Author Archives: geothos

JOSHUA COMES TO ANSON

joshua Burris Jr 1Until now we’ve only been able to assume Solomon to be the son of Joshua Burris Senior. There really has been nothing telling us with certainty that such claim is true. This reality is no longer as per my last post outlining the discovery of a 1772 Bertie County tax list naming “Joshua Burris Senior and Son Solomon.” Assuming a minimal age limit of 16 years, from the tax list we further know that our Solomon was born prior to 1766.
From this find we can move forward without hesitation. We are cleared to interpret our history laden tea leaves from a new perspective. The door has been flung wide open allowing us a less cluttered glimpse into the records we hope will further enhance our ancestral story.

In this post I’ll begin the search anew with a critical look at our Burris family’s first acknowledged records accounting for events along Rocky River in southern North Carolina. I’ll start with a look at the family’s first land holdings in the region.

_________________________________

In Anson County, and dated 27 May 1778, Joshua Burris Senior made a formal request for 100 acres of land (Grant 3987, Anson) situated on Jones Creek. First appearing as a book recorded entry, the land in question was identified as adjoining those of William Ratliff and Daniel Murphy. The land was officially surveyed three months later on 29 Aug 1778 by Wm. Love. And then a little over a year later, on 3 Sep 1779, Joshua Burris Senior was issued a patent for his 100 acres:

Having been entered, surveyed and issued on the same dates as his father, Joshua Burris Junior also received a patent for 100 acres (Grant 4134, Anson). However, Junior’s land  was not on Jones Creek, but rather, was situated on waters of Island Creek. Some may believe this refers to land on Island Creek in now Stanly County as at the time issued, the lands of Stanly fell into Anson County. That’s not the case as from the image at the top of the page we know that branches of both Jones and Island creeks rise just east of present day Wadesboro flowing east into the Great Pee Dee. Both Junior and Senior lived near each other in the area of present day Gum Springs. See below, the lands of Joshua Burris Junior:

From a present day Google map, below we see that both Joshua Burris Sr and his son Joshua Burris Jr. received land grants within a few miles of the area of Gum Springs Baptist Church. And as you would hope, the father and son may have been neighbors, acquiring land fairly close to each other.

island jones

Looking back to the land grant records, there’s one bit of information I’ve not discussed. As part of the survey process, two persons are chosen to walk with, assist, and carry the chains and equipment used by the surveyor. Known as chain bearers or chain carriers, the two also witnessed the metes and bounds called out in the survey. As for Joshua Burris Senior’s 100 acre grant, Jenkins Hansford and David Burris are recorded as chain bearers. From this we can imagine that Joshua Senior had a son named David. There’s still no proof that’s the case, but the naming will certainly guide future research. Also mentioned is Jenkins Hansford. An odd name and not found anywhere else in Anson County, who is this person and why would he be there assisting the businesses of our Burris family?

As it turns out, back in Bertie County, the Hansford family had close contact with our Burris family. At this time I’ll quickly brush over the information introducing a few important points worth further consideration.

From deed G-453 dated 1751, Jenkins Hansfords and William Hansford are identified as sons of Thomas Hansford who lived at that time on “Malls Haven” west of the Chowan River. I think this is in the area of a place known as the “Pall Mall” located along the present day line between Bertie and Hertford counties. And a year before the transaction naming the children of Thomas Hansford, in 1750, John Wynns deeded land to James Burrass land on the south side of Flatt Swamp. The land adjoined White with witnesses being Thomas Hansford and Wm Hansford (registered Aug Court 1750).

The above links Jenkins to his brother William and father Thomas Hansford. And as James Burras is believed to be the father of Joshua Burris Senior, the information above  is but a small bit of the evidence linking the Hansford Family to our Burris family. And lastly, it locates the two families as living near each other in northeast Bertie County on its line with Hertford County.

Carrying this line of thinking a bit further, in 1730, a register of cattle marks in Bertie County lists: “Thomas Hansford …for his son Jenkins Hansford.” From this we know that Jenkins was not of the generation of Solomon and Joshua Burris Junior. Of a similar age  as that of Joshua Burris Senior, Jenkins must have been quite old in the 1770’s when he walked the lands of Anson as a chain bearer.

And, there’s an important story regarding another Thomas Hansford, likely being a distant family member. Participating in Bacon’s Rebellion,

“it is said that he [another person named Thomas Hansford] took a conspicuous part in the insurrection, brilliant as it was brief, and when he was captured after Bacon’s death, he supplicated no other favor than that “he might be shot like a soldier, and not hanged like a dog.”

You can read more on this story at Thomas Hansford: The First Native Martyr to American Liberty.

A person named Jenkins Hansford died ca. 1795 at which time his estate in Bertie County was inventoried by Luke White. Luke and his family will be  important in understanding ties to other branches of the Burris family who moved west.

Along with Jenkins Hansford, David Burris was also chosen to be a chain bearer in Joshua Burris Senior’s land grant. Who is David? I’ve yet been able to locate David but suspect him to be the son of Joshua Senior …or possibly a brother. He’s there as chain bearer for the land grant and then is gone. Who is he!?

Likewise, and turning to the land grant of Joshua Burris Junior, the names of his chainbearers were William Garrison and Adom or Odum Cook, Coak, or Cake. And as with David Burris, these two people are a mystery. I’ve yet to find anything else in Anson connecting them to our family. Much more work is needed.

_________________________________

In closing it must be pointed out that per his revolutionary War pension request, Solomon Burris served in the war out of Anson County. And by 1784, just after the close of the Revolutionary War, Solomon had married and fathered his oldest son named Taylor. His brother Joshua picked up and moved again to Anderson County SC. Somewhere in all this Joshua Burris Senior dies.

While his brother moved from the state, Solomon remained put though did make a bit of a move north into now Stanly County. Why did Solomon not make the move to South Carolina with his brother? What was there in old Montgomery County that drew Solomon to that area? Without proof, I believe the answer lies in a woman with maiden name Taylor. As Solomon married Judith Taylor, the couple moved to an area of Montgomery County thick with members of a Taylor family who once lived in the area just west of Bertie County. Coincidence? Giving their first born the name Taylor, all that’s left for us is to figure out the exact reason why.

JESSE HATHCOCK OF BERTIE

This past week I spent two days at NC Archives reading through the Indenture/Apprentice records for Bertie County ca. 1750-1839.  My goal was to find some untold record hopefully relating to my Burris family who removed to Stanly County NC. That, and to locate a solid connection to family who moved to Maury County in Tennessee.

