Haynes Place Land Gifts and Deals Among Haynes Family Members
The deed with George Menefee, Jr. says “we, Celia A. Haynes and Amos Haynes.” That land, having been a part of Thomas’s estate, may have been legally owned by Celia and all of his heirs, rather than just by Celia alone or by Celia and Amos together. Technically, all of the sons probably should have signed the deed, but the fact that at least one of the sons had signed the deed was apparently good enough for Menefee.
Thomas’s will had called for the eventual equal distribution of his assets to his children with Celia. However, each of the four sons did not wind up with an equal share. Naturally, we have no evidence of what happened money-wise, and money could well have been used in some cases to even things up, especially in the case of an heir who was not interested in remaining on the land. The long, 30-year period during which all four sons and their families lived on the Haynes place with Celia (all died prematurely) naturally led to different “career paths” for the four, with the older two (Christopher and Amos) helping their mother run the place and the younger two (Arthur and Robert) having to sort of pick up the pieces. Eventually, Christopher (or his heirs, at least) and Amos and his heirs wound up with most of the land. Neither Arthur nor Robert was ever given any land directly; rather, one son of Arthur eventually was given 300 acres after Arthur’s premature death. Robert’s name soon disappeared from the census rolls and he received no land. We learned later that he died accidentally (gunshot) in 1878, and 12 years later, in the court case mentioned previously, Celia refused to give any land to Robert’s daughter, Mary Celia. Of course, Celia had to look out for her own welfare, and thus had to ensure that she always owned enough land to support herself.
In addition to the actual division of the land and its distribution to the heirs, various Haynes family members were involved in some somewhat confusing deals in which one person would give or sell land to another, but then the deal would eventually be fully or partially reversed, but not necessarily on the same terms. So land and money flowed back and forth between the Haynes people, but the land remained as part of the Haynes place. Such deals did not occur often, of course. It is natural to speculate about why these back-and-forth land gifts and sales were going on. Was there some estate-planning reason to give or sell land to your child and then have them give or sell it back to you? This happened three times within the Haynes family on the Haynes place.
The deed with George Menefee, Jr. says “we, Celia A. Haynes and Amos Haynes.” That land, having been a part of Thomas’s estate, may have been legally owned by Celia and all of his heirs, rather than just by Celia alone or by Celia and Amos together. Technically, all of the sons probably should have signed the deed, but the fact that at least one of the sons had signed the deed was apparently good enough for Menefee.
Thomas’s will had called for the eventual equal distribution of his assets to his children with Celia. However, each of the four sons did not wind up with an equal share. Naturally, we have no evidence of what happened money-wise, and money could well have been used in some cases to even things up, especially in the case of an heir who was not interested in remaining on the land. The long, 30-year period during which all four sons and their families lived on the Haynes place with Celia (all died prematurely) naturally led to different “career paths” for the four, with the older two (Christopher and Amos) helping their mother run the place and the younger two (Arthur and Robert) having to sort of pick up the pieces. Eventually, Christopher (or his heirs, at least) and Amos and his heirs wound up with most of the land. Neither Arthur nor Robert was ever given any land directly; rather, one son of Arthur eventually was given 300 acres after Arthur’s premature death. Robert’s name soon disappeared from the census rolls and he received no land. We learned later that he died accidentally (gunshot) in 1878, and 12 years later, in the court case mentioned previously, Celia refused to give any land to Robert’s daughter, Mary Celia. Of course, Celia had to look out for her own welfare, and thus had to ensure that she always owned enough land to support herself.
In addition to the actual division of the land and its distribution to the heirs, various Haynes family members were involved in some somewhat confusing deals in which one person would give or sell land to another, but then the deal would eventually be fully or partially reversed, but not necessarily on the same terms. So land and money flowed back and forth between the Haynes people, but the land remained as part of the Haynes place. Such deals did not occur often, of course. It is natural to speculate about why these back-and-forth land gifts and sales were going on. Was there some estate-planning reason to give or sell land to your child and then have them give or sell it back to you? This happened three times within the Haynes family on the Haynes place.