Incidentally, VA abolished entails in 1776, thus thwarting the last of the efforts (legal devices) used to dodge the law that declared that land devised or conveyed to women became that of their husbands (NY, even before then, as I recall). Paul

You have correctly mentioned one of the many variations that appeared in SOME colonies/states - where the 'home place' or principle place of residence was at various times distinguished from investment or speculative real property purchased during marriage by the husband. The decisions varied widely over the 17th-, 18th- and 19th-centuries in the struggle by the law to see to the well-being of widows who had been neglected in the wills of deceased husbands. The whole subject of the "widows' portions" or "widows' thirds" has been the subject of many treatises and articles in the law of estates and of real property. No generalization is worth a damn in this matter (or most others, for that matter). Finally, another feature of the law that the careful researcher should watch for was that some early states/colonies provided that a widow should receive the income (not ownership) in 1/3 of all the property, real or personal, of the husband throughout her widowhood. I think that the law of real estate and estates for that colony or state MUST be checked in any complicated research problem involving land. ----- Original Message ----- From: <CASHKILBY@aol.com> To: <martee@citlink.net>; <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: Land Ownership in Tennessee | | In a message dated 4/22/01 12:05:35 PM, martee@citlink.net writes: | | << So, NO signature on a deed | | of the wife almost without exception means | | there was NO wife at the date of the deed. >> | | I must take exception to this, but also ask a question. I have many | situations where a wife did not relinquish her dower in a property though by | other records I know she was alive. These cases seem to involve land either | patented by the husband but which was not their primary farm, or land he had | purchased prior to his marriage. Was the wife's dower excluded to certain | properties such as the home plantation or land acquired after the marriage? | Or did wives just fail to relinquish dowers at times, or otherwise the | relinquishments were not recorded? | | Craig Kilby

In a message dated 4/23/01 8:44:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jagile@casstel.net writes: << n the discussion of Sally and Thomas Jefferson these words caught my attention, "having a motive or Opportunity to bed Sally without being detected" another interesting group of words were "privacy" and "alert servants." >> Hello Jo Ann, I appreciate your comments. My intention in putting the post on the list was to provide an example of research and analysis relevant to us all. Tempting though it may be, the intention wasn't to open up a debate on the always engaging topics of did Thomas bed Sally/how did he treat his slaves/what really were his views on slavery/why didn't he free all of his while alive or in his will like Geo Washington did/was Thomas typical of other slaveowners, etc. However, (for all of you on the list also), concerns of other members have been expressed to me that such a debate might begin on the Southside list as a result of my post and escalate rapidly and emotionally, having an overall negative effect on our purpose here, alienating some of our participants to the point that we might lose several. I certainly don't want to see that happen so encourage you to comment to me privately. This list has been for three years extremely important to my research on my direct ancestors, probably THE most important single list (and believe me you don't want to know how many I am on), especially now that I'm looking at my children's paternal lines and they are flopping all over my own in Southside and James River northern bordering counties, one even literally next door in Louisa. (FYI, think "small world"..I met their father in Long Beach, CA; his father from TX -- his VA lines via Deep South states; my parents both from Ozarks of MO, my VA lines via TN or KY from VA or direct from VA). I do have strong feelings about the whole Jefferson-Hemmings issue and your comments, and will certainly email you a private response shortly, as I am having a difficult enough time keeping quiet as it is here :-). Best Regards, Janet (Baugh) Hunter

I did not say women could not inherit land; I DID say that if they did, the land became that of the marriage, and not her own, and the husband could sell it. To counteract that legal dilemma, entailments were attempted at late as 1750. Those were docked by statute. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: <CASHKILBY@aol.com> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] will interpretation | | In a message dated 4/21/01 7:13:35 PM, martee@citlink.net writes:\ | | He [Hicks Bowen] seems to have conveyed to her [wife Elizabeth] a life | estate (women could not inherit land in VA in | those times) [1787] and left the legal remainder to | the [three] God-children. >> | | Paul--I do not agree that woman could not inherit land in 1787. I have many | wills conveying land to daughters either by will or by law. What is your | source for this statement? | | Craig Kilby | | | ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | Hosted by Rootsweb http://www.rootsweb.com | | | ============================== | Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: | Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. | http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com |

