Craven County, NC - Frederick Johnson, Jr. v. David Chapman, 
                    Exr of Frederick Johnson, Sr., and others

Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by
Sue Guptill - sguptill@mindspring.com

Supreme Court Cases: 
Frederick Johnson, Jr. v. David Chapman, Exr of Frederick Johnson, Sr., and others
45 NC 213 (June 1853)
Frederick Johnson, Jr. vs. David Chapman, Executor
and others
54 NC (Dec 1853)
 
[Note: This case covers events that began in 1819, and for that reason, there 
are several generations of families mentioned here, both white and enslaved 
black people. To clarify some of the relationships:

*   Stephen, David, Furnifold, and Argent (m. David Adams, who also testified) 
    Chapman were siblings, the children of Jesse Chapman and Esther Gatlin
*   Church Chapman was their double first cousin, the son of Weeks Chapman and 
    Sarah Gatlin
*   Abner Heartley (who testified) was the husband of their sister, Lydia Chapman
*   James Roach (who testified) was the husband of their sister Louisa Chapman
*   Frederick Johnson, Sr. and Hannah Johnson (m. Henry Smith) were siblings, the 
    children of Jacob Johnson
*   John M. Bryan and Johnson Bryan were both uncles of Frederick Bryan, who 
    married Frederick Johnson, Sr.’s daughter Mary]
 
Case #5888
 
State of NC, SS
Supreme Court, June Term 1853
Frederick JOHNSON, Jr. agt. D. CHAPMAN, Exr., and others
“This cause coming on to be heard upon the Bill, answers, proofs, and 
exhibits, and being debated by counsel on both sides, and considered by the 
court, It is declared that Fred. JOHNSON, Junior, upon the facts appearing in 
the case is a legitimate child of Frederick Johnson, Senr. the testator 
mentioned in the pleadings; and it appearing that the plff was born after the 
making of his father’s will and was not provided for therein, it is further 
declared that he the sd. plff is entitled to such portion of the personal 
estate and such share of the real estate of his father the said Fred. JOHNSON 
Senr. as he would have been entitled to, had the said Fred. JOHNSON died 
intestate, that is to say one fourth part of said personal estate and to one 
third part of said real estate ‘equal in value to the share which would have 
descended to him had his said father died intestate.’ And it appearing by the 
said will of the said Fredk. JOHNSON Senr. (which is exhibited to the court) 
that he the said Fredk. JOHNSON Senr. devised and bequeathed all his real and 
personal estate to his widow Penelope and to his daughters Mary & Sarah, it 
is further declared that said legatees are bound to contribute in proportion 
to their legacies to make up the portion to which the Plaintiff is entitled 
as herein before stated; and the plaintiff has a lien for his said share upon 
said property so devised and bequeathed, wherever the same (or the increase 
thereof in the case of the negroes) remains in the hands of said devisees and 
legatees, or their representatives.” 
This document goes on to state that: 
*   David CHAPMAN, as executor of Fredk. JOHNSON had a duty to bring this 
to court, which he utterly neglected to do; therefore, he is liable and 
accountable to the plaintiff for the value of his share of the estate and 
for interest.
*   The legatee Mary married Fredk. BRYAN and the legatee Sally married 
Hilen GODLEY (the intestate of Henry HARDING) [meaning that GODLEY is 
dead, and HARDING, a defendant in the case, is his exec—sbg]; each husband 
received in right of his wife negroes and their increase and personal 
property; (BRYAN and HARDING) are required to make up the share of the 
plaintiff.
*   Penelope the widow of Fredk. JOHNSON [senior] shortly after his death 
married Stephen CHAPMAN and defendant David CHAPMAN paid over to him the 
legacy bequeathed to Penelope; Stephen died insolvent and Jacob SCHENCK 
his admin is a defendant in this case. David CHAPMAN is now liable for the 
contribution and quota paid to Stephen CHAPMAN.
*   As to a tract of land conveyed to defendant Church CHAPMAN by 
defendants Fredk. BRYAN and Mary his wife by deed dated 15 Aug 1837, and 
by Helen GODLEY and Sally his wife by deed dated 10 Apr 1835, it appears 
that Church CHAPMAN had full notice of the plaintiff’s claim to the land, 
and therefore cannot protect himself in this court against the claim; the 
plaintiff is entitled as one of the co-heirs of Fredk. JOHNSON Senr. to ? 
part of the land and to a just account of the rents and profits thereof 
and may have partition of the land for the purpose of having his share 
allotted to him.
*   The defendants are not protected by any of the Statutes of Limitation
*   William G. BRYAN, commissioner, of Newborn is authorized and empowered 
to appraise and value the property, summons witnesses as needed, etc.
 
Report by commissioner William G. BRYAN appointed to evaluate estate due to 
Fredk. JOHNSON, Jr. Witnesses were James BRIGHT, Brother Thomas BUCK, 
Farnifold CHAPMAN, William Laughinghouse, Isaac GARDNER, William B. 
WADSWORTH, Johnson BRYAN, & James ROACH, and the examination of Frederick 
BRYAN & Church CHAPMAN, parties as defendants. Taking into account value of 
property, money, and interest, slaves and their increase, rents and hires of 
negroes up until time of their sale and the price of sale. The estate is 
liable for the expenses incurred in maintaining and housing negroes. 
The net value of the estate on 1 Jan 1854 was $26,682.35, and Fredk. JOHNSON, 
Jr. is entitled to ¼ ($6670.59). Frederick BRYAN & wife & Hilan GODLEY and 
wife contribute in proportion to the amount received by them from the estate 
over and above their proper shares. No contribution can be had from the share 
of the widow Penelope JOHNSON who m. Stephen CHAPMAN, Stephen being utterly 
insolvent and therefore the deficiency is charged upon David CHAPMAN, Exec.
Goes on to calculate what is due from each party:
*   Fredk. BRYAN & wife:            $1981.49
*   Estate of Hilan GODLEY          $2383.74
*   David CHAPMAN, Exr              $2255.60
Defendants Fredk. BRYAN & wife contend that they should only be liable for ¼ 
of the value of their legacy at the time it was paid to them, but the 
commissioner refused to allow this claim.
Lands mentioned have yielded no rents of profits since they came into the 
hands of the defendants.
No date
 
Depositions taken 12-13 Oct 1849 at Big Swift Cr by Saml. STREET and W.W. 
WADSWORTH. the following witnesses were deposed: Becky BUTLER, John JACKSON, 
Furney (Farnifold) CHAPMAN, John S. SMITH, and John A. SMITH.
John A SMITH: Q. by plaintiff’s attorney: Stated he had known plaintiff 10-15 
years; he was large enough to drive a cart when SMITH first knew him. 
Plaintiff’s mother was Mrs. Frederick JOHNSON. Her husband was a Johnson, 
Christian name (“I believe”) was Frederick. Was not much acquainted with him. 
She then married Stephen CHAPMAN. The plaintiff as been very poor from birth 
to present time. He has got very little education; don’t think he can read 
and write. Don’t think he could ever have been able to give security for the 
prosecution of a long law-suit. Q. by Church CHAPMAN, one of the defendants: 
Plaintiff appears to be an able-bodied man; I have hired him and he worked 
well. I once went with him to Greenville to see John H. BRYAN about recovery 
of this property. Mr. BRYAN asked him if he had a copy of the will, and he 
said he thought he could get a copy from his uncle David CHAPMAN. Mr. BRYAN 
told him to get the will and $20 and he would file a suit for him. He never 
went back that I know of. [Note: John S. SMITH is the only witness who gave 
the testimony about going to Greenville to see John H. BRYAN—sbg].
John S. SMITH: Q. by plaintiff’s attorney: Stated he has known the plaintiff 
since he was born. His mother was a HARDY before she was married. She first 
married Frederick JOHNSON & then Stephen CHAPMAN. Plaintiff’s mother and 
Frederick JOHNSON lived together in the same house up to his death as far as 
I know, but I don’t know how—I passed the house frequently and saw them. 
Plaintiff was born a month or two after his father’s death. Think plaintiff’s 
mother had two children besides the plaintiff; the one born immediately 
before the plaintiff was named Mary. Can’t tell the difference in age between 
Mary and plaintiff. Mary first married Ben GODLEY and I am told she is now 
the wife of Frederick BRYAN. Penelope JOHNSON and Fred JOHNSON lived 
together; don’t know anything about them going about the neighborhood 
together. Gave the same answers as John S. SMITH as to state of poverty and 
education of plaintiff and ability to give security. Know that Furnifold 
CHAPMAN, a witness in this suit, who claims to have bought the plaintiff’s 
right to the property in this suit. Was at Willis SMITH’s house and Farnifold 
CHAPMAN came there and said he wanted to see the plaintiff. Mr. SMITH sent 
for him and when he came he and Mr. CHAPMAN went out to a cooper shack and 
Mr. CHAPMAN done some writing. Mr. CHAPMAN sent for me and asked me to sign a 
deed as witness. The plaintiff signed a paper but it has been so long ago 
that I don’t recollect what it was; I signed it as a witness. Goes on to say 
that CHAPMAN told plaintiff that he would try to get the property and if he 
did he would give plaintiff one half and if he didn’t he, CHAPMAN would lose 
the purchase price. Don’t know of CHAPMAN ever trying to recover the 
property. The property now may be worth $1000. Q. by Church CHAPMAN, one of 
defendants: Same answer as above about health of plaintiff. Reiterated that 
he heard F. CHAPMAN say he would try to get the property and give plaintiff 
half. Q. by plaintiff’s attorney: Plaintiff is a man of family and it took as 
much as he could earn to support his family, and it straitened him to do it. 
He has a wife & 6 children I think. Q. by Church CHAPMAN: The children are 
too small to work.
Becky BUTLER: Q. by plaintiff’s attorney: Stated she has known plaintiff from 
the time of his birth until he was carried away. Since he came back, have not 
known much about him. Mother was Penny HARDY before she married Frederick 
JOHNSON. I was acquainted with JOHNSON. From what I know, they lived together 
as husband and wife and I never heard of any interruption. Mr. JOHNSON was 
60-70 when he died. Plaintiff was born within 3 months of when he died. Gave 
same answer as John A. SMITH about next youngest child (Mary). Thinks there 
was about 6 years difference in age between plaintiff and Mary. Lived in same 
neighborhood as they did and they lived together as man and wife as far as I 
know. Q. by Church CHAPMAN: Sometimes visited house where they lived.
Farnifold CHAPMAN: Q. by plaintiff’s attorney: Plaintiff was born about 6 
weeks after Frederick JOHNSON died. Gave same answer as above about other 
children, Mary’s name, difference in age. Did not agree to try to get the 
property and give plaintiff ½. Q. by Church CHAPMAN: Plaintiff came back [to 
this area] in Sept 1832. He was born on the last of April or 1st of May 1819 
I think; consequently he is now over 30 years old. I am brother to David 
CHAPMAN, one of the defendants.
John JACKSON: Q. by plaintiff’s attorney: Have known plaintiff 18 or 20 
years. Same answers about name of mother and father of plaintiff. JOHNSON was 
upwards of 60 when he died. Same answer about other children of mother’s and 
name of Mary and her husbands. Same answer about poverty and inability to 
give security.
 
