And to which I might add, albeit respectfully, that the phrase "and for the great love that I have and beare unto" is only properly used by a gentleman of the time to refer to a blood relative or a spouse. In a document such as a deed, it was a common reference to a child upon who a gift was being settled. And further, the designation of Dorothy's heirs (her children) as surviving owners, suggests more that a simple sale between friends or neighbors, it suggests that the property was part of a legacy. Brian Walls Columbia, Maryland -----Original Message----- From: Robert Ule <RobertUle@aol.com> To: DODSON-L@rootsweb.com <DODSON-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, May 09, 1998 12:37 AM Subject: Re: 1700 DEED FROM WILLIAM SMOOT TO DOROTHY DURHAM >You know Steve, the thing that has always confused me about this deed is that >it was made between William Smoot and Dorothy Durham. Their spouses were >mentioned in passing, Dorothy is described as Thomas' wife, Jane Smoot gives >up her dower rights, but the transaction is obviously between Bill and Dot. >And then if Dorothy dies, the property goes to the children, in order of >birth, no mention of Thomas getting or sharing it. > >>From what little I know of property rights at the time, this has always struck >me as peculiar, as it is the reason we've gone to such tortuous lengths to >figure out how William Smoot and Dorothy are related. (And if any of you >don't know, Ann Fox is Dorothy's niece, the daughter of her sister). > >I have nothing new to add here, but it is interesting that the property given >to Dorothy is contiguous to property she and Thomas Durham already own. I >don't recognize any of the other names. > >I guess we just keep picking at the knot! > >Michelle >Robertule@aol.com >Ukiah, CA > >