I did not say women could not inherit land; I DID say that if they did, the land became that of the marriage, and not her own, and the husband could sell it. To counteract that legal dilemma, entailments were attempted at late as 1750. Those were docked by statute. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: <CASHKILBY@aol.com> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] will interpretation | | In a message dated 4/21/01 7:13:35 PM, martee@citlink.net writes:\ | | He [Hicks Bowen] seems to have conveyed to her [wife Elizabeth] a life | estate (women could not inherit land in VA in | those times) [1787] and left the legal remainder to | the [three] God-children. >> | | Paul--I do not agree that woman could not inherit land in 1787. I have many | wills conveying land to daughters either by will or by law. What is your | source for this statement? | | Craig Kilby | | | ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | Hosted by Rootsweb http://www.rootsweb.com | | | ============================== | Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: | Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. | http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com |

In the discussion of Sally and Thomas Jefferson these words caught my attention, "having a motive or Opportunity to bed Sally without being detected" another interesting group of words were "privacy" and "alert servants." First, we are not talking about servants we are talking about slaves. Who were these slaves? A race of black people who were considered sub human only to be treated like animals. Now why would any rich slave owner care for the opinion of a sub human in his rich culture of slave ownership? I expect owners of slaves acted like slaves were not in the same room as they themselves were therefore said and did whatever they pleased without any thought to the sensitivity of the slave. I feel Thomas might of bedded Sally even knowing slaves were just outside of the door within hearing distance. If Thomas Jefferson was a sensitive man toward slaves would he of owned slaves? Since slave owners treated their slaves on the same level as animals or the family pet I expect the black people knew exactly who the father of Sally's children were. So my vote goes to the opinion of the family of Sally. These people shared in the suffering of their women when taken advantage of by rich slave owners. I expect the slaves in the household all knew the truth, therefore I believe what they have to say. Slaves were the people who knew all of the plantation owners secrets. If the slaves could of written their stories theirs would be the only stories worth reading. Jo Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: <jleehunt1@aol.com> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:34 PM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Analysis of Evidence -- Jefferson Scholars Report > Good Evening, > > We have been talking about evidence this weekend, and we haven't said too > much on this list about the recently released summary of the "Jeffersons > Scholars Commission Report" examining the documentary evidence that might > lend insights into whether or not Thomas Jefferson was the father of any or > all of his slave Sally Hemmings' children -- and concluding with views from > skepticism that he was to the conclusion that it was certainly untrue that he > was the father of any of the children. > > For the "evidence" for the new report there are no documents, such as wills, > deeds, bibles, etc., but there is a wealth of letters, "hearsay" documents, > circumstantial evidence and observations on what is known about the > individuals involved to be weighed. There IS an indication from a DNA study > in 1999 that one of more than two score Jefferson men MIGHT have been the > father of ONE of Sally's children. > > The summary of the new report available online I think is an extremely > clearly written, easy to read analysis of the avilable evidence, and I > encourage you all to read it. It is found here: > http://www.tjheritage.org/scholars.html > > For me, with an illegitimate great grandfather ,proof of whose parentage some > older cousins have made their life's quest -- cousins who have shown no real > interest in either their prominent, upstanding nor their scandal-plagued > ancestors in the 1600/1700s on the Eastern Shore-- the Scholars Commission > Report has provided suggestions to more places we can look to add to OUR list > of evidence and further the cause. (We have the same DNA problem as the > Jeffersons...too many likely HILL men in Warren Co TN..to pin down for sure, > but they all do probably descend from one "grandpa" in the county.) > > I wrote a synopsis of the earlier DNA study and the Scholars Commission > Report, and posted it on the LVA's VA-Roots, and have been told that it is > accurate, though the Thomas-as-father theory still has its fans, and some > don't like the fact that I may have "fallen" under the spell of the > our-President/Ancestor Thomas-can't -possibly-have-had-a-child-by-a-slave > proponents (a slave albeit she was his late wife's half-sister). I'm > simplifying a bit. > > Again, I urge you all to read the online summary, see what they did and how > they analyzed it, and if so inclined draw your own conclusions on Jefferson. > My slightly amended post to Va-Roots is pasted in below. I added for this, > hopefully less high-strung list's purpose the info that (a) PBS had all > "sides" of the story prior to production of the special and chose to ignore > important "facts" such as Eston Hemming's family lore that they descended > from an "uncle" Jefferson and not Thomas himself; (b) the fact that Madison's > descendants declined testing; (c) the reference to Abigail Adam's letters re > Sally, which I found to be quite remarkable; and (d) the argument that > Thomas' brother Randolph's 16-18 year old boys were too young to bed Sally. > > My long-standing interest in this controversy stems from my CARR > ancestry.(and there are some real interesting comments on the Carr boys' > claims in the summary) > > Best Regards, > Janet (Baugh) Hunter > _________ > Subj: Re: [VA-ROOTS] READ IT -- Jefferson Scholars Report > Date: 4/17/01 3:38:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: jleehunt1 > To: va-roots@listlva.lib.va.us > > > << << > What is so wrong with Jefferson falling in love with Sally, a > beautiful woman who resembled his dead wife, it was interesting he did > not remary, but showed faithfulness to Sally by staying single.>> > >> > > Hello Everyone, > > There is nothing wrong with the sentiment, but evidence suggests that it just > isn't true. I urge you all to read the summary of the Scholars Commission on > the Jefferson-Hemmings controversy (link below). While it may seem like we > are getting involved in an actual controversy that side tracks us from > geneaology, the way the facts were gathered by the Scholars Commission and > the analysis of them I feel DOES HAVE a broader application by way of example > for all of us who have ancestor connections that we cannot prove via wills, > deeds, etc., but have quite thick files of circumstantial arguments and data, > as I do. > > I too shared the above quoted sentiment, which seemed to be a likely scenario > after watching a PBS documentary about a year ago (with two of my children, > with one of whom I am now in protracted discussions about the latest > developments). And I am appalled to find out that even though PBS knew the > evidence was lacking and had interviewed "all sides", the documentary still > leaves the impression that Sally Hemmings basically gave Thomas Jefferson a > second family in a loving, long-running, monogamous relationship that began > in Paris, when our future President also inaugurated the truly incredible > spending-way-beyond-his-means habits that extended throughout his lifetime. > > While Jim Self's statement(s) of Jefferson's own denial of the affair should > be taken seriously, the combination of the earlier DNA study and the summary > of the still -to-be-released full Scholars Commission report provide more > objective support for Jefferson's denial, and I personally think together > make a strong case that it is unlikely that he was the father of any of > Sally's children. They seem to me anyway to also make a case that there well > could have been at least three separate fathers involved, and there are other > known Jefferson candidates for the honor of siring children by Sally. > > Background facts in brief: > (1) Sally Hemmings had seven children: Thomas Woodson, Madison, Eston, > Harriet1 (died young), Harriet2, Beverly and another daughter who died in > infancy. > (2) DNA studies, only applicable to male descendants, were done on > descendants of only two sons: Thomas Woodson and Eston. Madison's > descendants have so far declined to be tested, which they can do at any time; > at least one said the family story was quite sufficient (see below). > (3) No DNA work on others; > (4) Madison Hemmings' descendants have a story that Thomas Jefferson was > their ancestor: > (5) Eston Hemmings' descendants have a story that an "uncle Jefferson" was > their ancestor: and > (6) two Carr brothers, Peter and Samuel, claimed to have fathered children > by Hemmings. > (Source: http://www.angelfire.com/va/TJTruth/background.html) > > QUICK SUMMARY OF THE NOVEMBER 1999 DNA STUDY, designed to test for BOTH > Jefferson and Carr genetic markers: > (1) Thomas Woodson's descendant tested DOES NOT have the JEFFERSON genetic > marker; > (2) Eston Hemmings' descendant tested DOES have the JEFFERSON genetic marker; > (3) NEITHER of the tested descendants have the CARR genetic Marker. > > Conclusion: Eston likely has Jefferson ancestry; Thomas Woodson likely does > not; neither likely have Carr ancestry. Even though Eston's Jefferson > ancestry could have been any one of many Jefferson men, the test results were > interpreted by many of Sally Hemmings' descendants (plus other interested > parties and the media) to mean