Here is how the PAGE family and the MANN family became related: Descendants of Matthew Page 1 Matthew PAGE b: 1659 in Williamsburg, James City Co., VA d: Jan 9, 1703 in "Rosewell", Gloucester Co., VA . +Mary MANN b: 1672 in "Timberneck", Gloucester Co., VA m: Abt 1689 d: Mar 27, 1707 in "Rosewell", Gloucester Co., VA ....... 2 Elizabeth PAGE b: 1690 in "Timberneck", Gloucester Co., VA d: 1693 in "Timberneck", Gloucester Co., VA ....... 2 Mann PAGE b: 1691 in "Timberneck", Gloucester Co., VA d: Jan 24, 1730 in "Rosewell", Glouchester Co., VA ........... +Judith WORMELEY b: 1695 m: 1712 in VA d: Dec 12, 1716 in "Rosewell", Glouchester Co., VA ....... *2nd Wife of Mann Page: ........... +Judith CARTER b: Abt 1700 in “Corotoman,” Lancaster Co., VA m: Jul 26, 1718 in Lancaster Co., VA ....... 2 Mary PAGE b: 1697 in "Timberneck", Gloucester Co., VA d: 1703 in "Timberneck", Gloucester Co., VA ....... 2 Matthew PAGE b: Sep 1702 in "Rosewell", Glouchester Co., VA d: Dec 31, 1702 in "Rosewell", Glouchester Co., VA PATRICK GUDAITIS wrote: > By now, you have had time to view the Will I transcribed. Now I > would like to concentrate on some specifics about it. > Notice there is no daughter mentioned in the will. I don't believe > he had a daughter who lived to that date, 1768. > The son whose name would have appeared in the obliterated portion > at the bottom of page 13 is likely Samuel Mann. I have found a couple of > references to him and Jessie Mann in the Order Books. > I wish to make a possible correction to my transcription. I think I > may have been wrong on the lines pertaining to Mary when she was made > executrix. That line may have read that she relinquished her portion of > the will in favor of her "thirds." This may have given her a far greater > advantage in under the law. > You must notice that the portion of the estate allowed Mary would, > at her death or widowhood, be divided up among the heirs. That is > important! And, would require another inventory made at her death. Thus > the 1785 inventory (recorded 1786). > That poses a question. If it was Lewis' wife that held an interest > in the estate of Francis Mann, why in heavens name did Lewis wait until > 1789 to demand it? I differ. I believe that Lewis' interest in the > estate of Francis Mann rested in Mary Mann. Those "certain promices" > made by Page Mann to Lewis were in the event of the death of Mary. That > occured in 1785. Promices broken by Page made Lewis take the steps he > did in ensuring his rights as a son of Mary. I suppose there was the > usual correspondence between two parties of the day which took several > months to arrive. Letters unanswered may have led Lewis to take the > steps he did. > Please post your thoughts. > Godspeed.....Patrick -- Carol Ann "Cat" Tindell Jacksonville Beach, FL C.A.T.'s Southern Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~catinjax/ Reasearching: AKINS, BERRY, BOWERS, BROOKS, DANIEL, JOHNSON, ROBERTS & WOOD{S}