Re: Entry # and Grant #
-
In reply to:
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Wilburn D Wright 11/22/13
In the will of Major David Wilson in 1803,when he is speaking of land he had promised to his brother Zacheus and to his son-in-law Jonathan that was located on the Harpeth and was to be replaced by any of the other land available that they would want, in no way suggests that the brother and the son-in-law were deceased. You are the only person I have ever heard of who has made that assumption.The past tense refers to a FORMER PROMISE, not that the men were in the past tense.
He goes on to direct his Executors to issue deeds to both of these men.When a deed is issued, the grantee must be capable of accepting the deed.A dead man cannot be the grantee of a deed. Your interpretation of the will is absurd.
As far as your other reference to the Miscellaneous Applications for Warrants #1671, Paulette Haynes previously presented extensive documentations on this matter.Nothing in the record indicates that this #1671 ever was issued to a Zaccheus Wilson and the Elizabeth Wilson named was not Elizabeth Lea, as you have previously claimed.Elizabeth Lea had been dead for about 20 years when this Elizabeth Wilson made this filing for 19 acres in Grainger County.
Your thought processes are strange, to say the least.
More Replies:
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Wilburn D Wright 11/27/13
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Carole Myers 11/27/13
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Wilburn D Wright 12/06/13
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Carole Myers 12/06/13
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Wilburn D Wright 12/05/13
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Carole Myers 12/05/13
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Carole Myers 12/06/13
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Wilburn D Wright 7/27/14
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
Carole Myers 7/27/14
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #
-
Re: Entry # and Grant #