that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of > her children Thus the controversy and need for further study and analysis. > For more information on the DNA study: > http://www.angelfire.com/va/TJTruth/background.html (There are some other > sites). > > Observation re Thomas and Sally having long-term monogamous relationship. > Based on the assumption that the Carr brothers weren't just boasting about > bedding one of the best looking slaves at Monticello but actually did > "sleep" with her and sired some of her children, it looks like Sally MIGHT > well have had children by at least THREE or FOUR different men: Peter and/or > Samuel Carr; a Jefferson man; and a non Carr/non Jefferson man. But DNA > testing is in the early stages and is complicated, and the verdict is still > out on that (Jefferson Scholars Commission report below, which indicates no > clan OR individual, including Thomas Jefferson, is "off the hook" for ANY of > the children). > > MY QUICK TAKE ON SUMMARY OF JEFFERSON SCHOLARS COMMISSION REPORT found here: > http://www.tjheritage.org/scholars.html : > > The Scholars Commission concludes it "is by no means proven" that Thomas > Jefferson fathered one or more of Sally Hemmings children, and the views of > the 12 scholars agreeing with this range from the skeptical to those who feel > it is certainly untrue that Jefferson was the father. One of the scholars > dissented. The reason there is at the least skepticism among the twelve that > Thomas Jefferson is the father of any of Sally Hemming's children centers (in > my reading) on their analysis that the evidence suggests that while he was in > the right "time and place" to have done so, it is questionable whether he > would have had either the "motive" to bed Sally or "opportunity" to do so > without detection. > > They find no evidence that Thomas Jefferson had sexual relations with Sally > Hemmings, while there is evidence she had other liaisons, and further: > > (a) a number of factors would argue against such a liaison in any event -- no > motive -- (her age and personality, his age and personality, etc. -- read > especially reference to First Lady (later) Abigail Adams' letter from London > regarding Sally right before she went across the Channel with Jefferson's > daughter to Paris, saying Sally was less mature than the 9 year old > daughter); and > > (b) while Thomas Jefferson was in the vicinity of Sally Hemmings when all of > her pregnancies were conceived ("time and place"), he had virtually no > privacy when he was at Monticello (no opportunity to do so without > detection). > > They argue that if there had been an ongoing relationship it would have been > known and recorded by someone, somewhere -- and there were observations that > Thomas' brother Randolph spent the night with Sally Hemmings on many > occasions. They also further point to the fact that Sally's children do not > seem to receive treatment in the Jefferson household any better than those of > Sally's siblings also there. Monticello was, it seems, the scene of a giant > "house party" whenever Thomas Jefferson was in residence, with "alert" > servants and guests everywhere. The report goes on to indicate that among > the more likely candidates for the Jefferson genetic marker for Eston are > Thomas' brother Randolph, or one of his sons. (I have been told that > advocates of the Thomas-as-father theory have argued that Randolph's 16-18 > year old boys were too young to have bedded Sally..!!*#$@!! You've got to > read about Randolph to fully appreciate this.) > > Ann Avery Hunter just wrote: "Men who don't talk about their love/sex lives > are not called liars in Virginia. They are called gentlemen." > > I urge everyone to go and read the excellent, clear summary of the report, > which is unfortunately in PDF form, which means you need to download Acrobat > Reader. The summary is fairly lengthy and describes in a very forthright > manner the facts the scholars chose as key and the reasons for their > interpretations. > > We have had quite a to-do on the issue on the VA-HIST list, companion to > Va-Roots. The orientation there is different. I recommend that you look at > the summary, pretend that Thomas Jefferson was just another rich plantation > owner, who'd never done a day of public service beyond jury duty, and that > your family lore has a story such as this, and ask yourself what your > "tentative" conclusions (preponderance of evidence, etc.) might be -- > "tentative" as there is a book coming out shortly with all the details on the > specifics of the evidence. > > I am pretty sure I've made some horrible faux pas in here somewhere, so I ask > your forgiveness in advance, > > Best Regards, > > Janet (Baugh) Hunter...a descendant of a cousin of Peter and Samuel Carr. > > > > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > The USGenWeb Project http://www.usgenweb.org > > > ============================== > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > your heritage! > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog > >

In a message dated 04/23/2001 3:46:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time, martee@citlink.net writes: > In the > colonies and early states, not only were the > positions of surveyor and chain carrier VERY > important ones by reason of the sacrosanct > nature of real estate in the view of our > ancestors, but also those positions were > often hired and paid for by the county or the > commonwealth/colony. In fact, oaths were > administered and reputations for honesty were > prerequisite for those offices. One of the joys of genealogy is discovering personal pieces of American History. I have several deeds from Frederick Co. VA--surveyed by a sixteen-year old George Washington for Lord Fairfax. In fact, it's hard to find 1750s land around Winchester that George didn't survey! I guess he had the requisite honesty. :) Karen Dale

Interesting about chain carriers representing the parties buying and selling. In the colonies and early states, not only were the positions of surveyor and chain carrier VERY important ones by reason of the sacrosanct nature of real estate in the view of our ancestors, but also those positions were often hired and paid for by the county or the commonwealth/colony. In fact, oaths were administered and reputations for honesty were prerequisite for those offices. The chain carrier, as might the surveyor, could easily falsify measurements to his own benefit or to that of an accomplice. Indeed, in some states, we still have an employed or even yet occasionally elected "county surveyor." The researcher may assume that an ancestor who was of one of those positions was known in the community for honesty and integrity. Paul Original Message ----- From: <Bebenjohn@aol.com> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Surveyors | Hello all, | | I missed the message regarding the surveyor explanation, so I don't know the | direction the conversation took, but in North Carolina the chain carriers | accompanied the surveyor; one represented the purchaser; the other the | seller. This was to prevent one side from improperly adjusting the | measurement for one party or the other. | | | In a message dated 4/23/01 11:54:05 AM, Jkl4325@aol.com writes: | | << Paul, | thanks for the explanation on surveyors. Would anyone happen to know | of any lists of surveyors for Virginia and North Carolina? I have a pssoble | distant realitive, John Hilurn, who worked as a "second chain" with John and | Ruebin Procter surveying land. | thanks folks! | Jeannie | researching Hilburn/Vaughan/Simmons/Upchurch/Procter familes of 1680 to | 1769 in Virginia and North Carolina. | >> | | | ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | USGW Archives Pension Project | http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/pensions/ | | | ============================== | Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! | http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp |

I am going to try again in case there are new researchers .... I am looking for info on my GG grandfather, McKinney Johnson aka as Kinney JOHNSON b. 1798 Surry Co., NC d. @1870 Murray Co., Ga. Now this may get confusing so bear with me.... McKinney JOHNSON m. Sarah McKinney b. 1808 Surry Co., NC. They had several children one being HARDY P. JOHNSON who m. sisters (1) Martha Jane TUCKER and (2) Lucy Ann TUCKER daughters of Churchill B. TUCKER and Rosamond MCKINNEY b. 1805 Surry Co., NC It is possible that Rosamond McKINNEY and Sarah McKINNEY were sisters. McKinney JOHNSON and Sarah named a daughter Rosamond also. My guess these three families were living close to each other and may have even been cousins. I would like any info anyone may have on these people especially the JOHNSON and MCKINNEY families as they are my direct line. I found a Wm. JOHNSON m. Sarah McKINNEY in 1792 in Brunswick Co., Va. and they may have moved on to Surry Co. I suspect that McKinney JOHNSON's mother was probably a McKINNEY as they sometime named their male children after the mother's maiden name.\ ANY HELP PLEASE ADVISE. I am desperate. I have cancer in one eye and lost sight in it and may lose the other one soon. Would like to get as much done for my kids and grandchildren before I have to stop. jcjohnson

