In a message dated 12/1/2002 6:36:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > Isn't it probably the case, that he owned > no land until he had that 50 acres in 1704? > Edna, I think the 1704 quit rent roll is the only quit rent roll to survive. So we don't know when he started paying on this land nor do we know how long he paid. I found this on RootsWeb's Guide to tracing family trees. Interesting... Quit-rent taxes were a yearly amount of money paid by landowners, generally at a rate per each 100 acres of land, and usually started several years after the owner had settled on the property. Quit rents were abolished at the start of the Revolutionary War. Assuming the above statement to be correct then Amer had his land for some time before he paid on it in 1704. But according to "Men of Matadequin" he was not a landholder in 1689. That's 12 years after he was transported so it makes me think he was somewhere other than New Kent County. For anyone interest in learning more about taxes, etc here's the Rootsweb link: <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson11.htm">RootsWeb's Guide to Tracing Family Trees No. 11</A> Judy
----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [VIA-L] interesting tidbits > In a message dated 12/1/2002 6:36:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > Isn't it probably the case, that he owned > > no land until he had that 50 acres in 1704? > > > > Edna, > I think the 1704 quit rent roll is the only quit rent roll to survive. So we > don't know when he started paying on this land nor do we know how long he > paid. I found this on RootsWeb's Guide to tracing family trees. > Interesting... > > Quit-rent taxes were a yearly amount of money paid by landowners, generally > at a rate per each 100 acres of land, and usually started several years after > the owner had settled on the property. Quit rents were abolished at the start > of the Revolutionary War. > > Assuming the above statement to be correct then Amer had his land for some > time before he paid on it in 1704. But according to "Men of Matadequin" he > was not a landholder in 1689. That's 12 years after he was transported so it > makes me think he was somewhere other than New Kent County. Or he may have been working off an endenture, then working to earn money to get started. Sue > > For anyone interest in learning more about taxes, etc here's the Rootsweb > link: > <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson11.htm">RootsWeb's Guide to Tracing Family Trees No. 11</A> > > Judy > > > > > > >