Virginia Marriage Bonds

Question

Hi folks.  Looking for the best place to go for information on the ins and outs, dos and don'ts of Virginia Marriage Bonds.  I have a family (in theory), Monroe County, Virginia, 1803, and two bonds. We think these are sisters marrying brothers.

However, there's a glitch (why is nothing ever simple?)

The supposed FATHER of both of these ladies is a certain Charles BROOKING of Monroe.  On 24 November 1803 he signs the bond of marriage for Susanna Brooking, his daughter.  A month later sister Nancy Brooking is also named in bond, but her bonding agent isn't her father - it's a certain Charles FRIEND.  Both Charles Brooking and Charles Friend lived in Monroe (a rural, growing community in the mountains), but not close neighbors.  

I could ask, "Why would FRIEND sign for Nancy and not her presumed father?"  But at this point, who knows if Charles Brooking even is her father?  So my question is, in your experience, why would Charles Friend sign for Nancy Brooking?

Possiblities occure to me, but I don't know if any of these are rational or probable.

*Charles Brooking suddenly died.
*Charles Brooking was out of town, maybe on vacation at the Jersey Shore?
*Nancy was previously married to a Brooking, and her maiden name was actually Friend and we have the wrong lady.
*Daddy didn't approve of the marriage, but it was Okay for a neighbor to post bond??
*Nancy Brooking was adopted by Charles Friend and never took his name?
*Charles Friend was some kind of lawyer or bondsman?
*The clerk who wrote the bond was drunk?
*The clerk who wrote the bond was just confused (unlikely, as he had just done a bond for Charles Brooking and daughter Susanna the month before.)
*WHAT AM I MISSING!!??

Nancy Brooking [[Brooking-301|Nancy Brooking]]
[[Brooking-302|Susanna Brooking]]
[[Brooking-272|Rhoda Brooking]]

Comments

Are you sure that Charles Friend was signing for Nancy. He may have been acting as "surety" for the groom. I suspect that Charles signed for Susanna because she was underage, but Nancy was of age and did not need consent.  The law did not even require the woman to be present. Usually the man went to the court with the required papers and documents, but he needed someone along to post "surety."

---

Dad may not have been able to afford two bonds.  I find far more bonds signed by someone connected to the groom than the bride.  The groom was the one taking out the bond.

---

Thanks Kathie.  This is hopeful, as well as Daniel Bly's answer.

---

Thank you Daniel.  I know very little about these bonds and both your and Kathie's responses are encouraging.

---

So, Kathie, sounds like you're saying that there was an actual monetary transaction with these bonds, and not just a promise to pay should things go sour?  Is this correct?

---

No, I don’t think money was required, but someone on the bond needed to be credit-worthy.

---

Poor Charles. Seven daughters. No wonder he was bankrupt.

---

Kathie, I’ve learned to trust your judgement. I would like your opinion on something.

In 1800, three years prior to the two marriages I referenced here, Poor Charles sued, sued on behalf of his underaged daughters, or was sued by his children several times, usually upwards of $1000. Sometimes they traded suits. Often a husband was involved. That’s not chump change in 1800.

I’m assuming these were real grievances. Right?  Not some technical matter?  Like a Will, maybe?  Land?  Any ideas?  Have you seen this frequently?  All of these folks in Monroe were due-happy, apparently. The list goes on for 758 pages!  What the heck were all of these people suing each other for?  Bad debts, maybe. Promises broken?

---

People did seem to spend an inordinate amount of time in court back then.  My guess would be that it had something to do with inheritances.  Maybe the wife's father left property to her children (his grandchildren) and the distribution was contentious?  Property could be left to fairly young children, male or female.  Married women didn't own anything and couldn't leave anything to anyone, the minute a woman married everything she owned became the property of her husband  (unless there was a prenup protecting property for children of a previous marriage).   

Underage and married women could not take anyone to court, they had to have a responsible male do it for them; he is called the "Next Friend"  in court records.  I don't think Charles was suing his daughters, I think he was acting on their behalf since they couldn't go to court on their own. For example,  I think the 1800 case was between John Curry and Nancy Brookings, who was represented by her father and "Next Friend" Charles.  

Need to see the actual court records, not the docket entries to know exactly who was doing what to whom and why.

---

Thanks Kathie.  I'm starting to understand.  I hadn't thought to look at the etymology of "by," "next," and "friend" until your reply, and those searches also helped bring this into focus.  "By" in this case probably means "nearby" as well as "brought on by."
"Next" is some combination of "nearest in rank or position" and "closest."  
"Friend" is likely used in the more ancient sense:  "loved one, or beloved, or close to the heart."  
And each of these within the legal context.   Or, as you suggest, Nancy was supported by her nearest available loved-one, in this case her father.  I have also seen in a few of these the "next friend" appears to be a neighbor, perhaps to an orphan who has no one else to sue on her behalf.

---

"Next Friend" is an actual legal term which is still in use in Virginia.  It means an adult who is authorized to act on behalf of a minor. The next friend's name appears on a complaint or other legal document -- sometimes followed by the designation "a/n/f" or "as next friend" -- but the next friend is not a party to the lawsuit. Rather, the next friend merely acts on behalf of another party in bringing a lawsuit or during a legal proceeding.  In modern terminology that person might be called a "guardian ad litem." 

Answer 1

Just another Say What? moment in genealogy.  Aren't they fun? You can now look forward to weeks, months, or years of, most often futile, searches for records.  Enjoy!