Name |
George Rust |
Birth |
1675 |
Westmoreland Co, Virginia |
Gender |
Male |
Property |
16 Feb 1703 |
Youcomoco, Cople Parish, Westmoreland Co, Virginia |
|
Other-Begin |
27 Feb 1706 |
Westmoreland Co, Virginia |
- 1719-1721 Richmond Co VA Order Book 8; Antient Press: (Page 159)
Richmond County Court 4th of February 1719/20
- RUST v BRANHAM
Judgment is granted BENJAMIN RUST who marryed ELLINOR GREEN, Daughter of RICHARD GREEN, late of this County, deced., against JOHN BRANHAM and ANN his Wife, late ANN GREEN, Admrx. of the Estate of the deced., for ELLINOR GREEN's part of her Father's Estate as appears by an Inventory upon Record, which is ordered to be paid with costs als exo
===
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=mrmarsha&id=I32966
|
Other-Begin |
1 Mar 1706 |
Westmoreland Co, Virginia |
- WESTMORELAND COUNTY ORDER BOOK, 1705-1721; pg 16
Westmoreland County Orders 1st of March 1705/06
- RUST p STURMAN v BRENT. &c.
THOMAS BONAM was attached to answer at July Court 1704, GEORGE RUST in a Plea why hee by force and armes &c. into one certaine tract ofland containing three hundred acres ofland with one Plantation thereon made and the appurtenances scituate lying and being in on the West side of NOMINY RIVER in the Parish of CopIe and County aforesd and now or late in the possession of ELIZABETH BOOTH, which JOHN STURMAN, Gent., demised to him, the said GEORGE RUST, for a tenn not yett expired, did order and him the said GEORGE from the land, Plantation and premises did eject and other enormities to him did do to his great damage and against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen that now, &c. And whereupon GEORGE RUST by GEORGE ESKRIDGE his Attorney saith that hee is damnified and damage hath sustained to the value of one hundred pounds sterling, and thereofhath brought suit &c., And at a Court held for the sd County the 30th day of August 1704, Oath being made that the tennant in possession was duely served with a coppy of the Plaintiffs Declaration and the notice thereon endorsed, it was ordered that the tenant in possession or those under whom shee claimed haveing legall notice by the Sheriff ofthis County, or his Deputy, did not appeare at the then next Court to bee held for the said County and make him or themselves Defendants, confess Lease Entry and suffer and insist only on the title ofthe premises then Judgment to go for the Plaintiff, &c., And at a Court held for the sd. County the 27th day ofAprill 1705 continued by adjournment from the 25th day ofthe said month appeared ANN BRENT, Widdo, by NATHANIELL POPE, her Attorney, confessed Lease Entry and ouster and was admitted Defendant in the room ofTHOMAS BONAM and praysed Lycence of Imparlance till the then next Court, which was granted her; And at a Court held for the said County the 30th day ofMay 1705, ANN BRENT by her Attorney defended the force and injury when &c., and saith that the Plaintiff his action ought not tohave for that JOHN STURMAN under whom the Plaintiffsaith hee holds by virtue ofa demise did bring suite in this Court against ARTHUR BALDRO for the land now in dispute and obtained Judgment for the same, from which Judgment ARTHUR BALDRO by Mr. GEORGE BRENT his Attorney appeared at the Genrall Court held at JAMES CITTY the first day of October 1680, the matter being fully heard the oppinion of the Court was that ARTHUR BALDRO had good right and title to the land and that JOHN STURMAN had no cause of action; And did order said BALDRO to bee possessed of the land &c. ad by the Order dated as aforesd.and here &c., and ready &c. may appeare. and said BALDRO being so seized in fee of the same and makeing no disposition thereofnor haveing any heirs to inheritt the lands with the appurtenances did Escheate to the Proprietors of the Northern Neck of Virginia, whereupon ROBERT BRENT, late of STAFFORD County, deceased, and late Husband ofthe Defendant, and from whom the Defendant claimes Dower of the lands suggested the same to the Office and whereupon obtained a Grant of the Escheat as per Patent under the hand of WILLIAM FITZHUGH and GEORGE BRENT, late Agents &c., and Seale of the Office dated the 28th day of November 1694 and here in this Court ready &c., by virtue of which Gant ROBERT BRENT became possessed in fee of the land and so dyeing without makeing any disposition of the land with the appurtenances comes and descends upon ROBERT BRENT, the Father ofthe Defendant's son, and Son and heir to said ROBERT, which ROBERT BRENT being under age and the Defendant haveing Dower in the same doth hold occupy and possess by the Law shee is warranted, Whereupon the Plaintiff prayed tyme till the next Court to reply or demurr to the Plea which was granted him; And now at this Court both Plaintiffand Defendant being present, GEORGE RUST in replication saith that nothwithstanding anything by sd. ANN in her Plea aIledged hee from his claime and action ought not to bee barred for that said GEORGE saith that the Judgment ofthe Generall Court in the Defendant's Plea mentioned inter BALDRO and STURMAN under which said STURMAN said GEORGE now claimes appeares to grounded upon and for that there appeared a sale ofthe land in dispute from JOHN STURMAN, Father of the aforesd JOHN STURMAN under whom GEORGE now claimes unto THOMAS YOUELL of the County aforesd. and therefore the Generall Court adjudged as said ANN in her Plea hath alledged. Now said GEORGE by his protestation saith that the said Sale from said STURMAN the Elder to THOMAS YOUELL was but for life only, and hee said THOMAS haveing an Estate only for life could not convey an Estate of Inheritance EDMUND BRENT under whome ARTHUR BALDRO claimes from whom said ANN derives her title, And said GEORGE by protestation further saith that THOMAS YOUELL hath departed this life for some considerable tyme before the demise to him made, therefore said GEORGE conceives the whole right and title of the land is again devolved to JOHN STURMAN under whome said GEORGE claimes as the only heir at Law to JOHN STURMAN, the Elder, deced., And therefore hee from his action aforesd ought not to be barred without that the aforesd pretended sale is insufficient in the Law to pass the aforesd land in fee, And GEORGE saith hee is read to verifie and therefore prays as by his Declaration, &c.
