Probate of the Estate of Thomas Haynes
Notice of Probate of the Estate of Thomas Haynes
The repurchase of the land from Daniel Haynes was the last land transaction for Thomas and Celia Haynes within the Musquiz Grant land before Thomas's death on February 15, 1864 during the Civil War. His will and related estate probate documents are all on file at the Jackson County courthouse, although the almost 150-years-old documents are very fragile. We were lucky enough to be able to examine them personally and to get copies of everything. (Later, Carolyn discovered that most of the documents, but not all, had been transcribed into a probate record book, and in much more readable form.)
The will was very brief. It stated that Thomas had already provided for his two children (Daniel and Sally) from his first wife, and that he wanted the Haynes place to be kept intact for the entire family to live on during the lifetime of his second wife, Celia Ann, after which time it was to be divided equally among “all his children” (from his marriage to Celia, we presume). Celia was only 44 years old at this time. Oldest son Christopher, then about 26, was named as executor of the estate. But rather than have me tell you what I think the will said, judge for yourself. Carolyn transcribed it from Thomas’s own handwriting, leaving his original spelling and punctuation. (Follow this link to a scanned copy of the original will.)
The will was very brief. It stated that Thomas had already provided for his two children (Daniel and Sally) from his first wife, and that he wanted the Haynes place to be kept intact for the entire family to live on during the lifetime of his second wife, Celia Ann, after which time it was to be divided equally among “all his children” (from his marriage to Celia, we presume). Celia was only 44 years old at this time. Oldest son Christopher, then about 26, was named as executor of the estate. But rather than have me tell you what I think the will said, judge for yourself. Carolyn transcribed it from Thomas’s own handwriting, leaving his original spelling and punctuation. (Follow this link to a scanned copy of the original will.)
I Thomas Haynes, of Jackson County, State of Texas, do make and publish this as my last will and testament.
1st I direct all my just debts to be paid.
2nd Whereas I rec’d by my first wife property to the amount of about thirty six hundred dollars (but for
the precise amount I must refer to the records of County Court of Christian County, in the state of Ky.) This estate, without interest, I intended always to go to my two eldest children. To Daniel I have given a tract of land of the value of twenty three hundred dollars, and two hundred dollars besides, which is an overplus of say seven hundred dollars, which I desire shall be so much paid to Sally’s portion, as it seems (sums?) so to be considered by themselves.
3rd The whole balance of my estate, after paying the above debts & portions, I direct to remain to ofer (offer) the use of my present family as long as my wife and son Kit may deem it necessary for the comfort of the family. After which (and this I leave to their discretion) what remains, I will, shall go in equal portions to all my children.
4th I appoint my son Kit (Christopher) my executor of this my will, and I direct that he be allowed to execute the same, without giving bond security as in common cases; and that the court shall not even require an Inventory of the estate, nor any appraisement thereof. Having full confidence in my said Son, I commit the whole administration to him without even a restraint upon his discretion.
In testimony whereof I do hereunto set my hand, the 30th October 1861.
Tho. Haynes
1st I direct all my just debts to be paid.
2nd Whereas I rec’d by my first wife property to the amount of about thirty six hundred dollars (but for
the precise amount I must refer to the records of County Court of Christian County, in the state of Ky.) This estate, without interest, I intended always to go to my two eldest children. To Daniel I have given a tract of land of the value of twenty three hundred dollars, and two hundred dollars besides, which is an overplus of say seven hundred dollars, which I desire shall be so much paid to Sally’s portion, as it seems (sums?) so to be considered by themselves.
3rd The whole balance of my estate, after paying the above debts & portions, I direct to remain to ofer (offer) the use of my present family as long as my wife and son Kit may deem it necessary for the comfort of the family. After which (and this I leave to their discretion) what remains, I will, shall go in equal portions to all my children.
4th I appoint my son Kit (Christopher) my executor of this my will, and I direct that he be allowed to execute the same, without giving bond security as in common cases; and that the court shall not even require an Inventory of the estate, nor any appraisement thereof. Having full confidence in my said Son, I commit the whole administration to him without even a restraint upon his discretion.
In testimony whereof I do hereunto set my hand, the 30th October 1861.
