[APG Public List] Age 21 as legal mandate for sale of land in 1814Virginia

[CL Swope (alfonsa)]

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! 
Cynthia



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, 
> Virginia.
>
> >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 
> Virginia
>
>
>   
>> 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
>> 1800s.
>> 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 
>>     
>
>
>