I came across some new information (at least I haven’t seen any reference to it) that supports the theory that Ann Hill Tallman was the first consort of Thomas Durfee.
In 1682, Thomas “Dorfee” of Rhode Island and his wife Ann(a) A. conveyed to her son John Talman two fifty acre lots in Flushing, Queens County, Long Island.
I found this information in a typed manuscript by Charles T. Gritman, apparently in the collection of the New York Public Library and put on line by Ancestry.com as “Charles T. Gritman, Historical miscellany. New York, N.Y.?: unknown, 1920?”. This contains two different indices to Queens County land records, a first one (in volume one) which covers the whole alphabet and a second one (in volume two) which contains a more detailed abstract for names from A-H.
Since the work preceeds 1922, I think I can legitimately transcribe the information here without any copyright violations
QUEENS COUNTY LAND RECORDS - INDEX (starts on page 312)
DORFEE, Thomas; Nov 3 1682 & Ann A. to John Talman Q.R. 189
(item 189 in his numbering:)
Queens County, Liber A of Deeds.
49. TALMAN, of Flushing. p. 70.
November 3 1682. ANN DORFEE of Rhode Island. Deed signed by THOMAS DORFEE and ANN A. DORFEE. To her son JOHN TALMAN, two fifty acre lots at Flushing.
An index to land records of Queens County, Long Island, New York
A to H
Compiled by Charles T. Gritman, New York City, August, 1920
+1682, Nov. 3, - of Rhode Island. With Anna A. Dorfee, his wife, Grantor to her son John Talman; two 50 acre lots in Flushing, L. I.
- Q.CO.CONV. A:70 (Queens County Conveyances, Liber A, Page 70 as above).
A couple of observations about this:
1. Keeping in mind the historical information shared by Mary Beth Norton, the fact that Ann presented herself as the wife of Thomas Durfee didn’t necessarily mean that they were legally married. On the other hand, it shows that they were still together in 1682.
2. I didn’t find any reference in Gritman’s work to a preceeding transaction that would explain how Thomas Durfee and/or Ann came into possession of the land in the first place.
3. This creates another problem for those interested in the Tallman/Talman family.
The usual sources report that Peter Tallman and Ann Hill had only two sons, Peter and Joseph, and that Peter Tallman and his second wife Joan Briggs had four sons, Jonathan, James, JOHN and Benjamin. That John’s usual birth date is given as 1672, so in any case he would have been too young, which has always been a problem for those who would identify him with the John Talman who was one of the freeholders of Flushing in the Governor’s patent of 1685. Perhaps at some point over the centuries someone confused Joseph and John, switching their places in the family.
(investigating a connection with the Tallman/Talman family)
Notify Administrator about this message?
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|