Hello all, I missed the message regarding the surveyor explanation, so I don't know the direction the conversation took, but in North Carolina the chain carriers accompanied the surveyor; one represented the purchaser; the other the seller. This was to prevent one side from improperly adjusting the measurement for one party or the other. In a message dated 4/23/01 11:54:05 AM, Jkl4325@aol.com writes: << Paul, thanks for the explanation on surveyors. Would anyone happen to know of any lists of surveyors for Virginia and North Carolina? I have a pssoble distant realitive, John Hilurn, who worked as a "second chain" with John and Ruebin Procter surveying land. thanks folks! Jeannie researching Hilburn/Vaughan/Simmons/Upchurch/Procter familes of 1680 to 1769 in Virginia and North Carolina. >>

The question usually is not whether the names of wives appeared in the deeds of husbands, it is whether or not by reason of her death before him, by court entry, by a separate oath, or by an assent being appended to the deed, that wife did in fact agree to the sale. Then too, a few colonies/states did not provide identical "widow's shares." So remember, the question could NOT arise unless the wife outlived that husband and brought the matter to the attention of the court sitting in probate. Said another way, if she predeceased him OR if she otherwise was provided for by her kids or someone else, the matter of her dower interest in those lands purchased and sold by her husband during marriage (coverture) almost never would arise. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: <jleehunt1@aol.com> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 11:08 AM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: Land Sales/Dower Right Relinquishment | I hope I haven't missed a post here, but the one situation I've been more | likely in my truly limited experience to see the wife's name is if the | husband sells the land, and there is a court record showing that she | relinquished her dower rights, as any alert purchaser would have required. | | I have in my possession only about 12 deeds, all for Baughs/neighbors in land | in Henrico/Chesterfield on the Appomatox around what is now Ashton Creek (my | Cathole). None of them have a wife's name. There are at least 20 more | deeds affecting that property and next door neighbors before 1750 that I | don't have. | | Best Regards, | Janet (Baugh) Hunter | | | ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | VAGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~vagenweb | | | ============================== | Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! | http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp | |

Right on Carol. I posted this note last evening. While Bob is relating his true experience, I personally have seen no where near that percentage he mentioned - 50% - of deeds with no assent by the wife. These assents sometimes were appended to the deed on a 2nd page, and sometimes even in a separate document. It is important to remember that, if the wife did not outlive the husband, the entire question is moot and was never raised, since her "widow's share" (whatever it may have been from time to time and from to place) only vested IF she survived. If she did survive, while the possibility of a court ignoring her rights surely was occasionally present, such matters were well known to EVERY wife, since that was often their only subsistence after widowhood, hence few of such rights slipped by the judges if the widow or any interested party raised the question. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol A. Morrison" <carolamorrison@earthlink.net> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: Land Ownership in Tennessee | Paul, | | You stated that "So, NO signature on a deed of the wife almost without | exception means there was NO wife at the date of the deed." I realize you | put that "almost without exception" but was thinking some new folks might | not realize that it can be done and can be found. | | From my own personal research and reading many, many deeds in Virginia, I | can personally tell you that I've seen several deeds where the wife did not | sign the deed and the deed did not mention a wife when in fact there was one | at the time of the transfer of the property. So, folks, while it usually | may indicate that there is no wife, it doesn't mean with 100% certainty that | she doesn't exist. | | Carol | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Paul" <martee@citlink.net> | To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> | Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 3:01 PM | Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: Land Ownership in Tennessee | | | > In answer to Joyce, who asked "...if there | > was no wife's signature on an early deed, | > could there have been one anyhow?" We have a | > saying: "At marriage a man and woman become | > one, and that one is the man." In | > Tennessee, as in nearly ALL the Southern | > States, the belongings of a woman - land and | > personal property, of every sort - became the | > property of the husband when she married him, | > and men could buy land (or anything else) | > with no participation whatever by the wife. | > HOWEVER, no one with good sense or judgment | > would buy land without the written assent of | > the seller's wife to that sale, since to do | > so would be to ignore her nearly inviolate | > rights to a "widow's share" at the death of | > her husband, no matter how much later that | > death occurred. So, NO signature on a deed | > of the wife almost without exception means | > there was NO wife at the date of the deed. | > | > | > | > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | > USGenWeb Archives http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb | > | > | > ============================== | > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! | > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp | > | | | ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | USGenWeb Archives Census Project | http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/ | | | ============================== | Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: | Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. | http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com |

