Celia A. Haynes Sells 2,360 Acres to Her Son, Amos W. Haynes
Celia Ann Haynes sold 2,360 acres of the Haynes place to her son, Amos W. Haynes on August 21, 1882. She also sold him all of the 400 or so head of cattle that were on the place. This was not a gift; according to the deed, Amos paid $5,000 for the land and cattle. (Of course, we don’t know exactly how much money changed hands.)
The boundaries of the property were not described in the deed (Book K, page 403); rather, the property was described simply as follows:
"Three thousand (3,000) acres of land, less six hundred and forty (640) acres out of said land now owned by Christopher Haynes, said three thousand acres is situated on the west side of the Lavaca River in Jackson County, the same being a part of the Ramon Musquiz 5-1/2 league grant, and is known as the homestead place of the late Thomas Haynes, deceased;"
Celia Ann Haynes sold 2,360 acres of the Haynes place to her son, Amos W. Haynes on August 21, 1882. She also sold him all of the 400 or so head of cattle that were on the place. This was not a gift; according to the deed, Amos paid $5,000 for the land and cattle. (Of course, we don’t know exactly how much money changed hands.)
The boundaries of the property were not described in the deed (Book K, page 403); rather, the property was described simply as follows:
"Three thousand (3,000) acres of land, less six hundred and forty (640) acres out of said land now owned by Christopher Haynes, said three thousand acres is situated on the west side of the Lavaca River in Jackson County, the same being a part of the Ramon Musquiz 5-1/2 league grant, and is known as the homestead place of the late Thomas Haynes, deceased;"
The Haynes Place
This may or may not have been intended to be all of the Haynes place land, excluding the 640 acres that she had given to Christopher. On the map, this area consists of all the colored or shaded areas except for area (C) at the bottom, which is the 640 acre tract that Christopher owned; area (T) which had been previously sold to Elizabeth Stockdale; area (O), which was still on the other side of the river; and area (P), which was being ignored for some reason. If you add up the acreage of each of the included tracts, the sum is exactly 2,360 acres.
Having studied all of these Haynes place land transactions over and over again, we became more and more interested in determining exactly what each one represented, not only in terms of what land was involved, but the true intent of the transaction. For example, in this case, did Celia sell Amos the entire Haynes place except for Christopher’s 640 acres, or was she selling him exactly 2,360 acres? The deed starts out suggesting the latter, but ends with “is known as the homestead place of the late Thomas Haynes.” Doesn’t that mean the entire Haynes place, except for 640 acres? Why is this of interest? Well, the 750 acres or so of uncounted land in area (P) was still out there, and we would like to know who owned it.
Having studied all of these Haynes place land transactions over and over again, we became more and more interested in determining exactly what each one represented, not only in terms of what land was involved, but the true intent of the transaction. For example, in this case, did Celia sell Amos the entire Haynes place except for Christopher’s 640 acres, or was she selling him exactly 2,360 acres? The deed starts out suggesting the latter, but ends with “is known as the homestead place of the late Thomas Haynes.” Doesn’t that mean the entire Haynes place, except for 640 acres? Why is this of interest? Well, the 750 acres or so of uncounted land in area (P) was still out there, and we would like to know who owned it.
But Celia Buys Back 960 Acres
Less than eight months later, on April 2, 1883, as recorded in Book K, page 412, Celia purchased from Amos 960 acres of the 2,360 acres of land she had sold him shortly before. The deal also included all of the cattle she had sold him. She paid Amos $5,000 for the land and cattle, so the net result of the two deals is that Celia gave Amos 1,400 acres of land. This 1,400 acre tract is shown as areas (5), (R), (B), and (J) at the top of the Haynes place on the maps. The 960 acres that Celia was buying back are all in the next layer, in areas (D) and (3). Notice that the upper and lower boundary lines of the area that Amos retained are not parallel; rather, the upper line is N 45° E, whereas the lower line is N 50° E. By the way, this land had never been surveyed, and no prior deed had ever specified that the lower boundary line was to be N 50° E. That boundary was not specified in this deed, either; rather, it appears to have been “invented” about 11 years later by Mary Julia and Michael C. Whalen when they were dividing Amos’s estate.
At this stage in the history of the Haynes place, Amos owned the upper 1,400 acres, Celia owned 960 below that, and Christopher owned the lower 640 acres. Celia (or perhaps Amos) also owned 750 acres or so in the lower southwest corner (P), but didn’t seem to be aware of it.
Exactly why this gift was made at this time and in this way is anybody’s guess. Amos was not near death (he died about nine years later) and Celia could have just given him the 1,400 acres in one deed and been done with it. We suspect (but have no proof) that these “shenanigans” were somehow associated with the divorce of Amos and his second wife, Julia Elana Blossman Haynes, who was the mother of three of his four children: Rosalia, Blanche C., and Richard Daniel Haynes. Amos and Julia had been estranged for a number of years, and she was seeking her share of the community property in her divorce petition (which Carolyn found and copied at the Jackson County District Clerk’s office). Julia’s petition stated that there was about $5,000 in cash plus an unknown number of “meat cattle” in the community property. Amos responded that there was only $4,000 after the sale of the cattle and associated expenses, and did not mention the number of cattle remaining. The divorce petition was filed on September 30, 1883, and the divorce was granted shortly thereafter in a District Court hearing, with Julia E. being granted custody of the three children, plus $2,000 of community property.
