The Dunbar Lawsuit on the Custis-Washington Estate
This notorious rascal, murdered on 7 December 1710, 22 years before George Washington is born, leaves a legacy on our George Washington -- a law suit. Daniel Parke leaves behind a daughter Francis Parke. She marries a Custis. That Custis is ornery. He has a son. He doesn't want that son to marry Martha Dandridge. But Martha Dandridge figures out a way to change the old man's mind. She gets his blessing to marry his son. She marries the son 15 May 1750. After a marriage of 7 years, this son of the ornery Custis dies. So, the now widowed Martha Dandgridge Custis then marries Colonel George Washington 6 Jan 1759. And so here we are on 12 June 1759. George Washington writes a letter about this estate, But back to the rascal who left this fortune.
This Daniel Parke who leaves this legacy wasn't just murdered. He was mutilated afterwards.
"a mob of the privileged citizens of Antigua
"attack'd and forc'd his Guard,
entred his House,
broke open his Chamber-Door,
and Shot him. ...
they broke his Back-bone, dragg'd him by the Heels down the Stairs;
shot him again in several places;
and some,
whose Marriage-bed, 'tis thought, he had defiled,
revenged themselves on the sinning parts,
which they cut off and expos'd."
Source:
"Tragical End of Colonel Parke, Governor of the Leeward Islands," in The Political State of Great Britain (London, January 1710-11), 339.
That's it.
That's our lead story.
But there's always more.
Skip around.
Read bits and pieces.
Compiled and update by Jim Moyer 11/27/2019, updated 10/10/2021, updated 6/14/23, 6/15/23, 6/16/2023
Table of Contents
The Dunbar Suit is back on:
In July 1757 the Privy Council [in London England] reversed the Virginia court’s decision,
which meant that the case should go back to Virginia for retrial.
This meant the suit to put debt on Martha was back on.
From Founders Online
GW's future wife, Martha, hears word of the estate of this Daniel Parke taking a turn for the worse.
A lawsuit that had festered in the courts for 30 years reared its ugly head in 1757, likely brought to Martha's attention shortly after her husband's unexpected death.2
[Martha Dandridge's first husband, Daniel Parke Custis, died July 8, 1757]
This was the Dunbar case, which, if lost, had the potential to put George Washington, the new administrator of the Custis estate, on the hook for £10,000.
When does Colonel GW handle "that" estate?
In July 1757, GW is already involved in handling a different estate.
Shortly after Martha's first husband dies, Colonel George Washington writes
to Colonel Stanwix 30 July 1757, permission for leave.
This request for leave is for GW to handle the estate left by his older half brother, Lawrence.
While handling his half brother's estate, he may have heard of widow Martha's issues.
He resigns from the VA Regiment end of 1758 and doesn't marry Martha until 6 January 1759.
He was elected to the House of Burgesses 24 July 1758. He attends the 1st session page 55, February 22, 1759, to April 14, 1759, but bows out of completing his attendance on 2 April 1759 in order to take his newly wed into the now prepared Mt Vernon.
He begins inquiries on Martha's estate 20 April 1759.
On 12 June 1759. George Washington writes another letter about this estate, In that letter he writes Capel & Osgood Hanbury,
It will be needless I presume, unless it be for Formsake, to tell you so long after the thing has happend, of my Marriage with Mrs Martha Custis; you doubtless have heard of it before this can reach you, but as I thought proof might be requisite I sent over the Ministers certificate (which I was told was sufficient testimony) to Messr Cary & Compa. and to that I also refer you for your further satisfaction on this point.
I must now desire that you will please to address all your Letters which relate to the Affairs of the Deceasd Colo. Custis to me as by Marriage I am entitled to a third part of that Estate, and invested with the care of the other two thirds by a Decree of our Genl Court which I obtaind in order to strengthen the power I before had in Consequence of my Wifes Administration.
The Family Tree of Daniel Parke
Daniel Parke is the murdered rascal.
He is the father of Francis Parke .
She marries John Custis IV who begets Daniel Parke Custis who marries Martha Dandridge who then marries George Washington after her first husband Daniel Parke Custis dies 8 July 1757.
Why is this called the Dunbar Case?
A decade after Daniel Parke's death, John Custis [the father of Martha's first husband ] opened a letter from a man named Dunbar Parke.
Formerly named Thomas Dunbar, Dunbar Parke had married Daniel Parke's Antiguan daughter and taken her last name.
Having discovered new debts in Daniel Parke's Antiguan property,
Dunbar wanted Custis to pay them. Dunbar interpreted Daniel Parke's will to mean that all his debts would be left to his Virginian daughters, and all of his profits to his estate in Antigua.
He demanded that John Custis pay £10,000.
