Eldon, I am going to share a deed with you that really excited me where this rule is concerned. We have an old letter, 1930, that tells us "we are from Adam POOL", but the only Adam POOLE who could have been our ancestor didn't leave a will, and in constructing his family as much as we can, John POOL doesn't particularly fit. John POOL m. Mahulda HOLLOWAY and I have suspected that she was a daughter of one, William HOLLOWAY because of other records. Will be back with the deed. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: Eldon Wade <ewade@cfl.rr.com> To: <SC-Genealogy-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 11:53 AM Subject: [SC] Clues to maiden names in deeds? > I picked up the below info from another list. Has anyone found this to > be reliable? It doesn't seem to work on the deeds I have for 1804-1825 > but then my WADEs don't seem to be predictable anyway. > > The following is from a Minnesota Genealogical Newsletter. > "In the lower left corner of most old deeds you will find two to four > witnesses. The > first one is always from the husband's side, the next two from the > wife's side. That is to protect her one-half dower rights under the law. > Nothing you will ever use will give greater clues to maiden names". > > Thanks, > Eldon > mailto:ewade@cfl.rr.com > Researching: WADE, HAMES > > > > ==== SC-Genealogy Mailing List ==== > Need some help getting started with irc (INTERNET RELAY CHAT)? > Try: http://home.flash.net/~gen4m/ >
Hi Audrey, I have no doubt that relatives are often the ones who witness deeds (I have several deeds myself that were witnessed by relatives) but I was having trouble with the word ALWAYS in the rule. I think that OFTEN may be a better choice of words. Thanks, Eldon mailto:ewade@cfl.rr.com Researching: WADE, HAMES -----Original Message----- From: Audrey E. Pool [mailto:ddpool@madnet.net] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 6:09 PM To: SC-Genealogy-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SC] Clues to maiden names in deeds? Eldon, I am going to share a deed with you that really excited me where this rule is concerned. We have an old letter, 1930, that tells us "we are from Adam POOL", but the only Adam POOLE who could have been our ancestor didn't leave a will, and in constructing his family as much as we can, John POOL doesn't particularly fit. John POOL m. Mahulda HOLLOWAY and I have suspected that she was a daughter of one, William HOLLOWAY because of other records. Will be back with the deed. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: Eldon Wade <ewade@cfl.rr.com> To: <SC-Genealogy-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 11:53 AM Subject: [SC] Clues to maiden names in deeds? > I picked up the below info from another list. Has anyone found this > to be reliable? It doesn't seem to work on the deeds I have for > 1804-1825 but then my WADEs don't seem to be predictable anyway. > > The following is from a Minnesota Genealogical Newsletter. "In the > lower left corner of most old deeds you will find two to four > witnesses. The first one is always from the husband's side, the next > two from the wife's side. That is to protect her one-half dower rights > under the law. Nothing you will ever use will give greater clues to > maiden names". > > Thanks, > Eldon > mailto:ewade@cfl.rr.com > Researching: WADE, HAMES > > > > ==== SC-Genealogy Mailing List ==== > Need some help getting started with irc (INTERNET RELAY CHAT)? > Try: http://home.flash.net/~gen4m/ > ==== SC-Genealogy Mailing List ==== South Carolina Genealogical Resources http://www.crosswinds.net/~southcarolina/Societies/societies.html