Reading through hundreds of pages, I failed to add to what’s already known about the Burris family.  However, yesterday afternoon, I came across one record that may be of value to those searching the Hathcock family who settled in now Stanly County. Before showing  you the document in question I’d like to share my general observations of what I saw and read.

It seems easily, that more that 30% of the entries I read were for young orphans who were listed as either “Free People of Color,” Black, or Mulatto. It’s odd and I still can’t fully wrap my mind around the use of various tags placed on people of the day.  However, I do know that Free People of Color were considered mixed, being part white and part black or native. I guess they could also be a mix of black and native. I think Mulatto is similar but I cannot distinguish any difference from the label used for Free People of Color.

IMG_4578

You can see above that on 9 Feb 1818, the court placed “Jesse Heathcock, aged eleven years on the 15th March next” to live with Peter Kirkham to learn the art and mystery of a Carpenter. From the above we know Peter is a carpenter. Also, subtracting 11 from 1819, we know this Jesse was born in 1808. There is no mention of race so it appears from the record that this Jesse was considered to be white.

Now, from but a few web sites I’ve seen connected to the Hathcock family of Stanly County, a Jesse Hathcock is mentioned who married a person named Mary. This Jesse is listed in family histories as being born ca. 1808.  A perfect match.

I’ve not researched the above enough to proclaim a change in the Hathcock Family status quo. It’s presented here only as a bit of information worthy of further research which will hopefully be seen and researched by those whose families may be impacted.

A VETERANS’ STORY

veteran,s

Imagine it’s 1761 and in setting the stage for this post we start with George Poplin receiving a grant for 550 acres (Grant 113, Chatham) in a section of old Orange County that later became Chatham. The land is situated on Bear Creek near its mouth along Rocky River. Yes, there’s a Rocky River in Chatham County upon which some of our forebearers once lived.

Benjamin Mauldin somehow acquired part of George Poplin’s 550 acres as early 1775. Benjamin sold 75 acres (A-446 Chatham) of the land to Thomas Taylor. Later that year, in the summer of 1775, George Poplin penned his last will and testament naming children William, John, Jane, Nansey, George, Richard, Abe, Mimy, and Henry.

A new generation was coming in to its own at the same time the American Revolution spread across the southeast. During the early 1780’s the simple life previously known was shattered by political discourse. Locally, skirmishes between the Tory firebrand David Fanning and area patriot militiamen were constantly in the hearts and minds of common folk.

640px-ALSTON_HOUSE,_MOORE_COUNTY

By Jerrye & Roy Klotz, MD

Among the patriot leadership was Col. Philip Alston who owned and built what is known as the House in the Horse Shoe (located in present day Moore County). Alston was a hard man, shrewd and powerful. It was during 1781 when Col. Philip Alston paid a visit to the home of the above Thomas Taylor. He shot and killed the said Taylor supposedly after hearing words spoken that the colonel did not like. History records Thomas Taylor to be a Tory though some believe his death occurred because he simply refused to serve Philip Alston.

Thomas Taylor, the son of Robert and Mary Hudson Taylor, was but one child in their large family. The elder Robert Taylor wrote his will in 1758 Edgecombe County naming children Robert Jr, Edward, Joseph, Richard, Henry, William, Henry, Billington, Nimrod, Hudson, Judith, and Rachel. And, while residing in Chatham County, several of Thomas Taylor’s siblings lived very close to him. Just like Thomas, his brother William also acquired a 75 acre portion of George Poplin’s land (A-380, Chatham). Brother Richard received grants for land on nearby George’s Creek while Billington Taylor was deeded land on Cedar Creek near what’s called the Devil’s Tramping Ground.

Unlike the sad story of his brother Thomas, the Revolutionary War services of Hudson Taylor are well recorded. Born 1762 in Halifax County NC, his pension application shows that Hudson served three tours of duty. Much of the time his unit cruised the eastern piedmont employing hit and run tactics aimed at demoralizing the advances of David Fanning. They engaged the Tories at various locations including Lindley Mill and Brush Creek. Near the present day town of Coleridge, the latter Brush Creek skirmish took place on a branch of Deep River known as Brush Creek. From Hudson Taylor’s pension application:

“…was in the Battle at Brush Creek against the Tories & was defeated by the Tories Overpowered by the Numbers of Men the Killed & wounded not recollected returned to Chatham Court House.”

No more than 18 miles to the southwest of Brush Creek, another Patriot is said to have lived and died. While on leave from a tour of duty in 1781, Thomas Owen Carpenter was cuddling his infant baby when someone called upon him at his home place. Opening the door with baby in arms, it is said that Thomas Carpenter and his infant child were immediately shot down by Cornwallis’ troops. A small modern carved stone marks the resting place of the father and babe at nearby Shamburger family cemetery.

The Revolutionary War ended with many of its veterans picking up in search of a better promise. Our new country continued to offer incentives driving the American spirit south and westward. The old guard settlers knew each other well and must have moved forward, reveling in the deep comradery established during the war. Though there’s no record of Hudson Taylor acquiring land earlier in Chatham, deed books show he sold 75 acres (C-7 Chatham) in 1783. Located near the mouth of Bear Creek in Chatham County, this piece of land had once belonged to William Taylor by way of George Poplin’s 550 acre grant.

It was during this time that Hudson Taylor and others headed west across the Great Pee Dee. They found their way to the lands on Long Creek in present day Stanly County. Among those who settled in the area included Jonathan Carpenter from Moore County, the oldest son of the above Thomas Owen Carpenter.

INTERMISSION
I’m personally excited by the challenges of expanding a traditionally held story by close inspection of the common land records we usually gloss over. In this case, the need to physically locate a family acquisition and a happen chance find have coalesced with the story I’ve but begun to tell. Please hold your seats as the stage for act II is set.