Custis wrote to a colleague, "if these whores and bastards get their demands my son is ruind."
About the Portrait of Daniel Parke
Douglas Southall Freeman writes,
“Sir Godfrey Kneller probably painted Col. Daniel Parke …”
But Wikipedia cites John Closterman, painted this portrait in 1706, in the collection of the Virginia Historical Society.
Notice the miniature is of Queen Anne, set in diamonds.
There’s a story behind that miniature.
He served as the Duke of Marlborough's aide-de-camp at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704, and personally delivered news of the victory to the queen [Queen Anne].
This is why you see in Daniel Parke's portrait, a miniature of Queen Anne, set in diamonds
The Short Story of this Rascal
Daniel Parke is murdered 7 Dec 1710 by a mob. He was the Governor of the Leeward Islands. The murder occurred at the Governor’s Mansion in Antigua. After looting his place, they discover diaries telling of debauchery with their wives and daughters. They knew some of that. They just didn’t know the full extent of it.
He leaves a fortune, part of which ends up in Martha Dandridge Custis Washington’s hands.
What did this Scoundrel do?
Again Kathryn Gehred writes a short bio, about his "short happy life" in an article for UVA Miller Center:
Daniel Parke married a woman named Jane Ludwell, with whom he fathered two children.
Abandoning them in Virginia in 1690, he travelled to London and returned with another woman.
Although he described her as a "cousin," rumors spread that she was a married woman Parke had lured from her husband. The rumors were in part confirmed when she gave birth to a son who took the surname Parke.
After a disappointing political career in Virginia, Parke left both families and returned to England, with no guarantee of continued financial support for them.
He served as the Duke of Marlborough's aide-de-camp at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704, and personally delivered news of the victory to the queen [Queen Anne].
[This is why you see in Daniel Parke's portrait, a miniature of Queen Anne, set in diamonds]
Shortly afterwards, he became governor of the Leeward Islands.7
Daniel Parke's reign as governor of the Leeward Islands was nasty, brutish, and short.
According to a magazine account, ‘The Tragical End of Governor Parke’ (published shortly after his death on Dec. 9, 1710), a mob of the privileged citizens of Antigua "attack'd and forc'd his Guard, entred his House, broke open his Chamber-Door, and Shot him.
After which they broke his Back-bone, dragg'd him by the Heels down the Stairs; shot him again in several places; and some, whose Marriage-bed, 'tis thought, he had defiled, revenged themselves on the sinning parts, which they cut off and expos'd."8
Before meeting this spectacular end,
Daniel Parke drew up an unusual will,
described by his son-in-law John Custis as "unnaturall."9
He left all of his property in Antigua and the Leeward Islands to the infant daughter of a married woman.
By doing so, he in effect claimed this daughter as his child, and left her a larger and more profitable estate than what he had left his legal children.
Even more unusual,
he stipulated that the little girl would only receive her inheritance
if she would "alter her name and call herself Parke,"
a stipulation that extended to her heirs as well.10
For those numbered footnotes listed above,
see this article here:
Another part of the Family Tree
Here are the Children of Daniel Custis and Marth Dandridge before she married George Washington. This also shows how General Robert E Lee came into the family tree. Notice how the name of Custis is carried on through the children? This honors the Daniel Park's Will stipulating everyone must carry the Parke name.
[ My note: As an aside,
(April 30, 1781 – October 10, 1857)
is why his name has Parke in it.
He is responsible
for as many myths
about George Washington
as Parson Weems was.
George Washington Parke Custis' father
was the stepson of
He and his sister Eleanor
grew up at Mount Vernon
and
in the
Washington presidential household.
Upon reaching age 21,
Custis inherited
a large fortune
from his late father,
.
.
.
.
Colonel Daniel Parke is "Hector"?
Below is a quote saying he is A SPARKISH Gentleman and acts as the greatest HECTOR in town.
The accounts of Col. Parke’s character which have come down to the present day show him in a very unfavorable light, but as they are all from sources hostile to him and to his friend, Governor Andros, they should perhaps be accepted with a “grain of salt.”
The earliest notice of him occurs in a memorial by Commissary Blair, attacking the administration of Andros.
Hector brought back to Troy, from a Roman sarcophagus, c. 180–200 AD from wikipedia. Touch or Click to Enlarge.\
He says:
“There is a handsome young man of that Country [Virginia] one Mr. Daniel Parke, who to all the other accomplishments that make a complete sparkish Gentleman has added one upon which he infinitely values himself, that is, a quick resentment of every the least thing that looks like an affront or Injury.
.
He has learned, they say, the art of fencing, and is as ready at giving a challenge, especially before Company, as the greatest Hector in the Town.”
[My note: And why Hector? Because Hector fought everyone and won. Until his last fight.]