Depositions taken 28 & 29 May 1847 at the home of James Roach on Swift Creek, 
Craven Co., NC:
Charity NELSON: Q by Church CHAPMAN, defendant: Was acquainted with Frederick 
JOHNSON, deceased. Was at his house just before his death. He said he would 
be willing to die if it wasn't for his two little children, & I told him 
there would soon be three. He said the child Penny (his wife) was going with 
was no more his than it was mine & I told him I did not see how he could say 
so & he said he had very good reason, for he had not slept in the same room 
nor on the same bed with his wife for a great while, but I have forgot the 
number of months, but long enough I know to have convinced him that the child 
was not his. He then cried & went off to bed. I have always heard that 
Stephen CHAPMAN claimed Frederick JOHNSON the plaintiff as his child & he 
schooled him as such. S. CHAPMAN carried him to TN, & I have heard his last 
wife speak of his being there a great many times. Know that the widow of 
Frederick JOHNSON deceased married Stephen CHAPMAN very soon after the death 
of her husband.
Hannah SMITH: Q. by Church CHAPMAN: I was acquainted with Frederick JOHNSON, 
deceased; he was my brother. My brother died on the first of March and his 
wife had Frederick (the plaintiff) the last of April or the first of May & 
Stephen CHAPMAN married the widow in June or July following. S. CHAPMAN said 
that the plaintiff was his son; he kept him with him & carried him to TN with 
him. The plaintiff returned from TN more than ten years ago. I was with the 
plaintiff’s mother a few days before her death. She asked me to take my 
brother’s two children Polly & Sally & said her other three children were 
with their father. She said she had committed a crime in having Frederick and 
she hoped God would forgive her. She died about 2 days later. I was with my 
brother while he was sick, just before he died. I knew of Stephen CHAPMAN’s 
cohabiting with my brother’s wife while my brother was sick because I heard 
him. My brother knew of Stephen CHAPMAN having connection with his wife; he 
told me so.
Abner HEARTLY: Q. by Church CHAPMAN: I was acquainted with Stephen CHAPMAN. I 
frequently heard him say that Frederick was his child & that no one should 
take him from him, & that he intended to make him his heir and give him his 
schooling, & he did board him at my house & sent him to school and paid his 
board. The plaintiff always went by the name Frederick CHAPMAN. Stephen 
CHAPMAN carried him with him to TN. The plaintiff has been back from TN about 
15 years. He was born 1818 or 1819; I do not know which.
David ADAMS: Q. by Church CHAPMAN: I was well acquainted with Stephen 
CHAPMAN. As to his objecting to the plaintiff having any of Frederick JOHNSON 
decd. property, I heard him say he himself should have property enough, he 
reckoned, to make his share as good as theirs. He carried the plaintiff away 
& said when he came back that he carried him to TN. The plaintiff has been 
back 12-15 years. He has been in and about the neighborhood he was born in 
since he came back. He is now 27 or 28 years old.
Argent ADAMS: Q. by Church CHAPMAN: Stephen CHAPMAN was my brother. I have 
heard him say the plaintiff is his child. He kept the plaintiff with him as 
long as he stayed here, and took him with him to TN. The plaintiff came back 
since Stephen CHAPMAN’s death. He has been back some 10 or 15 years; he is 27 
or 28 years old. He always went by the name Frederick CHAPMAN.
James ROACH: Q. by Church CHAPMAN: I was very small when Fred JOHNSON died, 
but I was well acquainted with his wife. I was acquainted with Stephen 
CHAPMAN. I have heard Stephen CHAPMAN say that he kept Fred JOHNSON’s wife 
before and after her marriage with Mr. JOHNSON & he said he intended to keep 
her, & I have frequently heard him say that the plaintiff was his child and 
the reason why he did not let Fred come in for a share of Fred JOHNSON’s 
property was that he himself should have enough to make him as rich as Fred 
JOHNSON’s children & if Fred came in it would lessen the widow’s share. The 
plaintiff has been in the neighborhood since he came back from TN—12-15 
years.
Bryan ADAMS: Q. by Church CHAPMAN: I was a witness to a deed made by 
Frederick JOHNSON (the plaintiff) to Farnifold CHAPMAN dated 3 Dec 1842 
conveying all his right title to claims to the estate of Frederick JOHNSON. 
The plaintiff was sober at the time the deed was executed; he seemed willing 
to execute it. I signed my name as witness. I saw Farnifold CHAPMAN pay the 
plaintiff the money mentioned in the deed.
Joseph HEARTLY: Q. by Church CHAPMAN: I was witness to a deed from Farnifold 
CHAPMAN to Frederick BRYAN dated 19 Feb 1847 conveying all the estate title & 
interests of Farnifold CHAPMAN in the estate of Frederick JOHNSON, decd, and 
signed my name as witness.
Farnifold CHAPMAN: Q. by Church CHAPMAN: I purchased of the plaintiff 
Frederick JOHNSON all his right to the estate of Frederick CHAPMAN, decd. He 
was sober when he executed the deed, as far as I know, and perfectly willing. 
The plaintiff is 28 years old. He has been back from TN for 14 or 15 years. 
He has been in this neighborhood ever since he came back.
Depositions taken by WW WADSWORTH and Jno. BRYAN
 
Answer of David CHAPMAN, Frederick BRYAN & Mary his wife, Sally GODLY now the 
wife of Church BRIGHT, & of Church CHAPMAN, defendants: 
Defendants reserve all benefit of exception to the many errors and 
uncertainties in the bill against them now answer only those items which they 
have been told are material to the case. 
Frederick JOHNSON, Senr. made his LWT and appointed David CHAPMAN and William 
HARDY as executors; they proved the same as charged and took possession of 
the personal property of the testator. William HARDY has died [date blank] 
and execution fell to David CHAPMAN as surviving executor. The testator died 
in Mar 1819 and his wife Penelope was pregnant and shortly after his death 
she gave birth to the complainant, but defendants deny that the complainant 
was the child of JOHNSON; on the contrary the defendants are ready to prove 
that Penelope was unfaithful to her husband and was guilty of adultery with 
Stephen CHAPMAN and the complainant was the fruit of their adulterous 
intercourse; that this was well known to the testator at the time of his 
death and notorious in the neighborhood, and admitted openly by both mother 
and father of the complainant. This furnished David CHAPMAN with ample reason 
for omitting to make or have made any claim on behalf of the plaintiff, and 
defendants deny that the plaintiff has any right to the estate of Frederick 
JOHNSON. Defendants admit that Penelope the widow very soon after the death 
of the testator married her paramour Stephen CHAPMAN, and she dissented from 
the will; defendants also admit the death of Stephen and Penelope and that 
defendant SCHENK obtained letters of admin on the estate of Stephen CHAPMAN, 
but believe he received only as such a small portion of the estate of Esther 
CHAPMAN the mother of Stephen for this purpose of retaining the same to 
satisfy a debt due to Jacob [SCHENK]. Other than this, Stephen’s estate was 
utterly insolvent. Defendants admit that Frederick BRYAN married the daughter 
of testator and she is his wife and defendant Mary, and also admit the 
defendant Sarah was also the daughter of the testator and married (not Hiram) 
but Hilen GODLEY who died, & she afterwards married Joseph G. GODLY who is 
also dead. Testator JOHNSON died possessed of a considerable personal estate 
consisting of slaves and other chattels; he owned 9 slaves, Counsel, Betsy, 
Ned, Dinard, Pender, Sam, Dave, Jude, and young Ned, and these slaves were 
divided and Counsel, Betsy, and Ned were allotted to the widow; Dinard, 
Pender, and Sam were allotted to Mary JOHNSON, and David, Jude, & Ned, Jr. 
were allotted to Sally JOHNSON. Of those allotted to Mary, Sam has long since 
died; the others are still in the possession of defendant Frederick [BRYAN] 
and have had increase since Sylvia. Bet, Clarissa, & Stephen, & Jude, the 
children of Dinnard; Henry and Warren the children of Sylvia; Ned & Dave the 
children of Pender; and Susan the child of Bet, and defendant Frederick BRYAN 
says he has been in actual and exclusive possession of the slaves Dinard and 
Pender and their children and increase claiming exclusive property since his 
marriage to Mary until the present time, a period of more than 3 years, and 
says that under Chapter 37 of the General Assembly in the year 1837 it is 
enacted that whenever any person or persons shall remain in possession of 
slaves until that this possession is protected. 
The Negroes allotted to the widow were sold during the lifetime of Stephen 
CHAPMAN to satisfy his debts and that Council and Ned are now the property of 
one Thomas EDWARDS and Betty the property of one David LEWIS. Those allotted 
to Sally became the property of Hilen GODLY and David and Ned were sold under 
a deed of mortgage from Hilen GODLEY to John SMALL for his debts and the 
other sold by Henry HARDIN his admin to satisfy his debts. 
Goes on to account for personal estate and expenses of testator; the estate 
was distributed as ? to widow, ? to Mary, and ? to Sally.
Defendants admit that testator died seized of the land mentioned in the bill 
[of complaint] and that Hilen GODLEY and wife and Frederick BRYAN and wife 
sold to Church CHAPMAN, who denies he is tenant in common with complainant; 
he admits he purchased the land on 10 April 1835, and he has deeds he is 
ready to produce regarding this purchase. He had no notice of the 
complainant’s claim or title to the land when he purchased. He says that he 
has had the actual and continued possession of the lands since that time. 
Refers to the same Act of Assembly as above. [This establishes a Statute of 
Limitations for claim of property—sbg]. Since complainant became 21 three 
years before he filed the complaint, there is no relief from the Statute of 
Limitations based on his age. [This is a summary—sbg].
Since the bill was filed, on 19 Feb 1847, Furnafold CHAPMAN has sold the 
defendant Frederick BRYAN his interest in the estate. Defendants say that if 
complainant had any claim to the estate and charged on the bill, he has 
divested himself of it by his deed. It is apparent by the plaintiff’s own 
bill that the admin of Hilen GODLEY should be made a party to the suit. 
Defendants also deny that Hilen GODLEY died insolvent; he was possessed of a 
considerable estate. 27 Apr 1847
 