I hope I haven't missed a post here, but the one situation I've been more likely in my truly limited experience to see the wife's name is if the husband sells the land, and there is a court record showing that she relinquished her dower rights, as any alert purchaser would have required. I have in my possession only about 12 deeds, all for Baughs/neighbors in land in Henrico/Chesterfield on the Appomatox around what is now Ashton Creek (my Cathole). None of them have a wife's name. There are at least 20 more deeds affecting that property and next door neighbors before 1750 that I don't have. Best Regards, Janet (Baugh) Hunter

Hi Carol & all, I have seen lots of deeds as well when I know there was a wife but she is not mentioned nor has she signed the deed. Have seen them with and without the wife's signature. God bless, Beth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol A. Morrison" <carolamorrison@earthlink.net> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: Land Ownership in Tennessee > Paul, > > You stated that "So, NO signature on a deed of the wife almost without > exception means there was NO wife at the date of the deed." I realize you > put that "almost without exception" but was thinking some new folks might > not realize that it can be done and can be found. > > From my own personal research and reading many, many deeds in Virginia, I > can personally tell you that I've seen several deeds where the wife did not > sign the deed and the deed did not mention a wife when in fact there was one > at the time of the transfer of the property. So, folks, while it usually > may indicate that there is no wife, it doesn't mean with 100% certainty that > she doesn't exist. > > Carol > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul" <martee@citlink.net> > To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 3:01 PM > Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: Land Ownership in Tennessee > > > > In answer to Joyce, who asked "...if there > > was no wife's signature on an early deed, > > could there have been one anyhow?" We have a > > saying: "At marriage a man and woman become > > one, and that one is the man." In > > Tennessee, as in nearly ALL the Southern > > States, the belongings of a woman - land and > > personal property, of every sort - became the > > property of the husband when she married him, > > and men could buy land (or anything else) > > with no participation whatever by the wife. > > HOWEVER, no one with good sense or judgment > > would buy land without the written assent of > > the seller's wife to that sale, since to do > > so would be to ignore her nearly inviolate > > rights to a "widow's share" at the death of > > her husband, no matter how much later that > > death occurred. So, NO signature on a deed > > of the wife almost without exception means > > there was NO wife at the date of the deed. > > > > > > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > > USGenWeb Archives http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb > > > > > > ============================== > > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb Archives Census Project > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/census/ > > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com > >

Paul, thanks for the explanation on surveyors. Would anyone happen to know of any lists of surveyors for Virginia and North Carolina? I have a pssoble distant realitive, John Hilurn, who worked as a "second chain" with John and Ruebin Procter surveying land. thanks folks! Jeannie researching Hilburn/Vaughan/Simmons/Upchurch/Procter familes of 1680 to 1769 in Virginia and North Carolina.

