Mike; Not only do the land records in Somerset indicate that the man and his wife dealt with their property separately, but the land records in Dorchester do as well, I have found this even into the 1800's. The property was conveyed by the husband to the person(s) purchasing it and in the end part of the deed, the wife was interviewed in secret to say that her husband was indeed selling the property and that she was in agreement with the transaction, that she was not coerced into making the transaction and that she gave her right and dower interest in the said transaction. When you see the signature line on a legal document with the name of the individual along with "his mark" that person could not read or write or they could understand the "written" words but could not legibly sign their name.. Tom Tom Bradshaw 5106 Rhodesdale Vienna Road Rhodesdale Maryland 21659 410-463-4366 cell 410-943-1212 home cadet125@comcast.net

Becky M. Thank you. You're quite right. The primogeniture "card" hadn't occurred to me, and the will did say "divided equally among heirs". Mostly I think I was just complaining because the testator hadn't kept "us genealogists" in mind as he composed. Joe Lake Hi Joe, The will did serve the purpose to divide equally whatever personal property the testator had. The purpose of a will, then and now, is to have one's assets distributed as one wishes, not as the law directs. If the testator in question had done nothing, his eldest son would have inherited by operation of law anything he had. The term for that is primogeniture. The law in the colonies followed that prescription until we became the U.S. and then the operation of law was everything is divided equally. I've seen lots of Chancery cases where property was owned by someone who died intestate and sometimes as late as 20 to 30 years later one of the heirs sues for division. I crumbled two of my brick walls via Chancery cases, as enough time had elapsed so that not only children were mentioned, but if deceased, their children. And I found one of them as I was paging through a Chancery book and my greatgrandmother's name just leapt off the page. I would not have found this other than by accident. Becky M ________________________________

John ... could you please send me Monty Pythons address :-) :-) If I could just find (whine, whine) some land docs to "analyse". Onward and upward. Joe Lake > <joslake@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>John Lyon and/or listers: >> >>The elongated subject line above probably is it's own answer, but in the context of >>John Lyons' response re Richard Lockwood, what reaction would result from a 1741 >>Ssx >>Co will which omitted the usual "bad health but sound mind" terminology; first >>named >>two executors; then phoenetically spelled an unintelligible spouses name; named 5 >>children; briefly mentioned "tenements and real estate" but omitted any & all ID of >>same, and that was about it. <snip> > > ______________ > > I’m not sure what you’re reading into the will that would make it particularly > different from a lot of other wills that are vague or baffling in a whole variety > of ways. What seems opaque to us at 270 years’ remove could have been as clear as > glass to the parties (legatees, probate court, other actors) who had to deal with > it. In trying to construct accurate title histories for many properties, I often > find the lack of specificity in wills to be a big hurdle. It’s often necessary to > undertake a complete analysis of several properties held at death, including the > tracing of subsequent title, to deduce what was meant by the testator, and which > way all his real estate went. There are a lot of tricks to this detective game, > and not everything comes easy. At the same time, the hardest of the nuts often > bear the best fruit, in that the effort forces you into deeper digging. This is > called by Monty Python "looking on the bright side of life", one of my most-invoked > tunes when digging in these ditches. > > John > >