Bill of complaint of Frederick JOHNSON, Jr. against David CHAPMAN, surviving 
exec of Frederick JOHNSON, Sr., decd., Frederick BRYAN and Mary his wife, 
Sally GODLEY, Jacob B.SCHENK, admin of Stephen CHAPMAN, Henry HARDING, admin 
of Hilen GODLEY, and Church CHAPMAN made to the Court of Equity, Craven 
County, NC:
Complaint repeats some information from previous documents— Frederick 
JOHNSON, Sr. died leaving a will naming his widow Penelope and 2 daughters, 
providing them property in particular proportions. At that time Penelope was 
enceinte with complainant, and he was born shortly after his father’s death. 
He should have been entitled to an equal portion of the estate with the other 
heirs, as if his father had died intestate. Gives names of sisters’ husbands 
as noted in earlier documents. States that mother Penelope later married 
Stephen CHAPMAN, and Jacob SCHENK was admin of his estate. Also states that 
Penelope filed a dissent to the will of Frederick JOHNSON. Mentions property 
consisting of slaves, personal property, and land (now sold to Church 
CHAPMAN). Complainant further shows that he has been very poor and needy and 
has had but a scanty subsistence in life that his mother married again soon 
after the death of his father & that he has been utterly unable to prosecute 
or obtain his rights in the premises or to have aid from others to assist him 
to do, on account of his extreme poverty and that even now he is under the 
necessity of seeking his relief in [can’t read] in the case and humbly craves 
to assign this as the only reason and cause for the delay if any that has 
occurred in prosecuting his right in the premises. Also that he was permitted 
to grow up in ignorance of his rights with little or no education, having no 
guardian or next friend to befriend him in the premises or advise him in 
regard to the same & that he has been unsound since he attained his lawful 
age. Goes on to say that exec. David CHAPMAN, knowing of his claim to a 
portion of the estate, should have prayed leave of the court to divide the 
estate as prescribed by law. Remainder of the document describes attempts to 
appeal to CHAPMAN and the other heirs to behave justly to him, and now asks 
the court to intervene. Filed 6 Jul 1852
 
Will of Frederick JOHNSON: 
Sound and perfect mind and memory
Wife Penelopy JOHNSON: Lend all lands and plantation during her widowhood and 
no longer. Give negro man Counsil and Negro woman Bets. Negro man Ned to be 
sold and wife to have the money that he fetches. Give wife one horse and 2 
cows and calves, also one feather bed and furniture
Daughters Sarah and Mary JOHNSON: 6 Negroes: Dave and Dinar & Sam & Jude and 
Pender and Ned equally divided between them when either of them is married or 
comes of age. Also give each one feather bed and furniture apiece
“Wife shall keep that little negro child Ned until it is able to yearn his 
victuals and clothes and the rest of my property consisting horses cattle 
hogs and sheep and all the rest of my property to be sold and the money put 
to the use of raising and schooling my two daughters.” Money I have to be 
equally divided between my wife and 2 children Sary and Mary JOHNSON.
Executors: William HARDY and David CHAPMAN
6 June 1818
Witnesses: Stephen CHAPMAN, Firnaford CHAPMAN
Probate: June 1819
 
Answer of Henry HARDING, admin of Hilen GODLEY, to the Bill of Complaint of 
Frederick JOHNSON against David CHAPMAN, surviving exec of Frederiick 
JOHNSON, and others:
This defendant reserving right of exception to many errors in Bill, now 
answers those items that are most material.
Admits he is admin of Hilen GODLEY and became admin in 1836, and advertised 
to all creditors to present claims. He received in his possession 3 negroes, 
one negro woman and 2 children named Judy, Ezekiel, & an infant which 
defendant believes came from the estate of Frederick JOHNSON. These negroes 
were sold to pay the debts of Hilen GODLEY. This is the only property of 
Hilen that ever belonged to the estate of Frederick JOHNSON which ever came 
to the possession of defendant. Any other property or effects of Hilen which 
came into his possession from the JOHNSON estate were sold by GODLEY before 
his death.
Defendant has fully administered the estate, and but for this bill would have 
paid over the effects in his hand to the next of kin, and defendant has now 
in his possession belonging to the estate 5 negroes: Redding, age ab. 70; 
Isaac, age ab. 40; Henry, age ab. 18; Ezekiel, age ab. 16; Cesar, age ab. 13. 
Also has the hire from the negroes for 7 or 8 years amounting to $125, and 
these negroes came into the hands of this defendant from the estate of Robert 
GODLEY, father of Hilen GODLEY.
Defendant has no personal knowledge of other matters charged in the Bill of 
Complaint. 
Defendant pleads that he has fully administered the estate, and claims 
statute of limitations made for the relief of executors and administrators. 
Defendant is but a trustee having no material interest in the premises, 
except to discharge his duty, prays your Honor to protect him in the 
premises.
Filed 10 Sept 1849, Beaufort Co., NC
 
Memoranda in the JOHNSON estate. This is an undated and unsigned note that 
lists each heir named in will and who to summon. At end, there is this 
statement: “I desire you [can’t read] the slaves of the said Penelope & Hilen 
GODLEY. Get the names of each with their increase what became of them—who 
bought them their values—what they would hire for— and every thing about 
them. Set down the names of the witnesses and what you think the will [can’t 
read—smeared].
 
Deed from Frederick BRYAN and wife Mary BRYAN to Church CHAPMAN for right in 
½ of the lands that Frederick JOHNSON owned at the time of his death with all 
improvements. Land is on the N and E side of Big Swift Cr, formerly the 
property of Frederick JOHNSON, and upon his death Mary BRYAN became heir to ½ 
of all his lands. 15 Aug 1837
 
Deed from Hilen GODLEY and wife Sarah to Church CHAPMAN for right in ½ of the 
lands that Frederick JOHNSON owned at the time of his death with all 
improvements. Land is on the N and E side of Big Swift Cr, formerly the 
property of Frederick JOHNSON, and upon his death Sarah GODLEY became heir to 
½ of all his lands. 10 Aug 1837
 
Craven County Court (in equity): Summons for David CHAPMAN, surviving 
executor of Frederick JOHNSON to appear and answer the complaint of Frederick 
JOHNSON, Jr. Oct 1846
 
Craven County Court (in equity): Summons for Church CHAPMAN to appear and 
answer the complaint of Frederick JOHNSON, Jr. Oct 1846
 
Craven County Court (in equity): Summons for Frederick BRYAN and Mary his 
wife to appear and answer the complaint of Frederick JOHNSON, Jr. Oct 1846
 
Craven County Court (in equity): Summons for Sally GODLEY to appear and 
answer the complaint of Frederick JOHNSON, Jr. Oct 1846
 
Complaint filed in Superior Court for NC by Frederick JOHNSON: This is in 
wording the same as the complaint summarized earlier dated 6 Jul 1852. 
 
Slip of paper with no date that appears to have previously been attached to 
another document that is an amendment to the bill of complaint that shows 
that Hilen GODLEY died possessed of a considerable estate and Henry HARDING 
was appointed admin. 
 
Part of a document that appears to list defendants’ witnesses: Charity 
NELSON, Hannah SMITH, F. CHAPMAN, D. ADAMS, Argt. ADAMS, Ab. HARTLEY, Bryan 
ADAMS, Jas. ROACH, Jos. HARDY. No date
 
Marriage bond by Frederick CHAPMAN with Cannon STOCKS, bondsman to Sally 
WHITE. 28 Feb 1839. 
 
Notice to Fredk. JOHNSON from defendants’ attorney that depositions regarding 
this case will be taken at the home of James ROACH on the 28th and 29th of 
May 1847.
 
Order to John BRYAN & W.B. WADSWORTH from Craven Co. Master in Equity  to 
take the depositions of Charity NELSON, Hannah SMITH, F. CHAPMAN, David 
ADAMS, Argent ADAMS, Abner HARTLEY, Bryan ADAMS, James ROACH, Joseph HARTLEY 
in the case Frederick JOHNSTON, Jun. against David CHAPMAN, Exr. of Frederick 
JOHNSTON, Senr. & others. Apr 1847
 
Summons to Pitt County for John S. SMITH and Carmon SMITH to appear at the 
office of George S. STEVENSON, atty at law in New Bern, and testify on behalf 
of Frederick JOHNSON in a matter in which JOHNSON is plaintiff and David 
CHAPMAN, admr. , Frederick BRYAN, et alia are defendants. Oct 1847
 
Order by Craven Co. Master in Equity to F.P. LATHAM and David LANCASTER to 
take the deposition of John SMITH in the case Frederick JOHNSON vs. David 
CHAPMAN, Exec. and others. Oct 1847
 
Summons to Pitt County from Craven Co. Master in Equity for Edmond BUCK, 
Churchill MOORE, Wiley SMITH, William GARDINER, and George W. VENTERS to 
appear at the store of Samuel R. STREET at Swift Cr. bridge in Craven Co. on 
26 & 27 Sept. next to testify on behalf of complainant in a matter in which 
Frederick JOHNSON is plaintiff and David CHAPMAN and others are defendant. 
Mar 1851
 
Notice by Geo. S. ATTMORE, sol. for defend. to Frederick JOHNSON that he will 
take depositions in this case on the 10th & 11th of March at the home of 
James ROACH in Craven County. 7 Feb 1848.
 
