Mizell Citations in Surry County, Virginia
So that you may draw
your own conclusions, the records themselves are in regular type.
My comments and
explanations of the records are in blue italics
A Note on Surry
County Records:
Surry County has some of the best-preserved county records
in all of Virginia, though all of the parish records for its two parishes have
been lost. The earliest records (August 1652 to March 1672) are combined into
a single book. There are conspicuously missing records in that volume –
including all wills and nearly all other estate-related records, which may have
been filed at Jamestown instead. Beginning in late 1671, the records are
separated into books of court minutes and “deeds and miscellaneous” records.
Deed books 2 and 3 have partially unreadable indices, and some later books have
no indices at all. For readability, I have in most cases converted the original
shorthand and archaic words into a more understandable version (e.g., that for yt, tion for ĉon, lbs for li, ).
Likewise, dates are converted into the modern form. Those segments enclosed in
parenthesis are direct transcriptions. Most records are abstracted in order to
make their meaning clear and save space. A few records of no genealogical value
are omitted. With regard to the spelling of surnames, each clerk seems to have
had their own preferred spelling, and I have left those untouched.
27 Aug 1635 Land
Patent: Thomas Gray, 550a. in James City County, on the south side of the Main
River over against James City, adjoining on the East to the plantation now in
his possession and to the land of Captain Perry, running along by Rolfe's Creek
and South into the woods upon Cross Creek. 100a. due as an Ancient Planter at
or before the time of Sir Francis Dale; 50a. due for first wife Annis Gray;
50a. for now wife Rebecca Gray; and 350a. due for transportation of his two
sons, William Gray and Thomas Gray, and five servants: Jonathan Bishop, Robert
Brown, Robert Welsh, Luke Misle, and Jonathan Banks. [Virginia Patent
Book 1, p283]
This patent is for land on Grays Creeke (then called Rolfe’s
Creek or Smith’s Fort Creek depending on the branch) and refers to a prior
acquisition of land there, probably by purchase. This is our first citation for
Luke Mizell, when he is approximately 21 years old. It could be that he
arrived in Virginia in 1632 or before – in theory, a headright could not be
claimed until three years after arrival in the colony. The Charter of 1618 was
specific that a headright must “continue there three years or dye after they
are shipped”, thus one could claim a living headright only after three years
had elapsed (at least in theory). Luke’s deposition of 1659 (see below) places
his birth at ca1613-14, so he may still been a teenager when he arrived, as
were many imported servants. This and subsequent patents by Thomas Gray are in
what later became Surry County, so presumably Luke Mizell arrived to work at
Gray’s Surry plantation and remained there for the rest of his life. Virtually
all male indentured servants in the 1630s were imported as field hands, the
production of tobacco having reached a fever pitch a few years earlier.
Tobacco prices were still sky-high, permitting one to acquire significant
wealth by employing servants in the fields, even for only their few years of
servitude.
Thomas Gray’s status as an
“ancient planter” tells us he came to Virginia before mid-1616. Dr. Robert A.
Stewart, writing in the foreword to Cavaliers and Pioneers, somewhat gratuitously places his arrival date as 1608.
This seems much too early, as Gray later deposed he was age 60 in 1653, thus
was only about 15 in 1608. Thomas Gray and his unnamed wife, daughter “Jone”
and son William are listed among the James City massacre survivors in February
1623/4. By the muster of 1625 they had moved onto James Island where Thomas,
wife Margrett, and children William (age 3) and daughter “Jone” (age 6) appear,
both children listed as having been born in Virginia. None of the five
servants are listed in the musters, so must have arrived later.
The headrights used in this patent force us to consider that Thomas Gray had
taken his family back to England, where he may have married a second wife, had
his son Thomas, and secured contracts for the five servants, then transported
the whole lot back to Virginia. Son William was born in Virginia, so could be
claimed as a headright only if he had left Virginia and then returned. Son
Thomas, not born as of 1625, must have been born in England to be eligible as a
headright. Likewise for the second wife. Daughter Joan is missing, suggesting
that she did not accompany the family back to England. She may have married
John Hux before her father left Virginia. Since free women were marrying at 16
or so at the time, this is entirely possible.
26 May 1638 Land
Patent: Thomas Gray, 550a. (Same tract as patented on 27 Aug 1635, with slight
variations in most of the names, e.g., Luke Mille instead of Luke Misle.)
Apparently a new survey was done, as the land is described as adjoining Thomas
Swann. [Virginia Patent Book 1, p631]
All of the patents in Book 1 are copies – the
originals, now lost, were copied into the book in 1683. The same clerk entered
both patents and obviously had trouble reading his predecessor’s handwriting.
This patent was a reissue of the 1635 patent, possibly motivated by the
politics of the time. Several Governors in the 1630s were charged with
malfeasance and forced to return to England. Gray was probably being prudent
in getting the right signatures on his patent.
20 Jul 1639 Land
Patent: Thomas Gray, 400a. in James City County, on the head of Gray's Creek,
for the transportation of 8 persons: Richard Dean, Francis Fincash, Allen Sadome,
William Short, John Hancock, and three Negroes. [Virginia Patent Book 1, p669]
This patent did not adjoin the land patented in 1635,
though it was nearby. It was voided “for not planting or seeding same” and
renewed in 1644 by Samuel Abbott. In 1652, Thomas Gray renewed the patent yet
again, stating that he had purchased the rights from Samuel Abbott, and adding
another 400a. of new land.
Indentured servants’ contracts varied in length, but nearly all fell between 4
and 8 years. By the time of this1639 patent, Luke Mizell was certainly a freeman,
though he may have continued to work for Thomas Gray as a paid laborer.
1 Apr 1644 Land
Patent: John Newman, 150a. in James City County, near the head of Smiths Fort Creeke
[this part of the creek was later called Grays Creek]
on the north side thereof… first granted to Stephen Thompson and successively
assigned to John Laine, John Rawlins, Richard Harris, and John Esgrame who
assigned it to Newman. [Virginia Patent Book 2, p2.]
John Newman assigned part or all of this patent to
Luke Mizell four years later. Luke Mizell would apparently remain on this land
until his death.
18 Dec 1647 John
Newman assigns his 1644 patent to Luke Mizell. [See entry for 4 March
1683/4]
From later descriptions of the adjoining lands, this
parcel was located about two miles south of the James River between what is now
called Grays Creek and Spring Run. The land was adjacent to the Southwarke
church and within a mile or so of the location where the Surry courthouse
would eventually be built. This probably explains why we find Luke Mizell
serving on juries during the 1650s – the sheriff typically rounded up people
visiting the courthouse or those living in the vicinity to serve on juries.
-- Feb 1651 Lt.
Pittman ordered to send eleven named men to Jamestown “with their armes fixed
and three weekes p’visions…” Among the names: Luke Messel [Mezel?]
[Surry County Deed Book 1, p10.]
12 Oct 1652 Land
Patent: Nicholas Williams, 200a. “lying up Smith’s Fort Creeke near the head
thereof…along a swamp called the Reedy Swamp the easternmost branch thereof...
along the markd trees of Luke Misen [sic]….” [Virginia Patent Book 3,
p140] Renewed with identical wording by Nicholas Williams 9 January 1662
[Virginia Patent Book 5, p249]
18 Apr1656 Henry
& John Richards, merchants of London, record a list of debts owed to them
through their Virginia agent William Thomas. Among the names: Luke Mizell 152
lbs tobacco, Thomas Gray 145 lbs tobacco. [Surry Deed Book 1, pp83.]
9 May 1659 “Luke
Mizell, aged 45 years or thereabouts, sworn & examined as abovesd [on 9
May] that when this deponent was a servant to Thos: Gray Seneor deced, he did
often hear the sd Gray & his wife say that one Gates had given fiftye acres
of land to theire sonne Thomas & daughter Jane which was part of the divedent
he lived on & further sayeth not.” Signed: Luke (x) Mizell. Recorded 10
January 1659/60. [Surry County Deed Book 1, p131.]