Paul, You stated that "So, NO signature on a deed of the wife almost without exception means there was NO wife at the date of the deed." I realize you put that "almost without exception" but was thinking some new folks might not realize that it can be done and can be found. From my own personal research and reading many, many deeds in Virginia, I can personally tell you that I've seen several deeds where the wife did not sign the deed and the deed did not mention a wife when in fact there was one at the time of the transfer of the property. So, folks, while it usually may indicate that there is no wife, it doesn't mean with 100% certainty that she doesn't exist. Carol ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" <martee@citlink.net> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 3:01 PM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: Land Ownership in Tennessee > In answer to Joyce, who asked "...if there > was no wife's signature on an early deed, > could there have been one anyhow?" We have a > saying: "At marriage a man and woman become > one, and that one is the man." In > Tennessee, as in nearly ALL the Southern > States, the belongings of a woman - land and > personal property, of every sort - became the > property of the husband when she married him, > and men could buy land (or anything else) > with no participation whatever by the wife. > HOWEVER, no one with good sense or judgment > would buy land without the written assent of > the seller's wife to that sale, since to do > so would be to ignore her nearly inviolate > rights to a "widow's share" at the death of > her husband, no matter how much later that > death occurred. So, NO signature on a deed > of the wife almost without exception means > there was NO wife at the date of the deed. > > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb Archives http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp >

In a message dated 04/22/2001 9:35:58 PM Central Daylight Time, jleehunt1@aol.com writes: > We have been talking about evidence this weekend, Hope this discussion will permit one more story of bastardy. My 5th great grandmother Lydia Dugger was summoned before the VA court three times and fined for deliverying a child out of wedlock. One of those sessions was in 1749. When John Dugger applied for a pension for his RW service, he stated that he was born in 1749 in Surry County. No further information was located relating to Lydia until 13 April 1762 when Marmaduke Cheatham wrote his will in Surry County, Virginia. Marmaduke gave his wife Susannah her maintenance "if she will come and live at home" and made bequests to his other children. He named four sons and three daughters in his will and mentioned several grandchildren by name. His last bequest was to John Dugger, son of Lydia Dugger deceased and he left him one cow and a calf. He did not state his relationship to John or Lydia Dugger. Was Marmaduke the father of John? Perhaps, but if Lydia refused to name him in 1749, I hesitate to do so now. I present the evidence in my file and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Joyce

Bob is surely correct. I personally have seen no where near that percentage - 50% - of deeds with no assent by the wife. These assents sometimes were appended to the deed on a 2nd page, and sometimes even in a separate document. Then too, if the wife did not outlive the husband, the entire question is moot, since her "widow's share" (whatever it may have been from time to time and from to place) only vested IF she survived. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Jordan" <jorbob@webtv.net> To: <VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:42 AM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] Re: Wife's land rights | Just wanted to point out that about half of the deeds on my families did | not list the wife's name when it has been proven the man was married and | had children - in spite of what should have been done. This covers | 1600s-1800s in VA and NC. So, please do not let a deed, without the | wife's name, lead to a wrong conclusion. On the other hand, I have seen | deeds that were challenged in the courts for same reason. There was a | big one like that in 1600s Surry Co. VA where a man's widow, who had | remarried, challenged the rights to ownership of a deed which had been | sold by the deceased earlier. The second husband was the one pushing | the dispute. | | Bob Jordan | jorbob@webtv.net | | | ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== | Hosted by Rootsweb http://www.rootsweb.com | | | ============================== | Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history | learning and how-to articles on the Internet. | http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library |

Just wanted to point out that about half of the deeds on my families did not list the wife's name when it has been proven the man was married and had children - in spite of what should have been done. This covers 1600s-1800s in VA and NC. So, please do not let a deed, without the wife's name, lead to a wrong conclusion. On the other hand, I have seen deeds that were challenged in the courts for same reason. There was a big one like that in 1600s Surry Co. VA where a man's widow, who had remarried, challenged the rights to ownership of a deed which had been sold by the deceased earlier. The second husband was the one pushing the dispute. Bob Jordan jorbob@webtv.net

In a message dated 4/23/01 8:03:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, VA-SOUTHSIDE-D-request@rootsweb.com writes: << With no offense intended to my cousin, this is not the proper forum for discussion of this. >> With all due respect, in my opinion this is exactly the proper forum for such discussion. When reduced to its simplest form, what is the Jefferson/Hemmings question but one of genealogy? The Hemmings family are people who want to know their roots and are finding more scholarly and scientific ways to research than may have been available in the past. Sally T. Baughn SallyBaughn@aol.com