B Dolby & wife
vs . . . . . Bill
Levi Long &c

To the worshipful the Court of Accomack County in chancery the bill of complainant of Branson Dolby & Rachel his wife humbly complaining sheweth, That your Oratrix Rachel is the daughter & only child of William Boggs, Carpenter, sometime since decd. & Mary his wife, now also decd.: that the sd. William Boggs died intestate & Robert Boggs his brother duly qualified as his administrator & has returned an Audit & settlement of the sd. estate, by which it appears that the amount thereof was £64.17.0 1/2 & that he had paid away for debts & necessary expences £33.10.0, which leaves a ballance subject to the law of distribution of £31.7.0 1/2, to two thirds of which your Oratrix is advised she is instituted: your Orator & Oratrix do however shew to this Court, that they are informed & do believe, that the aforsd. Mary the widow of the s. William Boggs received her share of her deceased husbands estate in specific articles at the appraises value, & which are not included in any part of the returns relative to the sd. Estate & if son, then they are advised, that they are instituted to the whole of the sd. £31.7.01/2: your Orator & Oratrix also shew that the sd. Mary the mother of your Oratrix at July Court 1771 qualified as Guardian of your Oratrix, & entered into a bond as the law prescribes therefor with Nathaniel Badger now living, & Jacob Bradford now decd. as her securities; that the said Mary afterwards towit on the 7th day of March 1772 received the sum of 31.7.0 of the sd. Robert Boggs for which she gave the sd. Robert Boggs a discharge "in full of all accts. upon the account of her deceased husbands estate": that the said Mary afterwards intermarried with Mr. Levi Long, & having lived a few years with him also died: Your Orator & Oratrix being instituted as aforesd. have demanded the same of the sd. Nathaniel Badger surviving security of the sd. Mary, but he refuseth to render to them any satisfaction therefor, alledging that the sd. Mary had sufficient estate which came to the hands of the sd. Levi Long to satisfy the sd. demand, & that it was inequitable that he should pay the same or any part thereof & the sd. Levi Long be sufferd to remain as it were discharges thereof: whereupon your Orator & Oratrix also demanded the same of the sd. Levi Long but he also refused to pay the same, alledgeing that he was neither Executor nor Administrator of his wife, that whatever he had received by virtue of his Marriage with her became his own property & that he was not answerable for her debts or engagements contracted or made before his marriage, after her death: Your Orator & Oratrix also shew that the aforsd. Mary the mother of your Oratrix was the daughter of William Bradford decd. & Frances, his wife: that the sd. William Bradford previous to his death duly made his last will & testament in writing & therein among other things bequeathed a considerably personal property to Frances, his said wife for life, & after her death to three of his daughters, of whom the said Mary was one, equally to be divided that the said Frances overlived her said daughter Mary & hat since died, & the said Levi Long as having been the last husband of the said Mary hath also claimed & received the one third of the personal property bequeathed by the sd. William Bradford as aforesd. whereas your Orator & Oratrix are advised that it is doubtful whether the same being a vested remainder, & not a chose in action, did not vest in the sd. William Boggs, the father of your Orator, upon his intermarriage with the said Mary, more Especially as by the law of this land, provision in the most manner is made for the wife out of the husbands estate, which one third of the personal estate of the sd. William Bradford decd., if it vested in the father of your Oratrix as afsd. ought to have been distributed after the death of the sd. Frances Bradford in the manner following, towit, two thirds to your Oratrix as being the only child of the sd. William Boggs, & one third to the sd. Levi Long as having been the husband & of course instituted to administration on the state of the said Mary, who was the wife of the said William Boggs decd., and a account of this also your Orator & Oratrix have demanded of the sd. Levi Long, & he refuseth to give your Orator & Oratrix any satisfaction concerning the same whatsoever, which actings & doing are entirely contrary to equity & good conscience in tender consideration whereof & for as much as your Orator & Oratrix are remediless in the premisses save in a court of Chancery, To the end therefore that the sd. Levi Long & Nathaniel Badger may be compelled true, perfect & distinct answer to make to all singular the premisses upon oath as particular as if the same were again repeated & interrogated, & that the sd. Levi Long may be compelled to render & Pay to your Orator & Oratrix the afsd sum of £31.7.01/2, which his wife the sd. Mary as Guardian of your oratrix received from the sd. Robert Boggs admstr of the sd. Willm Boggs, or such part thereof as upon testamony shall appear to have been due to your Oratrix, together with lawful interest thereon from the time of the sd. receipt, if so much estate came to the same Levi Long by virtue of his marriage with the said Mary, & that the said Nathaniel Badger may be decreed to stand answerable for the deficiency, if any; & that the sd. Levi Long may be compelled to account to your Orator & Oratrix of the amount of the personal property bequeathed by the sd. William Bradford as afsd. which he the sd. Levin Long hat received since the death of the sd. France Bradford, & that he may be compelled to pay two third of the amount to your Orator & oratrix with lawful interest thereon from the time of the receipt thereof, & render to your Orator & Oratrix such other relief as in equity may seem meet, May it please this worshipful Court, the premisses considered to grant to your Orator & Oratrix the Commonwealths writ of Subpoena to the sd. Levi Long & Nathl; Badger to be directed commanding them & each of then &c that they be & appear &c And your orator & Oratrix shall ever pray
T. Evans for Complts.

