Good news, I've found someone to retrieve Richard Pace, etc. documents. The person I depended on has moved to DC so had to locate another. On the Sarah who? debate.... I cannot understand why he would have had to name anyone concerning the land he PURCHASED himself with headrights. Regards, Becky Mosely

That is indeed good news. Regarding the deed of 1658: is it certain that the land being sold was wholly contained within the 1700 acres which George Pace patented by headrights on 1 August 1650? There are a couple of things which seem rather curious about this deed. To begin with, why does the sale of 1650 need confirming by George's son in 1658? And, as you say, why does he need to name his mother? According to the abstract in the Avant book, Richard Pace says: "I, Richard Pace, sonne and heire apparent of Mr. George Pace, of the Co. of Charles City, att Mount March in Virginia, and sonn and heire as the first issue by my mother, Mrs Sara Macocke, wife unto my aforesaid father (being both deceased) do hereby...sell 800 or 900 acres of land being neere unto Pierce's Hundred, alias Flowerday Hundred, sold by my deceased father 12 Oct 1650 to Mr. Thomas Drewe..." George Pace was still alive two years later on 6 December 1652 when he was granted 507 acres in Charles City County on the south side of the James River and the East side of Powells Creek, due for the transportation of ten persons. Did some doubt arise, after the death of George Pace, as to whether he had been clearly entitled to sell the land? If his wife had an interest in the land, but the sale was for some reason accomplished without her signature or acknowledgment, that might explain both the need for confirmation (by the man who was heir to both George and Sarah) and the need to explicitly name Sarah Maycocke in the deed. So it would be interesting to figure out if possible what land was being sold by George Pace, and where Samuel Maycock lived before he died. Somewhere I've seen an account of the dead which indicated that he lived near Flowerdew Hundred, but I can't recall now what document that was. It seems likely that the 200 acres which was granted to Sarah in 1626 would be adjacent to the land which Samuel Maycock had before he died. Did Samuel Maycock actually patent that land? Or was he just living on it? Do we know? James --- Becky Mosely <beckymosely@comcast.net> wrote: > Good news, I've found someone to retrieve Richard Pace, > etc. documents. The person I depended on has moved to DC > so had to locate another. > > On the Sarah who? debate.... I cannot understand why he > would have had to name anyone concerning the land he > PURCHASED himself with headrights. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com