Deposition of John SMITH taken at the home of James ROACH on 11 Mar 1848: Q. 
by defendant: Witnessed a deed from Frederick JOHNSON & Furney CHAPMAN for 
all his interest in the property of Frederick JOHNSON. I saw $30 paid. 
JOHNSON appeared to be sober. I heard Furney CHAPMAN say if he recovered the 
property that he would give JOHNSON half and if he did not gain the property 
he CHAPMAN should lose the money he had paid to JOHNSON. 
 
Notice by complainant’s attorneys to Frederick BRYAN & wife Mary, David 
CHAPMAN, Church CHAPMAN, Church BRIGHT and wife Sally, Henry HARDING, admin., 
Jacob SCHENK, admin that they will be taking depositions in this case on the 
11th, 12th, & 13th of October next at the store of Samuel R. STREET at Swift 
Creek Bridge. No date. [There are several copies of this document, probably 
because there is a separate one for each defendant—sbg]. 
 
Notice by Frederick BRYAN to Frederick JOHNSON that on 29th & 30th of March 
next he will take depositions in this case. 23 Feb 1850
 
Summons for Willliam B. WADSWORTH and Caswell GARDNER to appear at the office 
of William G. BRYAN, Esq. and testify on behalf of the defendants in this 
suit. Oct 1850
 
Notice by Frederick BRYAN to Frederick JOHNSON that on 1st and 2nd of April 
next he will take depositions in this case. 19 Feb 1851
Top of a document that should contain full depositions from Farnifold 
CHAPMAN, William B. WADSWORTH, Wm. BURNEY, Caswell GARDNER, Wyatt GARDNER, 
John M. BRYAN. Bottom part of document is missing. 1 Apr 851. [This might 
have previously been attached to another document].
 
Order by Master in Equity to William G. BRYAN & Charles KELLEY, Esq. to take 
the depositions of Farnifold CHAPMAN, William B. WADSWORTH, William BURNEY, 
Caswell GARDNER, Wyatt GARDNER, John M. BRYAN. Sept 1850
 
Order to Nathan WHITFORD, & Samuel R. STREET, Esqr. to take the depositions 
of Edward BUCK, Churchill MOORE, Willey SMITH, William GARDNER, George W. 
VENTERS, David CLARK, John JACKSON. Apr 1851
 
Summons for David CLARK and John JACKSON to appear at the store of Samuel R. 
STREET on 26 and 27 September next and testify on behalf of the complainant 
in a suit where Frederick JOHNSON is complainant and David CHAPMAN & others 
are defendants. Mar 1851
 
Order to William B. WADSWORTH & Samuel R. STREET, Esquires to take the 
depositions of Becky BUTLER, John JACKSON, Furney CHAPMAN, Hannah SMITH, John 
S. SMITH, & John A. SMITH. Apr 1849
 
Summons for Henry HARDING, admin of Hilen GODLEY to appear and answer a bill 
of complaint by Frederick JOHNSON, Jun. Oct 1849
 
Summons to Pitt Co. for John S. SMITH to appear at the home of James ROACH in 
Craven Co. on 29 and 30 of Mar next to testify on behalf of the defendants in 
a case where Frederick JOHNSON is plaintiff and David CHAPMAN, exec. of 
Frederick JOHNSON and others are defendants. Oct 1849
 
Notice to David CHAPMAN, exr., Frederick BRYAN & Mary his wife, Sally GODLEY, 
Jacob B. SCHENK, admin., Church CHAPMAN, & Henry HARDING, admin. That on the 
14th, 15th, & 16th of June 1849 that depositions in this case will be taken 
at the store of William G. BRYAN int New Berne regarding this suit in the 
court of equity. No date. 
 
Summons to Pitt Co. for John Sarah SMITH and John Argell SMITH to appear at 
the store of Samuel R. STREET, Swift Creek Bridge on the 11th, 12th, & 13th 
of October next to testify on behalf of Frederick JOHNSON in a matter in 
which JOHNSON is plaintiff and David CHAPMAN and others are defendants. Mar 
1849
 
Summons for John JACKSON, Furnifold CHAPMAN, Rebecca BUTLER, and Hannah SMITH 
to appear at the store of Samuel R. STREET at Swift Creek Bridge on the 11th, 
12th, and 13th of October next to testify on behalf of Frederick JOHNSON. Apr 
1849
 
Summons for John JACKSON, Furnifold CHAPMAN, John S. SMITH to appear at the 
office of Geo. S. STEVENSON on the 21st and 22nd of April next to testify on 
behalf of Frederick JOHNSON. Oct 1848
 
Notice to Church BRIGHT and Sally his wife from Sol. for Plaintiff that 
depositions will be taken at the office of George S. STEVENSON in New Berne 
on 21st & 22nd of April 1848.
 
Notice to David CHAPMAN, exr., Frederick BRYAN & Mary his wife, Church BRIGHT 
and Sally his wife, Jacob B. B. SCHENCK, admin., Church CHAPMAN that on the 
21st & 22nd of April next that depositions in this case will be taken at the 
store of William G. BRYAN int New Berne regarding this suit in the court of 
equity. 21 Mar 1848
 
Order from Master in Equity appointing Charles KELLEY and W.G. BRYAN to take 
depositions from Jno. S. SMITH, Cannon SMITH, & Jno. JACKSON. [date blank] 
1848
 
Summons to Pitt Co. for John Sarah SMITH and John Argell SMITH to appear at 
the store of Samuel R. STREET, Swift Creek Bridge on the 9th, 10th, & 11th of 
October next to testify on behalf of Frederick JOHNSON in a matter in which 
JOHNSON is plaintiff and David CHAPMAN and others are defendants. No date
 
3 sheets of paper that appear to be notes about the case. There are lists of 
names that are probably witnesses. It’s possible that these are one sheet 
that has been torn.
 
Deposition of Cannon SMITH: Q. by plaintiff: You [plaintiff] did apply to me 
to assist you in obtaining your right in the estate of your father Fredk. 
JOHNSON. You asked me three times. The first time was bout 8 years ago, I 
suppose. I do not know your exact age. I suppose you to be about 21 or 22 at 
the time you first asked. At that time you were a poor man without property. 
You proposed to give me ? of the property if I assisted you in obtaining it. 
I was acquainted with Fredk. JOHNSON and his wife Penelope JOHNSON. As far as 
their living together until his death, I know nothing to the contrary—never 
heard otherwise. 
Deposition of John SMITH: Q. by plaintiff: I know that Farnifold CHPAMAN went 
to Wyly SMITH’s house and enquired for you. Wyly SMITH sent for you and you 
came to SMITH’s. You & he went to the cooper shop and after a while, Furna 
CHAPMAN sent to the house for me to come to the cooper shop. I went CHAPMAN 
had a paper open and said to me that he had bought JOHNSON’s right in his 
fathers estate and he then paid you $30—saying that he would get the property 
if it could be got & that he would give JOHNSON ½ if it could be got—and if 
he did not get it, he would lose the $30. I cannot read or write. You cannot 
read or write.
Deposition of John JACKSON: Q. by plaintiff: I am 49 years. I have known you 
20 years or upwards. I was acquainted with Fredk. JOHNSON and his wife 
Penelope at the time of his death. They lived together. I suppose your age 
now is 27 or 28 years. You proposed to me to [to get share of property] & 
offered me half if I got it. I think you made the proposition 7 or 8 years 
ago. You were in poor circumstances and had not the means to prosecute the 
suit yourself. I did not wish to be involved in a law suit and to insure the 
ill will of my neighbors [reason for not accepting offer—sbg]. Do not allude 
to neighbors generally, but to the parties on the other side. 
Depositions taken “date above set forth” [that part of document appears 
missing]. Signed on 22 Apr 1848. Depositions taken by W.G. BRYAN and C. 
KELLY.
 
Notice by complainants attorneys to defendants David CHAPMAN, exr., Frederick 
BRYAN & Mary his wife, Church BRIGHT and Sally his wife, Jacob B. B. SCHENCK, 
admin., Church CHAPMAN, Henry HARDING, admin. by complainants attorneys that 
depositions in this case would be taken on 11, 12, & 13 Oct next. 8 Sept 1849
 
Deposition of Farnifold CHAPMAN: Q. by defendant: I purchased the plaintiff’s 
interest if any in the property of Fredk. JOHNSON in Dec 1842 for $30. Did 
not mention that I would give ½ half or any part of the property to him. I 
think the plaintiff was sober, the paper was read over to him before he 
signed it, think he did know what he was doing. I then conveyed the interest 
to Frederick BRYAN for $30. I know the lands in question [property of 
Frederick JOHNSON, deceased]. They are now owned by Church CHAPMAN; he has 
held them 15-16 years. He has tended them pretty much every year in something 
or other. 
Deposition of Wm. B. WADSWORTH: Q. by Deft. : I am acquainted with Farnifold 
CHAPMAN, the witness last past examined. His character is perfectly 
unblemished. I have known him 12 or 15 years, and believe him on his oath the 
minutest particular. I know John S. SMITH [whose testimony conflicted with 
CHAPMAN’s]; am not well acquainted with his personal character, but if his 
testimony came in conflict with CHAPMAN’s would believe CHAPMAN soonest as 
his character is far superior to SMITH’s.
Depostion of William BURNEY: Q. by deft: I am acquainted with the character 
of [Farnifold] CHAPMAN and I would say it is good. I am likewise acquainted 
with the character of [John] SMITH, and should not say it was good. If the 
testimony of the two conflicted, I would believe CHAPMAN. I knew of the sale 
of the property to CHAPMAN in a day or so, think it was the next day after. 
Never heard that he was to pay anything more than the purchase money of $30. 
Deposition of Wyatt GARDNER: Q. by deft: Am acquainted with the character of 
[Farnifold] CHAPMAN; it is good, perfectly unblemished. Also acquainted with 
the general character of John S. SMITH; it is very bad.
Deposition of Caswell GARDNER: Q. by Dft.: Am acquainted with the general 
character of [Farnifold] CHAPMAN—it is good, unblemished. Also acquainted 
with the general character of SMITH; it is bad. If their testimony 
conflicted, should believe CHAPMAN in preference. 
Deposition of John M. BRYAN: Q. by dft: Does not know what negroes Mary the 
wife of Fredk. BRYAN received. Negroes went into the possession of Fredk. 
BRYAN in the year 1836 or 1837 and have been in his possession ever since.
Document refers to 2 deeds annexed to depositions, one the deed from Fredk. 
JOHNSON to Farnafold CHAPMAN and the other from CHAPMAN to Fredk. BRYAN, both 
referred to in the depositions of Farnafold CHAPMAN. 
Depositions taken on the “date set forth” [Don’t see a date], signed 1 Apr 
1851 by W.G. BRYAN and C. KELLEY.
 
