a prosperous Cumberland County farmer. The families were joined on November 20, 1777, when John Hendrick married Judi

th Womack. John was at least 22 years-old, and Judith was about 20 and the youngest daughter of William Womack. The young couple lived with William for a little over a y

ear after their marriage. Their departure resulted in litigation, making their private troubles public gossip.

John and Judith Hendrick filed a chancery cause against William Womack in 1779. The Revolutionary War was being fought across Virginia but John and Judith were litigating broken promises. They alleged that William had promised them, on the condition of marriage, three slaves, Sampson, Fam and Dinah or Rachel. He also promised that upon his death they would receive his land on the south side of Da

venport Road, and more than half of his estate. Their written statement says they married on the basis of this promise and John’s “tender and affectionate love” for Judith, and “lived together in the greatest harmony and most peaceful happiness.” Since their marriage, the couple had asked William “in a dutiful and friendly manner” to comply with his promises. So far, William had only delivered Dinah, and John and Judith were not satisfied.

Friends and neighbors were called to court to testify. Joseph Starkey was deposed on June 26, 1780, but the deposition is too faded to read. The testimony of John Davis, taken in 1780, is also hard to read, but describes an evening in 1777 he spent in the company of John Hendrick and William Womack. The men were drinking, perhaps coffee, laughing and talking.

John Langhorne recalled an evening with William in 1776, “I expect it will not be long before my daughter Judith be married… I have no Objection to John Hendrick. I suppose when I die I may give her near half that I have.”

Richard Allen described an evening in the company of Bernard Gains and William Womack. This was a few days before John and Judith’s wedding. “The said William further declared that he would make them, the said John & Judith, worth eight hundred pounds on the day of their marriage” by giving them three negroes. He also intended to give the young couple his land on the south side of Davenport Road. “The said John was to live with him and take care of him during his Life, this deponent further said the said William appeared to be in liquor & appeared much pleasured with his daughters intended marriage.” Bernard Gains confirmed much of this statement in his testimony.

Finally, John Howell relayed that John Hendrick told him about the gifts promised by William Womack and indicated that he and Judith would be living with William. However, John also said that he did not understand that the Hendricks were bound to live with Womack in consideration of the gifts.

When this suit was brought against him, William Womack was an old man of about seventy years, considered quite elderly in those times. He readily agreed that he had consented to Judith and John’s marriage, but denied there was a marriage contract or that he had promised them slaves or land before his death. “This Respondt. readily admits that he had made his Will & bequeath’d the Negroes aforsaid to his Daughter Judith on his death previous to her marriage, but as a condition to be perform’d on her part, She was to Continue to live with This Respond’t during his life, and to discharge those duties which a Parent hath aright to demand of a Child, and which this Respond’t call’d forcibly for, being not only subjected to the infirmitys incident to old age, in general, but also laboring under the inexpressible misfortune of the loss of his sight.”

William further explains this was made clear to John prior to the marriage. “Your Respondent further answering that although his said Daughter had repeatedly promised him to live with him, & take proper care of him during life,… yet, the said Judith regardless of her said promises, which the common dictates of Humanity should have prompted a strict compliance with, has in violation of filial duty, departed from this Respondents House, in about a year or little more after marriage, altho he the said Respondt gave her no sufficient cause, and left him in the most disconsolate, & Solitary situation.”

As the youngest daughter of the widowed, infirm and blind William Womack, Judith was expected to care for him the rest of his life. In return, she expected slaves, property and more. John Hendrick said the gifts were promised upon marriage. William Womack viewed the gifts as a conditional inheritance.

When the depositions were done, John Hendrick notified the Court that he had reached a private settlement with William Womack without disclosing the agreement details. When William Womack died eleven years later in 1791, he only left to daughter Judith, one slave, Dinah, who was already in her possession. The remainder of his substantial estate was divided between his other six children. It appears the litigation and broken promises created a lasting rift between father and daughter.

William Womack is my 6x great-grandfather. John Hendrick and Judith Womack are my 5x great grandparents. Their daughter, Sally Hendrick, and Isham Ball are my 4x great-grandparents. Following Judith’s death, John Hendrick married Isham Ball’s younger sister Martha Ball. Hendrick and Ball were affluent farmers and innkeepers.

William Womack is a DAR patriot for his support of the troops with supplies.

John Hendrick is a DAR patriot for his service as a soldier.

Descendants of these men are eligible for DAR membership.

Quotes and facts in this article are from 1781-001 Cumberland Chancery Causes, John Hendrick and Wife vs William Womack, Library of Virginia.

Look around your home and take a mental inventory of all of your possessions. Imagine listing every dish, piece of silverware, pot, or tool you own. What would that list reveal about you? Would we learn your occupation, financial status, hobbies and more?

