William T. Gaulding: Property and 1841 Estate Distribution
- Catherine Gauldin
- 4 hours ago
- 16 min read
A survey was done after the death of William T. Gaulding (1) and the source of it is CHANCERY CAUSES: HEIRS OF WILLIAM T. GAULDING v ELIZABETH WOODALL, WIDOW, ETC, 1852-023, Pittsylvania County, Transcribed from the original by Catherine L. Gauldin, 2026. This document may be viewed at https://1drv.ms/w/c/7f8e08beef04f4cb/IQBjSRrF05DRSJSV-dCYzK-qAf_Q76GZzhRzHNpmReLEMzY?e=iys6Y7 Please give credit to Catherine L. Gauldin for editing and transcribing the original images.
The description of the plat reads:
“Surveyed for the Estate of William Gaulding Decd Seven hundred and Twenty Two ¾ Acres Land lying in the County of Pittsylvania on both sides of Stewarts Creek Bounded as Follows: Beginning at Jabez Dall Cov. Pointers on the plat with this lines N19 degrees 4 68 poles to Cor pointers on the Carolina Road at B. thrw X said Road N81*45’ 29 poles 8 lks to Galdin’s & …”
The Survey of William Gaulding’s Pittsylvania County Land
The land survey for the Estate of William Gaulding, deceased, describes a substantial tract of 722¾ acres in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, lying on both sides of Stewart’s Creek. (1) The surveyor begins at a boundary marked by “Jabez Dall’s corner pointers,” indicating that Dall was a direct neighbor and that the Gaulding property shared a line with his. From this point, the survey runs northward to another set of marked trees—“corner pointers”—located directly on the Carolina Road, one of the most important migration and transportation routes in colonial Virginia.
The description then follows the Carolina Road itself, running N 81°45’ for 29 poles and 8 links, until it reaches another Gaulding boundary (“Galdin’s”), demonstrating that multiple Gaulding parcels adjoined one another. This confirms the presence of a Gaulding land cluster in the Stewart’s Creek–Carolina Road corridor, a pattern typical of extended families who settled together and passed land between generations.
The mention of the Carolina Road (1) is especially significant. Known variously as the Great Road, Great Wagon Road, or Carolina Road, this route carried thousands of migrants from Pennsylvania through the Shenandoah Valley and into the Carolinas and Tennessee. Land touching this road was strategically located for trade, travel, and westward movement. The Gaulding family’s placement along this corridor aligns precisely with their documented migration from Goochland County → Amelia → Bedford → Pittsylvania → Campbell County, and later into Tennessee, following the same path used by countless frontier families.
Because Jabez Dall is a documented landowner in the Stewart’s Creek region, his appearance in the Gaulding survey provides an important anchor point for interpreting the tract. His boundary markers establish a fixed, verifiable location on the landscape, allowing the Gaulding property to be placed with confidence along Stewart’s Creek and the Carolina Road. The presence of Dall’s corner also confirms the accuracy of the survey itself, since his land is independently recorded in Pittsylvania County deeds and tax lists from the same period. Finally, Dall’s adjoining boundary helps identify the broader Gaulding property cluster, showing that William Gaulding’s 722¾‑acre tract lay within a community of neighboring families whose lands touched and overlapped—an essential clue for reconstructing the Gaulding family’s settlement pattern in the region.
1841: The Estate Distribution of William T. Gaulding
William T. Gaulding died at his home on 9 September 1841. The following traces the court records related to the estate distribution that occurred in 1841. The October 1841 decree essentially launched the formal settlement of the Gauldin estate. It guaranteed the widow’s lawful portion, directed the court’s commissioners to decide whether the enslaved people could be fairly divided or must be sold, and required a full valuation of any earlier gifts or “advancements” to the children so the final distribution would be balanced and just.
