Julia A. Allen, Guardian et al versus Celia A. Haynes
Suit No. 476 Pending in the District Court of Jackson County, Texas
Some time in 1891, Julia A. Allen, ex-wife of Celia’s deceased son, Robert Haynes (who died in 1878), filed a lawsuit against Celia. In response, on October 29, 1891, Celia gave Michael C. Whalen, husband of her granddaughter Mary Julia Haynes Whalen, the Power of Attorney to help her find legal representation to handle the lawsuit. The POA also gave Michael other powers to conduct business on Celia’s behalf. This POA document is recorded in Book Q, page 334.
The lawsuit filed by Julia Allen was seeking to gain possession of 640 acres of land within the Haynes place that she claimed had been deeded to Robert by Celia. The suit claimed that Robert had left the deed with Celia for safe-keeping before he left home on a business trip, but that Celia refused to turn over the deed to his wife after he was accidentally killed in Texana. (Julia had since remarried.) The suit was seeking possession of the land for the benefit of Robert’s daughter, Mary Celia Haynes, who was 1 year old when Robert died but was 13 years old when the lawsuit was filed. (As we have seen before, age 13 seems to have been that magic age when a daughter was supposed to be sent away to become educated.)
We found the court records of this case (#476) on microfiche at the Jackson County courthouse and made copies of many pages of the interrogatories. Carolyn transcribed two of the more interesting ones into word-processing files. The claim of the suit was that Celia had given Robert the land with a deed in 1875; that Robert had built a house on the land and lived there with his wife for 3 years until he died, and that he had taken care of the land that he had been given. His wife and daughter continued to live on the land for 5 more years after his death, and spent much of their time with Celia. When George Gayle offered to buy the land from Julia, Celia refused to turn over the deed that Robert had left with her. Celia did not want to sell the land because it was internal to the Haynes place (“inside the pasture”), but wanted to keep it for the benefit of her granddaughter, Mary Celia.
Celia’s response to the lawsuit was that she had never given Robert the land or a deed to the land; that she had never been given a deed for safe-keeping; and that the land in question was her personal land that she had paid for with her inheritance from her father’s estate (and apparently was not subject to the wording in Thomas’s will that all of his sons were to receive equal shares of his estate, eventually).
We did not transcribe all of the District Court documents pertaining to this case. We were interested primarily in the purpose of the lawsuit and its outcome, rather than all of the nitty-gritty details of the court proceedings. It looks like the preliminaries to a trail, in the form of questionnaires (or interrogatories) submitted by each party to the other, were carried out through the mail (or telegraph), with Julia in Jefferson, Marion County, Texas and Celia in Jackson County. We did copy and then transcribe the responses that each of two litigants filed in answer to most of the interrogatories submitted by the other, and those responses are available via the links below. (Only the answers are included, but the questions are mostly discernible from the answers.)
Based upon the dates stated in the interrogatory responses, the lawsuit probably proceeded (quite normally) as follows:
1891 Julia Allen asks again that Celia Haynes produce the deed to the land, but Celia refuses
Oct 1891 Julia Allen files the lawsuit and submits interrogatory questions to Celia Haynes
Oct 1891 Celia Haynes appoints Michael C. Whalen as her Attorney in Fact (POA)
Oct 1891 Celia Haynes replies to the interrogatory and submits questions to Julia
Nov 1891 Julia A. Allen replies to the interrogatory as well as to the judge's additional questions
Jan 1892 District Court minutes announce dismissal of the lawsuit
In the announcement of the dismissal of the lawsuit, the court also stated that Julia A. Allen was to pay all costs. No record of any settlement was made, so the result could have varied all the way from Julia running out of money to pursue the case, to Celia agreeing to pay something for her granddaughter’s benefit. Either way, no land was given.
Suit No. 476 Pending in the District Court of Jackson County, Texas
Some time in 1891, Julia A. Allen, ex-wife of Celia’s deceased son, Robert Haynes (who died in 1878), filed a lawsuit against Celia. In response, on October 29, 1891, Celia gave Michael C. Whalen, husband of her granddaughter Mary Julia Haynes Whalen, the Power of Attorney to help her find legal representation to handle the lawsuit. The POA also gave Michael other powers to conduct business on Celia’s behalf. This POA document is recorded in Book Q, page 334.