Jonathan Carpenter was issued a patent of 200 acres (Grant 527, Montgomery) in 1783. Situated on Long Creek, the survey takes the shape of a large rectangle and the legal description further states the land is located “on the east side of Long Creek, east of Harbard Suggs, including a pond at the head of Scaly Bark Branch.” A title history for the land shows that it later fell in the hands of Solomon Burris. And, needing to identify the location in preparation for a presentation at this past year’s Solomon and Judith Burris Family Reunion, I pretty much guessed, and without proof, plotted the tract based on the following Google Maps image:

scaly pond
Today’s map is perfect; you can’t get much better! And yet, I cannot be sure this is it. And below, the following conveyances provide an early land history for Jonathan’s 200 acres:

2019-10-09_203920v2

Deed 13-36 Stanly, 1799. Jonathan Carpenter to William Taylor of Mecklenburg Witness: Josiah Carpenter, James Howell

Deed 13-362 Stanly. William Taylor of Mecklenburg to Nimrod Taylor of Montgomery. Wit: Jesse Hathcock, Elizabeth Hathcock

Deed 13-364 Stanly, 15 Mar 1812. Nimrod Taylor to Solomon Burris. Wit: Ezekiel Morton, Taylor Burris.

Deed 13-365 Stanly. 15 Feb 1819. Solomon Burris to Jesse Hathcock. Wit: Ezekiel Morton, Judith Burris

It’s amazing! There’s Jonathan Carpenter along with William Taylor whose land Hudson Taylor sold in Chatham County. And, there’s Hudson’s brother Nimrod who later moves to Louisiana. My family’s Revolutionary solider Solomon Burris bought into the land and his wife Judith served as a witness. And, of all who could have witnessed, there’s Taylor Burris amongst all these Taylor folks from earlier in Chatham County. Hudson Taylor had a sister named Judith though from timing and record we know Solomon’s wife could not be her. Somehow the Judith Burris above ties in to the Taylor family and her son Taylor Burris is there too. They are amongst family. And lastly, note the presence of Jesse Hathcock. He and the Burris family remain close throughout life.

Knowing I was close but still unable to pinpoint the 200 acre tract’s exact location, I began platting pieces of land for owners in and around the area …expanding outward from the pond at the end of Scaly Bark Branch. Looking southward, a few weeks ago the search yielded the following 250 acre tract (Grant 2653, Montgomery) issued to Daniel Moose in 1830.

Daniel Moose

According to the legal description, the sprawling tract above adjoins lands of Daniel Lowder, David Kendall, Hearne, Nimrod Taylor, Lucy Thomason, and Fogleman. Connecting other pieces of land to this tract, I learned that Hudson Taylor owned several  large tracts to the east. Nehemiah Hearne owned the lands to the northeast reaching into Albemarle where he is buried in a family cemetery.

Upon a petition of the heirs at law of Daniel Moose, in 1860 the above tract was sold to Sarah A. Moose (Deed 6-23, Stanly). However, increasing in size, the tract was then 507 ¾ acres instead of the 250 originally granted to Daniel Moose. Drawing the deeded land, and adding to it several other tracts, I present to you the following:

Daniel Moose2

In the above, the light red shaded tract represents Daniel Moose’s original 250 acre grant which crossed a fork in Long Creek. The dark red shaded area is additional land revealed in the 1860 deed to Sarah A. Moose. In the deed to Sarah Moose the dark red area above is described as joining George Cagle’s land to the north and Solomon Hathcock’s land to the west. Related, in 1835, George H. Cress and wife Elizabeth sold the yellow shaded two tracts (2-196, Stanly) to Solomon Hathcock before removing to Montgomery County, Illinois. And of importance in locating all of this, the green tracts (4-343. Stanly) were deeded in 1853 from James Hathcock to Solomon Hathcock. The description of this land mentions Scaly Bark Branch. So… we now have a general location on where to begin our search for this lost land. It lies somewhere between Long Creek and Scaly Bark Branch.  And in beginning that process, take note of the pinkish lines on the west side of the unshaded tract (belongs to Lucy Thomason) above. That line will be key in locating this land.

INTERMISSION

A little over a week ago Pam Holbrook, myself, Brenda Combs and her daughter Maria paid visit to 91 year old Roscoe “Skeeter” Huneycutt. His wife was cooking a pot of greens and the house was warmed by a life well lived. We learned of moonshining, Red Cross, the reburial of Solomon Burris, and of many other stories the spry 91 year old’s mind could recall. It was there that Pam asked, “have you seen the deed?”
With that in mind, let’s raise the curtains for act III.

Can you imagine my reaction?!!! Pam pulled out an old deed dated 21 June 1824. Registered Dec 1824 in Montgomery County, for all practical purposes the transaction had been lost to the memories of record. But now it’s found! Pam’s friend Ned Huneycutt came across the deed whilst cleaning out an old house. As seen below, William Poplin of then Bedford County Tennessee sold a piece of land to Daniel Moose. This is the same William Poplin, son of George Poplin of Chatham County upon whose land the Taylor family once called home. William Poplin too served in the Revolutionary War. His pension request states that William moved to Tennessee and Georgia before coming back home to old Montgomery County. There, he applied for a Revolutionary War pension mentioning Hudson Taylor as being a neighbor back in Chatham County. So here they were. All in this little deed of 20 acres, William’s journey west is validated and the only record of his holdings in now Stanly County is confirmed. And, out of nowhere, we have a new clue as to locating Solomon Burris’ land.

 

 

thumbnailMentioning the 20 acres as “being part of the Solomon Burris tract,” there was very little else I could use to locate such a small piece of land. Picking up pencil and a scrap of paper, the rough sketch to the right drove my research to a quick completion. Seeing the drawn image, it hit me like a boulder that what I was seeing was the upper right corner of the land Solomon Burris purchased of Jonathan Carpenter. Now, all we need to confirm is its physical location.

Reaching out to the Stanly County GIS page, I pulled up the following image of the area surrounding the pond which is located at the end of Scaly Bark Branch. The red spot marks the small pond. And, the green shaded triangle closer to the top records William Poplin’s deed. And as is written in the deed, we now know it’s part of Solomon Burris’ old rectangular tract that’s clearly evident in the image below.

solomon

Beyond the land discoveries and the stories land can tell of our past, there remains lore and the memories passed down by word of mouth. In this presentation I have not shown tracts of land to the south of the area of my study. But even so, you need to know there’s an old burial ground that lies just out of view. Called “Old Freedom,” I’ve wondered where it got its name and what momentous story is at root cause. Being an out-of-towner, I’m not voiced on the local nuances of our Stanly County past. But personally, I’ve got to think that the Old Freedom Cemetery has a history interwoven with that of our combined families who once served out of Chatham/Moore Counties. Oh, I’m sure there is more to it, but this was a community from early days that moved apart during war only to come back together again afterwards. And even then, we see the valiant fight instilled a spirit that shall never be distinguished. Like now, the veterans’ story is without end.