Luke Mizell Sr. signed this and all later documents
with a distinctive “LM” mark.
This is part of a series of depositions. Taken together, the depositions tell
us that a Thomas Gates gave 50 acres on Grays Creek to be divided between
Thomas Gray Jr. and Joan Gray. The date of this gift was apparently sometime
before John Hux married Joan Gray,, and apparently sometime before Luke Mizell’s
contract expired. Who Thomas Gates was is uncertain. He was not the famous
Sir Thomas Gates. A different Thomas Gates was listed as having 100a in Tappahanna
(the future Surry County) in Sir Francis Wyatt’s May 1625 inventory of
patents. He appears in no other records, and none of these early patents
exist.
2 Apr 1660 Luke
(x) Mizell signs presentment of a jury inquiring into the death of Robert
Story. [Surry County Deed Book 1, p150.]
Jury service was a privilege reserved for freeholders,
those owning at least 50 acres of land.
2 Mar 1661/2 Thomas
Alcocke acknowledged receipt of 2,000 lbs of tobacco from Luke Mizell,
due by a bill to Wm. Edwards in 1660, who assigned the note to Alcocke, which
is “claime to bee lost otherwise the sd. Mizell should have it delivered in”.
[Surry County Deed Book 1, p184.]
This is probably either a merchandise account or a
bill to deliver Mizell’s crop for the year 1660, the most plausible
explanations I can find for a sum this large. Alcocke was a merchant and
tobacco broker in Jamestown, and Edwards was also a merchant and county
commissioner. 2,000 pounds was a bit higher than the average amount a single
farmer could produce [Kulikoff estimates 1600 pounds] and was worth about £16
at 1660 prices.
26 Jun 1662 Luke
Mizell on another jury. [Surry County Deed Book 1, p192.]
1662 “Pd.
for Luke Mezell 160 [lbs tobacco]” appears among a list of 1662 credits
in a Surry accounting for merchants Henry & John Richards of London, recorded
1 November 1664. [Surry County Deed Book 1, p247.]
6 Jan 1663/4 Robert
Dennis pledges “one feather bed & boulster” to Luke Mizle as
security for a bond Mizle and Dennis jointly made as securities of Robert
Spencer for 687 lbs tobacco. [Surry County Deed Book 1, p223.]
2-3 Mar
1663/4 Luke (x) Mizell security for Wm. Mathews in the amount of 10,000
lbs tobacco to the Sheriff for Mathew’s appearance in court to answer
[unspecified] charges. Also security for a bond to the King’s representative
for 10,000 lbs for Mathews’ good behavior, that Mathews “shall well & truly
behave himselfe towards all of his Majties liege people at all times.” [Surry
County Deed Book 1, pp226-7.]
It is possible that Luke Mizell was related in some
way to William Mathews, for Luke Mizell is risking an amount that certainly
greatly exceeded his entire net worth. Unfortunately, I could find nothing in
the records to tell us who William Mathews was or what he was accused of.
There is no record of any subsequent appearance in the court, nor does he
appear in any further Surry records. “Liege people” included sheriffs,
constables, justices, and other local officials – probably the meaning intended
here since this bond amount was most often assessed on those who physically assaulted
a county official.
5 Jul 1664 Luke
(x) Mizell a witness to bond of John Gettings to John Sommers. [Surry
County Deed Book 1, p239.]
Again he used the distinctive mark in both of the two
cases above.
21 Apr 1665 William
Strong appoints “my trusty & well beloved friend” Luke Messell as
attorney to sell a mill to Ellis Vanter. The mill purchased by Strong from
John Rawlings. Luke Messell records the power of attorney on 2 May. [Surry
County Deed Book 1, p255.]
There are no deeds recorded in Surry for the prior
sales of this mill, and there is no deed recorded for this sale, but later
deeds tell us it was sold by John Corker to Rawlins. This mill existed as
early as 1657 when John Corker patented land “on the south side of the head of
Gray's Creek, called Ware Neck ...opposite the mill” Ellis Vanter sold the
mill three years later, describing it as being on one acre of land at Ware
Neck. It was subsequently resold frequently, being described as a “water corn
mill” in later records. William Strong is another person who had posted a
10,000 lb bond for good behavior toward His Majesty’s liege people.
2 Nov 1665 Deed:
John & William Corker to William Marriot for 1150a. called Ware Neck,
excepting one acre for the mill [see above], the northernmost corner of which
was a tree on “a point of land nigh the path that goes to Mizells”.
[Surry County Deeds & Wills Book 1, p274-5.]
3 Jul 1666 Luke
(x) Mizell a witness to a bill of sale from Barth. Owen to Wm. Rose. [Surry
County Deed Book 1, p271-2.]
4 Oct 1666 Luke
(x) Mizell and Robert Spencer witnesses to pre-nuptial agreement between
Thomas Pittman and Mrs. Martha Gualtney. [Surry County Deed Book 1, p281.]
June 1668 Surry
Tithables (Wm. Marriott’s list for Southwarke parish):
Luke Mizell & Mate – 2 [or “Male”?]
This is the first available tithables list for Surry
County, and it identifies only the heads of households, not the taxable
members. Marriott’s list has only 9 names, with a total of 23 tithables.
[See separate page on tithables for a detailed explanation of who was taxable
in 1668 – accessible from the main page of this website.] The meaning of
“Male” or “Mate” [whichever it was] is not obvious, for Marriott wrote “Sonn”
on the very next entry. By later records, Lawrence Mizell was certainly
tithable this year – though he may have been on someone else’s list as an
apprentice. The only women taxed this year were imported white women servants
who worked as field hands, and non-white women above 16.
June 1669 Surry
Tithables (Wm. Marriott’s list for Southwarke parish):
Luke Mizell & Sonn – 2
The son is Lawrence Mizell from later records. If his
later deposition is correct, he would have been about 17 at this time.
June 1670 Surry
Tithables (Robt. Spensor’s list for Southwarke parish):
Widow Mizell – 1
The tithable is surely Lawrence Mizell. This
indicates that Luke Mizell was already dead by 7 June 1670 when this list was
presented to the court. No wills, inventories, or executor bonds survive in
the early Surry records, all of them apparently lost among the James City
County records, so we can’t conclude that he died intestate. In fact, from
later evidence, it seems nearly certain that he did leave a will.
Note that both Luke and Lawrence Mizell were minors at this time and, unless
Luke Mizell’s missing will provided for guardians, one had to be appointed to
manage their estates. Lawrence, being over 14, could choose his own guardian
but Luke, who was under 14, would have had a court-appointed guardian [the
guardian’s only duty being to manage the orphan’s property, not to actually
house or feed him.] From later records, Luke’s guardian was initially John
Smith and later William Foreman.
5 Mar 1671/2 "To
ye. worll. Court of Surry County these to certifie that I subscr___ my whole estate
that my father left me.” signed: Lar. (x) Measell. Recording date not
noted, but the entry following was recorded on 8 March 1671/2. [Surry County Deed Book 1, p404.]
This document was delivered to the clerk, as it is not
mentioned in the court minutes at all. It’s
not certain what the unreadable word(s) is, leading to two possibilities. (1)
If the unreadable word is “subscribe”, “subscribe rt”, or something similar
then Lawrence Mizell is simply notifying the court that he has received
whatever legacy his father provided to him, something he needed to do in order
to get his guardian or the administrator off the hook so that their bond could
be voided. (2) A second possibility has been suggested: that Lawrence was
relinquishing his share of the estate.
A relinquishment seems implausible for several reasons. First, this language
would not have passed legal muster. Second, a search of the published court
records through 1700 uncovered many similar entries, all of which are clearly
receipts for legacies, but I found not a single instance of an heir
relinquishing his legacy. Thirdly, Luke Jr. recorded a similar statement as
soon as he turned 21 [see below].
If we presume the existence of a will leaving the land to Luke Jr. and the
personal property to both sons (subject to the widow’s dower rights), then it
would make perfect sense that Lawrence, now 21, is acknowledging receipt of his
share. His guardian and the estate administrator needed such a document in
order to void the bonds they had posted.
