Delancey vs Beale

Well. I am surprised.

No sooner had I posted about The Two Thomas Beales and Thomas Beale Junior than I stumbled upon rather more about the Beale family’s affairs than I honestly thought possible, let alone likely.

The key source of information was in a book called “New Orleans Architecture: Jefferson City”, part of a series of books about New Orleans Architecture by Friends of the Cabildo. Pages 41-45 detail the trials (literally!) and tribulations of the Beale family from 1812 through to 1846 or so. (There’s more on page 25).

The highlights of the account are:
* Thomas Beale Senior had drank and gambled away all his money, particularly in 1810;
* He was declared bankrupt in 1812 with $26,000 in debts against ~$13,000 in credits, and indeed briefly went to jail;
* After the part his Rifles played in the Battle of New Orleans, he was something of a “hometown hero”;
* In 1817 he was given a juicy sinecure as Register of Wills (so if you see “Thos Beale Register of Wills” in the Orleans Gazette and Commmercial Advertiser, that’s him);
* Thomas Beale Junior “was as upright and economical as his father was rash”, and ran the family hotel well;
* 29th April 1818: Thomas Beale Senior bought a plantation of land from the late John Poultney, before the notary public Philip Pedesclaux;
* 27th April 1819: Thomas Beale Senior sold the plantation to Thomas Beale Junior, before the notary public Michel Armas;
* September 1820: Thomas Beale Senior died;
* October 1823: Thomas Beale Junior died;
* In 1824, Thomas Beale Senior’s widow Céleste bought the family plantation from Thomas Beale Junior’s estate (I hope you’re following this, there’s a test later), and began a series of lawsuits against Thomas Beale Junior’s natural mother Chloë Delancey alleging that the 1819 transaction between father and son was an illegal “simulated sale”;
* In 1830, the case Delancey vs Beale made it all the way to the Supreme Court in Louisiana;
* In 1846, the Beale Senior’s widow moved to Baton Rouge.

Of course, the duration and intensity of this legal process inevitably made a loser out of everyone involved, even the supposed winner in court (Céleste Beale): and over the next decade and more, the machinations of Samuel Ricker Junior (who married Céleste’s daughter Eliza) seem to have taken a bad situation and made it far, far worse… but that’s another story entirely.

Unfortunately, I’ve only been able to read “New Orleans Architecture: Jefferson City” via Googled fragments, and so despite the fact that it contains many references and footnotes supporting its statements, I have not been able to find those sources. However, I’ve ordered myself a copy and will post an update to Cipher Mysteries when it arrives (in the next week or so, all being well).

My Thoughts on the Beales

As a Register of Wills in New Orleans, Thomas Beale Senior was doubtless privy to all manner of schemes that the (often barely) living tried to put in place to avoid inheritance tax, death duties and the like. Given that the Louisiana Supreme Court (eventually) agreed that the transfer of his property to his son that he tried to put in place in 1819 was (as Beale Senior’s widow claimed) merely a “simulated sale”, it seems likely to me that this was very much part of a scheme along these same general lines.

All of which leads to the somewhat embarrassing conclusion that even though Thomas Beale Senior was a Register of Wills, both he and his son died without leaving a will: while their heirs – quickly surrounded by feckless, inept shysters, happily gouging out their estate – seem subsequently to have spent more time in Louisiana’s Supreme Court than could be considered healthy for anyone not directly making a living out of that place.

While I will be very interested to read up the historical source material on the Beales (which seems, their surname notwithstanding, as much of a soap opera as Eastenders), right now I don’t see anything happening circa 1816-1818 that leads me to even suspect that Thomas Beale Junior was a ‘gentleman adventurer’, as per the only-possibly-eponymous Beale Papers. Rather, Beale Junior seems to have been more interested in furnishing and running his family’s hotel / bar and running their only-recently-acquired plantation.

All the same, we still know next to nothing about what Thomas Beale Junior was doing before 27th April 1819 (the date when his father transferred the plantation over to him in the sham transaction), so – if you’ll forgive the almost unavoidable phrasing – the jury is still out.

Appendix: Delancey vs Beale

The case is to be found in “Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, Volume 1”, pp.524-526. I have included it herebelow, having corrected various scanning and transcription errors, as well as what seems to be one gender error:

In 1819, Thomas Beale, sen. conveyed all his property, by notarial acts, to his natural son Thomas Beale, jr., for one hundred and twenty-four thousand dollars, for which he took his notes, with reservation of mortgage. Shortly after, Beale, sen. died intestate, leaving a widow and minor children, but no proceedings in the probate court where had upon his estate. Beale, jr. resided with his father until his death, and afterwards possessed and controlled the property until he died in 1823. The estate was inventoried and sold as that of Beale, jr. Mrs. Beale, the widow of Beale, sen. bought in a large portion of it, and gave her notes with mortgage, according to the condition of the sale. Upon the filing a tableau of Eastern District, distribution by the curator of Beale, jr. she appeared in her own behalf, as partner in community, and as tutrix of her children, and claimed to be placed on the tableau as a privileged creditor under the sales or 1819, of the father to the son. This was opposed by the natural mother (the plaintiff in this cause) as benificiary heir, and also by the creditors of Beale, jr., upon the ground that the sales of 1819 were simulated and void, as made by the father to his natural son, for the purpose of protecting his property from the reach of creditors. These sales were accordingly declared null, and the property sold by these acts of 1819, was ordered to be restored to the widow and heirs of Beale, sen., to be administered according to law.

The present action was instituted upon the notes given by Mrs. Beale, for property purchased at the sale of Beale, jr’s. estate. A want of consideration was pleaded, and after judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

  McCaleb, for appellant.
  Seghers, for appellee.

Martin, J. delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff, beneficiary heir of Thomas Beale, jr., brought suit on sundry notes of the defendant, given for property purchased at the sale of the estate.

The answer sets forth that the consideration of the notes has failed, the property purchased having been declared to have been acquired under a simulated sale, which has been judicially set aside. There was a prayer for the cancelling of the notes.

There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

The record shows that the facts stated in the answer are true: but the appellee has urged that the estate of his [[her?]] son has large claims on those of his father, the defendant’s husband, for improvements on the premises, large advances and long services.

Admitting this to be true, these claims are to be preferred against the defendant and the heirs of her husband; the district court could not have acted on them in the present suit.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.