[APG Public List] Age 21 as legal mandate for sale of land in
CL Swope (alfonsa)
alfonsa at cynthiaswope.com
Sun Oct 25 15:02:19 MDT 2009
Thanks Pat--- It would seem to indicate that this was indeed the case at
the time. Very handy it is so nicely in the time frame!
Pat Duncan wrote:
> This may not be the same type of transaction, but here is an example of a
> sale and later release of rights for a land transaction in Loudoun County,
> >From the series, "Index to Loudoun Co. Va Deed Books, ..." by Pat Duncan:
> Bk:Pg: 2L:322 Date: 25 Nov 1809 Returned to court: 11 Dec 1809
> Elizabeth LUCKETT (wd/o Thomas H. LUCKETT dec'd) and Thomas H. LUCKETT the
> youngest son of Frederick Co Md to Saml CLAPHAM of Ldn. Bargain and sale of
> 182½a adj Col. Josias CLAPHAM. Wit: Peter BURKHART, Fred'k. HEIBELY, Wm.
> MICHAEL, John RIGNEY, John FRITCHIE.
> Bk:Pg: 2T:235 Date: 11 Feb 1816 Returned to court: 12 Feb 1816
> Thomas H. LUCKETT. Release of right to 182a. Mother Elizabeth LUCKETT
> conveyed to Samuel CLAPHAM of Ldn, now Thomas is over 21y and can agree.
> Wit: Saml. C. ROSS, William DIXON.
> The land was sold in 1809, but Thomas was not old enough until 1816 to
> release his right.
> Pat Duncan
> GenNutLdn at msn.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CL Swope (alfonsa)" <alfonsa at cynthiaswope.com>
> To: <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:18 PM
> Subject: [APG Public List] Age 21 as legal mandate for sale of land in 1814
>> The date of birth of my target is said to be Jan 1793, and he is said
>> the youngest of the sibling group. His only brother died in the early
>> In April of 1814 the target and his four sisters advertised their
>> inherited land (Virginia) for sale, and in May of that year sold it. By
>> this time, my target was 'of Pennsylvania', but his siblings, and the
>> land, were in Virginia.
>> I suspect the sibling group waited until 1814 to sell as he had just
>> turned 21 and that the decision to sell at that time supports the
>> reported (and so far unverifiable) birth year as well as his position as
>> youngest in the sibling group.
>> Am I correct that there is a legal precedence for this assumption in the
>> time frame? Google Books turns up quite a few references to court
>> proceedings seeming to support my thought, but I'd like to be certain. I
>> can think of no other reason the sibling group would have waited, and
>> the coincidence of age seems a strong indicator to me. Am I in error?
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Cynthia Swope
More information about the APGPublicList