Note that this document specifically refers to the “estate”, which meant the
personal property. Whatever action Lawrence was taking here, it applied only
to the personal property. Land was not legally a part of the deceased’s “estate”
because the concept of land ownership was that it was never without title.
Title to land was passed only by devise (will) or by deed. Personal property,
however, could be untitled while awaiting a division – thus it is only personal
property that is inventoried, appraised, and divided. From all evidence, the
land was left to Luke Jr. [See Blackstone’s Commentaries on the
Laws of England for an explanation of 17th century
inheritance and estate law, Virginia not yet having addressed the subject in
its own laws.]
29 Nov 1672 Upon
the petition of John Smith, who married the relict of Luke Mezell, which
sd Mizell was security with Hezekiah Bunnel for the estate of John Flood’s
orphans… (ordered that Bunnel obtain a new security and discharge the
obligation of Mizell) [Surry County Order Book 1671-91, p15]
The original bond is missing. John Smith assumed the obligation of Luke Mizell by marrying
his widow. The assets in Mizell’s estate remained pledged until Smith could
void the obligation. There are no records in Surry of John Flood’s will,
inventory, or any of these bonds. Apparently, these were filed in Jamestown
court and later burned. Surry records only include an orphan’s estate
accounting (as in the case of Luke Mizell).
John Smith did not own land in Surry and probably lived on young Luke Mizell’s
land after marrying his mother. See 1679 for the record of his will.
21 Nov 1672 “Jno.
Smith presenting an acct to this cort of the estate of Luke Mizell orpht
of Luke Mizell deceased & the sd orpht parte being 5257 lbs of
tobacco” It is ordered that the accounting be recorded and that “the sd Smith
pay the sd sume unto Wm. Foreman guardian of the sd orpht alias exec…” [Surry
County Court Orders 1671-91, p32.]
”Orphan” meant only that his father was dead, not his
mother. The guardian’s duty purely fiscal: to
manage the estate of the orphan until he came of age, and to pay his bills.
Who the orphan actually lived with was a different matter entirely. The accounting referred to is recorded in the deed book on
the same day:
21 Nov 1672 Following
is very difficult to read:
“An account of the estate of Luke Mizell late of this county ____”
presented this date by Jno Smith who married Deborah the relict and [extrx.?]
__ of ____ to Luke Mizell”
|
The Estate is Cr.
|
|
|
Contra Dr.
|
|
|
|
by appraismt
by Fra: Gray
by Major Hone
by ___ Spiltimber
|
11,505
218
220
700
|
|
by Clerks
by levy & Kings ___
by Tho: Sowersby appraisal
by 8 ____ Lochrohanor? ___
by Roger Welbeck
by Coll. Swann
by Ch: Lewis
by Wm: Foreman
|
756
149
30
130
55
93
110
105
|
|
|
Cr.
|
12643
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contra Dr.
|
1428
|
|
Allowed more by cort for Spiltimbers child & all
other demands
|
400
|
|
|
Cr.
|
11215
|
|
|
1428
|
(sic)
|
“with 11215 rem it is to be equally devided between John Smith & Luke Mizell,
orphant.___ each ___ 5607” [Surry County Deed Book 2, p39]
Parts of this page are damaged, but it appears
to read “extrx” – confirming that Luke Sr. did indeed leave a will. Note the reference to an unrecorded inventory and appraisal,
the 350 lb discrepancy between the court record and the accounting [5,257 vs.
5,607] and the peculiar entry regarding [Anthony] Spilltimber’s children. [Anthony
Spiltimber had died a few months earlier leaving two daughters, Patty and
Martha, and his widow remarried to Mathew Swann.] Also note that the
distribution to John Smith was the widow’s share, which he would own as her
husband. There are only two ways in which she could have received half of this
estate: (1) This valuation of the estate is subsequent to Lawrence Mizell’s
distribution, making her share the normal widow’s one-third, or (2) Luke Sr.
left a will leaving equal shares to his wife and Luke Jr. Given Lawrence Mizell’s
statement, (1) seems more likely.
June 1673 Surry
tithables [the first list since 1670] – no Mizells on the list. There
is only one John Smith – in Southwarke parish – with a single tithable.
Luke Jr. is still under 16. Lawrence is probably
living other than with the Smiths. In this
particular year, the list on which Lawrence Mizell should appear does not give
the names of tithables charged to others.
1 Aug 1673 Deed:
Wm. Thompson and Katherine his wife to John Salway, 70a. nigh the church at the
head of Gray’s Creek… bounded with a valley running betwixt Wm. Foremans &
the sd land N with Young Luke Mizzell’s line of marked trees… [Surry County
Deed Book 2, p29]
William Thompson was the Southwarke minister at the
time, and had bought Christopher Lewis’s land adjacent Luke Mizell Sr.’s
purchase of 1647. Clearly, the land was now owned by Luke Jr. [A minor could
legally own inherited land.] A later 1684 patent to Thompson also mentions the
adjoining tract as “the land of Luke Mizell”.
7 Jan 1673/4 Wm.
Foreman presents Mr. Geo: Proctor and Mr. Edward Petway security for the estate
of Luke Mizell orpht…. Jno: Smith petitioning this cort to have his
bond in, Wm. Foreman being guardian to the orpht of Luke Mizell &
for whose estate the sd Smith was bound…” Smith’s bond is voided. [Surry
County Court Orders 1671-91, p39]
Smith was herein requesting that a previous bond of
his be voided in favor of the bond that William Foreman had just posted. A
bond was required to assure that the guardian in charge of the orphan’s estate
managed it properly. The language of the second line, and the consecutive
filing of both items, strongly implies that Smith was specifically asking to be
relieved of a guardian’s bond. This is an indication that Deborah Mizell may
already be dead.
Note: Did Luke Mizell Sr. Leave a Will?
There is no will, inventory, or
administrator/executrix bond recorded for him or for anyone else in the Surry
records of this period – all such records apparently being recorded elsewhere
and lost. So the fact that we find no will is not evidence that there wasn’t
one. The accounting above is our only record, dated at least 2½ years after
his death and referring to an earlier lost appraisal. As mentioned above, the
accounting may use the work “extrx” which would confirm a will. Three
additional factors lead me to conclude that there was a will: (1) Both
Lawrence and Luke Jr. use the words “left to me by my father” or “that my
father left me”, which strongly implies a will. (2) Luke Jr. clearly inherited
the land, which was being referred to as his by the time he was 12 or so. That
could only have happened if it were given to him by a will or by a deed from either
his father or his brother Lawrence – given the state of the Surry records, a
missing will is much more likely than a missing deed. (3) The possibility that
the estate was not distributed equally; if he were intestate the law would have
split the personal property into thirds and given the land to Lawrence. If
there was a will, Deborah was obviously the executor, a duty that would have
passed to her husband when she remarried.
7 Apr 1674 Will
Proved: Will of Christopher Lewis, dated 1 September 1673. This will gives a
silver flagon to the church at Southwarke and tobacco to William Thompson, its
minister. It also makes bequests to two of William Thompson’s children, William
Jr. and Katherine. It makes small bequests to four godchildren: Solomon Davis,
Luke Measell, Katherine Owen, and Chrstopher Moring. A variety of other
bequests were made to people both related and (apparently) unrelated. [Surry
County Deed Book 2, p35]
The godchild must be Luke Mizell Jr. As a side
note, the Virginia act of 1661 required parish churches to keep records of
births, baptisms, and deaths. If the Southwarke records had survived, we would
have Luke Jr.’s birth date.
June 1674 Surry
tithables (Lawrence Baker’s list for Lawnes Creek parish)
Rich: Harris, Geo: Harris, Law: Mizell – 3
Lawrence is several miles away from John Smith, who is
still in Southwarke parish.
4 Nov 1674 “Lawrence
Mizell presenting an acct to this court against John Stock which being
returned non est inventus…” attachment granted against Stock’s estate for 1,800
lbs tobacco. [Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p76]
”non est inventus” means that the Sheriff could not
find John Stock. So before he could remove his property from the county, Mizell
asked for the sheriff to attach whatever he could find. The same shoe would
be on the other foot nearly twenty years later.