For the Fallen

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

Solomon’s Daddy

josh tax 1I love days like today’s visit to NC State Archives. I go there in hopes of opening some new door to our past. And as for today’s visit, no longer will there ever be a shred of doubt as our Burris family brick wall has clearly come down. We can now fully claim Joshua Burris Senior to be our ancestor. Take a look at the above tax list from 1772 Bertie County and then look below for a closer view.

josh tax 2

A WALK ON LONG CREEK

longThis week I’ve spent a lot of time in both book and mind walking the banks of Long Creek. I hope to learn something new of the Taylor family and how they might have connected to my Solomon Burris family. Remember, it is believed that Solomon married Judith Taylor and we know that the couple in turn had a son Taylor Burris.

It seems something new and different is learned each time I poke my nose into land records. This outing was no different as the records led me to a fellow named Samuel Strudwick. All of us with roots in Stanly County know of important locals and of family traditions running deep. But, of that number, how many do you know who were seriously important? And of that dwindling number, how many had life stories spanning the ocean blue? This fellow called Samuel fits that bill.

In 1795, Thomas Lowder’s 200 acre grant (2514 Montgomery) on Long Creek was identified as joining the lands of Joseph Thomason, Frederick Hinson, Hudson Taylor, and “the Strudwick Tract.” Curious of the name Strudwick I turned to nclandgrants.com which was created by my distant cousin David McCorkle. Ananias Thomas who died in 1867 Union County NC is a common ancestor to both David and me. Let’s look closer at the life of Samuel Strudwick.

________________________

stagSamuel Strudwick acquired 10,000 acres in New Hanover County along with 30,000 acres in the Haw Old Fields of Orange County. For a time he lived at Stag Park on the 10,000 acres located near present day Burgaw. Samuel acquired the total of 40,000 acres by way of a 1736 debt owed by North Carolina Governor George Burrington to the said Samuel’s father Edmond. Landing at Brunswick along-side Governor William Tryon, in 1756 Samuel sought to take possession of his father’s lands in Orange County. Reaching Orange County he learned that squatters and others had already claimed much of the land. However, in September 1761 Samuel was able to formally purchase Governor Burrington’s sizable holdings.

Samuel Strudwick was among the cultural elite. Appointed to two of the most lucrative positions in State Government, he became Secretary and Clerk of North Carolina Pleas.

Prior to the Revolution, in 1775, Samuel Strudwick received grants for 4 (one square mile) tracts situated on the north side of Lake Matamuskeet in Hyde County. He also received several grants totaling about 1000 acres in New Hanover County.

As for this story, in early Anson County, Samuel Strudwick received 28 patents including those for land on Cartledge Creek, Cheeks Creek, and Long Creek in what’s now Stanly County. Seven of the 28 tracts were located on Long Creek and note that all 28 patents aforementioned were issued in 1775.

As war broke out Samuel Strudwick retreated to his Haw River plantation on the Upper Cape Fear near Hillsboro. He eventually died ca. 1794 with legal records in England later accounting for a legal battle as his grandson attempted to claim inheritance lands in England ( The English Reports – 1904) :

strudwick case

I’ve found no record of Samuel’s disposal of his Anson County lands. However, their location becomes known to us today through the close inspection of later land transactions

(Deed 3-60 Stanly), dated 7 June 1828, Thomas Lowder conveyed to Daniel Lowder two tracts of land on Long Creek. The first was originally granted to John Cooper in 1774. And as drawn in he survey below, the second tract is identified as being granted to Samuel Strudwick in 1775. By 1828 the metes and bounds had changed with language connecting the tract to the lands of William Weaver and Samuel Lowder. Note the notch cut out of the 1828 deed (red)? As we go forward, this will be an important element in connecting one of Strudwick’s tracts to others.

lowder1

And now I introduce Mr. Daniel Moose. Back in 1775 when Strudwick’s above land was issued, there were but a hand full of people living along the creeks in what’s now Stanly County. Taking advantage of being among the first arrivals, it was neither desirable nor practical for people like Samuel Strudwick to patent land closely adjoining others. The resulting landscape created odd gaps meandering through a patchwork pattern of properly shaped square and rectangular tracts. And in this case, it wasn’t until 1829 that the crazy shaped negative space was back filled when Daniel Moose received a 250 acres patent for one of the oddest and yet most telling pieces of land I have ever found:

Daniel Moose

In 1830 Daniel Moose received the above 250 acre tract (2563 Montgomery) situated on a fork of Long Creek. The land adjoins, takes in, and is key to locating other earlier granted pieces of land including that originally patented by Thomas Lowder, Daniel Lowder, Samuel Lowder, David Kendall, Nimrod Taylor, William Weaver, Nehemiah Hearne, John Poplin, Hudson Taylor, Lucy Thomason, Arnold Thomason, Frederick Hinson, Joseph Thomason, Isaac Cauble, Jesse Hathcock, Foggleman, John Cooper and yes, …Samuel Strudwick.

Looking back to Samuel Strudwick’s 100 acres, remember the curious red notch added when the land was later conveyed by Thomas Lowder to George Lowder? Note the survey for Daniel Moose’s land honors the notch with a matching appendage (red) that allows us to clearly identify the 1775 Strudwick tract.

The following puzzled collage of hand drawn land grants carries this theme a bit further. I’ve colored Daniel Moose’s 250 acres yellow and you can see how it wraps around Samuel Strudwick’s patent which was later sold by Thomas Lowder. The Thomason lands are to the south and several of Hudson Taylor’s tracts appear to the east.

Bid Moose.jpg

I’ve yet to physically locate the above on today’s maps though I believe the Creek as shown may illustrate the fork of Little and Big Long Creek which is located a little south of 24/27 and west of Aquadale Road.

In closing, this little journey has opened my eyes into the lives of those living along Long Creek. And yet, I have to wonder.  It must be further pointed out that Samuel Strdwick acquired 30,000 acres on the Haw River in Orange County upon which his children resided well into the 1800’s.  We also know that the late 1700’s migration to the Long Creek area included many people who lived earlier in Orange County. And remember that Samuel Strudwick complained of a multitude of people who had squatted on his land along the Haw River.  As for me, I have to wonder if there is any connection between Strudwick’s actions and the move of others to now Stanly County?  Were people kicked off of their land or had the Studwick family enticed or been a part of an advertised scheme to relocate people?