If Amos and Celia were trying to reduce the amount of community property that Amos would have to give to Julia E., I’m not exactly sure what they accomplished. I don’t know anything about the community property and divorce laws of the time, but let’s look at a few possibilities:
o First of all, it does not make much sense for Celia to have sold all of her land to Amos without knowing in advance that she was going to buy back some of it, because she would have had no land left to give to her sons, Arthur and Robert (or to their heirs, if necessary, since Robert was dead by this time). So perhaps this had nothing to do with the divorce, but was intended simply as a way to reduce the size of Celia’s estate (she was about 61 years old at this time, but lived to age 74 or more, so it is reasonable to assume that she was in fairly good health at this time).
o If Celia had not bought the land and cattle back from Amos, he would have had 2,360 acres of land and 400 head of cattle, all bought with community funds, so Julia probably would have been entitled to half of it. She had not filed her divorce petition yet, but doing so was inevitable. Perhaps Celia and Amos were thinking, "Oops, we can't have that woman owning any Haynes place land, so we had better reverse that deal!"
o If Celia had just given Amos 1,400 acres and no cattle, the land would not have been community property, but Amos would have had the $5,000, and the divorce result probably would have been the same.
o Perhaps Celia just decided that she had made a mistake; that she was too young to “retire” with no land or cattle of her own, and that she was doomed to living with one of her sons and his family. Quick, get some of that land back! (Not mentioned in the deed is the fact that the 960 acres that Celia bought back included at least one house in area (3).)
Less than eight months later, on April 2, 1883, as recorded in Book K, page 412, Celia purchased from Amos 960 acres of the 2,360 acres of land she had sold him shortly before. The deal also included all of the cattle she had sold him. She paid Amos $5,000 for the land and cattle, so the net result of the two deals is that Celia gave Amos 1,400 acres of land. This 1,400 acre tract is shown as areas (5), (R), (B), and (J) at the top of the Haynes place on the maps. The 960 acres that Celia was buying back are all in the next layer, in areas (D) and (3). Notice that the upper and lower boundary lines of the area that Amos retained are not parallel; rather, the upper line is N 45° E, whereas the lower line is N 50° E. By the way, this land had never been surveyed, and no prior deed had ever specified that the lower boundary line was to be N 50° E. That boundary was not specified in this deed, either; rather, it appears to have been “invented” about 11 years later by Mary Julia and Michael C. Whalen when they were dividing Amos’s estate.
At this stage in the history of the Haynes place, Amos owned the upper 1,400 acres, Celia owned 960 below that, and Christopher owned the lower 640 acres. Celia (or perhaps Amos) also owned 750 acres or so in the lower southwest corner (P), but didn’t seem to be aware of it.
Exactly why this gift was made at this time and in this way is anybody’s guess. Amos was not near death (he died about nine years later) and Celia could have just given him the 1,400 acres in one deed and been done with it. We suspect (but have no proof) that these “shenanigans” were somehow associated with the divorce of Amos and his second wife, Julia Elana Blossman Haynes, who was the mother of three of his four children: Rosalia, Blanche C., and Richard Daniel Haynes. Amos and Julia had been estranged for a number of years, and she was seeking her share of the community property in her divorce petition (which Carolyn found and copied at the Jackson County District Clerk’s office). Julia’s petition stated that there was about $5,000 in cash plus an unknown number of “meat cattle” in the community property. Amos responded that there was only $4,000 after the sale of the cattle and associated expenses, and did not mention the number of cattle remaining. The divorce petition was filed on September 30, 1883, and the divorce was granted shortly thereafter in a District Court hearing, with Julia E. being granted custody of the three children, plus $2,000 of community property.
If Amos and Celia were trying to reduce the amount of community property that Amos would have to give to Julia E., I’m not exactly sure what they accomplished. I don’t know anything about the community property and divorce laws of the time, but let’s look at a few possibilities:
o First of all, it does not make much sense for Celia to have sold all of her land to Amos without knowing in advance that she was going to buy back some of it, because she would have had no land left to give to her sons, Arthur and Robert (or to their heirs, if necessary, since Robert was dead by this time). So perhaps this had nothing to do with the divorce, but was intended simply as a way to reduce the size of Celia’s estate (she was about 61 years old at this time, but lived to age 74 or more, so it is reasonable to assume that she was in fairly good health at this time).
o If Celia had not bought the land and cattle back from Amos, he would have had 2,360 acres of land and 400 head of cattle, all bought with community funds, so Julia probably would have been entitled to half of it. She had not filed her divorce petition yet, but doing so was inevitable. Perhaps Celia and Amos were thinking, "Oops, we can't have that woman owning any Haynes place land, so we had better reverse that deal!"
o If Celia had just given Amos 1,400 acres and no cattle, the land would not have been community property, but Amos would have had the $5,000, and the divorce result probably would have been the same.
o Perhaps Celia just decided that she had made a mistake; that she was too young to “retire” with no land or cattle of her own, and that she was doomed to living with one of her sons and his family. Quick, get some of that land back! (Not mentioned in the deed is the fact that the 960 acres that Celia bought back included at least one house in area (3).)