16 Mar 1674/5 Judgment
granted Coll. Swann Esq. against Law: Mizell “for what he shall make appeare
due at the next court”. [Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p89]
Lawrence Mizell is, at the age of 24 or so,
encountering the first of many debt problems. He probably managed some
temporary arrangement, for the next record of this debt is in early 1679.
June 1675 Surry
tithables (Will: Browne’s list for Southwarke parish)
Roger Williams, Law: Mizell – 2
6 Jul 1675 Judgment
granted Jno: Smith against Rogr: Williams for 2,000 lbs tobacco “he in cort
acknowledging himselfe security for the appearance of Mr. Law: Mizell”.
[Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p97]
As with many of these records, the prior documents are
not recorded. Roger Williams (with whom he was tithable a month earlier) was
evidently security for Lawrence Mizell’s appearance to answer some suit or
charge and forfeited the money when Mizell failed to appear. (The money would
be returned, less costs, if Mizell was brought to a subsequent court.) There
is a vague implication her that Deborah might have been dead, else John Smith
might not have resorted to court action to assure Lawrence Mizell’s appearance.
7 Sep 1675 Judgment
granted Tho: Hye against Law: Mizell for 474 lbs tobacco “unless he give
him security within 20 days for payment thereof”. [Surry County Court Orders 1671-91,
p100]
June 1676 The 1676 tithables were not taken owing to the unrest of
Bacon’s Rebellion, but from later records it appears that Luke Mizell Jr. would not have
appeared in them, being a few months short of the age of 16 in June 1676.
June 1677 Surry
tithables (Benjamin Harrison’s list for the “upper end” of Southwarke parish):
Mr. Jno. King, Geo: Arnold, Sam Lin, Luke Mizell – 4
Nicholas Merriweather’s list for Southwarke parish:
Jno: Smith & Law: Mizell – 2
1 Dec 1677 Deposition
of Lawrence Meazle aged 26 years or thereabouts… [concerning Thomas
High’s statements regarding Col. Thomas Swann’s conduct during Bacon’s
Rebellion.] Signed: Lawrence (x) Meazle. [William and Mary College
Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 2, p81]
June 1678 Surry
County tithables (by Benjamin Harrison for Southwarke parish “from Sunken Marsh
to ye upper end of Surry County”):
Mr. Jno: King, Geo: Arnold, Rich: Greene, Luke Mizell - 4
William Browne’s list for Southwarke parish:
Jno: Smith & Law: Mizle – 2
7 Jan 1678/9 Judgments
granted to Col. Thomas Swann against Lawrence Mizell for 646 lbs of
tobacco and Rogr: Williams for 1,697 lbs “the said Williams having liberty to
make what just discount he can and pay costs…” [Surry County Court Orders
1671-91, p234]
Apparently a resolution of the suit brought three
years earlier.
6 May 1679 Lawrence
Mezell confesses judgment to Mr. Geo: Lee, attorney of Jno: Grascome for
430 lbs of tobacco. [Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p251]
June 1679 Surry
tithables (Geo: Lee’s list for Southwarke parish “from Sunken Marsh upwards”):
Mr. Jno. King, Geo: Arnold, Luke Mizell – 3
William Browne’s list for Southwarke parish:
Law: Mizle – 1
Lawrence is more than likely married about this time,
when he first appears as “master of a family” [see Tithables document elsewhere
on this website].
23 Jul 1679 Will
of John Smith, makes bequests to George Williams and son John Smith. [Surry
County Deed Book 2, p224]
This John Smith lived in the same precinct as Luke
Mizell Sr.’s land was in, and is apparently the same one who married Deborah
Mizell. There is no mention of a wife in this will or in any of the
records of the estate, so she is apparently dead by now. John Smith was repeatedly sued during the last few years of
his life. I did not bother to read his inventory and appraisal, but he had
surely worked his estate down to nearly nothing by his death.
2 Mar 1679/80 Wm.
Foreman, guardian to Luke Mizle orpht having brought his accusation
against Mr. Wm. Thompson for trespassing upon the said orphans land, it is
therefore ordered that the Sheriff impannell an able jury of the neighborhood
who with the surveyor of the county are to lay out the said Thompson’s land
& if they find the sd Thompson hath trespassed upon the sd orphan’s land
they are to consider the damage & make report thereof to the next court.
[Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p292]
4 May 1680 In
the matter of Wm. Foreman, guardian of Luke Mizell, vs. Mr. William
Thompson, the jury determined that Thompson had indeed trespassed to the value
of 30 lbs. tobacco. Judgment granted to Wm. Forman, guardian, in that amount.
[Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p297]
This not only helps to pinpoint the Mizell land, it
also confirms that Luke Jr. is not yet 21. “Trespass”, meaning planting crops
or grazing livestock on another’s land, was fairly common owing to the
uncertainty of boundaries caused by the poor quality of surveyors and their
surveys. This is precisely what the Virginia Assembly had tried to prevent
with the 1661 act requiring that boundaries be “processioned” every four
years. Processioning was a function of the parish court, whose records do not
exist for Southwark parish. Note that the land of William Thompson, the Southwarke
minister, can be quite precisely located. Thirty pounds was a trivial award,
being worth less than 2 shillings, and hardly worth the court costs of bringing
the suit.
May 1680 Surry
tithables (Benjamin Harrison’s list for “upper end of Southwarke parish”):
Mr. Jno. King, Ri: Winkeles, Luke Meazell – 3
William Browne’s list for Southwarke parish:
Law: Mizell – 1
6 Jul 1680 Sheriff
ordered to summon Mr. ___________ [unreadable] to appear at the next court to
answer “such things as shall be objected against him on behalfe of Luke Mizell,
orphan. [Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p307]
Best guess is the person summoned was George Williams,
executor of John Smith’s estate. The estate may have included items kept by
Deborah Mizell from Luke Mizell’s estate.
8 Sep 1680 William
Foreman appears in court to acknowledge delivery of “a mare with foale” to the
estate of Luke Mizle, orphan. [Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p313]
The source is not mentioned, but it is likely that it
was George Williams, the executor of John Smith, who appeared at the previous
day’s court with an accounting of the estate (which I did not read). Whatever
part of the Smith estate had been part of Deborah Mizell’s lifetime interest
would now belong to young Luke and his brother Lawrence in whatever proportion
Luke Mizell Sr.’s will provided for. An “orphan” was anyone under 21 whose
father had died (a quite different meaning than in modern times).
June 1681 Surry
tithables (Benjamin Harrison’s list for Southwarke parish “from Sunken Marsh
upwards”):
Mr. Jno. King, Geo: White, Luke Mizell, Jno: Sinkler – 4
William Browne’s list for Southwarke parish:
Law: Mizell – 1
From the tithables of 1677-1681, it appears that Lawrence Mizell
is living on or very near the land of Luke Mizell Sr. because he is enumerated
in that district. Luke Mizell Jr., still a minor, is enumerated in the area of
Upper Chippokes Creek, several miles northeast.
It appears that Luke Mizell was apprenticed to John King of Upper Chippokes
Creek, who is described as a cooper in several court records. It was typical
that orphans be apprenticed to learn a trade until they reached majority. John
King would have been obligated to teach him to read and write, pay his tithable
tax, and to feed, cloth, and house him. This probably explains why Luke Mizell
Jr. later signs his name to documents, while his elder brother signs with a
mark.
7 Sep 1681 Law:
Mizell confesses judgment to Wm. Foreman for 4,026 lbs tobacco. [Surry
County Court Orders 1671-91, p351]
Given the amount and timing of this, I suspect that
this was something of a formality. We know (see the record below) that Luke Mizell
is about to turn 21. William Foreman had certainly put young Luke Mizell’s
land and livestock to use, possibly renting them out to Lawrence Mizell, and is
here perhaps obtaining what amounts to an acknowledgment from Lawrence of the
current value of Luke’s personal property. In support of this, I would note
that the amount of tobacco is at least two years’ total production (thus quite
a large amount, beyond Lawrence’s ability to pay) and that there is no sign in
the records that the case went any further.
