Matewan WV
Follow-Up: Flesh out details and show proof of ownership?
Matewan was formed by selling off the family farm of F.A.J. "Anderson" Ferrell
[1]
. This land was the focus of the suit and West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case "Ferrell v. Ferrell, 53 W. Va. 515 (1903)"[2] and children[2]. This case
[2]
, when son Floyd[1] sued[2] his father Anderson[1] for more of his estate after Anderson[1] remarried Mary Chambers and updated his will[2] to provide for her[2] and her children[2]. The consequences of that litigation are discussed in this book, Matewan Before the Massacre (📖 Buy at Amazon), which I recommend you check out.
Matewan, and the massacre (and the "Battle of Matewan", were eventually the setting for the famous West Virginia "mine wars", and are featured in the full-length motion picture 🎬 Matewan (staring Chris Cooper), and the episode of the 📺 "American Experience: Mine Wars Season 28, Episode 6".
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Page 61-62, Matewan Before the Massacre, by Rebecca J. Bailey, 2008 (📖 Buy at Amazon)
As an example of what this kind of economic stress can do, consider the tale that haunts Matewan of a family torn asunder by a son’s greed. Through marriage to Phoebe, the sister of Devil Anse Hatfield, Anderson Ferrell acquired ownership of the farm that became Matewan. After Phoebe’s death, Ferrell married Mary Chambers and started a second family. Seeking to provide financial stability for all of his children by capitalizing on the railroad’s proximity, Ferrell divided his land. To his children by Phoebe Hatfield, Ferrell deeded small farms, and he sold the remaining land in lots, thus founding the town of Matewan. Among the entrepreneurs who purchased property from Ferrell was his nephew boy marriage E. B. Chambers. Years after the Hatfield-Ferrell farm had grown into a thriving village, one of Anderson Ferrell’s sons from this first marriage challenged his father’s dispensation of the land. (Note 89).
Aided by Henry Clay Ragland, the attorney who had originally served his illiterate father, Floyd Ferrell brought suit to gain a larger portion of the family property, which now encompassed the town of Matewan. When the local circuit court judge granted the son’s claim, Anderson Ferrell appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The court chastised the younger Ferrell by asking, “What right had this son to the property?” When it would lead to the bankruptcy of the father. The court also questioned Floyd Ferrell’s motives in pursuing the suit, which at one point he had withdrawn in order to “let the second wife and little children of his aged father have something for home and bread.” The court extended its reprimand to include lawyer Ragland for encouraging Floyd Ferrell to take action against his father. The acrimony generated by Ferrell v. Ferrell survived for decades and may have contributed to a rivalry between the Hatfields and the Chambers, who struggled against each other for decades for control of Matewan. (Note 90) - ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Ferrell v. Ferrell, 53 W. Va. 515 (1903), West Virginia Supreme Court of Appleals
Floyd Ferrell, son, versus F. A. J. "Anderson" Ferrell, father, over his estate (during his lifetime).
Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County, Submitted February 13, 1903.
Disposition - Reversed.
Where there are only two defendants to a bill in equity, one adult, the other infant, and after summons issued, though not served, the bill is filed in term, with the consent of the adult, and the court appoints a guardian ad litem for the infant, and his answer is filed, there is thus a cause for the action of the court and it has jurisdiction to decree upon the matter of the hill, and its decree is neither void nor erroneous for the mere cause of want of service of the summons, or that the bill was not filed at rules, (p. 519).
We reverse the decree pronounced upon the bill of review on the 1st day of November, 1901, and dismiss the bill of review^.