The story of Samuel Strudwick is indeed pretty cool and one worth retelling when in conversation about the founding of Stanly County. But much more than that, Strudwick is but a piece of the puzzle that will hopefully lead us to a better understanding of all our ancestors. Note that the fork of Little Long Branch lies a short distance to the east of Solomon Burris’s purchase on Scaly Bark Branch. And, people in this report appear as witnesses in the title history of that land. My walk along the records of Long Creek surely passed over Solomon’s early neighborhood. But, much more research is needed to call it home. So let’s get to it in hopes of figuring out how this story may end!

 

WILLIAM HOWELL TAYLOR

DSC_7874There’s a William Howell Taylor, a William Harvey Taylor and numerous families from North Carolina, Tennessee and even Indiana claim persons named William Hudson Taylor. As a matter of fact, I remain gobsmacked in learning that a possibly related William Hudson Taylor is buried at Arba cemetery in Randolph County Indiana. I remember back in the 1990’s driving out one foggy morning through the broad corn fields on my way to this cemetery. It was my intentions to learn more about a Quaker line of Thomas once believed to be my kin. I learned that Benjamin Thomas interred in the cemetery is not my kin, but some say William Hudson Taylor who is buried there …just might be. He is believed to be the son of Hudson Taylor Senior of now Stanly County  North Carolina.  How did this guy end up in Indiana and what’s his story!!??

Over the next few months I’ll be pondering the Taylor family; of complicated bits of a story even more tangled by the nature of land records along the Rocky River here in North Carolina. And, as for this post, I’d like to share with you a most amazing court case. Raised by Doctor F. Mann against William H. Taylor, the suit offers a glimpse into family lands while carrying the most studious of us back to the earliest days to the backwoods of western North Carolina. The story also links us to an important time and to the family who was first in America to make a profit mining gold.

___________________________________________

Indebted in the sum of $28.80; a cow, a calf, and a rifle gun were conveyed by Hudson Taylor to William H. Taylor on 15 Mar 1843. The transaction was witnessed by Isaac Biles who must be related to Hudson Taylor Senior’s daughter Dovey who happened to marry Alexander Biles.

And then, dated 23 Jan 1854, Daniel Freeman sold to W. H. Taylor 174 acres (3-314 Stanly) situated “on the fork of a branch.” The land was originally part of a huge tract granted to speculators Thomas Carson, William Moore, and Barnabas Dunn. Within the body of the deed, W. H. Taylor is referred to as Howell Taylor.” 

Rising out of the Stanly County Superior Court in 1854, a suit of ejectment filed by Dock F. Mann against William H. Taylor reached the North Carolina State Supreme Court. At issue was the grounds and validity of an ancient ten year agreement pertaining to the above 174 acres. At the time of the suit, the 174 acres was identified as adjoining the lands of George Reed, brother of Conrad Reed who’s credited as the first non-native person to discover gold in America.

In locating the 174 acres, an earlier conveyance from Stephen Kirk to Thomas J. Shinn was offered as evidence. Dated 13 Aug 1833, Stephen Kirk sold a whopping 1,999 acre tract excepting 200 acres which had been deeded to Tucker and Shinn. Further depositions in the case show the 1,999 acres later fell into the hands of one Hartsell before being sold to Doctor F. Mann.

From the metes and bounds, we know the 1,999 acres lies upon “the waters of Reedy Branch” with one corner being described as “a persimmon in the line of Tract 2.” Then, running southerly, the next line ends at Shinn’s, Smith’s, and Tucker’s corner. Emphasis on placing the disputed land along  what’s referred to as Great Tract 2 is crucial and a point that I believe may have been played in error.

Also brought into evidence, the above deed lies within an Aug 1745 grant of 12,500 acres to Arthur Dobbs of Castle Dobbs, Ireland. The 1,999 acres had been subdivided from the tremendous 12,500 acres and in 1745 was described as being located on Johnston River (now Rocky). The tract was but a small portion of twelve 100,000 acre tracts totaling 1,200,000 acres all together.

 

The defendant, William H. Taylor, introduced David Kizor who swore in testimony:

“…that about some 40 years since [aprox. 1814], he was present at the trial of a suit in Cabarrus County court & then heard one Love who was sworn and who is since dead & who testified on said trail in Cabarrus that there was a post oak marked as a corner at the Gum Pond and that the post oak was said to be a corner of tract number two of the Big Survey.

William Stancel, a surveyor testified he had surveyed the land in controversy & began as directed finding no corner there or pointes, and then east on an old marked line towards the Gum Pond – that the line looked old though he did not box any trees – and said marked line did not continue the length of the line he was surveying for the plaintiff, but only part of the way and he found no corner at the gum pond.”

The court ruled against a new trial based on:

1. Upon the ground that the Dobbs grant was void upon its face for uncertainty & could not be located
2. That the evidence was not sufficient to locate the Dobbs Grant
3. That the proof as to the seven years possession by the plaintiff & those under whom he claimed was not sufficient

At Superior Court, a new trial was refused, the rule discharged & judgement was made for the plaintiff. The defendant, William Howell Taylor, prayed an appeal which was granted. I’m not sure how the Supreme Court case ended though it seems the archaic stipulations from the 1745 grant along with the inability to properly locate the land would have played an evidentiary role in determining the outcome. I believe the Doctor F. Mann won the battle in court.

Let’s take a look at some of the Taylor lands, particularly those related to the case. Let’s look at William Howell Taylor, his family, and his parents Hudson and Rhoda Kettle Taylor.

Stanfield, NC, 1:24,000 quad, 1971, USGS

The huge yellow tract shown above represents the 1,999 acres sold by Stephen Kirk to Thomas J Shinn. The tract’s visual portrayal north and south along the Cabarrus line should not be considered perfectly accurate. However, I’m sure it’s location is close enough for this discussion. Note from the legal description below that the northern boundary (north of present day 24/27) adjoins “Tract 2.” For sure, that statement refers to the east/west dividing line running between Great Tracts 2 and 5. As a matter of fact, study the inset map above and you should be able to place the 1,999 acres as being in the extreme northeast corner of Great Tract 2.