Tho. Haynes
Celia immediately filed the will with the county clerk's office, which issued a Notice of Probate, with the initial hearing to be held at the courthouse in Texana on February 29, 1864. At that hearing, W. C. Edwards and Henry Starr testified that the will was in Thomas's own handwriting, and Celia returned a few days later to attest to the validity of the will. As directed by the will, Christopher was sworn in as executor on March 21, 1864, and publicly announced as executor of the estate on March 28, 1864. Christopher went right to work and filed the estate's Inventory and Appraisement only three days later, on March 31, 1864. The initial estimate was that the estate had assets of approximately $8,800. On April 25, 1864, the appraisal estimates given by Christopher were certified to be reasonable by T. Ware, John Webb, and F. S. Stockdale, three men who had been familiar with Thomas. (John Webb was Celia's brother. F. S. Stockdale was the next-door neighbor.)
The initial estate Inventory stated that the final community property land holdings at the Haynes place contained 1,700 acres consisting of a 1,400 acre tract and a 300 acre tract. Not knowing what the community property laws were at the time, we don’t know whether another 1,700 acres would have been allowed for Celia’s half, or whether she could claim only the 1,280 acres that she had purchased from Daniel. Assuming that community property was the law, the claim that Thomas’s share was 1,700 acres was reasonable, especially if Celia were given credit for 1,700 acres of community property as well as the 1,280 acres she had bought from Daniel.
Depending upon the rules, the official total land holdings (of both Thomas and Celia) could have varied anywhere between 2,980 acres and 4,680 acres. After studying all the deeds for land dealings after Thomas Haynes died, we found that the total acreage was about 5,000 acres. The estate still owned one small tract of 138 acres (M) and a marshy tract (“the forks tract” (F)) said to be about 800 acres (but actually was about 2,400 acres if the lakes and marshes are included) outside the Haynes place proper. The 800 acre tract was later listed in a revised inventory. After those two tracts were sold, Celia eventually reported that the Haynes place contained 3,000 acres, which was essentially correct, given what she knew at the time. However, 750 acres or so (area P) on the lower southwest side of the property apparently were not included in that total, and were never mentioned in a deed during Celia’s lifetime.
Almost immediately, on April 28, 1864, Christopher gave Power of Attorney to his mother so she could act in his behalf, thus effectively making Celia a co-executor. However, as subsequent documents show, Christopher apparently handled practically all matters related to the probate of the estate, although Celia was obviously deeply involved and had her own set of problems. (Christopher, Amos, and Arthur, as well as their older half-brother Daniel, all fought in the Civil War, but we are not sure exactly when they left home, when they returned to Texas, or whether they were at home when Thomas died. Amos apparently was wounded, but very near the end of the war.)
While we’re talking about the Inventory and Appraisement document from Thomas’s estate probate papers: One essential fact Carolyn discovered, with great relief, is that the list of personal property (not community property) contained only one item, which showed that Thomas owned six silver goblets worth $25 each. Earlier, we had found documents for Thomas Haynes in Kentucky stating that one of his sisters (Adelina Haynes Givens of New Orleans) had given six engraved silver goblets to each of her siblings. This was solid evidence that the Thomas Haynes of Kentucky was the same Thomas Haynes who came to Texas in 1844, thus providing a link back to his father and other ancestors, and allowed Carolyn to trace this branch of the Haynes family all the way back to an earlier Thomas Haynes of England whose son Christopher died in North Carolina in 1731. The path of the westward migration of our Haynes family branch was from Virginia, to North Carolina, to eastern Tennessee, to western Kentucky, to Louisiana, and then to Texas. (Follow this link to the story of the six silver goblets.) To further solidify the link back to Thomas Haynes in Kentucky, notice that Thomas's will specifically mentions that he had once lived in Christian County, Kentucky.
With the civil war still raging, times were hard on the Haynes place, as well as everywhere else. Money was hard to come buy; people who had owed Thomas couldn’t pay his estate; and his estate couldn’t pay those it owed. Following the quick submission of the Inventory, proceedings with the probate of the estate seem to have bogged down, but much of that time probably was spent in dealing with various lawsuits, some by the estate and some against it. The estate filed and won a lawsuit in Calhoun County seeking payment of a debt for land sold there, but Celia essentially lost a lawsuit claiming that she failed to list the Haynes place cattle in the estate's Inventory.
