Bill: I'm no expert, but my experience is that the land did not actually have to sit on the banks of the river or creek. It would be in the area that would drain into those waters. I have found land in Kentucky that mentions the larger river nearby, but the land was actually near a creek that ran into the larger river. I have found a different reference in Kentucky that says "on the Pond River". It does not say "on the waters of the Pond River". I am working on the assumption that this land is actually on the river, but I don't know for certain yet. Your question is an interesting one. Hope others will respond with their experiences. Debbie Bill Troutt wrote: > Hello List, > > I have been looking at some early Wilson County deeds - between 1810 > and 1840. Does anyone know whether it can be taken literally when > the deed says something like: "ON THE WATERS OF"? > > I'm merely wondering if such a deed means that the land was right > on the creek. The boundary descriptions don't actually mention the > creek, and they often don't mention any neighbor's lines - they just > mention what trees or stakes are at the corners of the tract and how > long the sides of the tracts are. > > I would appreciate any insight that any of you would care to share. > > My gr. gr. gr. grandfather (Joseph TROUT) bought land from Jonas > BRADLEY in 1813. The deed says that the tract consisted of 136 acres > of land "conveyed to Jonas BRADLEY by John (initial) BLOUNT on the > waters of Cedar Creek." > > The deed was witnessed by Joseph WEIR and James WEIR, so I'm thinking > the land might have been near the community of "WEIR." Its location > is shown on the 1907 map on the wall at the Wilson Co. Archives in > Lebanon, TN. It must have been at or near what is now called > "Taylorsvill." Does anyone know for sure? > > Thanks, > Bill Troutt in Katy, TX > > ==== TNWILSON Mailing List ==== > TNWILSON Website > http://www.rootsweb.com/~tnwilson/ > <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~tnwilson">TNWILSON</A>