Hi Joe,   The will did serve the purpose to divide equally whatever personal property the testator had.  The purpose of a will, then and now, is to have one's assets distributed as one wishes, not as the law directs.  If the testator in question had done nothing, his eldest son would have inherited by operation of law anything he had.  The term for that is primogeniture.  The law in the colonies followed that prescription until we became the U.S. and then the operation of law was everything is divided equally.     I've seen lots of Chancery cases where property was owned by someone who died intestate and sometimes as late as 20 to 30 years later one of the heirs sues for division.  I crumbled two of my brick walls via Chancery cases, as enough time had elapsed so that not only children were mentioned, but if deceased, their children.  And I found one of them as I was paging through a Chancery book and my greatgrandmother's name just leapt off the page.  I would not have found this other than by accident.  Becky M ________________________________ From: "joslake@sbcglobal.net" <joslake@sbcglobal.net> To: lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 5:53:43 PM Subject: [LDR] How, if even possible, to find meaning when the only (apparently) available record is unclear or worse John Lyon and/or listers: The elongated subject line above probably is it's own answer, but in the context of John Lyons' response re Richard Lockwood, what reaction would result from a 1741 Ssx Co will which omitted the usual "bad health but sound mind" terminology; first named two executors; then phoenetically spelled an unintelligible spouses name; named 5 children; briefly mentioned "tenements and real estate" but omitted any & all ID of same, and that was about it. For what purpose?  There was an Inventory submitted (now virtually unreadable due to time) but that would have resulted in any event from an intestacy.  I have never found land deeds which could be tied to this will (altho they may be there, somewhere; perhaps in later generations ?).  No records found which indicate the executors did anything other than the inventory. Thus the will wasn't a semi-religious document;  it didn't dispose of any real estate (it did say the heirs were to share equally);  I suppose it could be said it filled some of the purposes of a will, but naturally it certainly leaves many genealogical questions unanswered. Few, if any, speculations would have any validity but one wonders if the testator had anything more in mind than "All my buddies "do" wills, so I'm gonna' do one".  :-) :-) Any ideas anyone? Joe Lake On 1/10/09 John Lyon wrote: > Alas, you've found one of those rare properties that seems to be unidentifiable by > any of my devices.  I recall coming across this one years ago and spending a little > time trying to unravel the mystery, to no avail.  Richard Lockwood appears in no > land records context up to the point of his will and the tract title appears > nowhere except in the Debt Book, in any land or probate reference of any kind up to > the Revolution.  Trying to edge in on the tract name by the possibility it was an > alias for a part of a larger survey title yields no fruit.  Using geographic fixes > by by mapping triangulation against the tax lists offered nothing likely, and I > abandoned the field. > > How Lockwood came by it, in any event, is not explained.  You might consider the > possibility that he did not actually own it, but was conveying in his will the > rights to an unrecorded lease.  This does turn out to be an occasional answer in > similar situations. > > But I just don't know.  This is one of those for which the surviving data doesn't > seem to be enough. > > John > *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

That was my point, it was not her middle name but her mark. Jean ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike hilton" <jmh963@hotmail.com> To: "mike hilton" <lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name Jean, In this deed referred to Mary Vaughan signed with her mark. Ref. AZ:5-6 Vaughan to Shurman "In testimoy whereof the said Wm. Vaughan and Mary his wife have hereunto set their hands and seals the dat & year first above written. William his W markj Vaughan Mary [her] M mark Vaughan It clearly indicates she made her mark in this document. Thanks, Mike Hilton> From: jfstms@bellsouth.net> To: lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:18:23 -0500> Subject: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name> > One other comment to the person who initiated this discussion of middle > names.> > Have you looked at the original document to see if the persons really signed > his and her name with a middle initial or did they just sign with a "mark"? > Looking at what you wrote, in both cases the initial was the same letter as > their first names. Could this have been the "mark" they used to sign?> > I have seen this several times in old deeds, wills, etc. At first I though > I had discovered their middle initial, only to find out after a little more > research that it was the way they signed documents. Obviously, they could > not write but developed this method to distinguish their mark from an > ordinary "X".> > Jean > > ***************************************> QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING?> Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ:> http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm> -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Try Orphans Court records, as they should have overseen the division of any land. Elizabeth In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:54:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, joslake@sbcglobal.net writes: John Lyon and/or listers: The elongated subject line above probably is it's own answer, but in the context of John Lyons' response re Richard Lockwood, what reaction would result from a 1741 Ssx Co will which omitted the usual "bad health but sound mind" terminology; first named two executors; then phoenetically spelled an unintelligible spouses name; named 5 children; briefly mentioned "tenements and real estate" but omitted any & all ID of same, and that was about it. For what purpose? There was an Inventory submitted (now virtually unreadable due to time) but that would have resulted in any event from an intestacy. I have never found land deeds which could be tied to this will (altho they may be there, somewhere; perhaps in later generations ?). No records found which indicate the executors did anything other than the inventory. Thus the will wasn't a semi-religious document; it didn't dispose of any real estate (it did say the heirs were to share equally); I suppose it could be said it filled some of the purposes of a will, but naturally it certainly leaves many genealogical questions unanswered. Few, if any, speculations would have any validity but one wonders if the testator had anything more in mind than "All my buddies "do" wills, so I'm gonna' do one". :-) :-) Any ideas anyone? Joe Lake On 1/10/09 John Lyon wrote: > Alas, you've found one of those rare properties that seems to be unidentifiable by > any of my devices. I recall coming across this one years ago and spending a little > time trying to unravel the mystery, to no avail. Richard Lockwood appears in no > land records context up to the point of his will and the tract title appears > nowhere except in the Debt Book, in any land or probate reference of any kind up to > the Revolution. Trying to edge in on the tract name by the possibility it was an > alias for a part of a larger survey title yields no fruit. Using geographic fixes > by by mapping triangulation against the tax lists offered nothing likely, and I > abandoned the field. > > How Lockwood came by it, in any event, is not explained. You might consider the > possibility that he did not actually own it, but was conveying in his will the > rights to an unrecorded lease. This does turn out to be an occasional answer in > similar situations. > > But I just don't know. This is one of those for which the surviving data doesn't > seem to be enough. > > John > *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62)