Deed of Firnaford CHAPMAN to Frederick BRYAN: “Whereas on the third day of 
December 1842 Frederick JOHNSTON assigned conveyed and sold to me all the 
estate title and interest of him… that he was entitled to as legatee and 
distribute & heir of Frederick JOHNSTON deceased.” Deed is conveying this 
right and interest to BRYAN for $30. 19 Feb 1847. Witness Joseph HARTLEY
 
Deed from Frederick JOHNSON, legatee of his father Frederick JOHNSON, decd. 
stating he received $30 from Firnaford CHAPMAN for all rights, titles, and 
claims to the estate of Fedrick JOHNSON. 3 Dec 1842. JOHNSON signed by mark. 
Witnesses are Bryant ADAMS and John [X] SMITH.
 
Division of slaves of the estate of Frederick JOHNSON by Jno. B. DAWSON, 
Edward NELSON, John JACKSON on 2 Jan 1832. Slaves valued as follows:
Slave name                   Value		
Dave                          $400
Sam                           $400
Ned                           $275
Juda                          $275
Pender                        $275
Dinah                         $250
Ezekiel                       $150
Silvey                        $100
Betsey                        $ 50
                            $2,175
Above-named negroes were divided into 2 lots, there being but two heirs, 
making each lot worth $1087.50. Lot #1 was drawn by Hilen GODLEY, viz Dave, 
Ned, Juda, Ezekiel, total value $1100, pays $12.50 to even up. Lot #2 was 
drawn by Polly JOHNSON, viz Sam, Pender, Dinah, Silver, Betsey.
 
Notice to David CHAPMAN, Frederick BRYAN & wife Mary, Jacob SCHENCK, Church 
CHAPMAN by Frederick JOHNSON that he will take depositions on the 26th & 27th 
of Sept. next at the store of Samuel R. STREET at Swift Cr. Bridge. 15 Aug 
1851
 
Notice to Henry HARDING & Church BRIGHT and wife Sally by Frederick JOHNSON 
that he will take depositions on the 26th & 27th of Sept. next at the store 
of Samuel R. STREET at Swift Cr. Bridge. 15 Aug 1851
 
Depositions of witnesses called at the instance of Frederick JOHNSON. 
Depositions taken by John BRYAN and Samuel R. STREET. 
Deposition of George W. VENTERS: Q. by plaintiff: Am acquainted with the 
character of John S. SMITH; have known him ever since I could recollect. I 
never heard anything against his character until this suit. I would believe 
his oath. Q. by C. CHAPMAN, one of the defendants: Acquainted with the 
character of Farnifold CHAPMAN. If evidence between them [SMITH and CHADWICK] 
came into conflict, I should not doubt either of them. Have known F. CHAPMAN 
ever since I can recollect. I have heard that John S. SMITH is subject to 
spells of drunkenness.
Deposition of William GARDNER: Q. By plaintiff: Am acquainted with the 
character of John S. SMITH; have known him since we were boys. Never heard of 
his word being doubted until since this suit was commenced. I would believe 
his oath. Q. by C. CHAPMAN: Would believe the word of Farnifold CHAPMAN; have 
known him since we were boys. F. CHAPMAN is a sober, upright man—never heard 
to the contrary. If evidence between the two of them [SMITH and F. CHAPMAN] 
is in conflict, I don’t know which I should believe. Have heard that John S. 
SMITH is subject to fits of drunkenness. Q. by plaintiff: Farnifold CHAPMAN 
and defendant David CHAPMAN have always claimed each other as brothers.
Deposition of Wilie SMITH: Q. by plaintiff: Acquainted with the character of 
John S. SMITH and have known him some 30 years. Never heard his word disputed 
when sober. I would take him on his oath. Was acquainted with Frederick 
JOHNSON, father of plaintiff a little before his death. I hear his personal 
and real estate was worth between four and five thousand dollars at his 
death. I don’t know what the estate is worth at this time. The transfer from 
Frederick JOHNSON to Farnifold CHAPMAN was done at my house, but I was not 
present. John S. SMITH did tell me the same day that the transfer was made by 
the plaintiff to F. CHAPMAN was to get the property and give JOHNSON half. 
Don’t know if F. CHAPMAN tried to get the property. Q. by C. CHAPMAN: At 
times John SMITH gets drunk. He was drunk at the time he told me about the 
trade.
Deposition of Churchill MOORE: Q. by plaintiff: Know John SMITH at this time; 
have known him 7 or 8 years. I should believe him if sober. He has no 
interest [i.e., legal or financial interest] that I know of. Q. by C. 
CHAPMAN: John S. SMITH is in the habit of taking drunken frolics. Farnifold 
CHAPMAN is a sober man and a man of truth. If the evidence of F. CHAPMAN and 
SMITH were in conflict, I would think one or the other was mistaken, provided 
SMITH was sober. Q. by plaintiff: I have heard John S. SMITH say that 
Farnifold CHAPMAN was to try to recover this property one half for the other 
and that where he was sober.
Deposition of John JACKSON: Q. by plaintiff: Knew Frederick JOHNSON, the 
father of the plaintiff. I should think the value of his estate at the time 
of his death was four or five thousand dollars. I don’t know what it’s worth 
at this time. Q. by C. CHAPMAN: Am not acquainted with the character of John 
S. SMITH. Am acquainted with the general character of Farnifold CHAPMAN. I 
should think he is a sober upright man & a man of truth.
Deposition of David CLARK: Q. by plaintiff: Know John S. SMITH as well as 
anybody else. Never knew but what he was a man of truth. Would have no reason 
to disbelieve him. Q. by C. CHAPMAN: He does drink at times and gets drunk. 
Know Farnifold CHAPMAN as well as anybody else. If evidence between SMITH and 
F. CHAPMAN was in conflict, I have no reason to disbelieve either of them.
26 Sept 1851
 
Document first has copy of dockets related to case from Craven County Court 
that shows case moving from Apr term 1847 to April term 1852. 
Following that is a summary of the minutes related to the case that is 
consistent with dockets. At April term 1852 the case was set for hearing and 
sent to the Supreme Court by consent of parties. This copy of dockets and 
minutes was made 1 Jul 1852. Below that is a statement “Death of Henry 
HARDING, arm. is suggested & James BRIGHT adm. de bonds non of Hilen GODLEY 
made party deft. by consent.
 
Document that is a statement of accounts in the case to 1 Jan 1854. This is 
an account of the current value of the estate. Assets are amt. of assets of 
the estate with interest, rents, & hires & increase; balance of cash in the 
hands of executor as per settlement made 5 Sept 1821, plus interest; 
accounting of slaves as follows:

Slave Name - Council   
Age in 1854 - 55 
Value in 1854 ($) - 300 
Hire from 9/1821-1854 ($) - 2240 
Allotted to Widow Penelope

Slave Name - Betty 
Age in 1854 - 60
Value in 1854 ($) - 10
Hire from 9/1821-1854 ($) - 576
Allotted to Widow Penelope

Slave Name - Ned (ded in 1849)  
Age in 1854 - N/A 
Value in 1854 ($) - N/A 
Hire from 9/1821-1854 ($) - 345 (Hired 1821-1844; deduct $85 for 5 years 
for keeping him)
Allotted to Widow Penelope

Slave Name - Windsor, child of Betty  
Age in 1854 - Not given 
Value in 1854 ($) - 1000 
Hire from 12 years old to present, 16 years: 800. Deduct keeping him 6 years 
@$25/year: 150. [Should be 28 in 1854]
Allotted to Widow Penelope

Slave Name - Jim, child of Betty  
Age in 1854 - 26
Value in 1854 ($) - 1000 
608. Deduct for keeping him 6 years @$25/year: $150.
Allotted to Widow Penelope

Slave Name - Sam died in 1849 
Age in 1854 - N/A
Value in 1854 ($) - N/A
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Dinah
Age in 1854 - 55
Value in 1854 ($) - 200
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Sylvia (child of Dinah)
Age in 1854 - 25
Value in 1854 ($) - 800
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Betty (infirm), (child of Dinah)
Age in 1854 - 22
Value in 1854 ($) - 500
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Clarissa (child of Dinah)
Age in 1854 - 20
Value in 1854 ($) - 800
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Stephen (child of Dinah)
Age in 1854 - 19
Value in 1854 ($) - 1000
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Judy (child of Dinah)
Age in 1854 - 10
Value in 1854 ($) - 350
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Warren (child of Sylvia)
Age in 1854 - 7
Value in 1854 ($) - 350
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Violet (child of Sylvia)
Age in 1854 - 5
Value in 1854 ($) - 275
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Sam (child of Sylvia)
Age in 1854 - 4
Value in 1854 ($) - 275
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Pender
Age in 1854 - 40
Value in 1854 ($) - 300
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Ned (child of Pender)
Age in 1854 - 14
Value in 1854 ($) - 750
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Dave
Age in 1854 - 13
Value in 1854 ($) - 700
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Slave Name - Jane
Age in 1854 - 4
Value in 1854 ($) - 200
N/A
Mary JOHNSON

Excess of hire over keeping these negroes (allotted to Fred BRYAN=247)
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Dave (sold 1836)
26 in 1836
Value in 1854 ($) - 1040 amount of sale plus interest since 1836 of 1123.20
650 (to 1836)
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Ned (sold 1836 by H. GODLEY)
17 in 1836
1075 amount of sale plus 1161 interest since 1836. Deduct  $150 for keeping 
him 
6 years @ $25/yr.
150
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Ezekiel (sold 1836 by H. GODLEY)
12 years in 1836
720 amount of sale plus 777.60 interest since 1836. Deduct $150 for keeping 
him 6 years at $25/yr.
N/A
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Jude & child sold in 1836 by H. GODLEY
27 in 1836
800 amount of sale plus 864 interest since 1836. 
96 (hire from 1824 when she was 12 to 1836)
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Dick (child of Jude, born since 1836)
Age in 1854 - 12
Value in 1854 ($) 650
N/A
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Handy (child of Jude, born since 1836; twin of Dick, idiotic)
Age in 1854 - 12
Value in 1854 ($) 100
N/A
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Martha (child of Jude, born since 1836)
Age in 1854 - 9
Value in 1854 ($) 350
N/A
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Ansley (child of Jude, born since 1836, twin of Martha)
Age in 1854 - 9
Value in 1854 ($) 350
N/A
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - George
Age in 1854 - 7
Value in 1854 ($) 300
N/A
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Henry
Age in 1854 - 5
Value in 1854 ($) 250
N/A
Sally JOHNSON

Slave Name - Matilda
Age in 1854 - 1
Value in 1854 ($) 150
N/A
Sally JOHNSON
 
Deduct expense of 
raising these children: 
1000
 
Total value of estate was $26,682.35. Fred JOHNSON is entitled to ¼ share.
 