The lawsuit filed by Julia Allen was seeking to gain possession of 640 acres of land within the Haynes place that she claimed had been deeded to Robert by Celia. The suit claimed that Robert had left the deed with Celia for safe-keeping before he left home on a business trip, but that Celia refused to turn over the deed to his wife after he was accidentally killed in Texana. (Julia had since remarried.) The suit was seeking possession of the land for the benefit of Robert’s daughter, Mary Celia Haynes, who was 1 year old when Robert died but was 13 years old when the lawsuit was filed. (As we have seen before, age 13 seems to have been that magic age when a daughter was supposed to be sent away to become educated.)
We found the court records of this case (#476) on microfiche at the Jackson County courthouse and made copies of many pages of the interrogatories. Carolyn transcribed two of the more interesting ones into word-processing files. The claim of the suit was that Celia had given Robert the land with a deed in 1875; that Robert had built a house on the land and lived there with his wife for 3 years until he died, and that he had taken care of the land that he had been given. His wife and daughter continued to live on the land for 5 more years after his death, and spent much of their time with Celia. When George Gayle offered to buy the land from Julia, Celia refused to turn over the deed that Robert had left with her. Celia did not want to sell the land because it was internal to the Haynes place (“inside the pasture”), but wanted to keep it for the benefit of her granddaughter, Mary Celia.
Celia’s response to the lawsuit was that she had never given Robert the land or a deed to the land; that she had never been given a deed for safe-keeping; and that the land in question was her personal land that she had paid for with her inheritance from her father’s estate (and apparently was not subject to the wording in Thomas’s will that all of his sons were to receive equal shares of his estate, eventually).
We did not transcribe all of the District Court documents pertaining to this case. We were interested primarily in the purpose of the lawsuit and its outcome, rather than all of the nitty-gritty details of the court proceedings. It looks like the preliminaries to a trail, in the form of questionnaires (or interrogatories) submitted by each party to the other, were carried out through the mail (or telegraph), with Julia in Jefferson, Marion County, Texas and Celia in Jackson County. We did copy and then transcribe the responses that each of two litigants filed in answer to most of the interrogatories submitted by the other, and those responses are available via the links below. (Only the answers are included, but the questions are mostly discernible from the answers.)
Based upon the dates stated in the interrogatory responses, the lawsuit probably proceeded (quite normally) as follows:
1891 Julia Allen asks again that Celia Haynes produce the deed to the land, but Celia refuses
Oct 1891 Julia Allen files the lawsuit and submits interrogatory questions to Celia Haynes
Oct 1891 Celia Haynes appoints Michael C. Whalen as her Attorney in Fact (POA)
Oct 1891 Celia Haynes replies to the interrogatory and submits questions to Julia
Nov 1891 Julia A. Allen replies to the interrogatory as well as to the judge's additional questions
Jan 1892 District Court minutes announce dismissal of the lawsuit
In the announcement of the dismissal of the lawsuit, the court also stated that Julia A. Allen was to pay all costs. No record of any settlement was made, so the result could have varied all the way from Julia running out of money to pursue the case, to Celia agreeing to pay something for her granddaughter’s benefit. Either way, no land was given.
Daniel's 1,280 Acres, But Sold Back to Celia
If you will recall, Celia gave her oldest son, Christopher, 640 acres (area C) in 1875 (Book H, page 223). This was the lower (south) one-half of 1,280 acres that Celia had bought back from Daniel Haynes. The lawsuit claimed that Celia had also given Robert his 640 acres that same year. The suit said:
“The part of the Dan Haynes place that Robert Haynes owned and lived on was to the best of my recollection the south half of 1,280 acres and lay along the banks of the Lavaca River.”