Depends sometimes on what they were signing. If it was a will, it could just mean that they were too sick to sign. But women were often unable to write in those days. And some people could read but not write, some could write their name and not much more, etc. Vickie Elam White ---- Judy Ebner <judy_ebner@yahoo.com> wrote: > A related question - if someone signed with his or her "mark", did that mean that he/she was illiterate?  Thanks to anyone who can enlighten me. > > --- On Sat, 1/10/09, mike hilton <jmh963@hotmail.com> wrote: > > From: mike hilton <jmh963@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name > To: "mike hilton" <lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> > Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 1:18 PM > > Jean, > > In this deed referred to Mary Vaughan signed with her mark. > > Ref. AZ:5-6 > > Vaughan to Shurman > > "In testimoy whereof the said Wm. Vaughan and Mary his wife have hereunto > set their hands and seals the dat & year first above written. > > William his W markj Vaughan > Mary [her] M mark Vaughan > > It clearly indicates she made her mark in this document. > Thanks, Mike Hilton> From: jfstms@bellsouth.net> To: > lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:18:23 -0500> > Subject: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name> > One other comment to the person who > initiated this discussion of middle > names.> > Have you looked at the > original document to see if the persons really signed > his and her name with > a middle initial or did they just sign with a "mark"? > Looking at > what you wrote, in both cases the initial was the same letter as > their > first names. Could this have been the "mark" they used to sign?> > > I have seen this several times in old deeds, wills, etc. At first I though > > I had discovered their middle initial, only to find out after a little more > > research that it was the way they signed documents. Obviously, they could > > not write but developed this method to distinguish their mark from an > > ordinary "X".> > Jean > > > ***************************************> QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, > SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING?> Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List > FAQ:> http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an > email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. > http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jean, In this deed referred to Mary Vaughan signed with her mark. Ref. AZ:5-6 Vaughan to Shurman "In testimoy whereof the said Wm. Vaughan and Mary his wife have hereunto set their hands and seals the dat & year first above written. William his W markj Vaughan Mary [her] M mark Vaughan It clearly indicates she made her mark in this document. Thanks, Mike Hilton> From: jfstms@bellsouth.net> To: lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:18:23 -0500> Subject: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name> > One other comment to the person who initiated this discussion of middle > names.> > Have you looked at the original document to see if the persons really signed > his and her name with a middle initial or did they just sign with a "mark"? > Looking at what you wrote, in both cases the initial was the same letter as > their first names. Could this have been the "mark" they used to sign?> > I have seen this several times in old deeds, wills, etc. At first I though > I had discovered their middle initial, only to find out after a little more > research that it was the way they signed documents. Obviously, they could > not write but developed this method to distinguish their mark from an > ordinary "X".> > Jean > > ***************************************> QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING?> Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ:> http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm> -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009

