We know that Peter Vess lost his land to the Souther family in 1846 to cover a $50 debt; however, this particular record between Vess and Souther, reveals so much more…
Court Debt
This record between Vess and Souther is a “Deed Trust to Indemnify a Surety.” A landowner (Vess) puts up their property (Cedar Creek) as collateral to protect someone (Souther) who agreed to act as their financial guarantor for a legal obligation or court debt. This means the court would hold Souther liable if Peter defaulted on his court fees.
This record tells us that there was a suit between Peter Vess and the William Young estate. The specifics of their case appear to be lost to time, but whatever the case was, it was worth risking his entire property.
This record also reveals just how deeply the Vess and Souther families were connected, as such contracts were rarely, if ever, between strangers. These types of contracts were almost always made between relatives or deeply connected family allies. Thus, making their mysterious relationship to each other even more curious.
Peter Vess was allowed to remain on the property, so long as he did not default with the court.
Peter likely defaulted with the court, due to his death; as he is not listed with Catherine and the children on the next census in 1850, and they were no longer residing on Peter’s property on Cedar Creek in Broad River (they relocated to the Bill’s Creek community).
Due to his death, the court would have found Peter Vess in default. This would make Joseph Souther liable for the payment to the court.
To avoid having to pay out of his own pocket, Souther had no other choice but to evict Catherine and her children from the property to sell it. Unfortunately, he couldn’t sell the property while Catherine was still living.
Catherine didn’t sign over her dower rights in the 1846 Deed to Joseph Souther, preventing Souther from ever owning the land outright. At the time of Peter’s death, Catherine lost her right to live on the property due to the 1846 deed to indemnify a surety, but through her dower rights, she still claimed a portion of the value of the land; therefore the property could not be sold until after her death in 1852.
Displacement
In 1850, we see Catherine and the children listed on census next to her oldest son, John Vess, who probably provided for his mother and siblings financially after Peter’s death.
John was probably a tenant farmer for the Conner/Crawford families, as we see them listed nearby with land. Peter and Catherine’s son, Andrew Logan Vess will later marry Cynthia Conner in 1867.
In 1852, Catherine’s estate (the value she still held claim to), on Cedar Creek, was sold to another family, clearing up whatever debts were owed to Joseph Souther and the court .
A guardian ad litem was appointed for the minor children to represent their share in the estate and notices went out to the adult children who were non- residents of Rutherford County, North Carolina. After all the debts were paid, the children would receive whatever was left (if anything).
It appears the minor children were bonded out to a close family friend, Dempsey Sumner, who lived in between the Crook and Souther families in Fairview, Buncombe County, NC. We see them on the 1860 census together; except for Zephaniah Vess, who lived with the Whiteside family in Rutherford County, NC.
Dempsey Sumner likely had a family connection with the Vess family. He obtained custody of them as a single man, which was rare, if not family. The children also stayed with him long past the ages of a normal legal indentured contract, further suggesting a family connection. He also lived out the rest of his life, childless, on his property, even after he sold it to Jasper Vess, the youngest son of Peter and Catherine Vess.
Strategic Separation: Economic Survival
John Vess disappears somewhere out of state after 1850, leaving his wife and children behind in North Carolina.
He likely traveled out of state to find work, as many often did during poverty. I believe I may have found him in Greenville South Carolina, in 1857, working for the Tyger River and Mush Creek Ditch Company. This company offered housing for their workers, which is probably why we do not see him on the 1860 census.
In 1854, the divorce between John and Elizabeth Vess was posted in the newspaper; on the very same day, Elizabeth married Joshua Souther. This strongly suggests that John’s divorce in 1854, was mutually planned to ensure his wife and children were financially secure. Generally, there would have been a period of courtship between divorce and a new marriage.
Without the family farm, John Vess also faced poverty. After his mother’s death, the minor children were re-homed with close family in Buncombe (Dempsey Sumner), leaving his own family without financial security. Allowing his wife to divorce and remarry, would be the best option for his family to survive economically and the only way a woman could divorce, was if her husband deserted /abandoned her. Thus, John moved out of state.
Having married into the same family that took away the family farm in the first place, and married on the same day as divorce was announced, may look like betrayal, but at that time, it was economic survival.
John’s children had better opportunities with the Souther family, and thus they did, as his children were bond out to Joshua Souther in 1855, promising clothes, housing, food, a trade apprenticeship, and an education.
This was economic survival, mutually planned and executed between close family allies. The question still remains – how and why, were the Souther families deeply connected to the Vess family?
