Am I missing something? From your post below it looks as if George RECEIVED the land in 1650, not that he sold it. Then Richard is selling some land (part of that land or different land? Was any of the land sold within the land that his mother received? Either way, that would be why he would need to mention them. Roy -------------- Original message from James Blair <jnb05042000@yahoo.com>: -------------- > 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 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 > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > To share info which may be of interest to others, reply to the mail list > (PACE-L@rootsweb.com). To say thank you or otherwise reply personally, reply to > sender. >

Sorry but I don't understand your question. The extract I quoted does not say George received the land in 1650. It says "...SOLD [my caps] by my deceased father 12 Oct 1650 to Mr Thomas Drewe..." We don't know for sure how or when the land being sold was acquired by George Pace. It could be part of land previously patented by GP (using headrights) or it could be part of the land inherited by him, or it could be part of land which Sarah Maycock brought to the marriage, or it could be a mixture of any of these. My personal interpretation of the deed is that Richard as heir of both George and Sarah is confirming the sale of land which includes land in which both George and also Sarah had an interest. Now whether Sarah's interest arose because it was land that she had inherited from her father, or because it was the 200 acres that she was granted in 1626 -- who knows? I don't think we know where the 200-acre grant was taken up. That's how I understand it, but I could be wrong. James --- roy.w.johnson@att.net wrote: > Am I missing something? > > From your post below it looks as if George RECEIVED the > land in 1650, not that he sold it. > > Then Richard is selling some land (part of that land or > different land? Was any of the land sold within the land > that his mother received? Either way, that would be why > he would need to mention them. > > Roy > > -------------- Original message from James Blair > <jnb05042000@yahoo.com>: -------------- > > > > 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 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 > > > > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > > To share info which may be of interest to others, reply > to the mail list > > (PACE-L@rootsweb.com). To say thank you or otherwise > reply personally, reply to > > sender. > > > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > Check out the Pace GenConnect Boards where you can post > or peruse Pace Bibles, Obits, Bios, Deeds, Wills, > Queries, etc. Bookmark this URL: > http://boards.ancestry.com > > James __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com