Of course, Celia would not have given the same piece of land to two different sons at essentially the same time. But again, Julia may have been mistaken and the land may have been the north half (area D) of Daniel's land. According to Julia's responses to the interrogatory, when Julia had asked Celia for the deed so she could sell the land to George Gayle, Celia had responded that she did not want to sell the land because it was "inside the pasture." By this, she meant that the land in question did not lie on the outer perimeter of the Haynes place (as Christopher's did), but was internal to the Haynes place, which would have meant that any outsider would have to travel through some part of the Haynes place in order to reach the property.
There is what seems at first glance to be a rather peculiar sentence in the deed giving Christopher his land:
"And it is distinctly understood between the parties that the said land is to be equally divided so as to give to each half of said tract an equal portion of what is called the river bottom.
If Celia was giving land only to Christopher, why did she include this statement suggesting that there were two parties involved? Perhaps there was a similar, companion deed giving Robert the other half? But legally, as stated quite clearly in the deed, there were two parties involved -- Celia ("party of the first part") and Christopher ("party of the second part"). More than likely, Celia was simply telling Christopher that when he hired a surveyor to stake off his 640 acres, he had to make sure that he claimed only one-half of the river bottom land. Also, since Christopher's deed was taken to the Jackson County Clerk's office to be recorded, why wasn't Robert's deed recorded at the same time? If Celia had been in a generous mood at the time and was giving land away, why didn’t she also give land to Amos and Arthur at the same time? As mentioned elsewhere, Christopher was winding up his 12 years of work as executor of his father's estate, and Celia may have been rewarding him with this gift of land.
Still, the “requirements” of Thomas’s will had never been satisfied; all of Celia's sons were dead; time was running short in Celia's lifespan; and there was much more land elsewhere within the Haynes place that Celia could have given to her granddaughter. If your image of Celia is that of “benevolent dictator,” she gave Julia money for Mary Celia and to drop the lawsuit; if your image is that of “one tough old lady,” she didn’t. 'Sure wish I knew how it turned out!
“The part of the Dan Haynes place that Robert Haynes owned and lived on was to the best of my recollection the south half of 1,280 acres and lay along the banks of the Lavaca River.”
Of course, Celia would not have given the same piece of land to two different sons at essentially the same time. But again, Julia may have been mistaken and the land may have been the north half (area D) of Daniel's land. According to Julia's responses to the interrogatory, when Julia had asked Celia for the deed so she could sell the land to George Gayle, Celia had responded that she did not want to sell the land because it was "inside the pasture." By this, she meant that the land in question did not lie on the outer perimeter of the Haynes place (as Christopher's did), but was internal to the Haynes place, which would have meant that any outsider would have to travel through some part of the Haynes place in order to reach the property.
There is what seems at first glance to be a rather peculiar sentence in the deed giving Christopher his land:
"And it is distinctly understood between the parties that the said land is to be equally divided so as to give to each half of said tract an equal portion of what is called the river bottom.
If Celia was giving land only to Christopher, why did she include this statement suggesting that there were two parties involved? Perhaps there was a similar, companion deed giving Robert the other half? But legally, as stated quite clearly in the deed, there were two parties involved -- Celia ("party of the first part") and Christopher ("party of the second part"). More than likely, Celia was simply telling Christopher that when he hired a surveyor to stake off his 640 acres, he had to make sure that he claimed only one-half of the river bottom land. Also, since Christopher's deed was taken to the Jackson County Clerk's office to be recorded, why wasn't Robert's deed recorded at the same time? If Celia had been in a generous mood at the time and was giving land away, why didn’t she also give land to Amos and Arthur at the same time? As mentioned elsewhere, Christopher was winding up his 12 years of work as executor of his father's estate, and Celia may have been rewarding him with this gift of land.
Still, the “requirements” of Thomas’s will had never been satisfied; all of Celia's sons were dead; time was running short in Celia's lifespan; and there was much more land elsewhere within the Haynes place that Celia could have given to her granddaughter. If your image of Celia is that of “benevolent dictator,” she gave Julia money for Mary Celia and to drop the lawsuit; if your image is that of “one tough old lady,” she didn’t. 'Sure wish I knew how it turned out!