Shipping record for goods sent from the port of NY to the port of Newbern, NC 
aboard the Cora A. Lindsay. This is in relation to case J. Susan vs. CHAPMAN 
et als and appears to be misfiled. Dated 3 May 1853.
 
Opinion in the case [not clear who the opinion is by]. Summary of case: 
Frederick JOHNSON died in the month of March 1819, having made a LWT, in 
which he gave the whole of his property to his wife and two daughters, Mary & 
Sally, the one now the wife of Frederick BRYAN & the other of _____ GODLEY, 
now dead. The will was made in June 1818. At the time of his death his wife 
was pregnant & subsequently gave birth to the plaintiff. The bill is filed 
for an account of the estate & for a distributive share of the property and 
for a conveyance of ? of the realty. In 1808 the legislature passed an act to 
authorize after-born children to receive their due proportion of the estate 
of their father, where he has made no provision for them in his will. The 
defendants in their answer deny that the plaintiff is the child of the 
testator Frederick JOHNSTON, but aver that he is a bastard & the son of 
Stephen CHAPMAN. It is shown by the evidence that the testator & his wife 
lived together for many years & in the same house & up to the death of the 
former. In presumption of law then the plaintiff is his son being born within 
2 months after his death. The conception took place while the parties were 
married & while they lived together & the rule is now well settled that where 
there is opportunity for sexual intercourse between a man & his wife, it is 
presumed it did take place, unless the contrary be shown; and if the 
intercourse might have occurred at a time when, by the course of nature, the 
husband might have been the father, the child is deemed his. [Gives legal 
precedent reference]. The only evidence upon which the defendants rely to 
prove the plaintiff to be illegitimate consists of the declarations of 
Frederick JOHNSTON and his wife. This evidence is not competent [gives legal 
reference] says the husband and wife are alike incompetent to prove the fact 
of non-access while they lived together, nor are the declarations of either 
competent to prove the illegitimacy tho the child was born 3 months after 
marriage & thereupon they had separated by mutual consent. If there be 
access, nothing but impotence will bastardise the issue. Under the evidence 
in this case, we are bound to declare that the plaintiff is the son by law of 
Frederick JOHNSTON, Sr., the testator.
   Defendant BRYAN states that he has been in the possession of the 
negroes set forth in his answer, as his share, in right of his wife and the 
will of testator, claiming them as his own property, for more than 3 years, & 
he deems the benefits of the Act of 1820 as it specially pleaded. [Explains 
that this statute protects anyone in possession of a slave for three years 
“to have a good and absolute title to such slave or slaves against all 
parties whose claim is based by the said Statute]. By this opinion, the 
statute applies to actions at law & legal rights and have no bearing on this 
case, because another act [cited] states that a child born after the making 
of a will, where he is not provided for in the will, that the infant may at 
any time, through his guardian file a petition, and if such a petition is not 
filed, it is the duty of the Executor or Administrator to call upon the 
legatees of the will for a Bill to be litigated upon their rights. There is 
no time limit on this. The plaintiff came of age in May 1840 & the bill was 
filed in 1846, 6 years after any legal payments could have been made to him 
or the presumption of abandonment could commence.
   Church CHAPMAN, one of the defendants, alleges that he has purchased 
from the other defendants all their interest in the estate and that he had no 
notice of the plaintiffs claim at the time he made his purchase & that 
therefore he is a bona fide purchaser. These purchases were made by him in 
“35” & “37.” He also states that from the death of Frederick JOHNSTON up to a 
short time before filing his bill, it was notorious and openly admitted by 
him (the Pltff) , &c that he was the child of Stephen CHAPMAN and not of the 
testator & that his father Stephen CHAPMAN refused & objected to any claim 
being made by the defendant, David CHAPMAN, on account of the Plaintiff &c. 
This is a clear admission not only that the claim of the plaintiff was 
notorious, but also satisfactory evidence that Church CHAPMAN knew it. It is 
also stated as a proof that the plaintiff knew he had no legal claim, that he 
sold his interests in “42” to one Furnifold CHAPMAN for $30, who since the 
filing of the Bill, in “47” sold it to Church CHAPMAN & he to Frederick 
BRYAN. These statements satisfy the court that the whole of this business was 
a combination on the part of the Defendants to avail themselves of the 
destitute state of the Plaintiff this ignorance to secure to themselves, 
whatever interest he night have in the estate of Frederick JOHNSTON, Sen. The 
most charitable construction  that can be put on the answers is that they did 
in truth believe that the Plaintiff was illegitimate & therefore not entitled 
to an interest in Frederick JOHNSTON’s estate, but that they knew of his 
claim there can be no question. [See A below] 
   The defendant Church CHAPMAN relies also upon his long possession as 
barring the plaintiff’s claim; the same answer applies to his defense as has 
already been given to that of the other defendants.
   The answer of Henry HARDING, administrator of Hilen GODLEY admits that 
he has in his hands of the estate of his intestate five negroes who came to 
him from the estate of the father of Helen GODLEY that he administered in 
1835 and advertised according to law. The assets of GODLEY are still in his 
hands and they are not protected by statutes from the claim of the plaintiff. 
   There must be a decree for the plaintiff and a reference to the master 
of this court to take an account of the estate of Frederick JOHNSTON Senr. as 
prayed. 
   [A]: This sale in “42” by the plaintiff is relied upon by the 
Defendants as a bar to his recovery—it can not have that effect. The price is 
so totally inadequate & the circumstances under which it was made are so 
suspicious, that a court of Equity will not enforce it as a bar to the 
plaintiff’s claim. No date
 
[There is another copy of the opinion that is the first document in this 
folder]
 
Estate audit of accounts of David CHAPMAN, admin. Credits include amount of 
sales ($767.60), 2 notes ($1013.00), Negro hire and land rent ($113.80). 
There is a list of payments made to various people; these are all small 
amounts, except a payment of $208.00 to Stephen CHAPMAN. Audit done by John 
CHAPMAN, John FORNES, & Ald. ELLISON, 5 Sept 1821.
 
[There is a copy of the slave division, same as above 2 Jan 1832]
 
Account of sale of property of Frederick JOHNSTON made by David CHAPMAN and 
William HARDY, Executors 12 Jul 1819. Total sale amount=$659.60. 2 notes 
inventoried=$1013.00. Second sale of negro child West made by David CHAPMAN, 
exec.=$100.00. 
“At the foot of the first acct. sales the executor return ‘The following 
property given 3 negroes, one feather bed, one horse, 2 cows & calves to his 
wife. 6 negroes to his two children Sarah JOHNSON and Mary JOHNSON.’”
“Decr. term 1819 The Executor return ‘the residue of the property of Fredk. 
JOHNSON decd. consisting of one negro child of Bets by the name of West.’”
[These are extracts furnished to the court from the original accounts of 
sales of the Executor of Frederick JOHNSON. 2 Aug 1853]
 
[There is another copy of the Frederick JOHNSON will]
 
