As I read it, Morrison's article on the early settlers on South Branch Manor was not meant to be all inclusive in this one article. In fact, he wrote another article in 1979 entitled "Early Land Grants and Settlers Along Patterson Creek," in West Virginia History, V40 (Winter 1979), pp. 164-199 and maybe other articles I haven't yet found. As his article states, he was only dealing with manor land and not all of Fairfax's South Branch Valley lands were included in the 4 manors he focused on. There were definitely lots on the South Branch and other rivers that were not on a particular manor. I think he was just taking each manor at a time and only dealing with the original land holders, not necessarily later ones--which isn't to say there weren't other land holders on non-manor lands that he did not include. So I agree with you, Brian, that researchers should not limit their search of land records to only the manor lands listed by Morrison. But it is a good place to start. Sara Patton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian D Core" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 10:23 PM Subject: South Branch Manor Lot Numbers > What Charles Morrison didn't tell us... > > No disrespect to Charles Morrison intended. He published an article about > the early grants along the South Branch River, in the October 1976 issue > of West Virginia History Vol. XXXVIII, No. 1). He stated that the lots > along the South Fork River were numbered 1 through 20, with lot no. 1 at > the Fairfax line, and lot number 20 at Moorefield. This much appears to > be true. Lots along the Wappacomo were numbered 1 through 64, with lot > no. 1 being just north of the Trough, and lot no. 64 being at the > juncture of the Wappacomo and the Potomac. This also appears to be true. > > He didn't mention in the article (as far as I can tell) that there were > also numbered lots along the North Branch and the South Branch Rivers. I > have a few copies of old Fairfax leases, and found that Frederick Ice had > property on "the North Branch of Potowmack," lot no. 8. This land later > passed to Francis Pierpoint and James Livingston. this lot would not have > been considered a part of South Branch Manor. > > John Pancake owned lot no. 60, on "the West Side of the South Branch of > Potowmack," with Lunice Creek as one of the boundaries. This would place > the lot at the present site of the town of Petersburg (Grant County). > > I found that George Core's lot, on the west side of the South Branch, was > number 12; the adjacent lot to the north, lot no. 9, was owned by John > Pancake. The adjacent lot to the south was probably lot no. 13, owned at > times by Michael Stump (Sr. or Jr.?), Christopher Cocke, and Joseph > Innskeep. Lots 10 and 11 must have been on the east side of the river. > > A list of early lot owners also appears in Sage and Jones' Early Records > of Hampshire County; they did not distinguish which branch of the river > the lots were on, and may not have been familiar with the numbering > systems. > > To make a long story short, it may be worth doing a little homework if > you're trying to locate a lot based on information from either of these > sources. If you can find an adjoiner's deed that has an identifiable > landmark (such as a mountain or stream), you have a much more reliable > reference point. > > I'd welcome discussion from anybody who has additional information about > the lot numbering systems. > > Brian > > Brian D. Core > P.O. Box 1166 > Brighton, CO 80601 > [email protected] Web Page: http://pages.prodigy.net/greenhouseguy > For attachments, use: [email protected] > > ________________________________________________________________ > YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! > Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! > Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. > >