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.

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

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, 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