1 Nov 1681 “Upon
petition of Luke Mizle, orphan of Luke Mizle deced, it is ordered
that Wm. Foreman doe forthwith pay him his estate, he being of full age.”
[Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p352]
Given the prior entry, and the 1681 tithables, it
seems likely that Luke reached the age of 21 sometime in September or October –
thus born in late 1660.
31 Dec 1681 “Recd
of Wm. Foreman 5,600 lbs of tobacco ___ nine head of cattle according to these
___ were left to me by my father” Signed: Luke Meazle Acknowledged
in court on 3 January (see below) and recorded on 24 January. [Surry County
Deed Book 2, p299]
3 Jan 1681/2 “Luke
Mizle appearing in cort & acknowledging a discharge to Wm. Foreman it
is admitted to record.” [Surry County Court Orders 1671-91, p358]
Foreman is prudent enough to record the end of his
fiscal obligation.
June 1682 Surry
tithables (William Browne’s list for Southwarke parish):
Luke & Law: Mizle – 2
Luke Mizell, who had apparently turned 21 in the
previous year, is back in the district in which his inherited land lay.
Lawrence Mizell has been in this district all along, and is likely still living
on his brother’s land. Luke is listed first because he is the landowner, and
therefore the nominal head of household.
June 1683 Surry
tithables (Samuel Swann’s list for Southwarke parish):
Luke Mizle, Law: Mizle – 2
4 Mar 1683/4 Deed:
Luke Meazell to Bartho. Brittle, consideration not given, 50 acres at
the head of Grays Creeke, adjacent David Andrews and William Foreman, “part of
a patent granted to Jno. Newman dated 1 April 1644 and assigned by sd Newman to
Luke Mizell decd, aforesd Luke Mizell’s father, bearing date 18
December 1647.” Signed: Luke Meazle. Witness: William Foreman, George Matoon.
[Surry County Deed Book 3, p349.] Acknowledged in court 9 March 1683 [Surry
Orders 1671-91, p435.]
This is 50a. of the original 150a. patent. Bartholomew
Brittle eventually sold the land to Robert Warren.
20 Apr 1684 Land
Patent: William Thompson, 150a. on the north side of the head of Grays
Creek….142a. being part of a patent of 400a formerly granted unto Christopher
Lawson and upon a survey found to be overplus land…remainder a neck of waste
land lying a little below the horse bridge between the sd 142a. and the land of
Luke Meazell… (description of land includes common boundary lines with
Luke Meazell, Mathew Marriot, and John Whittson). [Virginia Patent Book 7,
p370] The original of this patent is actually in the
Surry deed book (see below).
June 1684 Surry
tithables (Samuel Swann’s list for Southwarke parish):
Luke Mizle – 1
Law: Mizle – 1
2 Sep 1684 “Exct.
Corpis. Apll. 4th 85[?]” Luke Mizle confesses judgment to William
Foreman, assignee of Nathaniel Roberts, for 100 lbs tobacco plus costs. Either this note to the clerk was back-entered or the “85”
should have been “84”. Either way, the meaning is that he acknowledged the
debt out of court. [Surry Orders 1671-1691, p457.]
6 Jan 1684/5 Luke
Mizle & Jonah Bennett make oath to power of attorney by John Thompson.
[Surry Orders 1671-1691, p469.]
June 1685 Surry
tithables (Samuel Swann’s list for Southwarke parish):
Luke Meazell, Jonas Bennett – 2
Law: Meazell – 1
1 Sep 1685 “It
appearing that Luke Mizle did not sumon Mr. Bat. Brittle to mend the
highway as he ought to have done being thereunto comanded by Lt. Coll. Browns warrent
it is ordered that the sd Mizle pay all the fees that hath beene between Mr.
Wm. Foreman surveyor of the highway and the said Brittle.” [Surry Orders
1671-1691, p492. See also p482, p484]
In May, Bartholomew
Brittle had been charged with contempt for not “going to mend the highway” when
he was summoned to do so. Evidently William Foreman had charged Luke Mizell
with delivering the summons. The June court had ordered Luke Mizell to “testify
his knowledge” of the complaint against Brittle, and the testimony was
apparently given in September. This seems somewhat harsh treatment by Foreman
of his former ward.
2 Mar 1685/6 Judgment
granted Lt.Col. Wm. Browne, assignee of Luke Mizell, assignee of Wm. Newsum,
against Law. Fleming for 700 lbs tobacco. [Surry Orders 1671-1691, p514.]
June 1686 Surry
tithables (Samuel Swann’s list for Southwarke parish):
Luke Mizle, Jonas Bennett – 2
Law: Mizle - 1
6 Jul 1686 Ja:
Cane obtained a judgment against the estate of Wm: Chapman “which is returned
executed by Luke Mizle who being summoned to declare what of the said Chapmans
estate was in his hands but he appeareing in cort & alleadgeing he could
not now do it” requests a referral to the next court. [Surry Orders 1671-1691,
p526]
21 Dec 1686 Luke
Meazle a witness to assignment of patent by William Thompson to Noah
Barefoot. [Surry County Deed Book 3, p15] William Thompson’s patent, dated
the same day, was adjacent Luke Mizell [Virginia Patent Book 7, p370.]
William Thompson, the minister for Southwarke parish,
patented land adjacent Luke Mizell’s 1747 land and immediately sold it. Noah
Barefoot deserted the land and it was re-patented by Roger Williams in 1688, at
which time it was described as being adjacent Luke Meazell, Major Swann,
William Foreman, Col. Brown and David Andrews.
6 Jan 1686/7 “Ja:
Cane having obteyned a judgment against the estate of Wm. Chapman which is
returned executed in the hands of Luke Mizle who being summoned to
declare what of the said Chapmans estate was in his hands but he appearing in
court & alledgeing he not now do it and praying refference [referral] till
the next court to doe the same it is granted. [Surry Orders 1671-1691, p526.]
Subsequent records show that Mizle reported he had
nothing of Chapman’s in his possession and the case was dismissed [Ibid., p535]. Chapman
may have left the county. He is not in the tithables after 1683.
1 Mar 1686/7 A
list of debts due the estate of Thomas Jordan decd bearing this date includes:
Luke Mizell, 100 lbs tobacco… Law: Mizell, 352 lbs tobacco.
Recorded on 5 July 1687. [Surry Deed Book 3, p89 and Surry Orders 1671-1691,
p576.]
Among other things, Jordan operated the only tavern in
Southwarke parish. Perhaps the brothers ran a tab. 100 pounds of tobacco
would not have bought more than a half-dozen meals or drinks at the rates in
effect the previous year. Lawrence Mizell’s debt was still unpaid five years
later in 1691 when Thomas Jordan’s administrators sued him and attached his
property.
3 May 1687 Luke
Mizle on a jury for the first time. Also on 5 July 1687. [Surry Orders
1671-1691, p562-3, p575.]
June 1687 Surry
tithables (Samuel Swann’s list for Southwarke parish):
Law: Meazell, Luke Meazell – 1
19 Dec 1687 List
of militia for Southwarke parish of Surry County: Luke Mizle… Law. Meazle
(Both listed as foot soldiers) [Surry Orders 1671-1691, pp598-601]
This list was revised a few weeks later at the
instruction of the Governor to include only freeholders and housekeepers, and
to remove those who were merely freemen not maintaining a separate household.
This reduced the list of militia from 314 to 200, but both Mizells remained on
the list [Ibid., p621-2] This is important mainly because it tells us that
Lawrence Mizell, who was not a freeholder, must have been maintaining a
separate household and thus was likely married. Luke Mizell was a freeholder
(an owner of 50 acres or more).