Due Andy Gaulding I Division of Adminstration 50.71
Due Do 2 Do 49.08
Due Do on Receiver Colemans a/c 622.16
Due Do on Recever Jones a/c 185.19
Total amt due A Gaulding $907.14
Due Saml. Gaulding I Division of adm a/c 50.71
2 Do 49.06
Receiver Coleman a/c 527.1
Receiver Jones a/c 185.79
Total amt. due S. Gaulding $812.14
Due Moses Gaulding - I Division adm a/c 50.71
2 Do 49.08
Receiver Coleman a/c 644.16
Receiver Jones a/c 185.79
Total amt due M Gaulding $929.14
Due Thos Gaulding - I Division adm a/c 50.71
2 Do 49.08
Receiver Coleman a/c 644.1
Receiver Jones a/c 185.19
Total amt due Thos Gaulding $929.14
Due Jabez Gaulding I Division adm a/c 50.71
2nd Do 49.08
Receiver Colemans a/c 664.16
Receiver Jones a/c 185.19
Total amt due Jabez Gaulding $949.14
Due Eliz Gaulding I Divison amd a/c 50.71
2 Do 49.08
Receiver Colemans a/c 664.16
Receive Jones a/c 185.19
Total Amt due Eliz Gaulding $949.14
Due Eliz Woodall I Division adm a/c 50.71
2 Do 49.08
Receiver Colemans a/c 632.16
Receiver Jones a/c 185.79
Total amount due E. Woodall $917.14
Due Wm Gaulding's Heirs I Division adm a/c 50.71
2 Do 49.08
Receivers Coleman a/c 324.16
Receivers Jones a/c 185.79
Total amt due Wm Gaulding's
Heirs $609.14
Statement of Amount due Heirs of Wm. T. Gaulding Dec'd on Settlement of Administration of .. Receivers..
Wm Gaulding’s Heirs $609.14
1/8th Expense of Suit off 13.78
$595.36
Narrative Summary of the 1841 Gauldin Estate Settlement
In 1841, the administrators and court‑appointed receivers for the estate of William T. Gaulding, deceased, completed a formal accounting of the funds owed to each of his heirs. The settlement shows that the estate had been divided into two administrative distributions, supplemented by additional amounts collected by Receivers Coleman and Jones. When these sums were combined, each heir received a different total, reflecting the varying amounts credited to their accounts.
The largest shares—$949.14 each—were paid to Jabez Gaulding and Elizabeth Gaulding, while Moses and Thomas Gaulding each received $929.14. Elizabeth Woodall received $917.14, and Andy Gaulding received $907.14. Samuel Gaulding received a somewhat smaller amount, $812.14, and the heirs of William Gaulding, who were inheriting on behalf of a deceased sibling, received the smallest share, $609.14.
Because the heirs of William Gaulding were receiving a portion as representatives of a deceased heir, their share was further reduced by one‑eighth of the total suit expenses, amounting to $13.78, leaving them with a final distribution of $595.36. This adjustment reflects the standard legal practice of allocating court costs proportionally among the heirs.
Overall, the 1841 settlement demonstrates a substantial estate requiring multiple receivers and a court‑supervised distribution. It also confirms the full list of heirs and the proportional shares assigned to each branch of the Gauldin family.
Gauldin
vs
Woodall
In chancery
This day this cause came on again to be heard upon the papers formerly read, the report of the Commissioners under the order of the 18th day of October 1841, the petition of James Elliott and Nancy his wife, the report of Thos. S. Jones Deputy for Nathl Wilson Sheriff of Pittsylvania, the exhibits & deportation of witnesses was assigned by Counsel on consideration where of the Court doth confirm the said reports of the Commissioners to which there are no exceptions & of the said Thomas S. Jones and doth ad judge order & decree that Decia Gauldin the widow of Wm T. Gauldin Decd do hold the sid 129 1/2 acres of land allotted to her as her dower by sd commssrs in the lands in the bill mentioned whereof the said Wm. T Gaulding Decd ser-ed & that she do likewise hold the salves Essex, Rose & her two children Nat & Ben, Becca, America, Lucy & Docia as her distributive share of the slaves of her Decd husband Wm. T. Gauldin during her life.