John, I've noticed that in Somerset County in the early 18th century that in most property transfers that the husband would convey the property and the wife would release her dower right which was usually a 1/3 interest in the property in question but that in most cases the husband and wife did not convey the property in question together. At the end of the deed the wife would be secretly examined and would give consent to release her dower right but in several deeds I have noticed the husband and wife conveying property together and was wondering if that implied the wife might have an interest other than her dower right in the property? For example, Benajmin Nesham and his wife Mary conveyed together to William Vaughan in Liber IKL 174 & 175 that part of Meeche's Hope and Rich Swamp that was sold to him. Also, in William Vaughan and his wife Mary conveyed together the Westernmost half of Meeches Hope and Rich Swamp to Thomas Shurman in the formulary: "This Indenture made the 25th day of December Anno Domini 1731 between William Vaughan and Mary his wife of the one part..." as in Liber AZ: 5-6. To me this implies a possible connection between Mary ____ wife of William Vaughan and the Nesham or Sherman families if I am interpreting this correctly. What is your opinion? Thanks, Mike Hilton _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009

Here is further documentation in the form of transcriptions of a deed for William Vaughan for the year 1731 1731 Somerset County, Maryland Deeds AZ: 5-6 William & Mary Vaughan to Thomas Shurman This Indenture made the 25th day of December Anno Domini 1731 between William Vaughan and Mary his wife of the one part both of Somerset County in Maryland and Thomas Shurman of the same county and province of the other part. Witneseth that the said William and Mary his wife for divers good causes and considerations thereunto moving but more especially for and in consideration of the sum of 50 pounds current money of Maryland to them in hand paid by the said Thomas Shurman before the ensealing and delivery hereof doth consider themselves fully satisfied and paid and thereof doth exonerate and discharge the said Thomas Shurman his heirs executors and administrators forever by these presents have given granted bargained sold alienated enfeoffed and confirmed and by these presents do fully freely and absolutely give grant bargain sell enfeoff and confirm unto him the said Thomas Shurman and his heirs and assigns forever all theat moiety or one half of two tracts of land which the said William Vaughan purchased of Benjamin Nesham as appears by a certain deed of writing from under the hand and seal of the said Nesham enrolled in Somerset County Records in Lib: IK folio 174 and 175 __- being part of tract of land called Meeche's Hope and a tract of land which the said Nesham purchased from Joseph Macclester known by the name of Rich Swamp containing 150 Acres. The moeity of that part of Meeche's Hope which the said William Vaughan purchased as aforsaid and a moiety of Rich Swamp as aforsaid bargained and sold by the said William Vaughan unto the said THomas Shurman being the Westernmost part of both tracts of land. Beginning at a marked White Oak standing near the southeast prong of the ___ of Wetipquin Creek a little above the fork being a tree marked by consent of the said William Vaughan and the said THomas Shurman for the first bounds of their division lines thence from the said Oak Southeast 180 perches to a marked Ceader [Cedar] post artificially set in the ground standing upon the last line of Meeches' Hope thence South 53 Degrees Easterly 145 Poles till it intersects the third line of Rich Swamp thence South 14 Degrees 30 Minutes West 40 Poles withthe line of Rich Swamp thence West and by South 80 Poles to a marked White Oak being the second boundary of Rich Swamp from thence Northwest 150 Poles to a marked Gum which is the first boundary of Rich Swamp standing near the branch of the head of Wetipquin thence down the branch being with the same north northwest 174 poles to the fork of Wetipquin thence East Northeast 20 Poles to a marked White Oak which is the first boundary of the moiety so as aforsaid bargained and sold to the said Thomas Shurman containing 135 Acres together with all houses orchards fencing and privileges and appurtenances whatsoever to the same belonging or appertaining Royal Mines excepted. To have and to hold the said moiety of land within the courses as aforsaid being the full one half of all that landso as aforsaid alienated by the said Benjamin Nesham to the said William Vaughan both in quantity and quality unto him the said Thomas Shurman his heirs and assigns forever more to the only proper use and behoof of the said Thomas Shurman and his heirs and assigns. And they the said WIlliam Vaughan and Mary his wife at the time of the sealing and delivery hereof are possessed and stand seized of a good sure Indefensible Estate of Inhereistance in fee simle of in and to the Lands aforsaid and that they have full powee and lawful authority to sell and dispose of the same and that they the said William Vaughan and Mary his wife will forever warrant and defend from them their heirs and from any person or persons claiming the same from by or under them the said Wm Vaughan or Mary his wife or their heirs. In testimonty whereof the said Wm. Vaughan and Mary his wife have hereunto set their hands and seals the day & year first above written. William his W mark Vaughan Mary [her] M mark Vaughan Signed sealed and delivered & interlined with the words by the said Thomas Shurman and also in the margin with the word hundred in the presence of us. James Dashiell John Handy Memorandum. That this day to wit the 25th day of December Anno Domini 1731 before us the Subscribers two of his Lordships Justices of the Peace for Somerset County came the within named William Vaughan and Mary his wife. And the said Mary by us secretly and apart from her said Husband examined according to Act of Assembly in that case made and provided did acknowledge the land within mentioned to be the Right of him the within named Thomas Shurman his heirs and assigns forever for which acknowledgement quit claim and agreement the said Thomas Shurman hath paid 50 pounds current money. John Hany James Dashiell _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009

