Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 10 · column 10 of 11 · from the scan, no model involved
me nemo, uevioeco, AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST OF WILLIAM SHELTON GRIMSELY, deceased, LILA GRIMSLEY, deceased, ELLA GRIMSLEY BURGESS, deceased, and EDGAR GRIMSLEY, deceased, MARY BROWNING GRIMSLEY, deceased, NOAH BOOTEN PUTNAM, deceased, LORELLE MASON HACKLEY, deceased, BEDFORD GRIMSLEY PUTNAM, deceased, SHARON YOMMER, deceased, HOWARD NORMAN GRIMSLEY. deceased, BARNETT BRUCE GRIMSLEY, deceased, JOSEPH SHELTON GRIMSLEY, deceased, VIRGIE GRIMSLEY also known as VIRGIE GRIMSLEY WINCE, deceased. JAMES WINCE, deceased, LUCY GRIMSLEY MANUEL, deceased, PHILIP HENRY GRIMSLEY, deceased, and any other persons having any interest In the property of which WILLIAM SHELTON GRIMSLEY died seized and possessed on or about 1922, containing 5 acres, more or less, in STONEWALL DISTRICT, RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY, VIRGINIA, shown on Rappahannock County Tax Map 41 as Parcal 22, their heirs, devisees, and successors in interest, who are made parties hereto and designated as PARTIES UNKNOWN.
RESPONDENTS
ORDER OF
PUBLICATION The object of this suit is to effect a partition by sale or otherwise of that certain tract of land of which William Shelton Grimsley died,, seized and possessed located in Stonewall Magisterial District, Rappahannock County, Virginia, which property is supposed to contain five (5) acres, more or less, having been acquired by the said William Shelton Grimsley by deed dated November 13, 1874 from James Woodard, recorded in deed Book N at page 356 of the Rappahannock County land records. A pleading having been filed stating that there may be persons having an interest in the subject property whose names are unknown to your Complainants, which pleading has made said persons parties defendant by the general description PARTIES UNKNOWN, and an affidavit having been filed stating that there are parties to be served who are non-resident individuals, and it further appearing that there may be persons having an interest in the subject property who are under a legal disability,
87.5%