And the Court being of opinion that the Deff Nancy Elliott wife of James Elliott is not a child of the said Wm T. Gauldin Dec'd nor in any manner entitled to share in his estate & being for the satisfyed (sic) that the slaves of the said Wm T Gauldin can not be divided in kind doth therefore adjudge order & decree that Thos S Jones who is hereby appointed a Commissioner for that purpose do proceed after advertising the time & place of sale at the most publick (sic0 place in the neighborhood for four weeks to sell at publick (sic) auction at Pittsylvania Court House on some Court day on a credit of six months all the remaining slaves belonging to the estate of the said Wm T Gauldin taking from the purchasers bond with undoubted security payable to himself as Commissioner & make report of his proceeding herein to this Court in order that a final decree may be made.
Narrative Summary of the 1841 Chancery Decree in Gauldin vs. Woodall
In 1841, the chancery case Gauldin vs. Woodall returned to the Pittsylvania County Court for further consideration. The judge reviewed all previously submitted materials, including earlier filings, the commissioners’ report issued under the October 18, 1841 order, the petition submitted by James Elliott and his wife Nancy, the report of Thomas S. Jones, acting as deputy for Sheriff Nathaniel Wilson, and the depositions and exhibits presented by the parties. With no objections filed, the court formally confirmed the commissioners’ reports and the report of Deputy Jones.
The court then issued a decree concerning the widow Decia (Docia) Gauldin, wife of the late William T. Gauldin. She was granted lifetime possession of the 129½ acres assigned to her as dower, along with a group of enslaved people—Essex, Rose and her two children Nat and Ben, Becca, America, Lucy, and Docia—as her distributive share of her husband’s estate.
A central issue in the case concerned the status of Nancy (Gaulding) Elliott, wife of James Elliott. After reviewing testimony, the court ruled definitively that Nancy was not a child of William T. Gauldin and therefore had no legal right to inherit from his estate. This ruling aligned with later testimony given in the 1853 chancery suit, in which Nancy’s mother, Margaret Lane, confirmed that Nancy was her own daughter and not William’s.
Because the remaining enslaved people belonging to the estate could not be equitably divided among the heirs, the court ordered that Thomas S. Jones be appointed as commissioner to sell them. He was instructed to advertise the sale for four weeks at the most public location in the neighborhood and then conduct a public auction at the Pittsylvania Court House on a court day. The sale was to be made on a six‑month credit, with purchasers required to provide bonds with sufficient security. Jones was then to report his actions back to the court so that a final decree could be entered.
This decree clarified the widow’s rights, settled the question of Nancy Elliott’s parentage and inheritance, and set in motion the liquidation of the remaining enslaved property to complete the distribution of the Gauldin estate.
Heir Chart – 1853 Chancery Case of William T. Gauldin, Deceased
Propositus (Deceased):
William T. Gauldin
Born ca. 1750s–1760s • Died before 1841
Resident of Pittsylvania County, Virginia
Widow (Dower Recipient):
Decia (Docia) Gauldin
Received 129½ acres + enslaved persons Essex, Rose & children Nat & Ben, Becca, America, Lucy, and Docia for life.
Children of William T. Gauldin (as recognized by the Court)
(Each child or child’s heirs received a distributive share of the estate.)
1. Andy (Andrew) Gauldin - Received a full heir’s share.
2. Samuel Gauldin - Received a full heir’s share.
3. Moses Gauldin - Received a full heir’s share.
4. Thomas Gauldin - Received a full heir’s share.
5. Jabez Gauldin - Received a full heir’s share.
6. Elizabeth Gauldin - Received a full heir’s share.
7. Elizabeth (Gauldin) Woodall - Received a full heir’s share.
8. William Gauldin (deceased) - His heirs received his share, reduced by court costs.
Important Legal Finding (1853)
❌ Not an Heir: Nancy (Gaulding) Elliott Wife of James Elliott
The court ruled she was not a child of William T. Gauldin and not entitled to inherit.
