In a message dated 10/19/2006 2:06:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Susan- Either that, or the thought I had is that I wondered whether Elizabeth HANCOCK has been the first wife and mother of the children all born by about 1764 and the Elizabeth PIMM been a second wife by 1765, the year in which Daniel LIPPINCOTT is mentioned in John PIMM's will as his son-in-law. Joan ------- Well, I finally found the information in my files and it shoots my above theory to pieces, since John PIMM died intestate and his estate was settled in 1756 and not 1765... >From New Jersey Colonial Documents, Calendar of Wills, page 254... 1756, Jan. 1. PIMM, John, of Evesham Twsp., Burlinton Co. Int. Mary, widow, declines to administer in favour of her son-in-law, Daniel LIPPINCOT. 1756, Jan. 3. Bon to Daniel LIPPINCOTT as Adm'r; James CATTELL fellowbondsman, both of said Co., yeomen. Lib. 8, p. 304. 1756, Jan. 3. Inventory, 256.10.1 pounds, incl, a silver watch, 4 pounds, a negro woman, 25 pounds and book debts, 154.14.1 pounds; made by Abram HAINES and James CATTELL. Since the children of Daniel LIPPINCOTT and wife Elizabeth were mostly born prior to 1756 at least some of the children would have to have been children of Elizabeth PIMM--but the two children, Lydia and Sarah, mentioned in the Evesham Twp. marriage records COULD possibly have been the children of an earlier wife: John LIPPINCOTT b: 1 OCT 1744 Sarah LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1746 Lydia LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1750 James LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1752 Rachel LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1754 Anna LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1756 Daniel LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1758 Benjamin LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1760 Levi LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1760 Jonathan LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1762 Micajah LIPPINCOTT b: ABT. 1764 Joan