Probably...I guess "illiterate" really means the inability to read or write so a person might be able to read but not write I suppose....but, in general, a person signing with his/her mark was probably illiterate. And, the thread is right too, I find many 'marks' different to try and be unique - my Nehemiah Hitch's mark was a stylized "N" and there are many other examples of 'marks" that are not just "X" 's Best regards, Mike Hitch "So oftentimes it happens that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key." - Eagles > -----Original Message----- > From: lower-delmarva-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lower-delmarva-roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Judy Ebner > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 1:53 PM > To: lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name > > A related question - if someone signed with his or her "mark", did that mean that he/she was illiterate? > Thanks to anyone who can enlighten me. > > --- On Sat, 1/10/09, mike hilton <jmh963@hotmail.com> wrote: > > From: mike hilton <jmh963@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name > To: "mike hilton" <lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> > Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 1:18 PM > > Jean, > > In this deed referred to Mary Vaughan signed with her mark. > > Ref. AZ:5-6 > > Vaughan to Shurman > > "In testimoy whereof the said Wm. Vaughan and Mary his wife have hereunto > set their hands and seals the dat & year first above written. > > William his W markj Vaughan > Mary [her] M mark Vaughan > > It clearly indicates she made her mark in this document. > Thanks, Mike Hilton> From: jfstms@bellsouth.net> To: > lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:18:23 -0500> > Subject: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name> > One other comment to the person who > initiated this discussion of middle > names.> > Have you looked at the > original document to see if the persons really signed > his and her name with > a middle initial or did they just sign with a "mark"? > Looking at > what you wrote, in both cases the initial was the same letter as > their > first names. Could this have been the "mark" they used to sign?> > > I have seen this several times in old deeds, wills, etc. At first I though > > I had discovered their middle initial, only to find out after a little more > > research that it was the way they signed documents. Obviously, they could > > not write but developed this method to distinguish their mark from an > > ordinary "X".> > Jean > > > ***************************************> QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, > SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING?> Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List > FAQ:> http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an > email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. > http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John Lyon and/or listers: The elongated subject line above probably is it's own answer, but in the context of John Lyons' response re Richard Lockwood, what reaction would result from a 1741 Ssx Co will which omitted the usual "bad health but sound mind" terminology; first named two executors; then phoenetically spelled an unintelligible spouses name; named 5 children; briefly mentioned "tenements and real estate" but omitted any & all ID of same, and that was about it. For what purpose? There was an Inventory submitted (now virtually unreadable due to time) but that would have resulted in any event from an intestacy. I have never found land deeds which could be tied to this will (altho they may be there, somewhere; perhaps in later generations ?). No records found which indicate the executors did anything other than the inventory. Thus the will wasn't a semi-religious document; it didn't dispose of any real estate (it did say the heirs were to share equally); I suppose it could be said it filled some of the purposes of a will, but naturally it certainly leaves many genealogical questions unanswered. Few, if any, speculations would have any validity but one wonders if the testator had anything more in mind than "All my buddies "do" wills, so I'm gonna' do one". :-) :-) Any ideas anyone? Joe Lake On 1/10/09 John Lyon wrote: > Alas, you've found one of those rare properties that seems to be unidentifiable by > any of my devices. I recall coming across this one years ago and spending a little > time trying to unravel the mystery, to no avail. Richard Lockwood appears in no > land records context up to the point of his will and the tract title appears > nowhere except in the Debt Book, in any land or probate reference of any kind up to > the Revolution. Trying to edge in on the tract name by the possibility it was an > alias for a part of a larger survey title yields no fruit. Using geographic fixes > by by mapping triangulation against the tax lists offered nothing likely, and I > abandoned the field. > > How Lockwood came by it, in any event, is not explained. You might consider the > possibility that he did not actually own it, but was conveying in his will the > rights to an unrecorded lease. This does turn out to be an occasional answer in > similar situations. > > But I just don't know. This is one of those for which the surviving data doesn't > seem to be enough. > > John >