The title history below represents the breakup of the 1,999 acres along with the land (in GREEN) that was at center of Doc. F. Mann’s law suit. A deed from Thomas J. Shinn to Conrad Reed [the little boy who finds gold while playing in nearby Little Meadow Creek] is identified in green as being tract A above. Looking below,  you’ll notice that both Doc F. Mann and William H [Howell] Taylor claimed ownership of the same piece of land. The eastern half (checkerboarded) of Conrad Reed’s land (Tract “A”), being the disputed land, seems to adjoin the north to south dividing line between Great Tracts # 1 and 2. Take a look at the inset image above. However, I’m not so sure as grants and other deeds indicate the boundary line should run very close to Hwy 200. Something is amiss. Anyhow, take a look at the following:

Deed 4-2 Stanly, 13 Aug 1833, reg. Aug 1854. Stephen Kirk to Thomas J. Shinn, being 1,999 acres on the waters of Reedy Branch except 200 acres deeded to Tucker and Shinn. Beginning at a stake in the county line and runs with the line north 26 east 1120 poles to a persimmon in the line of tract #2 in a field, then east 120 poles to a white oak Shinn’s, Smith’s, & Tucker’s corner, then their line south 1100 poles to John Forest’s corner, then along his line west 520 poles to the beginning. Wit: Littleton C. Shinn, P. Kirk.

Deed 3-357 Montgomery, 22 Oct 1833, reg. Jun 1854. Thomas J. Shinn of Montgomery to Conrad Reed of Cabarrus being 370 acres on Rockhole Creek. Beginning at a pine near George Reed’s corner, then 320 poles to Shinn’s, Smith’s & Tucker’s line, then with line south 174 poles to a Spanish oak in said line at the fork of two branches, then west 180 poles to a stake near a road in said Reed’s line, then north 47 west 90 poles to a stake in said Reed’s corner, then his line south 60 west 108 poles to a stake in Reed’s line, then south 47 east 14 poles to a stake in said Reed’s line, then west 98 poles to said Reed’s line, then north 42 poles with said line to a red oak, a corner of said Reed’s, then north 30 east 64 poles to a white oak a corner of said Reed’s & George Reed’s corner, then north 48 east 118 poles to the beginning. Wit: James L Reed, James M. Shinn.

Deed 3-364 Stanly, 18 Feb 1836, reg. 26 Jun 1854. Paul B. Barringer to John Reed, being 174 acres, part of the lands of Conrad Reed deceased joining the lands of George Reed and No. 2 in the division of Reed’s lands. Wit: James M. Shinn.

Deed 3-363 Stanly, 25 Nov 1836, reg. Jun 1854. John Reed to Andrew Hartsell, being 174 acres (known as #2 of Conrad Reed dec’d) beginning at George Reed’s line then running south 174 poles, then east 160 poles to a red oak, then north 174 poles, then west to the beginning. Wit: George Barnhardt, John P. Craton.

Deed 3-384, Stanly, 27 Jun 1854, reg. Sep 1854. Andrew Hartsell to Doc F. Mann, being 174 acres known as #2 of the division of Conrad Reed deceased lands. Wit: Joshua Hartsell, A. Honeycutt.

Deed 3-314 Stanly, 23 Jan 1854, reg. Feb 1854. Daniel Freeman of Stanly to W. H. [Howell] Taylor of Cabarrus. Being 170 acres, a part of a large tract granted to Thomas Carson, William Moore, and Barnabas Dunn. Beginning at a stake, Spanish oak, and post oak at the fork of a branch, and runs west 152 poles to a stake, hickory, & black gum; then north 170 poles to a stake, Spanish oak, black Jack and two post oaks; then east 152 poles to stake by two red oaks & sassafras; then south 1 west 177 poles to the beginning. Wit: A. C. Freeman.

Note that the above tract was indeed subdivided from the 1,999 acres of which the northern most line is referred to as being “the line of Tract 2”. But, the division of Conrad Reed’s land is further south and does not join the Great Tract boundary line. Instead, the title history for the subdivided 1,999 acres consistently mentions George Reed’s land along with the line of Conrad’s Tract # 2. In my humble opinion, I think the legal action occurred in error out of a confusion between a line in the Great Tract #2 and tract #2 of the lands of Conrad Reed deceased. But wow, even if so, look at what such a simple mistake offers us! And, before leaving the “green zone” of this story, please take a look at tract “B” located to the north of Conrad’s land. It’s the lands of Conrad’s brother George frequently referred to in the above title history:

Tract B – Deed 3-239 Stanly, 26 Oct 1833, reg. Feb 1853. Thomas J. Shinn to George Reed, being 217 acres on Rockhole Creek and Daniels Branch. Beginning at a pine (dead) near a road in George Reed’s corner, then east 320 poles to a stake in a field, Shinn’s, Smith’s. & Tucker’s line, then their line north 112 to a stake, then west 38 poles to a stake, then south 6 west 10 poles to a stake, then south 84 west 158 poles to a stake, then north 6 east 15 poles to a stake, then west 140 poles to a black oak in said Reed’s corner (known by the name of Howell’s corner), then south 112 to the beginning. Wit: R. Shinn, James M. Shinn.

In reading the above, did you notice the red flag? We know from deeds that William H. Taylor’s middle name is Howell. And, here, upon the land nearly adjoining the said Doc F. Mann’s disputed tract is a corner known as “Howell’s.” Wow! So, who is this Howell person and does he have a place in our story?

Deed 13-787 Mecklenburg, 8 June 1785, Thomas Harris Esq. Sheriff to Joseph Howell. Being 100 acres of Dr. David Oliphant’s land “within tract 2” and situated on the east side of Rocky River. Beginning at a black oak and runs north 84 west 146 poles to a black oak, then north 21 west 68 poles to a pine, then north 52 east 88 poles to a black oak, Frederick Kiser’s line, then east 120 poles to a stake, then to the beginning. Wit: William Supples, Charles Harris.

Deed 5-20 Cabarrus, 7 Jan 1804, reg. Jan 1804. Joseph Howell to John Reed. Wit: James Love, Jonah Love.

Being the dark shaded cross hatched area in “C” above, note that Joseph Howell’s land fell into the hands of John Reed, father of Conrad and George. It’s easy to imagine the land as later belonging to John Reed’s sons. And then, in 1854, Joseph Howell’s 100 acres is sold as being part of a larger  conveyance to Henry Yow:

Deed 23-280 Stanly, 27 Mar 1861, reg. Sep 1898. L. G. Heilig & J. M. Harkey of Cabarrus to Henry Yow of Stanly. Being 250 acres of “land upon which the widow of George Reed Dec’d has a dower assigned to her.” Beginning at Rocky River at Howell’s Branch, then up said branch 58 poles to a stake by 2 white oaks, then north 55 east 15 poles to a black oak, then east 136 poles to a black oak and red oak, then south 8 west 5 poles to a post oak, then south 8 west 110 poles to a pine stump corner, a corner of No. 2, then south 57 ½ west 118 poles to a white oak, then south 77 west 193 to a small pine in Rocky River, then up the river to the beginning. Wit: Henry Reed.

