COLONIAL Cole Digges House Historic Structures Report

Analysis of Insurance Policies

There are four insurance policies with a diagrammatic sketch in each of Lot 42 and its buildings. These policies cover the peirod from 1838 to 1860 [41] and deal with five units, Nos. A-E. The earliest policy is removed some sixty years from 1781 and Yorktown during the Siege; nevertheless, the policy may be suggestive of the situation of the land and buildings at that time.

The initial contract, dated in 1838, indicates that the dependency units, with the possible exception of the "stable," were at that time in poor condition, being described as "of but little value." In the case of the main unit, three of the policies confirm the "L" shape that exists today [42] and also shows on the Berthier billeting plan of Yorktown in 1781. [43] The units detailed in 1838 were:

A. Dwelling and Store

B. Small Wood Building

C. Small Wood Building

D. Small Wood Building

E. Stable

None of the policies shows structures that would indicate the two shops on the lot known to have been there earlier and shown (at least as structures) on the Berthier plan of 1781.

A. Dwelling and Store

All the policies detail the main building of the cluster as a "Dwelling and Store of Brick" covered with wood. All place it in the extreme south corner of the lot immediately adjacent to the streets, as it in truth is. Three policies denote it as having one and one-half stories. That of 1838 states one story though this terminology does not necessarily mean that any change occurred between this date and 1846. Being a dormered structure on its second floor, this would admit (by contemporary practice) of the building's designation as either a one, a one and a half or even a two story structure. The 1838 policy gives measurements of the two parts of the "L" as 47 by 32 feet and 17 by 22 feet. The only other policy to give a measurement is that of 1853. This was 39 by 57 feet though the sketch confirmed the "L" shape. The use of the building as both dwelling and store would indicate a double function for the house, a condition that it seems to have obtained even in its late colonial days.

B. Kitchen

Structure "B" was designated as a "Small wood building" in 1838 and 1846. It was denominated "wood kitchen" in 1853 and was consistently located some thirty feet behind the "Cross Street" leg of the "L" of the main dwelling and store.

C. Kitchen

This was labeled "Small wood Kitchen" and "Wood Kitchen" respectively in 1846 and 1853 and shown as a rectangle parallel with Main Street north of the principal unit in the group. This may have been new construction after 1838 as this policy delineated an "L" shaped structure here with its long side (labeled C) being perpendicular to Main and its short side (labeled D) pointing toward the cross street (Read). Units C and D then were joined and noted as "Small wood buildings."

D. Wood Building

Little can be said beyond the comments in "C. Kitchen" above.

E. Stable

This structure was noted as a "Stable" in 1838 and as a "wood stable" in 1846. A rectangular structure near the center of the lot, evidently a section if it (a "wood" shed) was added to its Main Street end between 1838 and 1846. In 1853 the whole unit was described as "Wood Lumber and Carriage house." The new "L" shape of the structure, if taken literally, would indicate a new building, but the imprecise delineation may not be controlling in this instance.

The policy of 1838 was drawn to Thomas Newman for "my building on my own land now occupied by myself." It was described in these bounds: "situate between the lot of Peyton Southall's heirs on the North-west, the church lot and Robert Anderson on the North East, [44] a cross street on the South East and the main street on the South west." He insured only the "Dwelling and Store," which he figured was worth $1,400. It was Newman, still in residence, who insured again in 1846 with an evaluation now of $1,320 for the "Dwelling and Store." Again the dependencies were not insured.

The situation had changed by 1853 [45] and Thomas Newman was dead. The lot and its structures were now owned by his heirs, though his wife (now a widow), Susannah Newman, had an interest for life. Evidently she lived in Williamsburg since William E. Wynne occupied the premises (likely rented). The evaluation now was placed at $2,400. This increase may reflect some improvement in the "Dwelling and Store," or possibly and, most plausibly, a general rise in values. It is, however, somewhat substantial. The policy noted that: "The building A is contiguous within thirty feet to three wood buildings." These were the dependencies which were given no value, or insurance.

The situation in 1860, when the insurance was reduced to $1,500 was essentially the same since "Susannah Newman [remained] tenant for life" and still lived in Williamsburg and William E. Wynne continued to occupy the premises. Notations on the policy would indicate its continuance in 1866 and again in 1870, the value in each instance being $1,506. The insurance premium, an item of note, was $18.48 (1.75 percent) in 1866 and $21.12 (2 percent) in 1870.

In the Yorktown County Land Books at the turn of the last century, the values assigned to the Pate House and lot compared favorably with similar structures though the general trend was downward, pointing, it seems, to deteriorating conditions. Amounts below include both house and lot: [46]