>Colleagues: > > Of interest to us is the provenance (origin, derivation, source) of >the James Taylor survey of 1696 for Major John Waller that began "below davis >davenports landing" and located both Davis' plantation and landing as being >next up Mattaponi River from the John Talbot-Elias Downes patent of 1667. >Waller had bought 934 acres of the patent from Downes a month earlier, then >employed Taylor to lay off of his tract from patent acreage. > > While there is no mention of Davis Davenport's presence, the Taylor >survey was among the documents cited extensively by Andrew Lewis Riffe in his >article, "The Waller's of Endfield, King William County, Virginia," which >appeared in The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, in two parts: >Vol. 59 (1953), 337-352; and Vol. 61 (1955), 458-493. > > In essence, Riffe identified and documented the origin of John Waller >(who was born in England c1770) and brought his family forward three >generations. The article is magnificently researched, and includes not one >but three surveys of the Pamunkey Neck property--John Waller, Sr.'s survey of >1696, John Waller, Jr.'s survey of 1756, and yet another survey apparently >for Edmund Waller following John Waller, Jr.'s survey. > > All of these Waller documents were saved as evidences in a legal file >concerning a long and bitter lawsuit filed by Edmund Waller against his >brothers John Waller, Jr., and Benjamin Waller concerning the division of >"Endfield," as the King William plantation was named, following John Waller, >Sr.'s death in 1754. Edmund Waller was the least successful of Colonel >John's children, apparently was in constant financial difficulties and >apparently had a combative litigious bent. (A suit and counter suit >involving Edmund Waller of Spotsylvania and Richard Davenport of Albemarle >over a L9 debt, had its beginning in 1757, was in and out of Spotsylvania >Court for thirty years before a jury in 1787, at the request of Benjamin >Waller, executor of Edmund Waller, Decd., returned a verdict of "False >Clamor" against Davenport and denied him all redress.) > > Without going into extensive detail (those interested will find the >articles cited comprehensive), suffice to say that the Wallers took their >family argument to the highest Virginia courts, where Benjamin, a >Williamsburg attorney, ultimately prevailed. (The issue was largely over how >much and what part of the Enfield Plantation had been devised to John, Jr., >to Benjamin, and to Edmund.) Edmund had prepared his case well, had acquired >all of the pertinent surveys, and his descendants treasured the file through >ten generations, making it available to Riffe for his article, and >subsequently donating it to the Library of Virginia. > > The first citation of the James Taylor survey relative to Davis >Davenport's identification appears to be Maribeth Lang Vineyard and Eugene M. >Wiseman, "William Wiseman and the Davenports, Pioneers of Old Burke County, >North Carolina" (Franklin, NC: Genealogy Publishing Service, 1997), 255, >called to my attention by Carol White, who edited "The Pamunkey Davenports of >Colonial Virginia." > > There is a discrepancy between the Riffe's article of 1953-1955 and >the description given in Vineyard and Wiseman. The latter portrayal refers >to a Downes to Waller deed dated 28May1696 wherein it is alleged that the >document included a description of the land as adjoining John Martin, >Quarles, and Isbell. Riffe specifically states that the 28May1696 deed had >been lost. When I first inspected the 1696 survey, I had noted that of those >cited as bounders by Viineyard and Wiseman, only Isbell appeared as adjoining >landowner. Neither Martin nor Quarles were mentioned. Subsequent research >established that John Martin did not move across the Mattaponi from King & >Queen County to King William County until 1710 or later, and Quarles did not >move across until still later. Apparently a later deed had been mistaken for >the 1696 conveyance. > > The erroneous John Martin attribution, of course, was crucial in >providing a rationale for Davis Davenport having named his eldest son Martin. > The reality, easily demonstrable by the few extant King William documents >remaining and Virginia Patent records, was that John Martin did not come into >close proximity with the land where Davis Davenport was in 1696 until well >after Martin Davenport was grown man and had apparently moved thirteen miles >up Pamunkey Neck. If Martin Davenport had a Martin mother, his birth likely >occurred elsewhere than in Pamunkey Neck, possibly in Northside New Kent, >later (1691) King & Queen County, where there were a number of Martins in the >records early, including several who were transportees. > > Further study of the Waller Lawsuit documents, now in the Library of >Virginia archives, is needed, for the reduction of the two later surveys for >magazine reproduction in 1953 and 1955 lost the legibility of some of the >detail, particularly those identifications, if any, of who later owned the >land where Davis Davenport had been located in 1696. > > Comments? > > John Scott >Davenport >