So, at this point we clearly see why George Reed’s tract “B” above would mention “Howell’s Corner.” And, we now know the stream which anchors tract “C” on map is named “Howell Branch.” I’d like to be able to declare that William Howell Taylor is somehow related to this much earlier Joseph Howell. However, I don’t have that answer and will leave its discovery to others. For now, let’s turn from the Green Shaded Tracts to the Red Shaded Tracts reflecting the family of William Howell Taylor.

We believe that Hudson Taylor Jr. married first to Elizabeth Howell whose relation to the above Joseph Howell is unknown to me. I believe William Howell Taylor is the son of Elizabeth and therefore carries the name of her family.

Following the death of wife Elizabeth, records show that Hudson Taylor Junior shared financial interests with a lady named Rhoda Kettle. It wasn’t until a considerable amount of time after being identified with Hudson that Rhoda actually married Hudson Taylor Junior. I’ve been unable to locate Rhoda’s parents though I wonder if her name is correct? You see, her lands are located close to George Kestler and others of that surname. Though a stretch of imagination, is it possible Rhoda’s maiden name is Kestler?

Take a look below at the information on the lands (Shaded Red) in western Stanly County belonging to the family of Rhoda Kettle and Hudson Taylor Jr:

Tract D: Grant 1729 Montgomery, ent. 8 Apr 1803, iss. 16 Mar 1805. Issued to Henry Kagle, being 145 acres on Camp Branch of Rocky River including his own improvements.

Deed 1-229 Stanly, 20 Feb 1844, reg. Nov 1844. Jere Adderton to Rhoda Kittle being 81 acres on Camp Branch of Rocky River and is part of a tract originally “granted to Henry Cagle in Oct 1803”. Wit: G Shankle, Isaac Biles.

Deed 6-449 Stanly, 30 Aug 1867 reg. Sep 1869. Rhoda Kettle to Allen Helms both of Union County. Wit: Green B. and William A. Helms

To the south of the above is a tract “E” above which was sold by Rhody Kettle to Edwin Taylor. Edwin is believed to be the son of Rhoda and Hudson Taylor Junior. Note that Rhoda still uses her maiden name which raises questions as to her marital status. And, I’ve found no record indicating how Rhoda acquired Tract “E”:

Tract E: 9-80 Stanly, 15 Apr 1862, reg. Sep 1873. Rhody Kettle to Edwin Taylor, both of Stanly County. Being 126 ½ acres joining Laban Little, Levi Furr, and Jacob W. Little. Wit: Adam P Furr, John D. Taylor.

To the west, on the east bank of Rocky River, William Howell Taylor received a portion of land originating with John Polk before passing through the hands of Henry Cagle and the division of Frederick Kiser’s land. Identified in the illustration above as Tract “F”, the land adjoins the western lines of Rhoda Kettle’s land:

Tract F: Deed 7-182 Cabarrus, 24 Dec 1800. John Polk to Henry Cagle. Wit: Wm. Polk.

Deed 11-77 Cabarrus, 20 Aug 1828. Henry Cagle Sr. to Henry Cagle Jr.

Deed 11-335 Cabarrus, 20 Aug 1828, reg. Jan 1831. Henry Kiser to Frederick Kiser being 200 acres. Wit: Wm. Creaton, David Kiser.

Deed 24-169, Cabarrus Spring 1839, reg. Sep 1872. Division of Frederick Kiser Deceased. Being Lot # 2 of said division to Emily Edmunston.

Deed 6-13 Stanly, 29 Dec 1859, reg. Sep 1861. Laban Zebulon M Little of Mecklenburg to William H. Taylor of Cabarrus, being 80 acres on the north side of Rocky River in both Stanly and Cabarrus Counties. Attest: L. A. Russell, C. H. Polk.

Adjoining Henry Cagle’s Tract “D” to the north, Edmond and Catherine Bond received two grants in 1842. They are:

Tract G: Grant 21 Stanly, iss. 22 Oct 1842. Issued to Edward Bond, being 100 acres on Camp Branch adjoining Jacob W. Little and the Kizer tract along with David Kerr and Thomas Pinion.

Tract H: Grant 20 Stanly, iss. 22 Oct 1842, Issued to Catherine Bond, being 100 acres on Camp Branch adjoining Edward Bond, Thomas Pinion, Benjamin Pinion and Jacob W. Little

Edward and Catherine Bond moved to Cabarrus County with no deed showing the sale of their grants. And then, in 1854, Nelson Taylor, sold a large tract of 274 acres in which the two Bond grants can be placed. Who is Nelson Taylor?

Deed 4-54 Stanly, 29 Nov 1854, reg. Dec 1854. Nelson Taylor to Daniel Freeman, being 274 acres on Camp Branch. Beginning at a stake, three black jacks and pine, then west 11.75 chains to a stake by post oak & dog wood in J. M. Little’s line, then north 10 chains to a small red oak (his corner), then north 45 west 6.5 chains to a hickory, post oak, & red oak, then with his line west crossing Camp Branch 29 chains to a post oak, dogwood, red oak, then north 65 west 4 chains to a stake by three red oaks (Little’s Corner), then north 40 east 47.25 chains to a black jack, small hickory, and pine, then (with Drake’s line) east 51 chains to a small pine near a branch two pines and post oaks, then south 40 chains to a small post oak (in Jonah Love’s line), then with Jonah Love’s line south 80 west (Crossing Polk Road) 20.5 chains to a post oak, then south 50 west 8 chains to a post oak above the wall spring, then to the beginning. Wit: . O. Ross.

___________________________________________

Born ca. 1825, from estate records we know that William Howell Taylor married Mary, the daughter of Solomon Hartsell. Both Mary and her husband W. H. Taylor are mentioned in Solomon’s loose estate papers. There are several articles in the newpspers about Howell Taylor.  In one, he was charged with illegally selling alcohol while another the burning of his barn and livestock. Howell Taylor lived a long life and died 10 Sep 1906 according to what’s found on findagrave. There, it says that W H Taylor and wife Mary are buried at Love’s Grove UMC. However, a newspaper article out of Salisbury marks Howell’s death as being a year earlier. The following appears in the Carolina Watchman:

20 Sep 1905

SOLOMON’S ENTRY REWRITTEN

stony run tract

Working with land records, it amazes me how everyday new parts to a story are pieced together and yet each added parcel has the power to change the very core of the story already being told.