“Virginia Gleanings in England” is an article from The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Volume 20, published 1912.
.
Above quote on bottom right of 2nd page.
British firm handling Martha and GW's Business
At the top of the Founders Online footnotes:
John Hanbury & Co., along with Robert Cary & Co., handled nearly all of the business for the Custises in England for many years.
The head of the firm, John Hanbury (1700–1758), a Quaker, was a prominent and influential London merchant whom Daniel Parke Custis engaged to defend his interest after the Dunbar case was revived in London in 1750.
(For the Dunbar case, see doc. I, n.5, in Settlement of the Daniel Parke Custis Estate, 20 April 1759–5 Nov. 1761.)
After John Hanbury’s death his partners continued the firm under the name of Capel & Osgood Hanbury.
Robert Cary & Co. wrote Martha Custis on 17 July 1758: “Mr John Hanbury departed this Life the 23d Ulto & while he lived we coud not ask for the Enlargement of your Consignments [of tobacco], but now as things are Differently ⟨cir⟩cumstanced we may safely do it & as such we hope ⟨in⟩ the future to receive all your Crops, for it is Evidend the less hands Tobacco goes in the greater Probability there is of keeping up a Living Price & therefore must naturally be productive of our Friends Interest” (ViHi: Custis Papers).
Source:
Douglas Southall Freeman on Dunbar Suit
This is the ultimate writer on anything George Washington.
He is also the ultimate teller of the story of the Dunbar Lawsuit:
From Douglas Southall Freeman's Young George Washington, Volume 2, Pages 276-302, published 1948, Charles Scribner's Sons:
Go to Pages 276-301 on the Chapter, "Courtship with Legal Entanglements."
Appendix, Notes:
I. Queries to John Mercer, 20 April 1759
From George Washington to John Mercer:
Queries to John Mercer Williamsburg 20. April 175⟨9⟩
Sir, Be pleased on the other side to answer the following queries in a full and ample manner and oblige very much, Yr most Obedt Servt1 Go: ⟨Washington⟩
First—
Does the Law require that all the Personal Estate (Negros only excepted) of the late Colo. Custis be sold, in order to lay of[f] his Widows dower and daughter’s part. or can it be done by the Inventory & appraisment—or lastly by dividing the Estate as it stands at this present—Which of these three is the Right Method? & has Mrs Washington a ⟨C⟩laim to one third of the Chattels of every kind whatsoever?
Second—
What Steps are necessary to Effect this in either Case? & how is the Money and Bonded Debts to be divided?2
Third—
Has Mrs Washington a Right to take any part of the Furniture or Personal Estate (negroes excepted as before) at the Appraisment price? or is she under a necessity of taking the whole or none?
Fourth—
Whether if the Law does not require the whole Personal Estate to be sold, I have notwithstanding a power, or can obtain one (& by what means) to sell such parts as I ⟨consider⟩ to be for the Estate Interest?
Fifth—
Is Mrs Washington obligated to render ⟨an Acco⟩unt of every thing Inventoried & appraised? I mean Household goods that perhaps are broke or worn out, Plantation Utensils that are lost or used—Liquors &ca that may have ⟨bee⟩n Drank—and if She is what sort of an Acct is requird by Law? and whether that account shoud be previous to a Division of the ⟨Estate?⟩
Sixth—
Has she not a Right to have her Expences of every kind borne, as well those which may Relate to her particular self, as to House keeping &ca in general? Does that Right still continue till a Division be made, or did it cease upon her Marriage[?]3
Seventh—
Whether is it necessary to get appointed Guardian, and Manager of ⟨the⟩ Estate & ⟨of the⟩ Children—or do I become so as Husband ⟨to her illegible⟩ obtaind the administration? But ⟨mutilated⟩ that some ⟨one other than myself⟩ shoud be choose Guardian till a Division ⟨of⟩ the Estate & a Settlement be made.4
Eighth—
If Dunbar obtains his Suit at Law against Colo. Custis’s Estate, how far will Mrs Washington’s Dower be liable?5
Ninth—
If the Money and Chattels which in any other Case ⟨woud⟩ have become my absolute property, shoud be made liable—am I accountable for the Principal & Interest, of what I may now receive—or the Principal only?
Founders Online Footnotes:
ADS, ViHi: Custis Papers.
John Mercer (1704–1768), of Stafford County, was a lawyer who since the early 1740s had been retained by the Custises, first by John Custis (1678–1749) and then by his son Daniel Parke Custis (1711–1757), to counsel them in the Dunbar case. See note 5.
From 1757 he acted in the same capacity for Daniel Parke Custis’s widow, later GW’s wife, and for her two children. Mercer, who obtained a large loan from Martha Custis, served as GW’s attorney in the settlement of the Custis estate until shortly after the final settlement in 1761.
