In a message dated 06/28/2001 7:42:15 AM Mountain Daylight Time, jorbob@msn.com writes: > These lists generally followed a standard form - white males 16 and up, > blacks (slaves) 21 up, blacks 16-21, horses, sometimes cattle, town lots, > billiard tables, stud horses I have a man listed on personal property 1782 with .2 taxes for one horse. He himself is not tithable--and if he's the one I think he is, was probably only about 15--maybe 16. So it is possible he was listed because his HORSE was taxable though he was not? Does it make sense that his father's will (if such a thing existed--only the property inventory remains) made him the owner of the one stud horse in the estate (most expensive thing he owned!), and that this is why he's on the tax list (while his two older brothers are not) even though he was not old enough to be a tithable? He would probably have been in his mother's household--and she is listed just beneath him, also with one horse and 2 head of cattle--though only one stud horse is listed in the deceased husband/father's inventory. However, one mare and one mare colt were also listed--taxable or not? He (or at least someone of his name) only shows up 1782--until 1787 when he is listed as over 21 in a relative's household. Were such horses taxed every year? He sold the horse? Perhaps--more probable--his horse accounts for one of the two horses that show up in his stepfather's household after a 1783-84 marriage, while his mother's horse accounted for the second--and now the stepfather is paying the tax? Nothing like using a .2 tax on a stud horse to try to determine whether he is or is not the son of the deceased! A nice family bible would make life a lot easier! <<grin>> Any additional thoughts on this? One more comment--I think the initial question in this thread had to do with upper age exemptions--there was an exemption for "old age" which one tax list I have duly notes, but does anyone know how old "old age" was? Sixty? Sixty-Five? Seventy? Or was it as variable as the "senior discount" in our society? I think this man must have been abt. 75 when the notation first shows up in 1810, but before that there's a stretch of several years when he isn't listed at all--though he had been for a number of years earlier. What we need is a good tax lawyer. :) Karen

KDale60909@aol.com wrote > I have a man listed on personal property 1782 with .2 taxes for one horse. He > himself is not tithable--and if he's the one I think he is, was probably only > about 15--maybe 16. So it is possible he was listed because his HORSE was > taxable though he was not? Does it make sense that his father's will (if such > a thing existed--only the property inventory remains) made him the owner of > the one stud horse in the estate (most expensive thing he owned!), and that > this is why he's on the tax list (while his two older brothers are not) even > though he was not old enough to be a tithable? He would probably have been in > his mother's household--and she is listed just beneath him, also with one > horse and 2 head of cattle--though only one stud horse is listed in the > deceased husband/father's inventory. However, one mare and one mare colt were > also listed--taxable or not? > Sure it is possible. As long as somebody paid the tax, it didn't make too much difference how the form was filled out for the exceptional cases. The commissioners would have to list the property. However, a parent or guardian would be the responsible taxpayer.Later lists might list him with the mother responsible. However, I would guess the manner of listing in the exceptional cases varied among counties and even commissioners. . Was there a columns for white and black tithables? I seem to recall a 1782 list that only had columns for polls (free males over 21) and for slaves.