In a message dated 10/18/00 10:19:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MRCACG@aol.com writes: > This document is significant for several reasons. First and most important > it is the only extent document that names John2's wife. Second it gives > the place of origin for John Catlett in England. And third it implies John2 > was the oldest son of John1. When a will contains the language "and to > the heirs of their body lawfully begotten" or similar language, it entails the > land through that particular will. The land was entailed in the will of JohnA. > This meant the land had to go to the heir-at-law. I'm not certain that is correct. It meant that it had to go to one of JohnA's sons, that's true. Fortunately, he only had son John1, so that part is easy. <G> But I don't believe it had to go to his oldest son. It could have gone to any one of his sons. The term "heirs of their body lawfully begotten" was a way of keeping lands out of the hands of step-children. Do you know anything about the 1661 deed John1 and his Elizabeth supposedly signed in Essex Co. VA. I haven't seen this, just heard of it. But supposedly one of the witnesses was Thomas CATLETT. Some have said he was John's son by a first marriage, but he would have been under 21 in 1661. Was he the Thomas who came with Nicholas and John1? And have you or anyone looked into the Borden, Kent, England family of CATLETTs? The 1648 Chancery suit involving the HARLAKENDEN brothers and JohnA Catlett's brother George "the elder" as well as others. This suit specifically mentions that lands at Borden, Kent were owned by the HARLAKENDENs. Walter HARLAKENDEN conveyed it to JohnA CATLETT "for security of £69, all of his Estate, Title interest of the manor of Uston [with lands & tenements in several parishes, such as Tunstall, Borden, Milton alias Middleton, and Sittingbourne], on condition nevertheless that if Katherine Trollop, widdowe her ex'ors or assigns or the s'd Walter Herlakenden his ex'ors & assigns, pay unto John Catlett the elder his heires £69, in installments at certain tymes the said Indenture sh'd be voyd..." The Chancery suit went on to say that the complainants "shewed that noe part of the said money was paid & the property descended unto the complainants George Catlett the elder, Tho. Catlett deceased, George Catlett the younger & to John Catlett the younger, father of the Complt. John Catlett [John1]." Source: Virginia Land Records, from the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, the William and Mary College Quarterly, and Tyler's Quarterly (Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. 1982) p. 560 Could Nicholas and Thomas have been cousins of John1 CATLETT? Vickie Elam White