1. See Editorial Note, 20 April 1759–5 Nov. 1761, and doc. II.
3. As Schedule A (doc. III-A) and most of the related documents (III-A–1 through III-A–8) demonstrate, GW and his wife claimed, used, disposed of, and accounted for goods from the estate in various ways. See also Mercer’s Answers, third through sixth (doc. II).
Footnote 4.
Upon Daniel Parke Custis’s death Martha Custis became the common-law guardian of her children and would remain so, unless another were appointed, until the children reached the age of 14.
Talk of appointing a male guardian seems to have first come up in the fall of 1758
as a result of developments in the Dunbar case (see note 5).
John Mercer wrote Martha Custis 11 Oct. 1758:
“However as you seem’d determined in Case the Suit should be renewed to have some Gent. of Reputation & Fortune appointed Your Sons Guardian I enquired in a round about manner of the Speaker [John Robinson] if such a thing had ever been proposed to him, he said not, but added, that it would be to no manner of purpose as he would not upon any Account undertake it, as it would be attended with so much trouble as must necessarily accompany the management of so large an Estate (as your Son was intitled to) & at such a distance from him. As I observed that I apprehended you would be satisfied with his being appointed his Guardian for the management of his Law Suits, in which his Advice and Character might be of great benefit to the young Gentleman & that his Estate might be continued under the same management as at present, he said upon that Condition if you desired, he would very readily undertake the matter & do your Son all the Service he could either by his advice or Interest. This, Madam, I thought proper to advise you of, as you may thereby be better enabled to form your Resolution upon that head” (ViHi: Custis Papers).
Then, on 2 Nov. 1758,
two months before her marriage to GW, Mercer wrote Mrs. Custis:
“I received all the Papers together with your Letter and should have awaited on the Speaker in two or three days after but I heard he was gone for a few days out of Town. On Saturday last I applied to him & he promised to be in Court that day but something prevented. however this Day he came to Court & was admitted not only your Sons but your Daughters Guardian to defend & prosecute such Suits as may be for their Interest, for it seems that not only your Son but yourself & Daughter will be Parties to the Suit of Dunbar here” (ibid.).
In his response (doc. II), Mercer suggests to GW that his marriage to Mrs. Custis puts him in the position to assume the guardianship “in her right,” but he advises him to delay doing so until after the estate was divided and finally settled.
GW seems to have taken his advice, for it was not until 21 Oct. 1761
at the time of the final settlement of the estate that the General Court appointed GW guardian of the two children, in place of John Robinson (Order of the General Court, ViLxW: Washington’s Account Book).
For GW’s decision in April 1759 to secure an order from the General Court giving him the administration of the children’s property, see Editorial Note, 20 April 1759–5 Nov. 1761, n.6.
GW remained the manager of the property of the two young Custises until 1773, when Patsy died and Jacky was preparing to marry, rendering each year annual accounts of the credits and debits of their estates for the preceding year.
Footnote 5.
At this time the Custis estate again was being threatened by the claims first brought against it as early as 1723
by one Thomas Dunbar, renamed Dunbar Parke, of Antigua.
When Daniel Parke Custis’s grandfather Daniel Parke (b. 1669) was murdered in 1710 at Antigua where he was in residence as the British governor of the Leeward Islands, it was discovered that Parke had left his Antigua property valued at more than £30,000 to Lucy Chester, the young daughter of a Mrs. Catherine Chester of that place.
The Antigua property was to pass to Lucy’s heirs provided that upon her marriage she and her husband changed their name to Parke.
Under the terms of the will, Colonel Parke’s daughter Frances Parke Custis, the mother of Daniel Parke Custis, was to get her father’s Virginia and English property, out of which Parke’s legal debts, presumably in Virginia and England, were to be paid.
Nearly fifteen years after Parke’s death, and long after Frances Custis herself had died, John Custis, Frances’s husband and Daniel Parke Custis’s father, received notice from Dunbar Parke, who had taken the name upon his marriage to Lucy Chester, that the Frances Parke Custis estate must reimburse him for up to £10,000 which had been paid out of his wife’s inheritance to settle Col. Daniel Parke’s Antiguan debts.
The point at issue was whether Parke’s will required only that the Custises pay his Virginia and English debts or that they pay all of his debts, including those in Antigua.
Lawyers on both sides remained active off and on from the mid–1720s.
At the time of John Custis’s death in 1749 (Dunbar Parke died in 1734) the case still had not come to trial.
Dunbar’s heirs renewed the suit in 1750.
When the trial was finally held before the Virginia General Court in April 1754, it was dismissed.