Almost two years after the original Inventory was presented, on May 28, 1866, Christopher submitted a minor addition the Inventory. Apparently after sorting through Thomas's files, Christopher thought that he had found evidence that some of the lots that Thomas had bought in Lavaca in 1844 still had not been sold, so he submitted an addendum listing 13 lots at $15 each, 1 block at $50, and 127 acres of land adjoining the Lavaca town site that had been recovered from a defunct railroad company at $63.50, for a total of $308.50.
Still another year later, on July 29, 1867, Christopher submitted another interim report to the probate court. It stated that efforts to obtain payment from the various debtors to the estate had mostly failed; that even though court cases had been filed and won, the debts still could not be collected. Christopher had reported in an earlier addendum to the inventory that Thomas had still owned some lots in the town of Lavaca, as well as some land adjoining Lavaca, and reported this to the probate court. But upon investigation, he discovered that all of those lots had been sold by Thomas. The report also listed all of the known debts of the estate itself, totaling $4,034.54. Christopher suggested that the estate's debts could be paid with proceeds from the eventual payment of the uncollected court judgments, the sale of the 127 acres in Lavaca, and the sale of 1,500 acres of the Haynes place itself, after setting aside 200 acres for a homestead for Celia. This proposal was approved by the probate court.
The estate’s main assets were cattle and land, and it is quite evident that Christopher and Celia did everything they could to hold on to both. The notice of the sale of the Haynes place land was not posted until February 12, 1869, or almost 1½ years after Christopher proposed it, and the sale itself was not to be held until April 6, 1870. That sale was either not held or resulted in no bids being received, so still more sessions of the probate court were required to get all the details straightened out, and during the June term of 1873, a new request was submitted to allow the land to be sold in August, 1873. But that sale was never held either, because the notice of the sale reached Victoria too late to be published, and Christopher's attorney found that the Texas Legislature had revised the rules regarding the sale of land to meet estate debts. So in October, 1873, the estate requested permission to schedule the sale yet another time, and the sale was finally concluded on April 7, 1874, or almost 7 years after it was proposed.
The report of the sale of the Haynes place land is very interesting. Here is the body of that report:
"That in pursuance of an order of your honorable Court made at the February Term thereof 1874 extending an order of sale of certain lands therein named belonging to the Estate of Thomas Haynes deceased for the payment of debts.
"He the said Executor after due notice did sell at public outcry at the court house door in the Town of Texana, State of Texas, the first Tuesday the 7th day of April 1874 all that certain tract of land situated on the west side of the Lavaca River, the same being 1500 acres more or less, a part of Ramon Musquiz 5½ league grant and known as the Haynes place, Mrs. Celia Haynes being the highest and best bidder there for at the price of 66⅔ ¢ per acre, in the aggregate $1000.00 cash subject to the approval of the Honorable Court.
"Said tract of land was offered in tracts of 40 acres and under, to the number of 40. Lot No. 1 as represented in a diagram exhibited on the day of sale was bid off by said Celia Haynes at 30¢ per acre. Lot No. 2 was put up and 15¢ per acre offered, whereupon Mrs. Celia Haynes by her Agent offered $1,000.00 for the tract embracing all the lots, said amount being an average of 66⅔ ¢ per acre, as above stated, said sale fairly made and in conformity with law and for a fair and adequate price as the undersigned verily believes from the fact that said tract of land had been on previous occasions advertised and offered for sale, without any one bidding on the same. All of which is respectfully submitted to your honor for approval."
So Celia managed to hang on to her Haynes place land! Where the money to buy the land came from is unknown to us. But ten years had passed since Thomas's death, providing ample time for Celia to accumulate funds to repurchase the land if necessary, or to arrange to borrow money.