This ruling was based on sworn testimony—later confirmed in the 1853 case—that Margaret Lane, not William T. Gauldin, was Nancy’s parent.
Summary of the Heir Structure
William T. Gauldin had eight recognized children.
One child (William Jr.) was deceased, so his heirs inherited his portion.
The widow, Decia, received her dower and lifetime rights to certain enslaved persons.
Nancy (Gaulding) Elliott was explicitly excluded as an heir.
This heir chart reflects the exact family structure used by the court to divide the estate.
143_1852_023_0260.pdf
This document is very difficult to read. The document appears to discuss a legal case from around 1841 involving a petition related to the estate of a deceased individual William Gaulding. The county court appointed a commissioner to manage the estate, and the petition shows that Gaulding managed the property alone. There is mention of the purchase of property from the estate, with exceptions noted for absolute formats of transactions. The burden of proof is discussed, particularly in cases where the transaction is made to appoint someone. The document references specific dates (October 18, 1841, and October 30, 1841) when the county court made appointments and when the petition purchased the entire interest in the estate. The estate transaction involved a sum of $600.00.
143_1852_023_0261_pdf
Summary of the document: Very hard to read and transcribe. The document details a series of legal and financial proceedings related to an estate, spanning from 1841 to 1849. Various petitions were made to the county court to appoint commissioners, collect land, and manage the estate’s assets.
The estate involved multiple sales and purchases, with specific sums mentioned (e.g., $152.42, $1690, $1200, $600, $252, $812).
The document describes the process of distributing funds and assets among entities, including the sale of land and water rights. There are references to the ignorance of certain parties regarding the estate’s intent and value, and mentions of depositions and waivers. The account of the estate’s management was not finalized until 1849, with ongoing disputes and opinions about the quality of the partition and the handling of funds.
By date:
1843 July 17th - The Petitions appointed by County Clerk.. to collect land money.
1844 October The Petitions appointed commissn to sell slaves of estate..
1844 March 26 The Petition ...for $500 ..interest in Decia Gauldin's...
1845 ...Sheriff appointed to collect & distribute the proceeds of the sale of slaves.
1849 Dec 17th The account of the Petitions as adm of W.T. Gaulding admitted to record.
1841 18 Nov The Petitions sold the personal estate of the sd W.T. Gauldin, excepting the slaves, amt of sale $1690.10
1842 Dec 31 The Petitions encluded to each ... $50.71
1844 June Petitions further indebted to each...$49.08
1846 Aug The Interest of Moses Gaulding in the sd estate amounted to $929.14 with ... including his interest in Decia Gauldin's dower.
1846 Aug The Interest of Sam Gaulding in sd estate amt to $812.14, w... interest in Decia Gauldin's dower
1844 May 26 The date of Sam Gauldin's and to the Petitions...
The estate of the said W.T. Gauldin was worth between 6 & $7000 $ the indebtedness of the said estate was $1200. The Petition took .. of the entire estate.. & after a difficult time had ... for him fully to investigate its value..
143_1852_023_0262.pdf
The text is nearly impossible to read. It names Moses Gaulding and Andy Gaulding, sons of William T. Gaulding, dec'd and their interest. AI was able to discern some meaning in the document. The document discusses legal proceedings and the application of laws within a community context. It references a petitioner's purchase and intent regarding certain assets, possibly related to an estate or property. There are mentions of transactions, sums of money (such as 28600), and the petitioner's efforts to clarify the value and intent of these assets. The text notes the petitioner's statements about buying interests from others (possibly named Anthony and Bullan), and the court's attention to these actions.
Allegations and depositions are referenced, suggesting disputes or questions about the legitimacy or process of these transactions. The commission and care in managing rights are discussed, as well as failures to clarify family transactions.
The document concludes with uncertainty about the purchase, suggesting it may need to be vacated due to unclear or improper handling. Overall, the document seems to center on a legal dispute over property or estate management, with unclear transactions and questions about the petitioner's actions and intentions.
Andy Gaulding & al
aft.