June 1688 Surry
tithables (Robert Randall’s list for Southwarke parish – formerly Swann’s
district):
Law: Meazell, Luke Meazell – 1
29 Sep 1688 Deed:
Robert Warren to Jno. Watkins, 100 acres, part of a grant to “my father Mr. Thomas
Warren decd” dated 1 November 1669… “who bequeathed the same unto me” Witness:
Allen Warren, Will: Gray, Luke Meazle. [Surry Deed Book 4, p89.]
Robert Warren would later sell the remaining 350 acres
of this grant to Luke Mizell.
20 Oct 1688 Land
Patent: Roger Williams, 150a. “Scittuate neer Southwark Church in Surry
County… the sd Land being formerly granted to Mr Wm Thompson by pattent 21
October 1684 and by him deserted for want of seating according to Law, and now
granted to sd Williams by ordr of the Court 16 October 1688… beginning at an
old spanish oake Majr. Swans Corner tree… small red oake a Corner tree twixt
David Andrews & Luke Meazell, thence by sd Meazells line … to
a red oake very neer Southwark Church… thence along Wm. Foremans line…a red oake
stump Coll. Brownes corner tree… [Virginia Patent Book 7, p690]
This is easily plotted. The Mizell land referenced is
not be the original 150a. patent, but it is clearly very close to it. See other
entries for evidence that there was a second parcel owned by Luke Mizell.
June 1689 Surry
tithables (Samuel Swann’s list for Southwarke parish):
Law: Meazell, Luke Meazell – 1
June 1690 Surry
tithables (Samuel Swann’s list for Southwarke parish):
Law: Meazell – 1
Luke Meazell – 1
This is the last year in which any Mizell appears as a
tithable. Tithables exist for all years 1691 through 1703, but no Mizells
appear as taxables.
23 Oct 1690 Land
Patent: Luke Measell (Misle) 150a being formerly John Newman’s lately
found to escheat by an escheat jury of 22 October 1689. [Virginia Patent
Book 8, p87.]
This appears to be a renewal of the same land patented
by John Newman in 1644 and sold to Luke Mizell’s father in 1647. However, it
may be that the original acreage was underestimated, because Luke had already
sold 50a. to Bartholomew Brittle, who still owned the land at his death two
decades later.
5 Jan 1690/1 Deed:
Luke Mezell and Eliza his wife to Rob: Warren, consideration not
noted, 150 acres… patented by Luke Meazle on 23 October 1690. Signed: Luke
Meazle, Eliza (x) Meazle. Witness: Will: Foreman, Thos: Warren.
Acknowledged by Luke and Eliza Mizell on 6 January 1690/1. [Surry County Deed Book
4, p174.]
This is the 150 acres originally bought by Luke Mizell
I in 1647 and renewed by Luke Mizell II.
5 Jan 1690/1 Deed:
Robert Warren and wife Ann to Luke Meisle, 350 acres, part of a grant
to “my father Mr. Thomas Warren decd” dated 1 November 1669. Witness: Thomas
Warren, Will: Foreman. Acknowledged on 6 January. [Surry County Deed Book 4,
p175.]
These two deeds are a simple exchange of land.
Luke is moving several miles south to north bank of
the Blackwater in the fork between Cypress Swamp and the Blackwater River, just
north of the border with Indian territory. The
original grant to Thomas Warren was 450a. Robert Warren had sold 100a. to John
Watkins (see above) and is now disposing of the remaining 350a. to Luke Mizell,
in trade for Luke Mizell’s 150a. tract in the more settled part of the county.
Luke Mizell will now sell most of that tract to his brother and to James Bynum.
5 Jan 1690/1 Deed:
Luke Mezell and Eliza his wife to Lawrance Meazell of Southwarke
parish, 1000 lbs tobacco, 100 acres in Southwarke parish … on the north side of
Blackwater swamp beginning at the mouth of a great branch… up the sd branch to
the side line soe along ye sd line to a stake…being part of a tract of land
sold by Robt Warren to the above sd Luke Mizell. Signed: Luke Meazle, Eliza
(x) Meazle. Witness: Tho: Warren, Rob: Warren. Acknowledged by Luke and Eliza
Mizell on 6 January 1690/1. [Surry County Deed Book 4, p172.]
5 Jan 1690/1 Deed:
Luke Meazell, cooper and Eliza his wife of Southwarke parish, to James
Bynham, planter, 1100 lbs tobacco, 150 acres on the main Blackwater Swamp… up
Wm. Rogers spring branch… to Jno. Watkins corner tree being a gum standing in
the branch, up the branch to a red oak along Mr. Warren’s line to the great
branch between the sd land & Lawrence Meazells land… part of the
land patented by Mr. Warren and sold to the sd Luke Mizell. Signed: Luke Meazle,
Eliza (x) Meazle. Witness: Tho: Warren, Rob: Warren. Acknowledged by Luke and
Eliza Mizell on 6 January 1690/1. [Surry County Deed Book 4, p173.]
5 Jan 1690/1 Deed:
Luke Mezell and Eliza his wife to Will: Foreman, consideration
not noted, 50 acres… [description follows]… adjoining Wm. Browne, William
Foreman, and Thomas Smith. Signed: Luke Meazle, Eliza (x) Meazle. Witness: Tho:
Warren, Rob: Warren. Acknowledged by Luke and Eliza Mizell on 6 January 1690/1.
[Surry County Deed Book 4, p180.]
This land is not described particularly well in the
deed, but it is another portion of the purchase from Robert Warren. William
Foreman’s will describes it as “land I bought of Luke Mizell at Blackwater.”
It is also referenced in later sales of adjoining land.
6 Jan 1690/1 Luke
Mizell and wife Eliza Mizell acknowledge all of the above deeds in
court, Elizabeth relinquishing her dower interest to each. [Surry Orders
1671-91, p784-5.]
All of these deeds are dated the same day and
acknowledged in court on the following day. Note the interesting elements
here: (1) He trades his old 150 acres for a 350 acre plot of Robert Warren’s
(2) He sells the Warren patent piecemeal to his brother and James Bynum. (3) He
retains only 50 acres of the new tract for himself. Perhaps he needs minimal
land because he is practicing his trade as a cooper.
At this point Luke Mizell Jr. owns 50 acres and his brother
Lawrence Mizell owns 100 acres. Both will die owning these parcels.
4 Apr 1691 Order
to Sheriff: On complaint by William Browne that Lawrence Mizell is
indebted to him 1,126 lb of tobacco “and that said Mizell hath secretly
conveyed himself from his plantation” and cannot be found, Sheriff is ordered
to “attach soe much of the above said Mizells estate as will fully satisfy the
above debt with costs” and report to the next court. The return by Thomas
Swann, sub-sheriff, states that he seized 5 cows, two sheep, and “the halfe of
six and twenty hoggs.”. [Surry Deed Book 4, p200-201] Execution on the
attachment was made on 3 June and is so noted in the court record [Surry Order
Book 1671-1691, p813]
This attachment seems a bit excessive unless the price
of livestock had dramatically declined. The five cows alone should have been
worth more than 1,126 lbs. of tobacco.
6 Apr 1691 Order
to Sheriff: On complaint by Joshua Proctor that Lawrence Mizell is
indebted to him 350 lbs of tobacco, judgment for 405 lbs, including costs [and
cannot be found, as above] Sheriff ordered to seize estate [as above].
Sheriff’s return states seizure made of an assortment of household goods and
stock [similar to above entry]. [Surry Deed Book 4, p201] Execution on the
attachment was made on 3 June and is so noted in the court record [Surry Order
Book 1671-1691, p814]
7 Apr 1691 Order
to Sheriff: On complaint by Thomas Bagge that Lawrence Mizell is
indebted to him 350 lb of tobacco [ and cannot be found, as above] Sheriff
ordered to attach estate. Sheriff’s return states seizure made of an “an old
table, courch chest, a meale tubb, two old joint stooles, three cow hides, a hoge
hide” etc. [Surry Deed Book 4, p201] Execution on the attachment was made on
3 June and is so noted in the court record [Surry Order Book 1671-1691, p814]
16 Apr 1691 Judgment
granted to Col. William Browne and James Jordan (as administrators of the
estate of Thomas Jordan) against the estate of Lawrence Mizell for 352
lbs of tobacco. Browne & Jordan to be paid out of the estate. [Surry Deed
Book 4, p201]
This is the old debt from 1687. Browne and Jordan
have been trying for four years to collect the debts due Thomas Jordan’s heirs
and wrap up their administration. Aware of the problems the other three
creditors are having in finding Lawrence Mizell, they are the last to obtain an
order to seize his property.
