thanks very much. I have the password etc for the land records. The tract list for some reason does not go up to liber K which is the time I am looking for. It appears to stop at Liber I (1776). But thanks I will check out the tract list. There was more than one Hog Quarter at the time. Maybe the sale to David Bowen will show up earlier than Liber K. thanks again. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Just <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:18 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter /Cropper/John Lyon Liz - Have you used ? You need a password for the site, if you've never used it before. In the Worcester land tract index, there are several deeds listed involving Hog/Hogg Quarter/Quarters. If you followed the ownership of the tract(s), it might answer your questions. Lisa Just On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: > I was able to find a reference to what may be the same Hog Quarter > which was left by Ebenezer Cropper to his son William. This will > is from the ocean city museum site: (I have no idea if the > original Hog Quarter was sw/s Governors Branch!) > > Cropper, Edmund > > Edmond Cropper 21 July 1799w. 30 August 1799p > > To son Edmond Cropper, lands sw/s Governors Branch called Hog > Quarters: > part of a tract Mills Neglect. Ex. > > To Son Josiah Cropper balance Mills Neglect and part of Addition. > > To son John Cropper tract purchased of Edward Hammon, part tract > Delight. > > To daughters Leah Holland and Sarah Renyolds. > > To daughters Emila Cropper, Elizabeth Cropper, Sabrina Cropper. > > Son Ebenezer, deceased. > > Witness: William Cropper. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:57:24 -0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps > because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. > They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I > think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I > can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. > Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's > household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of > assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is > listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might > well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so > flagged > would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), > living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so > there's no evidence there as to location. > > The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In > Worcester, they are: > > Taxpayer > Names of Lands (if any) > Acres > Slaves > Males and Females under 8 / Value > Males and Females 8 -14 / Value > Males from 14-45 /Value > Females from 14-36 /Value > Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value > Plate Ounces / Value > Horses > Black Cattle > Value > Value of other Property > Total Amount > Assessment thereon > White Inhabitants > Male > Female > > In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. > But you take what's dealt. > > As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the > original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no > land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 > land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in > Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by > cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the > absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors > were a little more casual. > > With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question > was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and > patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 > 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), > who > had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD > Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was > asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I > have > for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I > don't > see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo > Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that > my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of > conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but > all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is > shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is > somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what > Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > > Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no > land > name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land > owned > by someone else?< > > It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease > agreement > specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always > mean > that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the > assessor > wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in > 1782 > or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the > list > for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease > agreements > are recorded as deeds. > > It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or > worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that > was not on > > land he was working for himself. > > Good hunting, > Judy > *************************************** > 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 > [email protected] > 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- > [email protected] 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- > [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
The unusual Wo tract index stops at Volume I, if I recall aright. I've never been sure why it does, or even exists. I've processed all deed books through 1776, and do not find a David Bowen anywhere in them. In fact, there were 22 distinct tracts titled HOG QUARTER in Worcester before 1783 and two so-named later. Sorting on those which would have been in Queponco, among other little tricks, etc., allows this one to be pegged as the target without testing all those deeds in the tract index. I tend to imagine that a "Governors Branch" transcription was a misreading of "Wouldhave Branch", on the head of which the patent HOG QUARTER was desribed to be, after neighbor William Wouldhave. I've not run into "Governors Branch", in any case. Again, too, as Judy noted earlier, the party taxed for a tract would (or at least could) have been credited with it in the 1783 lists. So the fact of a dry hole in the deeds is not at all conclusive; Bowen could well have been leasing, few of which instruments survive in the county land records. I'd say. in fact, based on the evidence at hand and the lack of a deed, that he probably wasn't the owner. Barring other avenues, like intestate probate actions and unrecorded deeds, of course ... But the facts in hand mostly trump that sort of guessing. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:23 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter /lisa just thanks very much. I have the password etc for the land records. The tract list for some reason does not go up to liber K which is the time I am looking for. It appears to stop at Liber I (1776). But thanks I will check out the tract list. There was more than one Hog Quarter at the time. Maybe the sale to David Bowen will show up earlier than Liber K. thanks again. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Just <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:18 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter /Cropper/John Lyon Liz - Have you used ? You need a password for the site, if you've never used it before. In the Worcester land tract index, there are several deeds listed involving Hog/Hogg Quarter/Quarters. If you followed the ownership of the tract(s), it might answer your questions. Lisa Just On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: > I was able to find a reference to what may be the same Hog Quarter > which was left by Ebenezer Cropper to his son William. This will > is from the ocean city museum site: (I have no idea if the > original Hog Quarter was sw/s Governors Branch!) > > Cropper, Edmund > > Edmond Cropper 21 July 1799w. 30 August 1799p > > To son Edmond Cropper, lands sw/s Governors Branch called Hog > Quarters: > part of a tract Mills Neglect. Ex. > > To Son Josiah Cropper balance Mills Neglect and part of Addition. > > To son John Cropper tract purchased of Edward Hammon, part tract > Delight. > > To daughters Leah Holland and Sarah Renyolds. > > To daughters Emila Cropper, Elizabeth Cropper, Sabrina Cropper. > > Son Ebenezer, deceased. > > Witness: William Cropper. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:57:24 -0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps > because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. > They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I > think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I > can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. > Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's > household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of > assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is > listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might > well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so > flagged > would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), > living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so > there's no evidence there as to location. > > The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In > Worcester, they are: > > Taxpayer > Names of Lands (if any) > Acres > Slaves > Males and Females under 8 / Value > Males and Females 8 -14 / Value > Males from 14-45 /Value > Females from 14-36 /Value > Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value > Plate Ounces / Value > Horses > Black Cattle > Value > Value of other Property > Total Amount > Assessment thereon > White Inhabitants > Male > Female > > In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. > But you take what's dealt. > > As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the > original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no > land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 > land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in > Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by > cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the > absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors > were a little more casual. > > With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question > was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and > patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 > 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), > who > had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD > Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was > asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I > have > for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I > don't > see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo > Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that > my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of > conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but > all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is > shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is > somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what > Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > > Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no > land > name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land > owned > by someone else?< > > It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease > agreement > specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always > mean > that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the > assessor > wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in > 1782 > or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the > list > for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease > agreements > are recorded as deeds. > > It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or > worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that > was not on > > land he was working for himself. > > Good hunting, > Judy > *************************************** > 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 > [email protected] > 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- > [email protected] 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- > [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message