Woodall & al
In chancery
This day this cause came on again to be heard on the Petition of James Elliott & Nancy his wife formerly Nancy Gaulding the papers formerly read and to which the P-cffs council objected and was argued by Council upon consideration whereof the Court doth adjudge Order & Decree that James Elliott and Nancy his wife have leave to make themselves parties Defendants in the Suit aforesaid and that the Decree pronounced in this cause on the day of 1841 be aside so far as the same directs the commissioners her named to divide the Estate of which the said William T. Gauldin died seized between the Complainants & Defendants in the original suit except Decia Gauldin to whom they will allot Dower until the further Order of this Court.
Narrative Summary of the 1841 Court Action (Gaulding vs. Woodall)
In 1841, the chancery case involving the estate of William T. Gauldin came before the Pittsylvania County Court once again. At this stage, James Elliott and his wife Nancy—formerly Nancy Gaulding—submitted a petition asking to be included as parties in the ongoing suit. Their request was initially opposed by the complainants’ counsel, but after argument the court agreed to consider their petition. Upon review, the court granted James and Nancy Elliott permission to join the case as defendants. This was a significant procedural step, because it allowed Nancy to assert whatever claim she believed she had in the Gauldin estate.
Because of their admission into the suit, the court also took the unusual step of setting aside part of an earlier decree. Specifically, the court suspended the portion of the prior order that had directed the commissioners to divide William T. Gauldin’s estate among the original complainants and defendants. The only exception was Decia (Docia) Gauldin, the widow, whose dower allotment remained intact and undisturbed.
By halting the division of the estate, the court ensured that no final distribution would occur until Nancy’s claim was fully examined. This action set the stage for later proceedings—most notably the 1853 ruling, in which the court ultimately determined that Nancy was not a child of William T. Gauldin and therefore not entitled to inherit.
In short, the 1841 decree marks the moment when Nancy (Gaulding) Elliott formally entered the Gauldin estate litigation, prompting the court to pause the distribution of the estate until her status could be resolved.
Gaulding al
vs
Woodall al
This Cause came on this day to be further heard upon the Papers formerly red and the reports of the Sheriff and Commr in the County acting under the order of the 18 day of October 1841 to which there is no exception upon Consideration whereof the Court approving the -arn- doth ad-idge order & decree that Thomas S. Jones, upon entering into bond with sufficient security in the penalty of $3000 conditioned as the law directs, proceed to collect the pavichane (?) money of the land in the proceedings mentioned & report thereof to the Court - whereupon the Land Tho. s. Jones with his Security entered into bond as above requiring.
Gauldin al
vs
Gauldin al
order of 17 Nov. 1841
Narrative Summary of the 1841 Court Action (Gaulding et al. vs. Woodall et al.)
In late 1841, the long‑running chancery case concerning the estate of William T. Gauldin returned to the Pittsylvania County Court for further action. The judge reviewed the previously submitted papers along with the new reports filed by the Sheriff and the Commissioner, both acting under an earlier order dated 18 October 1841. Because no party filed objections, the court accepted and approved these reports.
The central issue at this stage involved the sale of Gauldin’s land, which had been ordered as part of the estate settlement. To move the process forward, the court appointed Thomas S. Jones to act as commissioner for the purpose of collecting the purchase money from the land sale. Before assuming this responsibility, Jones was required to enter into a bond of $3,000, with adequate security, as required by law. After Jones and his surety executed the bond, the court authorized him to proceed with collecting the outstanding payments and to report his actions back to the court.
This decree—recorded under the heading Gauldin et al. vs. Gauldin et al., Order of 17 November 1841—marks a procedural step in the administration of the Gauldin estate, ensuring that the funds from the land sale would be properly gathered and accounted for before the final distribution among the heirs.
