Folks -- Could this be Bolling instead of Bowen?? Drury Bolling's land transactions are all over the place and of course Drury and Robert were related. Do you mind sighting your sources here?? Thanks. Ernie Subj: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] land that traces back to nowhere Date: 06/19/2001 8:31:30 Central Daylight Time From: fharper@triad.rr.com (Frances Cullom Harper) To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com Can anyone explain to me what happened here? Robert Bowen held land on the south side of the Meherrin River on the west side of Eagles Nest Creek (present NE Mecklenburg east of Smith Creek) prior to 1755 when the William Dobyns grant referred to "Bowing's" line. There was no grant for this land until 1768 when Drury Bowen and Robert Bowen were granted a patent with the exact same line described in the Dobyns patent. I am guessing they might have been sons of the earlier Robert Bowen, but perhaps both Robert Bowens were the same. In 1753 Robert Bowen mortgaged another piece of land (150 acres) farther up Eagles Nest Creek to Clement Read. The deed stated the land adjoined Edward Henry. There was no grant for that piece of Bowen land either. There was no grant for the Edward Henry land although it was mentioned several times in other patents. There was also mention in the early patents of Margaret Bagwell's land in the same area - but no patent for it. The same for William Wright's land. All of these folks seem to have held their land by the early 1750's - they were some of the earliest landholders on the south side of the river in what is now Mecklenburg Co. I've searched all the patents for this area thinking that maybe the land was granted to someone else and inherited or sold, but I can find no sign of that at all for any of them. In each case, they seem to have been the original owners of the property. What happened here? Did these people believe they held a patent and then find out later they didn't? That would seem to be the case with the Robert Bowen land since Robert and Drury Bowen were granted a patent for it years later in 1768. I know it often took years for patents to be granted, but more than 15 years? And no patent was ever granted for the 150 acres that was sold. Did these people apply for patents and then the paperwork was lost? Were patents granted but never properly recorded? Were some of the grant books lost? I understand that when Brunswick Co was formed, some of the early records (1720-1732) that were recorded in the Prince George Co books until the new county of Brunswick was organized were not copied into the Brunswick Co books as they should have been. There was an order in 1735 that 52 deeds be recorded, but apparently they never were. A Benjamin Boing and a few others that can be associated with this area were in the list, but not any of the names I was looking for. Could this be the explanation? But still, shouldn't there be grants for this land to somebody else? Weren't the grants recorded separately in the grant books? Subj: Re: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] land that traces back to nowhere Date: 06/19/2001 8:54:08 Central Daylight Time From: martee@citlink.net (Paul Drake) To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com > What happened here? Did these people believe they held a patent and then > find out later they didn't? ***Yes; Sometimes - BUT NOT OFTEN, because surveyors were appointed by the governors and were as qualified as could be. Patents sometiomes overlapped by reason of the surveying difficulties in the wilderness that then was unsettled VA. I know it often took years for patents to be granted, but > more than 15 years? *** 15 years is a stretch, however sometimes patentees died after the right to the land was earned, yet before the land was "improved" to a degree sufficient to qualify for the actual grant. > And no patent was ever granted for the 150 acres that > was sold. Did these people apply for patents and then the paperwork was > lost? **** While I am sure this happened, the Clerks and those in the governors' administrations who handled grant and land matters were VERY careful as a rule. **** Were patents granted but never properly recorded? Very rarely, but yes. Remember though that recording was an animal of thsi continent, and was THEN unknown in England (thus "deed boxes"), and I am sure that some very few recent immigrants paid but little attention to that requirement. > Were some of the grant books lost? ****Yes, but VERY, VERY few; they were of the utmost importance to our earliest colonists. I know of no VA county that does not know whether or not the patent/land records for their county were lost at some time. > > I understand that when Brunswick Co was formed, some of the early records > (1720-1732) that were recorded in the Prince George Co books until the new county of Brunswick was organized were not copied into the Brunswick Co > books as they should have been. There was an order in 1735 that 52 deeds be > recorded, but apparently they never were. **** Good info, Cookie, especially for those who are researching Brunswick. But still, shouldn't there be grants for this land to somebody else? ****Not if the grant had been issued after "improvement" and not recorded. Weren't the grants recorded separately in the grant > books? **** at the governors' level, when the land was an original grant, the answer is yes. At the local level, at first, yes, but soon such entries were recorded in the same fashion as were other conveyances and documents having to do land. >