Non est inventus, as you might guess, is a little more complicated than simply "not found," although
that was the sheriff's written indication on an arrest warrant or capias writ when he was unable to
secure the prospective defendant. This might mean, however, that the person in question was not
resident in the county of the sheriff's jurisdiction, in which case the plantiff's suit might either be
dismissed or he/she would be non-suited for lack of jurisdiction. If evidence existed that the party in
question was indeed a resident of the county but could not be located, then the court could proceed
against the real and/or personal estate of the defendant, as appears to have been the case in your
examples.
The term covenant-servant was used occasionally in colonial Virginia and seems to have indicated a
situation where a free person agreed to serve another for a specified period of time under certain
parameters (covenants), but these arrangements do not appear to have included some of the strictures or
the post-service benefits normally associated with indentured servitude. See the act concerning the
hiring of servants, 1 Hening 439 (1658); York County records, 1644, in 17 Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 211; and Warren M. Billings, "The Law of Servants and Slaves in Seventeenth-Century
Virginia," 99 VMHB (1991), 45-62.
I hope some of our colleagues have more to add on these points.
Lee
Netti Schreiner-Yantis wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what a "covenant" servant was? Was it the
> same as an indentured servant? Could it have been someone
> who had been free, but, because of a lot of debt, he sold HIMSELF into servitude?
>
> Also, what does "non est Inventus" mean?
>
> ---
>
> Virginia State Library: Henrico County Reel #53 - Henrico County Order Book 1678-1693.
> p. 324 - 1688. THOMAS COCKE pltf vs JOHN BAYLY - 432 lbs tobo. Bayly returned nonent Inventus.
> Ordered an attachment on Bayly's est.
> p. 326 - 1688. JOHN BAILEY having in ct arrested Thomas Cardwell & entered no petition. At
> request of Thomas, a non suit is ordered.
> p. 408 - Feb 1689. JOHN BAYLY being returned non est Inventus by sheriff, action entered
> against
> him by THOS CARDWELL for 800 lbs tobo by bill dated Feb 1689. Attachment on his estate.
> p. 361 - Apr 1691. " Wm Beets petitioning that JOHN BAYLY is indebted to him on ye balance of
> a bill some[?] work [T]o which Ed Chilton in behalf of Alex Mckenny objecting that ye sd Bayly is
> a COVENt.
> SERVANt, also that no action is brought agt ye sd Bayly the court have therefore dismissed ye sd
> petition with costs. Apr 1691.
> [NOTE: The 1679 Tithable Lists of Henrico Co prove he was in Virginia by 1679, so he had been here
> for at least twelve years. Indentures were usually for no more than 7 years, I believe, unless they
> were for a child and in three depositions he stated that he was born circa 1650 / 1651 /1652--so he
> was no child.]
>
--
E. Lee Shepard
Assistant Director for
Manuscripts and Archives
Virginia Historical Society
P.O. Box 7311
Richmond, VA 23221-0311
(804) 342-9670
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