In July 1757 the Privy Council [in London England] reversed the Virginia court’s decision,
which meant that the case should go back to Virginia for retrial. BACK TO PREVIOUS
It was upon word of this that Martha Custis suggested to John Mercer the appointment of a male guardian for her children (see note 4), and it was with the reopening of the case in mind that GW posed his eighth and ninth questions to John Mercer.
For a masterly explanation of the ramifications of Daniel Parke’s mischievous will, see Freeman, Washington, 2:278ff.
Source:
.
Lawrence Washington's Estate
Shortly after Martha's first husband dies,
Colonel George Washington writes
to Colonel Stanwix 30 July 1757,
permission for leave.
But this request for leave is for GW to handle the estate left by his older half brother, Lawrence.
I took the liberty in a letter of the [ to Dinwiddie on 10 June 1757 ]
to ask leave
to be absent about 12 or 14 days, i
f circumstances in this quarter wou’d permit:
but having heard nothing from you since,
I am inclined to address you again on that head;
because as the 1st of August is the time appointed for the meeting of the Executors (of which I am one) of an Estate that I am much interested in a dividend of;
and have suffered much already by the unsettled state it has remained in.
This Estate does not lie more than a days journey from this place;
so that I could return very quickly,
if occasion required it.6
I am, with very great Esteem, Your most obt hble Servant,
Stanwix gave permission originally in his letter to GW of 20 July in response to GW's first request for leave, 8 July 1757.
Sources:
.
.
NOTES:
Links for further research
.
1Provincial Commissioners: Order to Pay Isaac Norris, 12 June 1759 (Franklin Papers)
DS : Historical Society of Pennsylvania Pay or Cause to be paid to Isaac Norris Esqr. the Sum of...
2From George Washington to Capel & Osgood Hanbury, 12 June 1759 (Washington Papers)
It will be needless I presume, unless it be for Formsake, to tell you so long after the thing has...
3From George Washington to James Gildart, 12 June 1759 (Washington Papers)
Doubtless before this you have heard of my Marriage with Mrs Martha Custis; but the Inclosd is...
4From George Washington to Robert Cary & Company, 12 June 1759 (Washington Papers)
In a Letter which I wrote you the first of last Month was Inclosd an Invoice of Sundries which I...
5Enclosure: Invoice to Robert Cary & Company, 12 June 1759 (Washington Papers)
Invoice of Sundrie Goods to be Shipd by Robt Cary Esqr. and Company—for the use of George...
Douglas Southall Freeman:
This is the ultimate writer on anything George Washington.
He is also the ultimate teller of the story of the Dunbar Lawsuit:
From Douglas Southall Freeman's Young George Washington, Volume 2, Pages 276-302, published 1948, Charles Scribner's Sons
More links:
Queries to John Mercer
This is the source for below
When George Washington began his courtship of the recently widowed Martha Dandridge Custis in March 1758, she served as administratrix of an estate that included 17,500 acres of land as well as more than £1,500 of liquid assets.1
With such a dowry at only 27 years old, Martha had her pick of potential husbands. Despite proposals from wealthier suitors, she chose George, a military man about one year her junior.
As George soon learned, most of the Custis estate was to go to Martha’s children when they came of age. Martha’s first husband, Daniel Parke Custis, had died without a will, requiring his estate to be divided among his heirs: a third for Martha to control in her own right, a third to her son John Parke “Jacky” Custis, and a third to her daughter Martha Parke “Patsy” Custis. By law, when he married Martha, George Washington assumed ownership of her third of the estate. As for the other two-thirds, he became caretaker, ensuring that the amount of property left to the Custis children by their father would in fact come into their hands when they came of age. If Washington mismanaged the estate, he would be held responsible.
picture caption: Martha Washington (née Dandridge) before her marriage to Daniel Parke Custis. Image: New York Public Library.
That obligation quickly proved rather burdensome. A lawsuit that had festered in the courts for 30 years reared its ugly head in 1757, likely brought to Martha’s attention shortly after her husband’s unexpected death.2
This was the Dunbar case, which, if lost, had the potential to put George Washington, the new administrator of the Custis estate, on the hook for £10,000. Washington wrote to Martha’s lawyer with concern: “If the Money and Chattels which in any other Case would have become my absolute property should be made liable—am I accountable[?]”3
While the legal details of the case could be described as dry and tedious (Martha’s lawyer wrote despairingly that one “cannot possibly know what trouble I was at during the sixteen years I was concerned”), the initial cause of the lawsuit was anything but boring.4
It began with Daniel Parke’s will. Parke, the grandfather of Martha’s first husband, was a man whom historians struggle to describe with professional objectivity. Malcolm Hart Harris, author of Historic New Kent County, considered him “one of the most notorious scamps of the colonial period.”5
One of Parke’s contemporaries called him “a complete sparkish gentleman” and “the greatest Hector in the Town.”6
Unsubstantiated stories about Daniel Parke abound; one such tale claims that in a fit of vengeance, he physically dragged a political opponent’s wife out of her pew during church services.
