Floyd Ferrell 1879

Revision as of 12:47, 16 April 2023 by Bferrell (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Male-ICON.jpg
Anderson Ferrell
Father
Male-ICON.jpg
Floyd Ferrell
Woman-ICON.jpg
Phoebe Hatfield
Mother


Spouse


Floyd Ferrell
Male-ICON.jpg



Name Floyd    Ferrell
Gender Male
Family Search: LZ2J-XYD
Find-a-Grave:
Validated ?
Birth and Death Information
Born 1879
United States of America
Deceased 13 Apr 1972


Family Relationships
Father Anderson Ferrell
Mother Phoebe Hatfield
Spouse
Marriage Date
Children
Siblings John Ferrell 5
Jane Ferrell
Martha Ferrell
Anna Ferrell
Aly Ferrell
Andrew Ferrell
Levicy Ferrell
Robert E Lee Ferrell
Leander Ferrell
Taylor Ferrell
William Tiffany Ferrell
Service and Honorary (DAR/SAR)
Revolutionary
War of 1812
Civil War
Spanish American
Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War
Sources and References
BC:     DC:     MC:     Obit:     Will: 
Birth Certificate
Death Certificate
Marriage Certificate
Obituary
Will/Estate
1950 Census
1940 Census
1930 Census
1920 Census
1910 Census
1900 Census
1890 Census
1880 Census
1870 Census
1860 Census
1850 Census
1840 Census
Children below: \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/



Discussed in various books, he sued[1] his father "F.A.J." Anderson Ferrell[1] after Anderson remarried and adjusted this Will[1] to provide for the new wife Mary Chambers[1] and children[1]. This case[1] went to WV Supreme Court of Appeals in case Ferrell v. Ferrell (1903), and is mentioned in the popular book Matewan Before the Massacre.

Much more to fill in later.


Family

Education

Occupation

Other

Timeline

Previous Addresses


Pictures

Documents and Sources


File:Xxxx.png
xxxx
[xxxx Link to Original]
File:Xxxx.png
xxxx
[xxxx Link to Original]


xxx

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 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^.