RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 2/2
    1. Re: [VARUSSEL] JOHN COOK, JACOB COOK, AND HENRY COOK WERE ALL BROTHERS RIGHT?
    2. Is this the same Jacob Cook who cohabitted with Dicy Lockhart? In a message dated 2/23/2005 12:14:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, cac@ntelos.net writes: This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/ABC.2ACE/3798 Message Board Post: I have come to the conclusion that John,Henry, and Jacob Cook were brothers. They are the right ages to be brothers, Jacob Cook was administrator over Henry Cook's estate. This family is hard to trace. John Cook m. Hannah Fields, Jacob Cook m. Dicy Fields Henry Cook m. Polly ????? Could Henry's wife had been a Fields also? Who knows? Chris,

    02/24/2005 03:38:33
    1. Re: [VARUSSEL] JOHN COOK, JACOB COOK, AND HENRY COOK WERE ALL BROTHERS RIGHT?
    2. tomr
    3. The 1850 Russell Co. census has a Anderson Cook family with a Jacob, John and Henry among others. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: <PK129@aol.com> To: <VARUSSEL-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:38 AM Subject: Re: [VARUSSEL] JOHN COOK, JACOB COOK, AND HENRY COOK WERE ALL BROTHERS RIGHT? > Is this the same Jacob Cook who cohabitted with Dicy Lockhart? > > In a message dated 2/23/2005 12:14:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, > cac@ntelos.net writes: > This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. > > Classification: Query > > Message Board URL: > > http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/ABC.2ACE/3798 > > Message Board Post: > > I have come to the conclusion that John,Henry, and Jacob Cook were > brothers. > > They are the right ages to be brothers, Jacob Cook was administrator over > Henry Cook's estate. > > This family is hard to trace. > > John Cook m. Hannah Fields, > > Jacob Cook m. Dicy Fields > > Henry Cook m. Polly ????? > > Could Henry's wife had been a Fields also? Who knows? > > Chris, > > > ==== VARUSSEL Mailing List ==== > It is ok to send messages that have genealogical value to the mailing > list. However, if the nature of your messages have turned more personal > and no longer have any real genealogical value then they should probably > be sent in private. > >

    02/24/2005 01:36:13