Junius Brutus Stearns, The Marriage of Washington to Martha Custis, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts
John Closterman, painting of Daniel Parke, 1706At 15 or 16 years old, in 1685, Daniel Parke married a woman named Jane Ludwell, with whom he fathered two children. Abandoning them in Virginia in 1690, he travelled to London and returned with another woman. Although he described her as a “cousin,” rumors spread that she was a married woman Parke had lured from her husband. The rumors were in part confirmed when she gave birth to a son who took the surname Parke. After a disappointing political career in Virginia, Parke left both families and returned to England, with no guarantee of continued financial support for them. He served as the Duke of Marlborough’s aide-de-camp at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704, and personally delivered news of the victory to the queen. Shortly afterwards, he became governor of the Leeward Islands.7
Daniel Parke’s reign as governor of the Leeward Islands was nasty, brutish, and short. According to a magazine account, ‘The Tragical End of Governor Parke’ (published shortly after his death on Dec. 9, 1710), a mob of the privileged citizens of Antigua “attack’d and forc’d his Guard, entred his House, broke open his Chamber-Door, and Shot him. After which they broke his Back-bone, dragg’d him by the Heels down the Stairs; shot him again in several places; and some, whose Marriage-bed, ’tis thought, he had defiled, revenged themselves on the sinning parts, which they cut off and expos’d.”8
Before meeting this spectacular end, Daniel Parke drew up an unusual will, described by his son-in-law John Custis as “unnaturall.”9
He left all of his property in Antigua and the Leeward Islands to the infant daughter of a married woman. By doing so, he in effect claimed this daughter as his child, and left her a larger and more profitable estate than what he had left his legal children. Even more unusual, he stipulated that the little girl would only receive her inheritance if she would “alter her name and call herself Parke,” a stipulation that extended to her heirs as well.10
Parke’s eldest daughter Frances Custis, unhappily married at that point to John Custis, inherited her father’s debt-ridden Virginia estate in 1711. Her husband sold almost all of the property to pay off Parke’s debts, and later wished “I had never heard of that famous name of Parke…”11
A decade after Daniel Parke’s death, John Custis opened a letter from a man named Dunbar Parke. Formerly named Thomas Dunbar, Dunbar Parke had married Daniel Parke’s Antiguan daughter and taken her last name. Having discovered new debts in Daniel Parke’s Antiguan property, Dunbar wanted Custis to pay them. Dunbar interpreted Daniel Parke’s will to mean that all his debts would be left to his Virginian daughters, and all of his profits to his estate in Antigua. He demanded that John Custis pay £10,000. Custis wrote to a colleague, “if these whores and bastards get their demands my son is ruind.”12
Custis drafted a furious response: “I know the expence of going to Law as well as any man; having never bin free from it ever since I first took upon me the management of this unlucky estate of Coll Parke’s… wch If I had never heard of would have been well for me […] I would go to Law the whole course of my Life; spend the last penny I have in the world rather than I will pay one farthing of your unjust and unreasonable demand.”13
Jacky even included the name “Parke” in all of his children’s names, perhaps to protect their inheritance. Custis’s words proved prophetic. The Dunbar case lasted 50 years. George Washington paid lawyers to tend to the lawsuit into the 1770s, and complained that “every farthing, which is expended on [John Parke “Jacky” Custis], must undergo the inspection of the General Court, in their examination of my guardianship accounts.”14
Jacky even included the name “Parke” in all of his children’s names, perhaps to protect their inheritance. Eventually, the onset of the American Revolution ended the lawsuit, but it proved to be a headache for George Washington and a threat to his estate for much of his married life.
1. Joseph Fields, “Worthy Partner” (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1994), xx. 2. James Munro, ed., Acts of the Privy Council of England, Colonial Series (London: 1911), 4:288-290. 3. “I. Queries to John Mercer, 20 April 1759,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified February 1, 2018, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-06-02-0164-0002. Also available in print: The Papers of George Washington, Colonial Series 6:211. 4. John Mercer to Martha Washington, Jan. 4, 1758, Virginia Historical Society. , Colonial Series 6:211. 5. Malcolm Hart Harris, Old New Kent County (West Point, Va.: M.H. Harris, 1977), 1:11. 6. “Virginia Gleanings in England,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 20, no. 4 (1912): 373. 7. Ruth Bourne, “John Evelyn, the Diarist, and His Cousin Daniel Parke II,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 78, no. 1 (1970): 3-33. 8. “Tragical End of Colonel Parke, Governor of the Leeward Islands,” in The Political State of Great Britain (London, January 1710-11), 339. 9. John Custis to Cary, 1733, in Josephine Little Zuppan, ed. The Letterbook of John Custis IV of Williamsburg, 1717-1742, (Lanham, 2005), 135. 10. “Gleanings,” 372. 11. John Custis to Micajah Perry, Jan. 1724/5, Zuppan, Letterbook, 70-71. 12. Ibid. 13. John Custis to Thomas Dunbar, 15 Jan. 1724/25, Zuppan, Letterbook, 67. 14. “From George Washington to Jonathan Boucher, 9 July 1771,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified February 1, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-08-02-0332. Also available in print: The Papers of George Washington, Colonial Series 8:494-498.