Dolby & wifevsLong &c

Answer for Nathl Badger

The sepperate answer of Nathaniel Badger to the bill of complaint of Branson Dolby & Rachel his wife This respondent now and at all times hereafter saving unto himself the manyfold untruths incertainties & imperfections in the said complainants bill contained For answer thereunto or so much thereof as this respondent in advised is in any manner Necessary or material for him to answer unto he answer's & say's That true it is as set forth in the complainants bill that William Boggs died intestate leaving the complainant Rachel his only daughter and that administration was commited to Robert Boggs. that the said Mary Boggs took upon herself the burthen of Guardianship of the complainant Rachel and that the respondent Nathaniel Badger & one Jacob Bradford decd. were the joint securities for the guardianship of the said complainant Rachel. That the respondent admits it probable that the said Mary recd. out of William Boggs estate the sum of 31.7.0 1/2 --- But that part of the complainants bill which states that the said Mary Boggs recd. her part of her said husbands estate in specific articles is erroneous and in induced to believe that his mistake arose the following way that old William Bradford devised his personal property to his wife Francis for life and after his death to his three daughters as set forth in the complainants bill that the said Frances Bradford during her life gave a certain shares of said personal property so devised to her daughters as they married all of which said daughter married in the lifetime of Said Frances their Mother that the said personal estate so given of by the said Frances Bradford was at the [-----] of the said William Boggs returned and permitted by the said Frances Bradfd to be equally divided between the said three daughters on of whom was the said Mary Boggs Mother of the complainant Rachel --- This respondent utterly denys to have ever recd. any part of the said Mary Boggs estate or any part of the complainant Rachel except that he borrowed 15 or thereabouts of Mary Boggs which he gave bond for and afterwards paid the same to Levi Long to whom he was advised to pay the same as the said Long had the bond of this respondent. This respondent is advised that the said Levi Long who intermarried with the said Mary Boggs and with her took all her property; that in case any of this property belonged to the complainant fo right under her Father that he the said Levi Long ought to be liable for the same as the said property under the last will and testament of the said William Bradfd decd. was a vested remainder in the said daughters of the said William Bradford and that if it should appear that the said property of the complainants Father came to the hands of the said Levi Long by virtue of his intermarriage with the said Mary Bradford that he the said Levi Long ought to be responsible for the same it being under the will of William Bradford a vested remainder and not a [-----] action to which the husband would be instituted. Without this that there is any matter or thing that ought to be further traversed or denied by this respondent --- And the respondent prays to be from hence dismissed with is costs in this case most wrongfully Sustained ---
Cropper P Q