John, Thank you for the details of your search. Did you come across any Lockwood/Logwood selling property in Worcester bet 1745-1755? Richard's sons had funds to buy/patent other properties: 1747 Armwell (who was taxed on "Patrick's Discovery") bought "Doagwood Ridge" in Murtherkill Hundred Kent Co DE 1747/8 Benjamin (who was bequeathed the 150A dwelling plantation patented "Lockwood's Inheritance" in Wor, south of Indian River nr Dagsboro, at the head of Peppers Cr. 1748 John bought "Hopkins Chance" 69A fr Samuel Hopkins and sold 50 3/4 A to Caleb Tingle in 1759. 1754 Samuel patented "Lockwood's Delight" in Wor MD [now DE " in MSA Alienated Lands file] 1757John patented "Logwood's Adventure" Wor MD, south of Indian River bet Dagsboro/Millsboro and sold to Jesse Newport in 1762 1807 Samuel bequeathed "Lockwood's Adventure" *150A *(where I reside) [Sussex probate] Additionally, do you have an approx. location for "Balld/Bald Beach"? [Wm Walton and Richard Holland] and "Chance" [Samuel Hopkins]? Armwell m 1730/1 Mary Holland of Nehemiah of Richard (Nehemiah also had son Richard). On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 AM, <Johnlyon0@cs.com> wrote: > Alas, you've found one of those rare properties that seems to be > unidentifiable by any of my devices. I recall coming across this one years > ago and spending a little time trying to unravel the mystery, to no avail. > Richard Lockwood appears in no land records context up to the point of his > will and the tract title appears nowhere except in the Debt Book, in any > land or probate reference of any kind up to the Revolution. Trying to edge > in on the tract name by the possibility it was an alias for a part of a > larger survey title yields no fruit. Using geographic fixes by by mapping > triangulation against the tax lists offered nothing likely, and I abandoned > the field. > > How Lockwood came by it, in any event, is not explained. You might > consider the possibility that he did not actually own it, but was conveying > in his will the rights to an unrecorded lease. This does turn out to be an > occasional answer in similar situations. > > But I just don't know. This is one of those for which the surviving data > doesn't seem to be enough. > > John > > "marjorie adams" <marjea@wildblue.net> wrote: > > >For John Lyon: > >Is the info below enough for you to locate the 150 A plantation that > Richard > >Lockwood/Logwood bequeathed in his 1737 Somerset will to his son Benjamin? > > > >In 1734 Richard owed rent on "Patrick's Discovery" 150A, Baltimore Hd. > >Somerset. Then in 1745 Armwell Lockwood was on the Tax List for the same > >property name. > > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Marjorie "Be glad of life because it gives you the chance to love and to work and to play and to look up at the stars."~ Henry Van Dyke