.
Source for above
.Settlement of the Daniel Parke Custis Estate
From: Washington Papers | Colonial Series | Volume 6 | Settlement of the Daniel Parke Custis Estate
1Editorial Note (Washington Papers) Upon his marriage to the widow of Daniel Parke Custis on 6 Jan. 1759, GW assumed the management... 2I. Queries to John Mercer, 20 April 1759 (Washington Papers) Be pleased on the other side to answer the following queries in a full and ample manner and... 3II. John Mercer’s Answers, c.20–26 April 1759 (Washington Papers) Answers to the foregoing Queries To the first. All such Goods as may be liable to perish or be... 4III. Report of the Commissioners to Settle the Estate, c.October 1759 (Washington Papers) In Obedience to the Order of the General Court made the 28th of April in the Year 1759 we have... 5III-A. Schedule A: Assignment of the Widow’s Dower, c.October 1759 (Washington Papers) All the Lands in King William County 2880 acres N.B. the Marsh adjoing this Land is to furnish... 6III-A-1. Combined County Inventory of Slaves and Personal Property in the Estate, 1757–58 (Washington Papers) The Appraisements of the Estate of Danl Parke Custis According to the Returns made to the County... 7III-A-2. Account of Items in the Estate Used by Martha Custis, 1759 (Washington Papers) An Account of Sundrys taken and usd by Mrs Custis out of the Inventories No. £. s. d. ⟨19.⟩ A... 8III-A-3. Account of Items in the Estate Sold, 1759 (Washington Papers) Sale of the Estate Sundries Appraisd at Sold for £ s. d. £ s. d. 2 pair Andirons . 7.6 .15 3... 9III-A-4. Account of Items Used before the Division of the Estate, 1759 (Washington Papers) An Account of Sundries used before the Estate was Divided No. £ s. d. 19. 478 lb. Lead 3.19. 24.... 10III-A–5. Table of Disposition of Goods in the Estate, 1759 (Washington Papers) A Table Shewing at one view how every Article in the Inventories was accounted for at Settling...
From George Washington to Capel & Osgood Hanbury, 12 June 1759
To Capel & Osgood Hanbury Virginia 12th June 1759 Gentn It will be needless I presume, unless it be for Formsake, to tell you so long after the thing has happend, of my Marriage with Mrs Martha Custis; you doubtless have heard of it before this can reach you, but as I thought proof might be requisite I sent over the Ministers certificate (which I was told was sufficient testimony) to Messr Cary & Compa. and to that I also refer you for your further satisfaction on this point. I must now desire that you will please to address all your Letters which relate to the Affairs of the Deceasd Colo. Custis to me as by Marriage I am entitled to a third part of that Estate, and invested with the care of the other two thirds by a Decree of our Genl Court which I obtaind in order to strengthen the power I before had in Consequence of my Wifes Administration.1 Your several Letters of last Year that are unanswerd bearing date the 6th July, 12th Septr and 26th Decr now lye before me, and I shall take notice of them accordingly;2 but give me leave in the first place to condole with you—& I do it very sincerely, on the Death of yr Relation and Partner, John Hanbury Esqr.—The 28 Hogsheads Tobacco Shipd you pr the King of Prussia has not only fallen short very greatly of the Sales of those Consignd Mr Cary, but even of your own Sales in other Years which I am the more Surprizd at as Tobo was scarce that year and I assurd by the Managers of that belonging to the Estate that it passd thro. their hands in the same good Order as usual, and that it was of the same kind and Quality.3 I hope your next will account for the Tobo taken in the Anna Pink which I think has long remaind in an undeterminate State.4 Dunbars Lawsuit is again brought to Virginia—what the Reports might be that were spread to your prejudice I really know not, for my own part I shoud never harbour a Suspicion of any Gentn who is chargd with the management of a Suit of that Importance—It woud be very dis-engenuous, & dishonourable— give it no worse a name—first to undertake; and then neglect a Cause that so nearly Affects the Interest of a distant friend, and Antient Corrispondant and therefore you stand fully acquitted in my Eye.5 The exceeding Short Crops of Tobo last Year render’s it impractacable for me to Ship you any this Summer6—next, as things wears a favourable aspect at present I shall possibly have it in my power to do it. but give me leave to add here, that Duty to the charge which I am