April 28 1794
This day appeared before me Nathl Badger & Made oath in the holy Evangels of Almighty god that the facts contained in this answer are true to the best of his knowledge & belief
Jno Burton

The Seperate answer of Levi Long to the Bill of Complaint of B. Dalby & wife against him and Nathl Badger exhibited This Respondent saving and reserving to himself all Benefit of exception to the manifold imperfections incertainties and untruths in said Bill of complaint contained for answer thereto or to so much thereof as this respondent is advised is material or necessary for him to make answer unto to answering saith that true it is the said Rachel wife of said B. Dalby is the Daughter of Wm. & Mary Bogg as in the Bill mentioned it is also true that said Wm. Boggs died intestate, that the said Robert Boggs took Administration on his Estate and returned an audit and Settlement of his Estate as in the Bill mentioned but as to the fact alledged in said Bill that Mary Boggs received her share of her said Husband Wm. Boggs Estate in Specific articles which were not included in the audit this your Respondent doth utterly deny or if true it is not known to your Respdt. the improbabilty of such a misconduct in course of the administration stringhtens the Belief of this Respondent that the said allegation cannot be true it is also true that Mary Boggs afsd. was appointed Guardian to said Rachel the Complainant entered into Bond for that purpose and received of Robert Boggs the Sum of £31.7.0 as in the Bill mentioned, It is also true that this Respondent intermarried with the said Mary Boggs; your Respondent hath always supposed it incumbint on said Mary Boggs in her life time or her legal representative after her Death to account agreeable to Law for said £31.7.0 1/2 (that is to say for two thirds of the said amount which this respondent conceives & is advised is the full of the Right of said Complainant) with said Rachel the Complainant or other person legally authorized to receive the Same fifteen pounds seven shillings and six pence which this Respondent supposes is a part of the £31.7.0 1/2 was lent unto Nathaniel Badger the other Defendant in this suit and was by the said Badger on or about the Fifteen Day of April anno Dom 1777. tendered in paper money then currency to your Respondent and by him received as he conceived he had mo right to refuse it, the Sum of £15.7.6 remained in possession of your Respondent for the use of said Rachel untill unfortunately by the Laws of this State paper currency was annihiated and then existing Bills of Little or no value --- it is also true that Wm. Bradford made his last Will and Testament whereby among other bequests he bequeathed some personal Estate to his wife for life and after her Death to his three Daughters of whom Mary the Mother of Rachel the complainant was one and this Respondent hath received of the said property to which said Mary entitled was the ballance of the amount of £58.20 which Sum was the full Amount of the Share of each of the Daughters & the said Mary had in her life time received a number of articles part of the said property as contained in a Schedule hereto annexed being marked with letter (A) your Respondent pray may be taken as part of this answer all which property stated by this respondant to have been received by himself of the Estate of Wm. Bradford deced this Respondant is advised he hath a Right to retain to his own use as Husband and Administrator of Right to the said Mary Boggs for as much as said Frances wife of said Wm. Boggs survived the first Husband of said many; of however it were legal that the first Husband & his representatives in such case are entitled to the property this Respondant doth conceive himself intitled very justly to a Sum of money from the said Rachel & Branson Dalby complainants for 4 years & ten Months as will more particularly appear by an account hereto annexed marked with letter (B) which this Respondant prays may be taken as part of this answer --- with aspect to the property received by this Respondant by his Intermarriage with said Mary Boggs ths Respondant doth expressly aver that he believes it not to be equal to ten pounds currency This respondant hath already paid unto Branson Dalby the Sum of 18.16.11 1/2 Specie which your Respondant dot now conceive is more that was justly due him This Respondant hath even felt a deposition to be liberal and friendly to the said Complainants,being connections of his the said Wife Mary but as they have thought proper to bring your Respondant before a Court of Justice to obtain Equity your Respondant only prays that while they ask Equity to be done to them they may be compelled to do Equity to him without that &c and this Respondant prays to be hence dismissed with his costs &c
Geo. Parker pro Deft
this 28th April 1794
Tho. Parker