October 1841
Court Records 36, 1840-1842, Pittsylvania County, Virginia: Pittsylvania. Court Records 1840–1842
#008574157, Item 3, Image 146/211
Source: Family Search
Andy Goulding & others Elizabeth Woodall & In Chancery This day this cause came on to be heard on the bill & answer was argued by counsel , on consideration whereof the Court doth adjudy order & decree that John Pritchett , John M Inge , Hezekiah G. Daniel Joshua Pritchett & Wm Payne or any of them who are hereby pointed Commissioner for that purpose do proceed to lay off acco Decia Goulding widow of Wm T. Gaulding decd one equal third part in value of all the lands whereof the said William T. Gaulding seized , & also that the said Commissioners proceed to allot to the said Decia Goulding one third part in value of the said whereof the said W T. Goulding died possessed & proceed to divide equally among the children & heirs of the said Gaulding the other slaves belonging to his estate if the same be table & if not then Nathaniel Wilson who is hereby pointed a Commissioner for that purpose is directed to the said Davis aforesaid , other than the widows do at public auction after advertising the time & place of for two weeks on a credit of twelve months taking bond 3000 259 that the land in the be mentioned does not amount to $ 300 to each legatee the said Nathaniel Wilson is directed to sell the same after the widows dower has been allotted her at public auction on a credit of 12 months after advertising the time & peace of sale for one month taking bond with approved security payable to himself as Commissioner and report his proceedings & c the said Commissioners or any of them are direct - ed to take an account of the advancements made by the said Wm T. Gaulding in his life time to all of his children valuing such advancements as at the time they were respectively made examining the parties on oath if necessary & returning the account along with their report.
Narrative Summary of the October 1841 Chancery Order
In October 1841, the chancery case involving the estate of William T. Gauldin came before the Pittsylvania County Court for a major procedural step. After reviewing the bill, the answers, and all previously submitted papers, the court appointed a group of commissioners—John Pritchett, John M. Inge, Hezekiah G. Daniel, Joshua Pritchett, and William Payne—to carry out the division of Gauldin’s estate. Their first responsibility was to lay off and assign to the widow, Decia (Docia) Gauldin, one‑third of the value of all the land her husband had owned at his death. This represented her legal dower right. The commissioners were also instructed to assign her one‑third of the enslaved people belonging to the estate.
The remaining enslaved individuals were to be divided equally among the Gauldin children and heirs, but only if such a division was feasible. If the enslaved people could not be fairly divided, the court directed Nathaniel Wilson, acting as a special commissioner, to sell them at public auction after proper advertisement and to take bonds with approved security from the purchasers. The court further ordered that if the land, once divided, did not yield at least $300 per heir, then the portion remaining after the widow’s dower was set aside should also be sold at public auction, again on twelve‑month credit with bond and security. Finally, the commissioners were instructed to prepare an accounting of any lifetime advancements William T. Gauldin had made to his children. These were to be valued as of the time they were given, and the commissioners were authorized to examine the parties under oath if necessary. Their report on these advancements was to accompany their overall division report.
In short, this October 1841 decree set in motion the formal division of the Gauldin estate, ensuring the widow received her legal share, determining whether the enslaved people could be divided or must be sold, and requiring a full accounting of prior gifts to the heirs so that the final distribution would be equitable.
The October 1841 order is one of the most important turning points in the entire Gauldin estate litigation. It is the moment when the court formally set the machinery of estate division into motion—appointing commissioners, defining their duties, and laying out exactly how the estate of William T. Gauldin was to be handled.
Works Cited
1. Edited and transcribed by Catherine L. Gauldin, 2026. CHANCERY CAUSES: HEIRS OF WILLIAM T. GAULDING v ELIZABETH WOODALL, WIDOW, ETC. [Online] https://1drv.ms/w/c/7f8e08beef04f4cb/IQBjSRrF05DRSJSV-dCYzK-qAf_Q76GZzhRzHNpmReLEMzY?e=.
2. Pittsylvania County Deed Book references to Stewart’s Creek parcels, various entries 1767–1790.
3. Jr., Parke Rouse. The Great Wagon Road: From Philadelphia to the South (Dietz Press, 1973).
© 2026 Catherine L. Gauldin, Gaulding Origins. All original content protected. Use of this site implies agreement with the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Comments