A related question - if someone signed with his or her "mark", did that mean that he/she was illiterate?  Thanks to anyone who can enlighten me. --- On Sat, 1/10/09, mike hilton <jmh963@hotmail.com> wrote: From: mike hilton <jmh963@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name To: "mike hilton" <lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 1:18 PM Jean, In this deed referred to Mary Vaughan signed with her mark. Ref. AZ:5-6 Vaughan to Shurman "In testimoy whereof the said Wm. Vaughan and Mary his wife have hereunto set their hands and seals the dat & year first above written. William his W markj Vaughan Mary [her] M mark Vaughan It clearly indicates she made her mark in this document. Thanks, Mike Hilton> From: jfstms@bellsouth.net> To: lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:18:23 -0500> Subject: [LDR] Use of Maiden Name> > One other comment to the person who initiated this discussion of middle > names.> > Have you looked at the original document to see if the persons really signed > his and her name with a middle initial or did they just sign with a "mark"? > Looking at what you wrote, in both cases the initial was the same letter as > their first names. Could this have been the "mark" they used to sign?> > I have seen this several times in old deeds, wills, etc. At first I though > I had discovered their middle initial, only to find out after a little more > research that it was the way they signed documents. Obviously, they could > not write but developed this method to distinguish their mark from an > ordinary "X".> > Jean > > ***************************************> QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING?> Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ:> http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm> -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Alas, you've found one of those rare properties that seems to be unidentifiable by any of my devices. I recall coming across this one years ago and spending a little time trying to unravel the mystery, to no avail. Richard Lockwood appears in no land records context up to the point of his will and the tract title appears nowhere except in the Debt Book, in any land or probate reference of any kind up to the Revolution. Trying to edge in on the tract name by the possibility it was an alias for a part of a larger survey title yields no fruit. Using geographic fixes by by mapping triangulation against the tax lists offered nothing likely, and I abandoned the field. How Lockwood came by it, in any event, is not explained. You might consider the possibility that he did not actually own it, but was conveying in his will the rights to an unrecorded lease. This does turn out to be an occasional answer in similar situations. But I just don't know. This is one of those for which the surviving data doesn't seem to be enough. John "marjorie adams" <marjea@wildblue.net> wrote: >For John Lyon: >Is the info below enough for you to locate the 150 A plantation that Richard >Lockwood/Logwood bequeathed in his 1737 Somerset will to his son Benjamin? > >In 1734 Richard owed rent on "Patrick's Discovery" 150A, Baltimore Hd. >Somerset. Then in 1745 Armwell Lockwood was on the Tax List for the same >property name.

For John Lyon: Is the info below enough for you to locate the 150 A plantation that Richard Lockwood/Logwood bequeathed in his 1737 Somerset will to his son Benjamin? In 1734 Richard owed rent on "Patrick's Discovery" 150A, Baltimore Hd. Somerset. Then in 1745 Armwell Lockwood was on the Tax List for the same property name. Benjamin stated in an autobiographical piece that he was raised near Trappe which I believe was near present day Berlin. Richard was on the Somerset Baltimore Hd. Tax List beginning in 1723 through 1737. In 1723 and 1733-1736 he is next to Richard Hudson; in 1737 he is between Samuel Hopkins and William Walton. In 1738 Mary Lockwood is on the List and in 1739-1740 both Mary and the oldest son Armwell are on the List as Heads of house. In plats.net the only property I find for names near him that has an early enough date to be relevant is Balld [Bald?] Beach pat 1708 by Wm Walton and Richard Holland. Can you find anything that could have been the 150A? Thanks -- Marjorie "Be glad of life because it gives you the chance to love and to work and to play and to look up at the stars."~ Henry Van Dyke