entrusted as well as self Interest will induce me to abide by the Merchants who Shews the greatest Exertion in the Sales of my own and the Estates Tobo which will be made under the same direction, and without altering the kind or manner of treating it unless you can advise a better method of making it sell well. I cannot help expressing some little Surprize at not receiving your Acct Currt with the Estate when I find it requird in almost every Letter that has been wrote you since Colo. Custis’s Death and as often promisd by you—I must once more require in the strongest terms that it may be sent half yearly from the time of that Gentlemans Death, that by comparing these with his Books I may be able to make out clear and Satisfactory Accts to Our Genl Court and that they also be punctualy sent Spring and Fall for the time to come.7 I am Gentn Yr Most Obedt Hble Servt Go: Washington LB, in GW’s hand, DLC:GW. John Hanbury & Co., along with Robert Cary & Co., handled nearly all of the business for the Custises in England for many years. The head of the firm, John Hanbury (1700–1758), a Quaker, was a prominent and influential London merchant whom Daniel Parke Custis engaged to defend his interest after the Dunbar case was revived in London in 1750. (For the Dunbar case, see doc. I, n.5, in Settlement of the Daniel Parke Custis Estate, 20 April 1759–5 Nov. 1761.) After John Hanbury’s death his partners continued the firm under the name of Capel & Osgood Hanbury. Robert Cary & Co. wrote Martha Custis on 17 July 1758: “Mr John Hanbury departed this Life the 23d Ulto & while he lived we coud not ask for the Enlargement of your Consignments [of tobacco], but now as things are Differently ⟨cir⟩cumstanced we may safely do it & as such we hope ⟨in⟩ the future to receive all your Crops, for it is Evidend the less hands Tobacco goes in the greater Probability there is of keeping up a Living Price & therefore must naturally be productive of our Friends Interest” (ViHi: Custis Papers). 1. See GW to Robert Cary & Co., 1 May 1759. 2. The three letters from the Hanburys in 1758 are in the Custis Papers, ViHi. Martha Custis wrote John Hanbury & Co. three times in 1758, on 30 April, 1 June, and 1 September. A copy of her letter of 1 June is in the Custis Papers. 3. Daniel Parke Custis shipped the twenty-eight hogsheads to John Hanbury & Co. in the King of Prussia before his death (Martha Custis to Hanbury, 1 June 1758). Hanbury sold twenty of these hogsheads in December 1757 for £288.19.9 and the other eight for £138.10.1 in 1758 (Hanbury’s account with Daniel Parke Custis, 1 Sept. 1759, in ViHi: Custis Papers). 4. Martha Custis sent seventeen hogsheads of tobacco in the pink, Anna, in the spring of 1758 (ibid.). The Anna was captured by the French at Bayonne and seven days later retaken by three privateers out of Bristol. The claims of the privateers were not settled until after the end of the year. The seventeen hogsheads were sold in April 1759, and the Custis estate netted only £64.3.9. See the three letters GW had “before me” (n.2); the summary of the Custis estate’s current account, 24 June 1757 to 1 Sept. 1759, in note 2 of Capel & Osgood Hanbury to GW, 1 Oct. 1759; and GW to Capel & Osgood Hanbury, 10 Aug. 1760, n.2. 5. For the Dunbar case, see doc. I, n.5, in Settlement of the Daniel Parke Custis Estate, 20 April 1759–5 Nov. 1761. The partners of John Hanbury, who handled the case for Daniel Parke Custis and later for Martha Custis as it was being reviewed in London, wrote Martha Custis on 12 Sept. 1758: “Wee are Inform’d that Thee has been told by Some Person in the Country, that Something (what Wee Can’t Learn) might have been done by us, that was not done. Wee Shall be glad to know if ⟨th⟩ee had any Such Information, & what it was, that thereby Wee may have an Opportunity to Convince Thee, That that Person knew Nothing of the Matter, or else did it with a Veiw to prejudice us in thy Esteem. Wee Can truly Say no Endeavours was Wanting in that affair, & very Thoughtfully & Anxiously attended it, and will Continue to Render the Family in this or any other affair all the Service in Our Power” (ViHi: Custis Papers). 6. See GW to Robert Cary & Co., 2 July 1759. 7. Capel & Osgood Hanbury enclosed its account with Daniel Parke Custis and his estate to 1 Sept. 1759 in the letter to GW of 1 Oct. 1759. It showed a balance due from the Custis estate of £11.13.6.
october 2021
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