12 Jun 1691 Order
to Sheriff: On complaint of Col. William Browne and James Jordan (as
administrators of the estate of Thomas Jordan) that Lawrence Mizell
stands indebted to them on a bill for 352 lbs tobacco and “hath secretly convaid
himself from his plantation”. Sheriff ordered to attach Lawrence Mizell’s
property. The return from William Foreman, sub-sheriff, states that he had
seized 518 lb of tobacco and delivered it to Wm. Browne. [Surry Deed Book 4, p201]
Execution on the attachment was made on 7 July and is so noted in the court
record. [Surry Order Book 1691-1713, p5]
Lawrence Mizell was not in any tithables list after
June 1690, and pretty clearly had left the county after the deed of 5 January
1691 but before 4 April 1691 when these creditors and the sheriff began
reporting that they were unable to locate him. A plausible explanation is that
he had moved his family elsewhere, and was perhaps planning to return after
they were settled to dispose of his livestock, crops, and remaining household
goods. And, we hope, to pay his debts. Whether he was in another county, or
had already moved into North Carolina, is uncertain. He does not appear in
Isle of Wight records, the only other county he might have passed through on
the way to North Carolina.
Although we can’t be certain, this explanation fits the facts nicely. If he
was in the process of moving to a distant place, that would explain the rush of
the creditors to attach his property in Surry. A debtor could be sued only in
his county of residence, so suing him in North Carolina, say, would have been
impractical. This practicality motivated the creditors to settle the debts
before his property was moved out of the county and beyond their reach. Note
that his real property (land) could not be attached by a creditor unless he had
explicitly mortgaged it to them it via a deed of mortgage. It appears that
most or all of his livestock and household goods were seized to satisfy the
debts – perhaps that was his plan. The land he owned at this time was the 100
acres sold to him a few months earlier by his brother – this land was not
attachable by his creditors, and was later sold in 1703 by Luke Mizell “of
North Carolina”, presumably his son.
If Lawrence Mizell was moving, or had already moved, to North Carolina the most
practical means of transportation was by boat, which would have prevented the
shipment of livestock. There were only two routes available. The land route
from Surry into North Carolina was blocked by a large expanse of Indian
territory covering the entire area from the Blackwater River to the North
Carolina border. Whites had been prohibited from settling south of the Blackwater,
and just a few months before Lawrence’s disappearance the Governor had ordered
several squatters removed. It would be another ten years before settlement was
permitted in that region. So the most practical migration was by ship down the
James and along the coast into Old Albemarle. It is possible he may have gone
down the Blackwater itself, though that would have meant several days of travel
through Indian lands. Either way, the point is that livestock and furniture
would have been next to impossible to move.
4 Jul 1693 Luke
Mizell Will: The nuncupative (oral) and undated will of Luke Meazle
proved and recorded. “I give unto my daughter Eliza my land after the
decease of my wife and one red pied heifer. I give unto my daughter Sarah
one red cow and one black heifer with a star in her forehead. If either of
these dye without issue that her estate return to the other. And all the rest
of my estate I leave to my wife when my debts are satisfied.” Proved by oaths
of the witnesses: Thomas Smith, John Green, Eliza Binam. [Surry Deed Book 4,
p308.] An entry in the court minutes also mentions that the will was proved
this date, and administration granted to his relict, Elizabeth Meazle.
[Surry Orders 1691-1713, p76.]
The formal letter of administration from the Governor to Eliza Mizell is
postdated 20 April 1694 and filed with the inventory [Surry County Deed Book
5, pp6-7] stating “whereas Luke Mizell late of this colony dying and leaving an
estate in diverse goods… according to an order of the Surry County Court
bearing date July the 4th 1693…” and granting administration of the
estate to Eliza Mizell.
The will does not name an executor, so the widow had
to apply for administration. Nuncupative (oral, unsigned) wills were valid
only if dictated by the testator “during his last sickness”, that is,
immediately prior to death. They were reduced to writing by one of the
witnesses, the other two witnesses serving to verify the content. Legal custom
dictated that nuncupative wills be proved as soon as possible after permitting
the widow the opportunity to contest, usually within a month or two after the
death. [See Blackstone’s Commentaries on The Laws of England for more information.] We can therefore be reasonably sure
that Luke Mizell died not long before 4 July. Since he does not appear in the
tithables for his district recorded in June 1692, he may have died as much as a
month earlier.
The form of this will seems strong evidence that Luke Mizell had only the two
children. The daughter Eliza, whom some believe to have been Eliza Bynum, was
obviously a different person. The law prevented a legatee from also being a
witness, else that portion of the will ws invalidated. So Eliza Mizell and
Eliza Bynum were certainly different persons. Eliza Mizell the younger
certainly was underage at the time while Elizabeth Bynum was several years
married with children of her own.
It is interesting that Luke Mizell does not appear on the Surry tithables lists
for 1691, 1692, or 1693. His nuncupative will – unlike a written will - would
not have been valid if filed a year, say, after his death [see Blackstone] but
at the same time it seems implausible that the taxmen would have missed him in
consecutive years. One explanation of this dilemma is that he may have
accompanied his brother Lawrence Mizell to wherever Lawrence went, and returned
to Surry after the 1692 tithables were taken.
5 Sep 1693 Ordered
that Eliza: Meazle admx. with the nuncupative will annext of Luke Meazle
deced do at the next court produce an inventory of the estate… [Surry Court
Orders 1671-1713, p81]
The language “administrix with the nuncupative will
annexed” was a legal term used in the case where the will did not name an
executor. Since the will failed to name an executor, the widow had to
apply for administration. This terminology reminded the court that a will
existed and that the administrator was to comply with its terms.
28 Sep 1693 Elizabeth
Meazle admx. with the nuncupative will annext of Luke Meazle deced
having failed to produce an inventory of the said Meazles estate, it is ordered
that she be summoned to appear at the next court and produce an inventory…
[Surry Court Orders 1671-1713, p88]
3 Jan 1693/4 “Ordered
that the Sheriff sumons Robert Hill and Eliza his wife to appeare at the next
court and produce an inventory of the estate of Luke Mizle deced” [Surry Court
Orders 1671-1713, p96]
Eliza Mizell has remarried to Robert Hill sometime
between September 1693 and this date.
1 May 1694 Inventory
of the estate of Luke Measel decd presented by Robert Hill and Eliza
Hill. The inventory consisted of: 3 cows and calfs, 3 heyfers of 2 yrs old, 5
sows, 12 piggs, 3 barrows of 2 yrs old, 2 barrows of [1?] yrs old, 2 potts, 2
pewter dishes, 1 bed, 3 blankets, 1 chest, 1 case, 1 lot of coopers tools, 1 crose
cut saw, 1 tenant saw, 1 old sifter, halfe doz spoons, 1 ___ & pott, 2 __ossengors,
1 old paile, 2 sett of wedges. Signed Robert (x) Hill, Eliza (x) Hill. [Surry
County Deed Book 5, pp6-7. Acknowledgement by Eliza Hill on p27, on 6
November.]
On the back side of the inventory is a note by the clerk that it was presented
on 1 May and recorded on 6 November 1694. According to the court minutes,
Robert Hill did not appear in court to give oath to the inventory until 4 July
and Eliza did not appear until 6 November. At that point the clerk could
record the document he had received six months earlier.
In the terminology of the time, a “heifer” was a cow
that had not yet given birth to a calf, and a “barrow” was a young gelded hog.
The “lot of coopers tools” suggests that Luke was still active in his trade.
Note that Luke Mizell died owning less livestock than his brother Lawrence had
owned two years earlier.