The American colonies (and Provinces) operated under English (after 1707, United Kingdom) law, save for odd local laws covering circumstances for which the local governments might have appealed for exception. I'm reasonably certain (but can find no easy proof on-line) that 18 was the age of majority under the Crown during the entire period of British rule, as it remains today. "18" is therefore likely the minimum for all your situations in all your venues. But the local courts overseeing probate matters were courts of equity, and would not typically approve certain functions requiring seasoned experience or judgment to just anyone who was just "of age". Appointments not directed by the testator - say, to appraise an estate - were usually to "responsible" older men. If someone can find an authoritative rebuttal for "18" as the general rule, I'd be happy to see it. John "Cree & Susan Newbold" <newbold@comcast.net> wrote: >Most everyone using this List has read numerous documents or abstracts which >named individuals performing some or all of the following duties in >Maryland, Delaware, or Virginia during the 17th and 18th Century: > > > >*   Witness to Will >*   Administrator of an Estate >*   Executor of a Will >*   Appraiser of an Estate >*   "Approver" of an Estate >

Generally, anyone witnessing a legal document or administering an estate would have had to be of age, which was generally 21 (a testator could give 18 for sons or 16 for daughters to be "of age", but that seems only to have been for the purpose of inheritance). At least, so it has worked out in the stuff I have been plagued with. Of course, they may well have been quite a bit older. Finding tax lists or Orphans Court records is often very useful for trying to determine an approximate age. Elizabeth **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215047751x1200957972/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62)

Dear Listers --- I've asked this question previously and don't remember seeing any responses. The List has been fairly active recently [new computers for Christmas?] so I thought I would pose my question again hoping that someone might have some thoughts or answers, or direct me to someone who might. Most everyone using this List has read numerous documents or abstracts which named individuals performing some or all of the following duties in Maryland, Delaware, or Virginia during the 17th and 18th Century: * Witness to Will * Administrator of an Estate * Executor of a Will * Appraiser of an Estate * "Approver" of an Estate It seems to me that it would be very useful if one could make an assumption about the minimum age one would have to be in order to act in any of these capacities. Because if one could make such an assumption, it would provide an additional datum that could be used to help put genealogical puzzles together. [And if the rules were different for each Colony, what they were for each, of course]. For instance [to use an actual example]: If in 1715 John Newbold was the Administrator of his father Thomas Newbold's estate [Maryland Prerogative Court Liber 37 Folio 98, Nov 19 1715], knowing what the minimum age would have been would allow me to estimate a "no later than" date for when he was born. If he needed to be age 21, then his year of birth would have been NLT circa 1694. If he only needed to be age 16, however, then his NLT estimated year of birth would be circa 1699. To use another real and related example that is of great interest to me: The Will of one John Blare "..of Somerset County Maryland." was abstracted by Nottingham Stratton from Accomack County Virginia records. The date of this Will was February 8 1717/18. One of the witnesses to this Will was "Frances Newbole", along with Thomas Layfield [husband of Katherine Newbold] and Lazarus Maddox [husband of Margaret Newbold]. My assumption is that "Frances" was Francis Newbold, son of the aforesaid Thomas Newbold and brother of John, Katherine, and Margaret. If I had an idea about what the minimum age Francis had to be to have been a witness to this John Blare Will -- that would allow me to make an estimate for a born NLT date for Francis. I would very much appreciate anyone's input into this topic, about which I have been unable to find information on anywhere to date. Thank You! Cree Newbold

A good explanation of "headright" can be found at http://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/headright.html. Good luck in your research. Marge> From: WildHareSR@aol.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:46:14 -0500> To: lower-delmarva-roots@rootsweb.com> Subject: [LDR] Headright system> > I would like to understand more fully the "headright" system used for > acquiring land in Virginia. Can anyone please point me to a place or document that > will explain it in some detail? I am interested in understanding what if any > documentation may exist for those who came to Virginia under this system.> I know that the West and Marvel families in my research started in > Virginia under this system before moving north to MD and DE.> > Thank you for any help or suggestions.> Sue Rowdon> Searching Marvel, West, Ad(t)kins, Huggins, Collins, Rowdon and connected > families> **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)> ***************************************> QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING?> Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ:> http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm> -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009