On 14 March 1712/13, Henry Boughan, John Pickett and Mary his wife, Francis Pierce and Eliza his wife, and William Cox were summoned to answer a plea by James Boughan, which sued for the division of 600 acres held in common. James sued for one third of the property, which was likely property that had been held in common by his father and three uncles: James Boughan (d. 1712), John Boughan, Henry Boughan, and Alexander Boughan. Alexander died at some unknown date, leaving no issue, dividing the rights of the parcel into thirds. Henry was still living in 1713, but John had died in 1697, so his share was further divided into thirds: John Pickett and Mary his wife, Francis Pierce and Eliza his wife, and William Cox, who must have married a daughter who was deceased prior to March 1713. (Unless William Cox purchased someone else’s interest in the parcel, which seems unlikely.) “Henry Boughan John Pickett and Mary his wife ffrancis Pierce and Eliza his wife and Wm Cox were Sumoned to answere James Boughan of a plea wherefore whereas the sd Henry, John & Mary his wife the sd ffrancis and Eliza his wife the said Wm and the sd James do hold together and undivided to them & their heirs Six hundred acres of Land wth the appurtenances in the parish of S farnham in the County of Essex the Defts refuse to make partition thereof among them and the plt according to the form of the statute in this Case made & provided and the same to be Done do unjustly hinder agt the form of the Statute and whereupon the said James saith that the said Deftdts and this plt together & undivided do hold to them and their heirs the Land and appurtenances afd whereof it belongs to the plt to have one third and the sd Defts the other two thirds Separatly So that the sd plt may Improve his third Separatly and the said Defts may make Improvemt of their two thirds Seperatly the sd Defts to make peticon with the plt according to the for[m — page torn] of the Statute in this Case made & provided do deny and the same do unjustly hinder Contrary to the [torn] sd statute &c whereby the plt Saith he is the worse and damage hath one hundred pou[torn] the Defts being returnd Sumoned and failing to appear It is therefore Considered by the Court an attacht be granted to the plt agt the body of the sd Defts So that they be had at ye next Court to answere upon the premises and that the Lands aforesaid by Distrained & put into ye posession of the plt untill they the Defts Shall appear and answere as aforesaid” [Essex County, Virginia, Order Book 4, pages 511–512.] This seems to be related to an earlier case that was dismissed 12 December 1712: “The accon of partition brot by James Boughan agt Henry Boughan John Pickett & Mary his wife ffrancis Pierce & Eliza his wife and Wm Cox is Dismissed the plt failing to prosecute.” [Essex County, Virginia, Order Book 4, page 489.] On 10 April 1713, the suit of 14 March 1713 was dismissed: “The accon brot by James Boughan agt Henry Boughan John Pickett & Mary his wife & ffrancis Pierce and Eliza his wife and Wm Cox is Dismissed ye plt failing to prosecute.” [Essex County, Virginia, Order Book 4, page 521.]