1 May 1694 The
court appoints Tho. Smith, Edward Newbee, Wm. Rogers and James Byneham or any
three of them to appraise the estate of Luke Mizle deced. “and Robt.
Hill and Eliza his wife admx. of the sd deced with his nuncupative will
annext are ordered to produce the same at the next court.” [Surry County
Orders 1691-1713, p101]
11 July 1694 Lawrence
Mizell in North Carolina by this date (see below)
4 Sep 1694 An
appraisal of the estate of Luke Meazle presented by Robert Hill and
Eliza Hill. The appraisal performed by Thomas Smith, William (x) Rogers, Edwd
(x) Newby. The appraisal matches the inventory exactly, but adds a debt due
from Richard Jordan Jr. of 355 lbs. The entire personal estate is valued at
3,405 lbs of tobacco including the debt from Jordan. [Surry County Deed Book
5, p19.]
This is a relatively small estate, smaller than Luke’s
original inheritance. That is particularly striking in that the value of
livestock had increased considerably over the last ten years. This is perhaps
explained by a severe recession in Virginia beginning about 1680, with
declining tobacco prices, after which tobacco farmers were hard-pressed to
break even.
Eliza Mizell seems to have been the daughter of
Matthew Marriott, who the widow of Luke Mizell Jr. married Robert Hill.
Robert Hill was the son of Robert Hill Sr. and the brother of Sion Hill. Eliza
was apparently the daughter of Matthias Marriott – his will mentions a daughter
Elizabeth Hill.
2 Oct 1703 Deed:
Luke Mezell of North Carolina to James Byneham of Surry County, 1000 lbs
tobacco, 100 acres in Southwarke parish… on the north side of Blackwater swamp
beginning at the mouth of a great branch… up the sd branch to the side line soe
along ye sd line to a stake…being part of a tract of land sold by Robt Warren
to Luke Mezell… [Metes and bounds matches the land sold to Lawrence Mizell
in 1691.] Witness: James Minge Jr., Fra: Clements. Proved by a power of
attorney from Luke Mizell to Francis Clements on 2 November 1703, signed by
Luke Measell. [Surry County Deed Book 5, p293]
This is Luke Mizell III, who is evidently the heir of Lawrence
Mizell. The land description in this deed is a word-for-word copy of the deed
from Luke Mizell to Lawrence Mizell in 1691. [The abstracted version of this
deed implies that Luke III is selling land inherited from Luke II, when he is
in fact land selling the land owned by Lawrence Mizell.] Robert Warren sold
350a to Luke Mizell II, but Luke immediately sold all of it to other people –
including his brother Lawrence and James Bynum. The detailed description of
the land in this deed matches exactly the 100a that Luke II sold to Lawrence in
1691. It adjoined the land James Bynum bought from Luke Mizell Jr. back in
1691, Luke Mizell III has apparently inherited the land from Lawrence Mizell.
Note that Luke Mizell II had left his 100a. of land to his wife (who was still
living)for her lifetime, then to his daughter Elizabeth.
Note on
Robert Hill: Robert Hill and Elizabeth continued to live in Surry
County for another two decades. In 1703 Robert Hill acquired 200a. on the
other side of the river, which he and his wife Elizabeth sold in 1724. They
moved into what became Brunswick County where Robert Hill died in 1740,
apparently a widower. The daughter Elizabeth Mizell who inherited Luke Mizell’s
land was not tracked. There is a possibility that she married Jeremiah Ellis
Jr., who (with wife Elizabeth) appears to have owned the Luke Mizell land by
1703. He still owned that land at his death in 1738.
THIS
IS THE LAST MIZELL CITATION IN SURRY COUNTY – BUT HERE ARE A FEW FROM NORTH
CAROLINA:
11 Jul 1694 Survey
order to lay out 250a. for Wm. Charleton, for importation of five persons: Lawrence,
Bethinia, Luke, Ellinor Meazell and Wm. Charleton, the first four names
“assigned by Law: Meazell”. The survey made on 13 June 1695 and the
grant is dated 25 February 1696/7 for 240a. in Chowan Precinct. [Albemarle
Book of Warrants and Surveys 1681-1706, on reverse side of p118, page
unnumbered. This is transcribed by Weynette Parks Haun, who assigned this as
page 119.]
William Charlton evidently sold this land before 24
August 1700, when it was sold by Daniel Perkins with William Brethitt a
witness. [Chowan Precinct Deed Book W-1, p18]
28 Jul 1694 In
a debt case against the estate of William Sprag (Sprague) who had “left the
country”, the court ordered attachment of his estate in the hands of others.
The sheriff reported that £3:5s belonging to Sprague was “in the hands of Lawrence
Measell”. This record appears repeated three times (in different court
records) spelled Larance Mesell, Lawrence Mesell, and Lawrence Measell, the
last record being in late 1694. [The Colonial Records of North Carolina,
Volume I 1670-1696, Mattie Erma Edwards Parker, ed., (State Dept. of
Archives and History, 1968), pp 68, 88, 148.]
3 Dec 1696 “Upon
the petition of William Brethit and Bethinia his wife ordered that the
administration of the goods and chattels of Laurence Meazle deceased be
committed to the petitioners as nearest akin the said estate to be aprised by
Major Alexander Lillington and Mr. Caleb Calliway…” [Parker, Vol. I, p301 and
a similar record on p291]
”Nearest kin” had a specific legal meaning applicable
to intestate estates, referring to whatever available adult was the nearest in
the succession of heirs under the law. Specifically, to “such persons who have
the best right to succeed thereto” the intestate’s personal property. [In NC,
as in Virginia, the law awarded the land to the eldest son and the goods and
chattels equally to all the sons with a one-third lifetime share to the widow.
Daughters had no rights in estates unless there were no other male relatives.]
The children being minors, this means the nearest kin in the line of succession
in this case was either the widow or (if no living widow) the guardian of the
minor sons. Either way, it seems most likely that Bethinia was the widow of
Lawrence Mizell.
24 Oct 1697
Survey order for Thomas Clark in Chowan Precinct for importation of ten
persons: Wm. Meazle, Mary Meazle, Geo. Jones, Ann Mathews, Patr.
Raverly, Moriss Conovane, Alexandr. Jordan, Wm. Nash, Charles Wier, the headrights
assigned by George Mathews. Patent dated 10 July 1701, with minor alternations
in spelling of names. [Albemarle Book of Warrants and Surveys 1681-1706,
p164.]
These are almost certainly children of Lawrence Mizell.
Thomas Clark was not only from Surry County, bit was a neighbor of William
Charlton and William Brethitt. Note that William Charlton, Thomas Clark, and
William Brethitt were the appraisers of the estate of Richard Stibell in Chowan
Precinct in February 1694/5. Luke Mizell III was later a witness to the
marriage of Stibell’s daughter Constance.
10 Oct 1702 Two
Deeds: Between Edward Smithwick and Smithwick Warburton. Witness: Susannah
Charlton, Luke Mizell. [Chowan Precinct Deed Book W-1, p32 as
abstracted by Hoffman]
This is undoubtedly the same Luke Mizell who sells
Lawrence Mizell’s land back in Surry County the following year.
9 Mar 1703/4 Vestry’s
account of the public charges includes: “to Luke Meazle’s services…
0:9” [Vestry Minutes of St. Paul’s Parish, Chowan County, North Carolina
1701-1776, Raymond Parker Fouts (GenRec Books, 1983), p7]
c1708? Undated
deed from William Charlton to Luke Mizell, both of Chowan Precinct, and
Susannah his wife my son and daughter… for the love and affection I bear…
[Chowan Precinct Deed Book W-1, p99 as abstracted by Hoffman]
Luke Mizell, William Mizell, Ellinor Mizell, and William Brethitt
are subsequently mentioned frequently in Chowan records. There is no further
mention of Mary Mizell.
THE MIZELL
FAMILY IS WELL DOCUMENTED ELSWHERE FROM THIS POINT FORWARD
Bob's Genealogy Filing Cabinet
II