Deposition of Charles BUTLER: Knew negroes Council, Ned, & Bett—at the death 
of Fredk. JOHNSON Council at that time was about 25 years old & worth about 
$500 & would have hired that year  & the next for about $55 or $60 per year. 
Ned was about 40 years old and lame and of not much value; he was worth about 
$250. He was sold and afterwards died. Stephen CHAPMAN had him 9 or 10 years. 
Betty was about 30 or 35 old and was worth about $300. She is reported to be 
the property of Isaac GARDNER. Council is reported to be the property of 
Isaac GARDNER. Stephen CHAPMAN had him first who died in TN & witness 
believes he died insolvent. Stephen CHAPMAN sold the negroes about 10 years 
after he married which was in 1829—the negroes with the exception of Ned were 
likely worth the average price. 
Deposition of Thomas BUCK: Knew Council one of the slaves named twenty three 
years ago he appeared to be as valuable as any Negro he hired at that time 
for $75 to his father-in-law SUTTON. He sold for $400 to John EDWARDS. 
Supposes he was about 35  years old. The hire for said negro he thinks would 
be on an average year about $70. Stephen CHAPMAN died insolvent. 
Knew Betty she was sold about the same time to John EDWARDS for $40 as he 
understands; has seen one of her children Jim he was sold for $125 to Thomas 
EDWARDS he was 3, 4, or 5 years old is now about 25 or 26 yearly, would hire 
from $6-10 from 12-18 years; from 18 years till now would average about $70 
per year hire. Jim is worth now as much as any negro thinks he is worth $1000. 
Knew Ned about the same time, he sold for $40 or $50 from the time he knew 
him to within a few years he did good service and was worthless for the last 
5 years before his death, has been dead about 3 years from the time he knew 
him he was worth $15 per year hire up to the time he became worthless—it was 
worth an average of $17 per year for 7 years to keep him. 
Betty was a right good cook—from 1830 till now her average hire would have 
been about $5 per year—she sold about 3 or 4 years ago for $10 & about 3 or 4 
years before that for $20.
Knew Dave about 24 years ago was then just about grown, knew him previous to 
the division between Sarah & Mary JOHNSON, knew him afterwards as Hilan 
GODLEYS slave; he sold in 1836 or 1837 for $1040 about that time negros were 
high, from the time he commenced hiring up to the time he was sold, the 
average hire for him would be about $50, his hire from 1836 to this time 
would be about $70 or $75
Thinks he saw Jude with a child sold in 1836 or 1837 for the price of $800. 
Knew young Ned in 1836. He was sold at that time for $1075. He appeared to be 
16 or 17 years old; was said to be the child of Betty. He would hire for $70 
or $75 per year from 12 to 16 years old would hire for about $6 to $10.
Saw a boy sold by the name of Ezekiel in 1836 or 1837 for about $720. He was 
a small boy from 7 to 12 years old. John GALLOWAY bought him & carried him to 
TN witness thinks. Has not known him since his sale. Ezekiel from the time he 
commenced hiring witness supposes would hire for about the same as now if living. 
Witness was not acquainted with the price of negroes in 1836; only knows that 
these negroes sold at high prices. 
Dave was sold by John EDWARDS to Mr. MURPHY, does not know anything about him 
since a short time after the sale to EDWARDS. It would cost the same average 
to raise Ezekiel as the other negroes.
Thinks Council would be now about 60 years old and worth about $300—Ned Junr. 
would sell for $800. Dave is now about 45 years old if living, is reported to 
be dead & has heard it denied as understood that Dave was shot by MURPHY 
after he owned him; did not understand that he was killed.
Deposition of Furnifold CHAPMAN: Knew Betty. She had 2 children after 
JOHNSON’s death, viz Windsor & Jim. Windsor was sold he expects by Stephen 
CHAPMAN at about 8 years old or he might have been 10 and carried away; Jim 
might have been born in 1824 or 1834. [Cross-examined by the defendant]: Knew 
all the negroes that JOHNSON had when he died: 
Old Ned who was afflicted had a sore leg he was worth about $200
Betty was at least 40 years old and was worth about $150
Council was about 21 years old and worth about $400
Dave a negro boy about 13 years old and worth about $200
Dinah about 11 years old and worth about $200
Judy about 9 years old and worth about $175
Sam about 7 years old and worth about $175—Sam has since died; witness thinks 
he heard it about 10 years ago; he died in 1840
Pender about 4 or 5 years old and worth about $125
Ned Jr (or Little Ned) between 2 & 3 years old and worth about $125.
Negroes were low at the death of JOHNSON to 1826 & 1827. No natural variance 
between the dates.
Mrs BRYAN (Mary JOHNSON) married first Benj. GODLEY who died and she 
afterwards married Fredk. BRYAN. 
Objected to by complainant
Deposition of William J. LAUGHINGHOUSE: Knows Judy and has known her since 
1836. She has 8 children: Maria born in 1836; she had twins next, Dick & 
Handy born in about 1842; the next were twins Martha & Ansley (girls) born 
Feb 1845; the next were George born 1847 the next Henry born in 1849; the 
next Matilda born in 1853, now an infant. When witness first knew Judy she 
was sold at Hilen GODLEY’s sale and bought by John GALLOWAY, is a negro of 
ordinary value and maybe a little under—witness owned all the children of 
Judy except Maria; they are all of ordinary value except boy Handy who is now 
about 10 years and of impaired intellect; witness thinks he is worth and 
would bring $100.
[Cross examined by defendants]: It is worth about $24 or $25 per year to 
raise young negroes until they are about 7 years old (and can earn their 
living). A negro would hire for his maximum value per year at about 18 or 20 
years. A breeding woman with 3 children would not be worth any hire.
[Direct examination resumed]
The average hire for men over the past 20 years for a 20 year old man is 
about $60 per year; for women about $20. 
Witness gave for the woman Judy & her first twins in 1844 $462 at 6 months 
credit. At GODLEY sale she & child Maria brought upwards of $800, which was in 1836.
[Cross examined by defendants]
Was acquainted with Benjamin GODLEY the first husband of Mrs. BRYAN, and he 
died & left no children and left a father Robert GODLEY & his widow (now Mrs. 
BRYAN) surviving him. (This question was objected to by complainant)
Deposition Isaac GUION: Knows Betty & Council that he purchased Betty in 1848 
for $10. Thinks she would have hired for $10 or $12 on an average for the 
last 7 or 8 years. He purchased Council 4 years since for $300 & he is near 
56 years old, has no defect except age, has known him 15 years, thinks he 
would have hired on an average during that time for $70-$75.
Deposition of Fredk. BRYAN: Knows Jim; understands him to be one of the 
heroes that his wife received at the division of her father’s negroes 
(JOHNSON’s). First saw him in Jan 1836; he supposes him to have been at that 
time about 30 years old. He died in 1840 (15 Sept).
He knew Dinah also another of the same negroes, first in Jany 1836. She is 
now living and about 55 years old; she had at that time 4 children: Sylvia, 
Betty, Clarissa, Stephen, Judy; another of her children has been born since 
that time, they are all now living. Sylvia is about 25 years & has 5 
children: Warren 7, Nolet 5, Sam 4, the other 2 are now dead (Henry was 4 
years old when he died, the other died a few months old). Betty is about 22 
or 23 years old and has no children. Clarissa is about 20 years old & has no 
children. Stephen is about 19 years old. Judy is about 9 or 10 years old.
He knew Pender first at the same time in 1836. She is at this time 40 years 
old; she has 3 children: Ned, 14, Dan, 13, Jane, 4.
[Cross examined by defendants]:
Sam was healthy up to the year before his death—he was then afflicted with 
liver complaint until his death—he earned nothing that year. He [witness] 
employed two physicians to attend him (objected to); he paid Dr. HUGHES $15 
and paid Dr. SHACKELFORD a bill, does not know amount.
Pender never was healthy, was always sickly and has what the doctors 
pronounce disease of the womb.
Dinah is tolerable healthy. 
Henry the child of Sylvia was a cripple and never walked a step. Betty had 
one child which died at about 2 years old
Betty is unsound & has a swelled leg.
The whole lot of negroes, witness thinks has been an expense to him (objected to)
He was married in 1835 to Mary GODLEY the widow of Benj. GODLEY; she had no 
children by her first husband; Robt. GODLEY the father of Benj. GODLEY 
survived him.
[Direct examination continues]
All the negroes alluded to hire in this deposition came from the JOHNSON 
negroes and he got them by his wife.
At the time of his marriage he had no other property except this property got 
by his wife; has a wife and 6 children living. Had no other [can’t read] of 
his property up to 1850. He bought a piece of land about the year 1840; his 
uncle let him have a plantation to live upon as long as he wanted it—during 
that time he raised his family—he hired one negro during that time two years—
he did not make a support up to time of the death of George BRYAN.
[Cross examination]
Kinfolks were kind to him & aided him at his lifetime—his uncle also 
furnished with a horse to work. At his uncle’s death  he owed $1000 or 
thereabouts. He died in 1850 and left him the property which he now has 
except as before stated.
Deposition of Wm. B. WADSWORTH: Has not known the negroes of Fredk. BRYAN 
until within a few days. He then examined them, and is of the opinion that 
they are not a profitable set of negroes being mostly females and children—he 
thinks that from a calculation there made the profit could not have been 
exceeding $719 from the time he got them up to this term. Further states that 
in this calculation he did not estimate the doctors bill paid on these 
accounts.
[Cross examination]
From 1832 to1836 Sam hired for $240
From 1836 to 1840 estimated hire $410
Stephen the witness thinks would have hired for the last 7 years for $255
net profit of Pender & her children Ned, Dave, & Jane was estimated at $111 & 
[overwritten—can’t decipher]. In this estimate no calculation made for the 
support of Mr. BRYAN and family; the calculation made at this time went no 
farther back than 1832. 
Estimate of hire of Sam & Stephen were considered no credit for his (Mr. 
BRYAN’s) work and labor for the time, nor was any calculation made for the 
debts incurred by Mr. BRYAN at the time. 
Deposition of Johnson BRYAN: Acquainted with Fredk. BRYAN, Fredk. being his 
nephew and for many years living within a half mile of him (ever since he was 
married) that he is also well acquainted with his negroes that he has by his 
wife the present Mrs. BRYAN that he has known the stock from the time he got 
them, until the present time. That he has recently in company with Wm. B. 
WADSWORTH examined the negroes with a view to ascertain their expenses & 
profits since Fredk. BRYAN received them, and upon the best estimation he can 
make their annual hires and values do not exceed the expenses incurred in the 
raising and care of them, but a small amount. Computation or estimate was 
made exclusive of any security bill which he paid for them and this deponent 
has personal knowledge of his having employed physicians from time to time 
for them—that is Sam, Dinah, & Pender that was the original stock of the 
JOHNSON negroes—deponent knows that Fredk. BRYAN has lived economically as 
any man, that George BRYAN loaned him his horses at one time with which he 
worked and tended his crop; that John M. BRYAN afterwards at different times 
gave him two horses; that George BRYAN gave him the use of his plantation for 
a number of years—and at his death he gave him the plantation and several 
good strong working negroes.
Deposition of Church CHAPMAN: Fredk. JOHNSON for years was a near neighbor to 
him, that he knew Sam, Dinah, & Pender at the death of JOHNSON. 
Sam was a small boy some fire or six years old & worth not more than $200
Dinah was about 9 or 10 years old and was worth not more than $200
Pender was a small child not more than two or three years old and worth not 
more than $150. 
Deponent knew the negroes of the original stock of JOHNSON that were assigned 
to Hilen GODLEY wife Sally. They were Dave, Jude, & Ned.
Dave was a small boy no more than 10 years old & was worth not over $300.
Ned was a child about 2 years old & was worth about $150.
Jude was about 8 or 9 or 10 years old & was worth about $200
Deposition of James ROACH: Knows land that belonged to JOHNSON that Church 
CHAPMAN bought of Hilan GODLEY & wife & Fredk. BRYAN & wife that he being 
within a half mile of it that at the time that CHAPMAN purchased the land 
that had been cleared upon the tract was worn out and grown up in old field 
pines with the exception of 4 or 5 acres round the old house which was poor & 
would not then or since have paid for ploughing. The house was a farm house 
of one story, but was so rotten & decayed that it had to be propped up to 
keep it from falling, and has been so ever since. Deponent temporarily 
occupied it at the time his own house got burned, & he had no where to live & 
CHAPMAN gave him the use of this old house for the family to be in. and he 
left it and moved to an old barn on his own land. Chapman has since cleared a 
part of the land & cut several ditches. This deponent does not believe the 
use of the land since has paid him for the expense of cutting these ditches—
previous to JOHNSON’s death this had been part of the land boxed by a man by 
the name of Elisha LEWIS, and soon after his death they were burned and 
rendered them worthless. On the same side of the road there was a very small 
piece of the land well timbered which CHAPMAN lined and tended one year and a 
part of another—when it was set fire to by some person in 6 or 7 places 
[there is a line written over the main line here, and I can’t read it]. 
Deponent would not have put the work upon the land which CHAPMAN had for all 
the profit, which he as derived from it. Take all the vines together upon the 
said tract and deponent would keep a hand to tend them.
Deposition of Nathan GODLEY: (Defendant’s witness) Knew Jude and knows that 
she was sick nearly on about 12 months in 1834 and was likely to die a part 
of the time. She was attended during that time for more than half of the time 
by Doct. MASTEN. Deponent lived with GODLEY at this time and knows these 
facts. Cannot fix upon a sum for costs of keeping her while she was sick, but 
she had to be attended upon and nursed pretty much all the time—deponent 
thinks she had to be nursed about six months during this time.
Ned was sick in 1836 a short time about 3 or 4 weeks. The doctor attending 
him two or three visits
Dave was also sick some two or three weeks; the doctor did not attend him.
[Criss examination by plaintiff]
Deponent does not know that GODLEY ever paid the doctor anything.
11 Nov 1853
 