And the Defendant saith that the aforesaid Plea of the Plaintiffby pleading pleaded and the matter in the same contained does not appeare sufficient in Law, the Plaintiff his action against Defendant to have and maintaine and that shee to that Plea in manner and form to plead hath no need nor by the Law ofthe land is bound to answer; And this shee is ready to verefie; Wherefore for default of sufficient Replication of the Plaintiffin that part the Defendant desireth Judgment and that the Plaintiff from his action against her to have may bee debarred, Which severall Pleas being fully heard and considered by the Court, it is adjudged the Plaintiffs Replication to be good and sufficient in the Law for her the Defendant to answer and doe therefore overrule her Plea thereto. Whereupon the Defendant refused to make any further Plea or to say anything more in barr or preclusion ofthe Plaintiff's action by means whereof the Plaintiffremaines against the Defendant without defence; therefore it is considered that Plaintiffdo recover against the Defendant his term aforesd. ofand in the land and premises with appurtenances as yet to come as also his damages occasioned by the trespass and ejection, but because it is not known what damage the Plaintiffhath sustained by occasion of the trespass and ejectment, it was commanded the Sheriff that by Oaths ofhonest and lawfull men of his Baylywick hee dilligently enquire what damages the Plaintiffhath sustained by occasion ofthe trespass and ejectment and return the same under their hand to this Court immediately; And the Sheriffhaveing returned twelve honest and lawfull men ofhis Baylywick who being impannelled sworn and charged to say the truth in the premises and upon their Oath do say "Wee find the Defendant a Trespasser and that the Plaintiffis damnified two pounds, tenn shillings sterling;" And further Plaintiff prayes her Majties Writ ofhere facias possessionem directed to the Sheriff of this County to putt him in the possession of his terme yet to come and uncompleated
ofand in the land and premises, And upon reexamination ofthe Court's Order the Defendant moves in arrest ofJudgment and says the Court has given Judgment for the Plaintiff although the Plaintiffnever did produce any title in evidence to the Court whereby it did appeare that the title of the land in dispute was in the said STURMAN under whome the Plaintiff claimes, therefore prayes the Judgment may bee quashed, but for the fact the Defendant as before had refused to plead any further in the matter it is considered as before that the Plaintiff do recover against the Defendant his term aforesd. of and in the land with the appurtenances as yett to come and that hee have her Majties Writt ofhere facias possessionem to the Sheriff of this County to putt him into the possession of the same. It is also further ordered that the Plaintiffdo recover against the Defendant as well the surne oftwo pounds, teoo shillings sterling, the damages by the Jury in form found as also his costs of suite by him expended, which is ordered the said ANN BRENT do pay to GEORGE RUST als execution From which Judgment, ANN BRENT by her Attorney, prayed an Appeale to the sixth day ofthe next Generall Court which is granted, the Appellant entering into Bond with good and sufficient Security to appeare and prosecute her Appeale, &c.