The inventory prepared for Peter Ogilby’s bankruptcy is an interesting document, full of juicy little details for descendants and curious genealogists. Most of our ancestors do not leave diaries or letters to provide first hand accounts of their lives. Instead we turn to documents like Peter Ogilby’s inventory. Studied together with other documents such as census records and chancery causes, it is possible to enrich our understanding of Peter and Harriett’s life together.

In 1825, when this inventory was taken, Peter Ogilby was 33 and in the prime of his life. Harriett Ball Ogilby (my 4x great-aunt) was 25. This is a relatively small number of household goods, but the items therein reflect a comfortable life. Note many of the items are domestic household items. As a married woman, Harriett owned nothing. By law, everything belonged to Peter and was part of the inventory.

Legatee of Mrs. Hendrick’s Estate

Had I not already known that Harriett’s mother was a Hendrick, this item would have sent me on a search for the Hendrick link. Harriett’s mother, Sally Hendrick, died before 1808. Harriett was named in her grandfather’s (John Hendrick) will of 1814. However, John Hendrick had married late in life, a second time, to her father’s (Isham Ball) sister, Martha, who died in 1816, leaving several minor children. The estate would not be settled until 1831. Meanwhile, desperate for cash, Peter Ogilby had already sold his wife’s inheritance to J. W. Nash.

One Cradle and Furniture

Did this cradle hold a baby in 1825? Harriett and Peter had a daughter, Sarah, about 1820. The next recorded child is Peter, born about 1830. Most couples of this time frame had a child every other year. The 1830 census records five children living in Peter’s household, so the unfortunate couple must have lost three children between 1820 and 1830. It is likely an unknown Ogilby baby was sleeping in the cradle in 1825. The cradle furniture is the mattress, linens, blankets and perhaps a canopy or tester.

Two Cows and One Calf, Churn, Three Butter Pots

Butter-making was a routine household task requiring some skill. Virginia’s hot summers could sour the milk or spoil the cream and any contamination could prevent the curdle necessary for butter. Churning the cream takes about an hour and then the butter had to be kneaded to release moisture. It was placed in a ceramic butter pot and covered with gauze. Two cows would barely provide the milk for the household’s dairy needs.

Two Feather Beds and Furniture

These were a real luxury and considered family heirlooms. Poorer households did not possess one feather bed, much less two. Once again, furniture here means the blankets, pillows, linens and draperies as the bed may have been canopied. Heavy drapes provided privacy and warmth in winter. Come summer the bed was draped with a lighter fabric to keep out flying insects.

Spinning Wheel and Cotton Cards

These implements indicate Harriett was spinning cotton into thread. Milled fabrics were available by this time, so it is possible these implements were already family heirlooms. Harriett may also have been practicing thrift by spinning and weaving some of her own fabrics. Note there is no loom mentioned here.

Tea Board with Its Contents, One Tea Kettle, Coffee Mill, Coffee Pot, Salt Cellar, Pepper Box

A tea board was a large tray, sometimes on a stand, where hot beverages like coffee and tea were served. Coffee, tea and pepper were imported to Virginia and were considered little luxuries, available only to those with the cash to purchase them.

Grid Iron, Tribbet, Iron Pot, Iron Pot Rack

The cooking in this household was done over an open fire. A grid iron supported pots over the fire. A tribbet or trivet was generally a three-legged stand to support a kettle near an open fire.

One Bay Mare

Peter had one horse, and it had a debt against it.

Two Trunks

Chancery causes prior to 1825 refer to Peter living out of state or in Georgia. Perhaps the trunks were a part of Peter’s wandering life.

One Looking Glass, One Dressing Box, Clothes Brush, Wash Bowl, One Chamber, Pair Flat Irons

A looking glass (mirror) and dressing box imply status and luxury. A woman may have kept cosmetics, combs and brushes in a dressing box. Harriett may have brought these items to the marriage. Flat irons were heated in a fire and used to press clothes. Chamber here may refer to a pot used to collect overnight urine and avoid a trip outside in the night.

What’s Missing?

A household inventory in rural Powhatan in the early nineteenth century would have included many more tools and farm implements. It would also have included a number of slaves to assist with the household tasks and farming. The 1830 census for Peter Ogilby includes several slaves, indicating that perhaps Harriett’s father, Isham Ball, “loaned” a few of his slaves to the couple. This provided help for Harriett and insured they wouldn’t be sold to pay Peter’s debts. Truly luxurious items like silver, crystal, clocks and even a buggy are also missing.

Summary

Harriet and Peter lived a comfortable life above their means. Peter did not farm on a big scale; there was probably only a kitchen garden to supply the family’s needs. Peter was a minister later in life, and he may have already been preaching by the time of this inventory in 1825. The inventory is available online at the Library of Virginia, Amelia County, 1839-010, John O. Hundley, etc vs Heirs of Richard Ogilby.

Cultivating Family

Discovering the ancestors of Jesse and Vanessa Sykes Crews

Broken Promises

The Juicy Details of a Household Inventory