With regard to the cattle, we found evidence that Celia apparently believed and had claimed that the Haynes place cattle holdings belonged to her rather than being community property, since she bought them with her own funds and they were all branded “CH”. Celia, rather than Thomas, appears to have been the main rancher in the family. We found 16 cattle brands that had been registered with Jackson County by various Haynes family members. Celia had a brand but Thomas did not. Several brands appeared to be variants of Celia’s (CH), and several were registered to Celia’s grandchildren, suggesting that Celia or their parents had given them cattle to start their own herds. Of the animals owned by an estate, 5 milk cows and their calves, 20 hogs, 20 sheep, two yokes of oxen, and a number of horses did not have to be included in the Inventory, but no beef cattle were exempted. In a lawsuit against her (Hobdy versus Haynes), a compromise settlement was reached and Celia agreed to pay $1,500 for the cattle. Celia was telling the truth about the cattle – she was the rancher, not Thomas. She had a brand; he did not. Of course, the cattle were being raised on community property land, and it would be hard to convince a jury that the cattle were strictly hers.
Twelve years after Thomas's death, Christopher was finally able to submit a final report to the probate court in February, 1876, stating that the Thomas Haynes estate had been settled and requesting that he be relieved of his duties as executor. Of the $4,153.54 that the estate had owed, it had been able to pay $3,724.
With a relatively young family inheriting the estate, we would expect that the estate (and the Haynes place) would be held together for a fairly long time, and it was. Except for the sale of two pieces of land that the Haynes family considered to be non-essential, and some intra-family land gifts that did not change the overall acreage, the estate was held together from 1862 until the deaths of the last of Celia’s sons around 1891.
The initial estate Inventory stated that the final community property land holdings at the Haynes place contained 1,700 acres consisting of a 1,400 acre tract and a 300 acre tract. Not knowing what the community property laws were at the time, we don’t know whether another 1,700 acres would have been allowed for Celia’s half, or whether she could claim only the 1,280 acres that she had purchased from Daniel. Assuming that community property was the law, the claim that Thomas’s share was 1,700 acres was reasonable, especially if Celia were given credit for 1,700 acres of community property as well as the 1,280 acres she had bought from Daniel.
Depending upon the rules, the official total land holdings (of both Thomas and Celia) could have varied anywhere between 2,980 acres and 4,680 acres. After studying all the deeds for land dealings after Thomas Haynes died, we found that the total acreage was about 5,000 acres. The estate still owned one small tract of 138 acres (M) and a marshy tract (“the forks tract” (F)) said to be about 800 acres (but actually was about 2,400 acres if the lakes and marshes are included) outside the Haynes place proper. The 800 acre tract was later listed in a revised inventory. After those two tracts were sold, Celia eventually reported that the Haynes place contained 3,000 acres, which was essentially correct, given what she knew at the time. However, 750 acres or so (area P) on the lower southwest side of the property apparently were not included in that total, and were never mentioned in a deed during Celia’s lifetime.
Almost immediately, on April 28, 1864, Christopher gave Power of Attorney to his mother so she could act in his behalf, thus effectively making Celia a co-executor. However, as subsequent documents show, Christopher apparently handled practically all matters related to the probate of the estate, although Celia was obviously deeply involved and had her own set of problems. (Christopher, Amos, and Arthur, as well as their older half-brother Daniel, all fought in the Civil War, but we are not sure exactly when they left home, when they returned to Texas, or whether they were at home when Thomas died. Amos apparently was wounded, but very near the end of the war.)
While we’re talking about the Inventory and Appraisement document from Thomas’s estate probate papers: One essential fact Carolyn discovered, with great relief, is that the list of personal property (not community property) contained only one item, which showed that Thomas owned six silver goblets worth $25 each. Earlier, we had found documents for Thomas Haynes in Kentucky stating that one of his sisters (Adelina Haynes Givens of New Orleans) had given six engraved silver goblets to each of her siblings. This was solid evidence that the Thomas Haynes of Kentucky was the same Thomas Haynes who came to Texas in 1844, thus providing a link back to his father and other ancestors, and allowed Carolyn to trace this branch of the Haynes family all the way back to an earlier Thomas Haynes of England whose son Christopher died in North Carolina in 1731. The path of the westward migration of our Haynes family branch was from Virginia, to North Carolina, to eastern Tennessee, to western Kentucky, to Louisiana, and then to Texas. (Follow this link to the story of the six silver goblets.) To further solidify the link back to Thomas Haynes in Kentucky, notice that Thomas's will specifically mentions that he had once lived in Christian County, Kentucky.
