The chancery cause of Arthur Brown vs. Rachel Goode, et al. (1872-113) was a dispute presented to the Richmond City Hustings Court. The suit revolved around the issues of freedom, property ownership, and inheritance rights following the death of Arthur Brown’s wife, Lucy Goode.
Arthur Brown had been enslaved formerly by Mary Cox, who passed away in Chesterfield County, Virginia. Brown claimed his freedom through Cox’s will, which allegedly bequeathed him his emancipation. This will, dated November 9, 1846, is referenced in the bill of complaint as exhibit “A,” but was not found with the case file during processing and indexing. Under the 1806 Virginia “Act to Amend the Several Laws Concerning Slaves,” Brown was required to leave the Commonwealth within twelve months of his emancipation to avoid forfeiting his freedom. He could voluntarily re-enslave himself to a white person or obtain permission from the General Assembly to continue to reside in Virginia. Brown opted to bind himself to Pleasant C. Larus until he could secure legal residency. He eventually was allowed to remain in the state as a free man of color, though the copy of the act (Exhibit “B”) has not yet been located.
On June 14, 1854, Arthur Brown married Lucy Goode, a free woman of color. Although they cohabited as husband and wife for many years, they could not legally marry until Brown was granted his freedom. During the period between his emancipation and marriage, Brown purchased land in Richmond from Nathaniel E. Green, despite being advised that he could not hold real estate. Trusting Lucy, who could legally own property, he had the land conveyed to her, intending for it to benefit them both during their lives and ultimately to pass to their children.
The Richmond Canal, ca. 1872.
Bryant, W. Cullen. Picturesque America: or, The land we live in. A delineation by pen and pencil of the mountains, rivers, lakes, forests, water-falls, shores, cañons, valleys, cities, and other picturesque features of our country. New York: D. Appleton, 1872, p. 80.
The narrative unfolds further, as both Arthur and Lucy had children from a previous marriage. Upon Lucy’s death, it was believed that her children from her earlier union could claim rights to Brown’s property unless Lucy had taken steps to ensure otherwise. In the bill, Brown contends that Lucy had made a will naming their daughter, Winney Brown, as sole heir to the property. Once again, though referenced in the bill as Exhibit “F,” the will is not included in the case file. It is unclear whether the exhibit documents were never actually filed along with the bill in August 1872, or whether they became separated from the case file in the intervening 153 years.
Act permitting Arthur Brown to remain in the Commonwealth, March 16, 1850.
Acts and joint resolutions of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Richmond: Commonwealth of Virginia, Dept. of Purchases and Supply `{`etc.`}`, 1850.
Brown was seeking legal clarity on his rights to the property because both his wife and their daughter were deceased at this point. He asserted that the land should rightfully belong to him and, due to Winney’s death, should be solely inherited by his children from his first marriage and not those of Lucy’s first marriage. Brown said that he had been misled about his legal standing regarding the property and he feared that, without court intervention, the property would not be distributed as he would like.
In his bill, Brown requested that various parties, including Rachel Goode (Lucy’s daughter) and the other heirs from Lucy’s previous marriage, be made defendants to the case. He called for a truthful and detailed account of their claims to the property. Brown asked the court to declare the respective interests of the parties involved and sought an equitable resolution, including the appointment of a commissioner to transfer legal title to him, should the court determine that he held equitable title to the land.
Map detail showing area where Arthur Brown owned property.
Beers, F. W., & Southern and Southwestern Surveying and Publishing Company. (1876). Illustrated atlas of the city of Richmond, Va. F.W. Beers.
Ultimately, this chancery cause was dismissed at the behest of Arthur Brown in November 1872. It is unclear what prompted this decision by Brown, but nonetheless, the case illustrates the complexities of legal property ownership and inheritance rights for the formerly enslaved. In the Reconstruction era, African American families in Virginia faced considerable obstacles in documenting and ensuring their basic rights. The Richmond City chancery cause of Arthur Brown vs. Rachel Goode, et. al. highlights issues of contract rights, marital rights, and the need for equitable relief from the courts in disputes concerning property in the period after the Civil War.