NATHANIEL POPE, SENR. acknowledged himselfindebted to GEORGE
RUST in the surne of (blank) to be paid to GEORGE RUST his heirs &c. ifANN BRENT failes to appeare and prosecute her Appeale, to perform the award and Judgment of the Court therein and to pay damages according to Law if cast in the Appeale
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=mrmarsha&id=I07375
|
Other-Begin |
27 Jun 1706 |
Westmoreland Co, Virginia |
- WESTMORELAND COUNTY ORDER BOOK, 1705-1721; pg 25
Westmoreland County Court 27th of June 1706
- A Proclamation for the better Secureing ofthe Shipps, &c., published
- EARLE v RUST. &c. SAMUELL EARLE by his Petition to this Court
setting forth that SAMUELL EARLE, his Father, died possessed of a considerable personall Estate &c. and that MATTILDAY his Widdow had possessed herself of the same by administering thereon and before Inventory thereof returned intermarried with one WILLIAM RUST by which he possessed himself of your Petitioner's Father's Estate, which WILLIAM RUST is also dead and before his death constituted his Sons, SAMUELL and GEORGE RUST, his Executors, who together with
MATTILDAY have possessed themselves of his deced. Father's Estate and refuse to deliver to him his fillial part thereofwhich to him belongs and therefore prayed the Executors of WILLIAM RUST togethr with his said Widdow, who is also since intermarried with JOHN BENNETT, together with JOHN BENNETT might bee cited to show cause whey they should not pay and deliver to him that part of his Father's Eatate which to him ofright did belong, And after severall orders for their appeareance for settling accounts betwixt the Estates and nothing done therein it is now ordered that THOMAS BONHAM, THOMAS GARLAND and JOHN GARNER or any two of them doe sometime before the next Court meet the persons or so many of them as may bee at such place as shall bee most proper to appoint for the same and view and considder what amounts are between them or any ofthem and according to the best of their knowledge with what light they can find in the matter, state auditt and settle the same and return to the next Court an account and report oftheir proceedings therein
===
WESTMORELAND COUNTY ORDER BOOK, 1705-1721; pg 56
Westmoreland County Court 28th of August 1706
- EARLE v RUST, &c.
SAMUELL EARLE by his Petition to the Worshipfull Court for this County setting forth that SAMUELL EARLE, his Father, died possessed of a considerable personall Estate &c., And that MATTILDA, his Widdow, possessed herself ofthe same by administering thereon, and before any Inventory thereof returned, intermarried with WILLIAM RUST by whhich meanes hee the sd RUST became possessed thereof, that the sd RUST then also being dead, his Sons & Executors, SAMUELL and GEORGE RUST, together with MATTILDA as his Widdow, were possessed ofthe same and refused to deliver him his fillial part thereof. Therefore prayed a citation &c. upon which it was ordered severall persons to audit state and settle all accounts and matters in difference betwixt the Estates of EARLE and RUST aforesd and make report to this Court And now at this Court upon return ofthe audit aforesd it appeareing that the Estate of SAMUELL EARLE, the Father, by appraisment was valued at eight thousand four hundred ninety three pounds of tobacco and that the sd RUST had by lawfull and just payments disbursed on account of the sd EARLE's Estate the surne
of five thousand three hundred seventy three pounds oftobacco which with five hundred thirty seven pounds of tobacco the sallary thereof at ten percent amounting to five thousand three hundred tenn pounds oftobacco being deducted out ofthe same of the appraisment there rests in the hands ofthe Executors ofthe sd RUST two thousand five hundred eighty three pounds oftobacco which it is ordered the sd SAMUELL RUST and GEORGE RUST in their qualification aforesd or one of them doe pay to SAMUELL EARLE or order with costs &c. als execution; And whereas it appeares there is still further due from the Estate ofthe sd. SAMUELL EARLE, deceased, to one WILLIAM SANDERS the sume of twelve hundred pounds oftobacco, the same being deducted out of the above ballance there rests one thousand three hundred eighty three pounds oftoacco out ofwhich it is ordered the sd SAMUELL EARLE doe pay the sum oftwo hundred seventy six and three fifths of a pound of tobacco being the fifth part ofthe sd surne of one thousand three hundred eighty three pounds of tobacco
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=mrmarsha&id=I07375
|
Will |
22 Feb 1709 |
Westmoreland Co, Virginia |
- WESTMORELAND COUNTY ORDER BOOK, 1709-1712; pg 9
Westmoreland County Court 22d day of February 1709/10
- GEORGE RUST's Will proved
The Last Will and Testament of GEORGE RUST deced., was proved by the Oaths ofTHOMAS SMITH and WILLIAM GARDNER, two of the wittnesses thereto, a Probat whereof is granted to SAMUELL RUST Executor therein named and he ordered to return an Inventory of the Testator's Estate to the next Court upon Oath. It is alsoe ordered JOHN GARNER, WILLIAM GARDNER, JAMES COLEMAN, SAMUELL EARLE and JAMES COURTNELL or any four ofthem being first sworn before one ofher Majties Justices of the Peace for this County, doe some tYIDe before the next Court value and appraise the Estate and made return thereof to the next Court
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=mrmarsha&id=I07375
|
Death |
22 Feb 1710 |
Westmoreland Co, Virginia |
Other-Begin |
28 Feb 1795 |
Westmoreland Co, Virginia |
- WESTMORELAND COUNTY ORDER BOOK, 1705-1721; pg 12
Westmoreland County Court 28th of February 1705106
- EARLE v RUST
Ordered that unless SAMUELL RUST and GEORGE RUST, Executors of WILLIAM RUST, deceased, together with JOHN BENNETT and MATILDA his Wife, late the Widdo of WILLIAM RUST, do appeare at the next Court to answer the Petition of SAMUELL EARLE, Judgment to pass against them for what shall appeare due to him from them of the deced.'s Estate come to their or any of their hands as is sett forth by his Petition
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=mrmarsha&id=I07375
|
Person ID |
I40793 |
Roots |
Last Modified |
10 Mar 2012 |