With the civil war still raging, times were hard on the Haynes place, as well as everywhere else. Money was hard to come buy; people who had owed Thomas couldn’t pay his estate; and his estate couldn’t pay those it owed. Following the quick submission of the Inventory, proceedings with the probate of the estate seem to have bogged down, but much of that time probably was spent in dealing with various lawsuits, some by the estate and some against it. The estate filed and won a lawsuit in Calhoun County seeking payment of a debt for land sold there, but Celia essentially lost a lawsuit claiming that she failed to list the Haynes place cattle in the estate's Inventory.
Almost two years after the original Inventory was presented, on May 28, 1866, Christopher submitted a minor addition the Inventory. Apparently after sorting through Thomas's files, Christopher thought that he had found evidence that some of the lots that Thomas had bought in Lavaca in 1844 still had not been sold, so he submitted an addendum listing 13 lots at $15 each, 1 block at $50, and 127 acres of land adjoining the Lavaca town site that had been recovered from a defunct railroad company at $63.50, for a total of $308.50.
Still another year later, on July 29, 1867, Christopher submitted another interim report to the probate court. It stated that efforts to obtain payment from the various debtors to the estate had mostly failed; that even though court cases had been filed and won, the debts still could not be collected. Christopher had reported in an earlier addendum to the inventory that Thomas had still owned some lots in the town of Lavaca, as well as some land adjoining Lavaca, and reported this to the probate court. But upon investigation, he discovered that all of those lots had been sold by Thomas. The report also listed all of the known debts of the estate itself, totaling $4,034.54. Christopher suggested that the estate's debts could be paid with proceeds from the eventual payment of the uncollected court judgments, the sale of the 127 acres in Lavaca, and the sale of 1,500 acres of the Haynes place itself, after setting aside 200 acres for a homestead for Celia. This proposal was approved by the probate court.
The estate’s main assets were cattle and land, and it is quite evident that Christopher and Celia did everything they could to hold on to both. The notice of the sale of the Haynes place land was not posted until February 12, 1869, or almost 1½ years after Christopher proposed it, and the sale itself was not to be held until April 6, 1870. That sale was either not held or resulted in no bids being received, so still more sessions of the probate court were required to get all the details straightened out, and during the June term of 1873, a new request was submitted to allow the land to be sold in August, 1873. But that sale was never held either, because the notice of the sale reached Victoria too late to be published, and Christopher's attorney found that the Texas Legislature had revised the rules regarding the sale of land to meet estate debts. So in October, 1873, the estate requested permission to schedule the sale yet another time, and the sale was finally concluded on April 7, 1874, or almost 7 years after it was proposed.
The report of the sale of the Haynes place land is very interesting. Here is the body of that report:
"That in pursuance of an order of your honorable Court made at the February Term thereof 1874 extending an order of sale of certain lands therein named belonging to the Estate of Thomas Haynes deceased for the payment of debts.
"He the said Executor after due notice did sell at public outcry at the court house door in the Town of Texana, State of Texas, the first Tuesday the 7th day of April 1874 all that certain tract of land situated on the west side of the Lavaca River, the same being 1500 acres more or less, a part of Ramon Musquiz 5½ league grant and known as the Haynes place, Mrs. Celia Haynes being the highest and best bidder there for at the price of 66⅔ ¢ per acre, in the aggregate $1000.00 cash subject to the approval of the Honorable Court.
"Said tract of land was offered in tracts of 40 acres and under, to the number of 40. Lot No. 1 as represented in a diagram exhibited on the day of sale was bid off by said Celia Haynes at 30¢ per acre. Lot No. 2 was put up and 15¢ per acre offered, whereupon Mrs. Celia Haynes by her Agent offered $1,000.00 for the tract embracing all the lots, said amount being an average of 66⅔ ¢ per acre, as above stated, said sale fairly made and in conformity with law and for a fair and adequate price as the undersigned verily believes from the fact that said tract of land had been on previous occasions advertised and offered for sale, without any one bidding on the same. All of which is respectfully submitted to your honor for approval."