I was recently given a package of documents including the above land grant entry in the name of Solomon Burris. Made on March 5 for 100 acres, the land requested was situated on the waters of Stony Run. Normally, when applying to receive a land grant, the entry is written chronologically into a book containing successive requests by others. Each entry is identified sequentially by a distinct entry number. On the other hand, not copied from a book, what I see above has no entry number and appears to be written on a slip of paper. Note that both the county and year are missing. This is not normal! What is this and where did the record come from???!!!

Visiting NC Archives, I looked through the entry books for both Montgomery and Stanly counties where I found no mention of Solomon Burris entering land on Stony Run. At that point I realized for certain that the information on the slip of paper was never officially recorded in the county entry book. Though the writing is entry related, my question remains. What exactly is it? Given to me as a mysterious entry written on a slip of paper, I have no answer as to the record’s origin.

________________________________

Entered 8 Mar 1836, John Honeycutt was issued 100 acres on 2 Mar 1838 (Grant 2786, Montgomery). From the official order to the surveyor, the land is described as being “one hundred acres for John Honeycutt adjoining George Cagle and Solomon’s Burris’ lines on the drains of Stony Run.” The statement corroborates what’s written above on Solomon’s entry. However, though mentioned in the entry, the actual survey for Honeycutt’s land (below) does not appear in the survey.

john honeycutt land

Even though I don’t know its source, the entry of Solomon Burris provides a very important clue as to the location of Solomon’s land …but, which Solomon? Publishing my thoughts online, it didn’t take long for Burris family historian Brenda Combs to point out a very real concern. As for Solomon, Brenda alerted me to the dilemma that there was a Solomon Burris Senior as well as his son Solomon Burris Junior. Knowing from the slip that the land in the entry adjoined that of John Honeycutt, it’s also important to know that both Senior and Junior were alive when “Solomon” was named in John Honeycutt’s 1836 grant survey. The above could be attributed to either Solomon Senior or Junior. Regardless of who Solomon is, from the limited information provided in the above entry, is it possible to physically discern the location of the entry? Can we trace its history? Can we determine which Solomon requested the land grant on Stony Run?

I love responses and input by others as collective thought gives value and credence to what’s presented. Thank you Brenda! Brenda’s remarks encouraged me to review my work and to dig deeper. They drove me to a different direction completely changing the landscape of my original post.

________________________________

Looking closely at the survey above, the naming of Stony Run and Flat Branch provides a solid starting point to locate John Honeycutt’s land. Note that the survey plat is drawn upside down! Once John Honeycutt’s 100 acre land grant is placed on a map, other important lands on the east side of Stony Run begin to fall into place. Before delving into that, take a short look at the following video which I created for my first attempt at writing this post (now deleted).

 

So, even though Solomon Burris’ entry never matured, it appears that both John Honeycutt and Solomon Burris intended on living beside each other. Is that what really took place?

From the Montgomery County Entry Book, I noticed (below) that over half of the entries are marked with a double-lined X (red) which I’m almost certain indicates the grant failed to mature. Note that in 1841 David W Burris made a failed request for a grant to be issued on Stony Run. The land in question was to adjoin Charles Cagle and Benjamin L Whitley (first image). And in the second image, note that John Honeycutt failed in his attempt to receive a grant for 50 acres. Though John Honeycutt’s grant failed to mature, we know from the video that surrounding tracts mention a 50 acre tract as though the grant was issued.

Having seen the situation repeated numerous times in Stanly County, I realized that like the others, this all arose in a jurisdictional confusion over land acquired via grant versus land acquired by sale. As an example, in 1842, James L Hartsell was issued a grant for 100 acres on Thorny Branch of Rockhole Creek (Stanly County grant #16). Seven years later, James L. Hartsell purchased the same land from James Adderton, agent for the Thornton Land Company. In short, the company represented Anna Marie Thornton who was the widow of William Thornton. William Thornton designed the United States Capitol Building and purchased over 40,000 acres in now Stanly County as part of his gold mining interests. Thornton purchased the land from Barnabas Dunn and several other speculators who originally acquired it by grant in the 1790’s.

So, as had happened to James L. Hartsell, I believe Solomon Burris applied for a grant on land that was already owned at that time.

Digging deeper into the deed books, I realized that I had overlooked an important deed made to Solomon Burris. On 3 May 1850, Solomon Burris purchased 89 acres (Deed 2-327) from John Ward, Jery Adderton, James Adderton, & Daniel Freeman. These men appear also to be agents working in relation to the Thornton land interests. Situated on Stony Run, the legal description for Solomon’s purchase mentions John Honeycutt’s 50 acres, the Deberry line, Daniel Reap’s land, and a “branch.” Witnesses were David Burris and Mcama Willis.

Armed with this additional information, I remade the above video placing the new piece of land among the other known tracts.  Hopefully you’ll see how Solomon’s land changes what I believed and wrote previously. Take a look:

 

Below is a snapshot of the Stanly County GIS map overlaid with some of the tracts identified in this post. Most of the land boundaries from the video are still recognizable today. Solomon Burris Junior’s 88 acre purchase from John Ward and others is the bubbly textured tract crossing over Stony Run. To the north and west of that tract is a checkerboard tract that was first acquired by McKammy Willis. It’s upon that land where Solomon and Judith Burris were first buried. Their bodies were later moved to Pleasant Grove Baptist in 1939. Also, the DeBerry line passes the northern boundary of both Solomon Burris Junior and McKammy Willis (Green line).

stony

Green Tract – John Honeycutt 100 acres
(Grant 2786)

Yellow Tract – Solomon Burris, two tracts east of Stony Run.
(Deeds 79-179, 79-177)

Yellow (Bubbly) Tract – John Ward and others to Solomon Burris
(Deed 2-326) 3 May 1850

Checkerboarded Tract – William H. Randle to Kamy Willis
(Deed 3-20) 3 May 1850

Blue Tracts – Charlie and John Honeycutt to Andrew Honeycutt
(Deed 6-552) 29 Dec 1856

Pink Tracts – George Whitley tract with the smaller tract once belonging to
Benjamin Hathcock.

Light Red Tracts – Top of page, Caswell Perry to the west,Lewis C. Perry
to the east. (Grants 115, 120)