Document calculates the value of the estate and amount due Fredk. JOHNSON 
($349.34). This includes cash due from exec. and ¼ total value of slaves. 
Slaves were valued as follows:
Council             $500
Ned (lame)          $250
Betty               $300
Dave                $300
Dinah               $200
Judy                $175
Sam                 $175
Pender              $125
Little Ned          $125
     Total         $2150
Fredk. JOHNSON ¼ share=$537.25
Widow’s share=$10.50
Interest = $1015.25
Total of all cash due Fredk. JOHNSON=$1877.34
Churchill BRIGHT admin. de bonis non of Hilan GODLEY decd. & Fredk. BRYAN & 
wife have settled and compromised with the plaintiff Fredk. JOHNSON Jr. the 
Amt. to be respectively contributed by them. BRIGHT & BRYAN to pay costs as 
would be chargeable against them. Supreme Court term Dec 1853
 
Defendant David CHAPMAN excepts to the account & report of William G. BRYAN, 
the commissioner returned to this term of court. [This is an exception to the 
value of slaves and slave hire charged to CHAPMAN]:
1.   Commissioner has charged this defendant with the value of the negroes 
allotted to Penelope JOHNSON & the hire of the same from 1821 to 1854 & 
has estimated the value of slaves on 1 Jan 1854—whereas he should have 
taken the acct. upon the principle that this defendant is liable to ¼ the 
value of said slaves at the time they were delivered to Penelope and 
interest thereon or at the time they were sold in 1829 by Stephen CHAPMAN.
2.   Commissioner has charged this defendant with the hire of slaves 
Council, Betty, Ned, Jim, & Windsor since 1829, the time they were sold by 
Stephen CHAPMAN
3.   Commissioner has shared deft. with ¼ the value of the children of Juda 
born since the sale of Juda by Hilen GODLEY
4.   Commissioner has charged defendant with $1000 as the value of Windsor 
in 1854 & hire from the time he was 12 years old whereas said slave Winsor 
was born since the death of Frederick JOHNSON & sold by Stephen CHAPMAN 
when he was 8 or 9 in 1829.
Dec term 1853
 
Defendant Frederick BRYAN & wife except to the report of the Commissioner Wm. 
G. BRYAN, returned to this term of court:
1.   Commissioner estimated value of slaves which came to the defendants 
from the estate of Frederick JOHNSON on 1 Jan 1854 & charged them with the 
slaves for 1821, whereas he should have stated the account for ¼ the value 
of their legacy at the time the same was paid to the defendants by Exec. 
of Frederick JOHNSON, plus interest.
2.   Commissioner has charged defendants with ¼ the share of the money of 
the estate ($344.54), which money never came to the hands of Frederick 
BRYAN, but went into the hands of Benjamin GODLEY, first husband of 
defendant Mary.
3.   Commissioner has charged these defendants with the hires of the slaves 
which came to Mary from the estate & the hires of their increase from 1821 
to 2 Jan 1832, when they were divided & allotted to Mary, which never came 
to the hands of Frederick BRYAN.
4.   Commissioner has charged the defendants with the hires of the slaves & 
the hire of their increase from 1821-1835—the time of the intermarriage of 
these defendants, which hire never came into the hands of Frederick BRYAN.
Dec. term 1853
 
Defendant James BRIGHT, admr. de bonis non of Hilen GODLEY excepts to the 
report of the Commissioner Wm. G. BRYAN, returned to this term of court:
1.   The Commissioner has charged the estate of Hilen GODLEY with the value 
of the slaves which were allotted to Hilen GODLEY in right of his wife in 
the year 1836 & interest from that time to 1 Jan 1854, whereas this 
defendant insists that the estate of his intestate is liable only for the 
value of the legacy to defendant Sally at the time the same was paid to 
Sally by the Executor of Frederick JOHNSON, or at the time they were 
divided.
2.   Commissioner has charged the estate of Hilen GODLEY with the hire of 
the slaves & their increase previous to the 2d Jan 1832 when the same were 
divided & allotted to GODLEY & wife, which hires never were received by 
Hilen GODLEY.
3.   Commissioner has charged the estate of Hilen GODLEY with ¼ of the money 
& rent paid over by the Executor to Sally in 1821 ($344.54) which never 
came to the hands of Hilen GODLEY.
4.   Commissioner has charged Hilen GODLEY’s estate with the hire of Ned for 
5 years @ $30 per annum, whereas the testimony is that he would hire 
during that time for $6 to $10 per annum (BUCK’s deposition).
5.   Commissioner has only allowed the costs of raising and keeping Ned & 
Ezekiel for 6 years whereas he ought to have allowed it for 7 years (see 
LAUGHINGHOUSE deposition).
6.   Commissioner has charged this defendant with interest.
Dec term 1853
 
JOHNSON v. CHAPMAN &al: Craven:
This cause coming for further direction and it appearing to the court that 
the parties in the cause, waiving the reference to the Clerk & Master in 
Equity of Craven Court of Equity had adjusted & settled the matters in 
controversy among themselves by mutual consent & agreement:
   Deft. BRYAN agrees to pay Pltff                   $750
   Deft. BRIGHT admin of GODLEY agrees to pay        $800
   Deft. CHAPMAN agrees to pay                       $900
Making an aggregate sum of                          $2450
Which sum has been paid and received by the plaintiff in full satisfaction of 
matters of complaint. Court confirms and establishes the agreement & account 
on a final settlement.
In conformity, pltff will convey and release to the defendants BRYAN & BRIGHT 
all claim & demand to the lands mentioned in the pleadings. Defendants BRYAN 
& BRIGHT are to be taxed only with their own costs and all other costs to be 
paid by defendant CHAPMAN. No date
 
Formal agreement as described above, between plaintiff Fred JOHNSON, Jr. and 
David CHAPMAN, exec of Fred. JOHNSON, Sr.; Fred BRYAN & wife; James BRIGHT, 
admin & others. This document is hard to read with bleed-through from one 
side to the other, but is essentially the same thing as written in the 
previous document. No date
 
Opinion related to the exceptions above from the defendants. The question is 
at what point the defendants are liable for the value of the slaves and other 
personal property. The Commissioner calculated the value from the time that 
the estate was settled; the defendants believe they are only responsible from 
the time the slaves were delivered to them. The handwriting in this document 
is difficult to read and the document is long and technical. The gist of it 
seems to be that the slaves and other property must be valued as of the time 
the estate was settled (and the widow’s dower right was determined). It then 
goes on to enumerate the reasons for this, with some legal references. It 
appears this was referred back to the Clerk and Master in Equity. [From above 
documents, the parties then settled without a new valuation]. No date
 
Notice from Wm. G. BRYAN, Clerk & Master in Equity of Craven Co. to David 
CHAPMAN, Exor of Fredk. JOHNSON, Sen. decd. that on the 15th & 16th of June, 
at “my store in the town of Newbern” he will take accounts and depositions of 
witnesses in the case where Fredk. JOHNSON, Jr. is plaintiff and David 
CHAPMAN, Exor. of Fredk. JOHNSON, Sr. & others are plaintiffs. 27 May 1854.
 
Formal judgement related to exceptions described above by the defendants. 
[This judgement is based on the opinion described above; the handwriting is 
much clearer, and this document is briefer]. Exceptions on both sides were 
overruled, and the report [of the Commissioner] is set aside except as 
regards the real estate. “The true principle upon which account ought to be 
taken is to ascertain & adopt the valuation of the personal estate at the 
time the estate was settled or ought to have been settled, that is as soon 
after the death of the testator as a settlement could have been made 
consistent with the rights of the creditors—and nothing appearing to the 
contrary, it is declared that the said settlement ought to have been 
completed at the end of two years from the probate of the will of the said 
testator, at which time the said valuation ought to be made. And it is 
thereupon ordered that said account be referred back & recommitted to the 
said commissioner to alter & correct the same according to the the principle 
hereby ascertained & declared—and the commissioner will allow interest upon 
the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled from the time of such 
valuation—and further directions are reserved until the coming in of said 
report.” Dec. term 1853
[There are 2 copies of this document in the file].