So Celia managed to hang on to her Haynes place land! Where the money to buy the land came from is unknown to us. But ten years had passed since Thomas's death, providing ample time for Celia to accumulate funds to repurchase the land if necessary, or to arrange to borrow money.
With regard to the cattle, we found evidence that Celia apparently believed and had claimed that the Haynes place cattle holdings belonged to her rather than being community property, since she bought them with her own funds and they were all branded “CH”. Celia, rather than Thomas, appears to have been the main rancher in the family. We found 16 cattle brands that had been registered with Jackson County by various Haynes family members. Celia had a brand but Thomas did not. Several brands appeared to be variants of Celia’s (CH), and several were registered to Celia’s grandchildren, suggesting that Celia or their parents had given them cattle to start their own herds. Of the animals owned by an estate, 5 milk cows and their calves, 20 hogs, 20 sheep, two yokes of oxen, and a number of horses did not have to be included in the Inventory, but no beef cattle were exempted. In a lawsuit against her (Hobdy versus Haynes), a compromise settlement was reached and Celia agreed to pay $1,500 for the cattle. Celia was telling the truth about the cattle – she was the rancher, not Thomas. She had a brand; he did not. Of course, the cattle were being raised on community property land, and it would be hard to convince a jury that the cattle were strictly hers.
Twelve years after Thomas's death, Christopher was finally able to submit a final report to the probate court in February, 1876, stating that the Thomas Haynes estate had been settled and requesting that he be relieved of his duties as executor. Of the $4,153.54 that the estate had owed, it had been able to pay $3,724.
With a relatively young family inheriting the estate, we would expect that the estate (and the Haynes place) would be held together for a fairly long time, and it was. Except for the sale of two pieces of land that the Haynes family considered to be non-essential, and some intra-family land gifts that did not change the overall acreage, the estate was held together from 1862 until the deaths of the last of Celia’s sons around 1891.
Texas Laws Regarding Forced Selling of Property To Pay Debts Owed by an Estate
Although I have not found an official copy of the 1864 Texas laws regarding forced selling of property to pay debts owed by an estate, I did find a brief summary that was printed on a map in 1882:
Property Exempt From Forced Sale
To Every Head of a Family - The homestead, not in a city or town, of 200 acres of land in one or more parcels, with all improvements thereon, without reference to the value of such improvements. ... Also, all household and kitchen furniture, a lot or lots in a cemetery, all implements of husbandry, (unreadable), apparatus and books of a trade or profession, family library, portraits and pictures, five milch cows and their calves, two yokes of oxen, with necessary yokes and chains, two horses and one wagon, one carriage or buggy, one gun, twenty hogs, twenty sheep, all saddles, bridles and harness for the use of the family, all provisions and forage on hand for home consumption.
To Each Single Person - A lot or lots in a cemetery, all wearing apparel, tools, apparatus and books of a trade or profession, and one horse, saddle and bridle. All current wages for personal service are also exempt from attachment or garnishment.
Property Exempt From Taxation.
All household and kitchen furniture, not to exceed $250 in value, including one sewing machine.
Although I have not found an official copy of the 1864 Texas laws regarding forced selling of property to pay debts owed by an estate, I did find a brief summary that was printed on a map in 1882:
Property Exempt From Forced Sale
To Every Head of a Family - The homestead, not in a city or town, of 200 acres of land in one or more parcels, with all improvements thereon, without reference to the value of such improvements. ... Also, all household and kitchen furniture, a lot or lots in a cemetery, all implements of husbandry, (unreadable), apparatus and books of a trade or profession, family library, portraits and pictures, five milch cows and their calves, two yokes of oxen, with necessary yokes and chains, two horses and one wagon, one carriage or buggy, one gun, twenty hogs, twenty sheep, all saddles, bridles and harness for the use of the family, all provisions and forage on hand for home consumption.
To Each Single Person - A lot or lots in a cemetery, all wearing apparel, tools, apparatus and books of a trade or profession, and one horse, saddle and bridle. All current wages for personal service are also exempt from attachment or garnishment.
Property Exempt From Taxation.
All household and kitchen furniture, not to exceed $250 in value, including one sewing machine.