In perusing the Prince Edward Co VA Court Orders, I ran across something
perplexing.

Some background:  Thomas, John and William Jones (father and sons
respectively) patented land in what was then Goochland and Albemarle
Cos. in 1744 and 1746.

By 1790's the father Thomas had long since died and the brothers were
involved in a dispute over the land in Prince Edward District Court.
Eventually the decision of the District Court was overturned on appeal.
In the wording of the order, (10 April 1794) the word "seized" appears
several times.

Example - "We find that the said John Jones and William Jones were
respectively seized as the law directs of the several tracts of land
conveyed to them by the two last mentioned patents."

The Order describes the 1740 separate patents of Thomas, John & William
Jones and the 1746 patent of Thomas Jones.  It also states that these
patents were "re-patented" in 1755 -

"We find that on the 10th day of September 1755 an inclusive patent was
obtained by the said Thomas, John and William for a tract of land
containing 2762 acres formerly in the County of Albemarle, but now in
the County of Buckingham, in which tract are included as well all the
tracts of land for which patents were obtained by the said Thomas, John
and William severally as aforesaid, as also 1162 acres never before
granted, which inclusive patent we refer to in these words to wit.
George the second ~  being the same which contains all the land now
comprized {sic} in the said survey, already before referred to, which
survey we find to be just as hereto ann(can't read)"

It appears that there was something not quite right about the original
patents.  I strongly suspect that John and William were underage in 1740
as I have other circumstantial evidence that indicates this.

I am aware that the term "Seizin" was used to indicate ownership or 'in
fact' possession of a freehold estate.
Perhaps it is just my ignorance of colonial "legalese" but in the Prince
Edward Orders, the term "seized" seems a bit different from "seizin."
The Order states - "We find that the said John Jones and William Jones
were respectively seized as the law directs of the several tracts of
land conveyed to them by the two last mentioned patents."   Clearly it
is "seized OF"  - then the term "conveyed" is used, which seems to
indicate the converse.  And then there is the consideration of why these
lands would be re-patented as there were no changes, sales, or deaths
among the grantees prior to the 1755 reissue.  Why would they need to
bolster their claim to the land with a re-patent?

Any ideas?

I have included a transcription of the entire Order below.

As always, thanks for your assistance.

Tammy Jones

___________________

Thursday, 10th April 1794

Present. the same as yesterday

John Jones............. defendant
against
William Jones.........tenant

The jurors sworn in this cause yesterday, to by the issue joined,
appearing and were sent out of court and after some time returned to
court.  upon their oath returned a special verdict in these words and
figures -

We find that Thomas Jones in his lifetime obtained a patent for a tract
of land containing four hundred acres formerly in the County of
Goochland, but now in the County of Buckingham, which patent bears the
date the 10th of June 1740 of which said land the said Thomas was seized

as the law directs, to which patent we refer in these words to wit.
George the second ~ and which is the same land distinguished in the
survey in this cause by the letter B.

We find that John Jones the defendant in this cause obtained a patent
for a tract of land adjoining the last mentioned tract, which patent
bears the date of the 10th of June 1740 to which we refer in these
words.  George the second ~ and which is distinguished by the letter C.

We find that William Jones the defendant in this cause obtained a patent

for a tract of land adjoining the last mentioned tract, bearing the date

the 10th of June 1740 which we refer to in these words to wit.  George
the second ~ and which is distinguished in the said survey by the letter

D.

We find that the said John Jones and William Jones were respectively
seized as the law directs of the several tracts of land conveyed to them

by the two last mentioned patents.

We find that the said Thomas Jones in his lifetime obtained a patent on
the 12th day of January 1746 for four hundred acres of land lying in the

County of Goochland but now in the County of Buckingham of which said
land the said Thomas under the said patent was seized as the law
directs, and to which patent we refer in these words to wit, George the
second ~ and which said land is distinguished in the survey returned in
this cause by the letter A.  to which survey we refer.

We find that said Thomas Jones was the father to the said John and
William

We find that on the 10th day of September 1755 an inclusive patent was
obtained by the said Thomas, John and William for a tract of land
containing 2762 acres formerly in the County of Albemarle, but now in
the County of Buckingham, in which tract are included as well all the
tracts of land for which patents were obtained by the said Thomas, John
and William severally as aforesaid, as also 1162 acres never before
granted, which inclusive patent we refer to in these words to wit.
George the second ~  being the same which contains all the land now
comprized {sic} in the said survey, already before referred to, which
survey we find to be just as hereto ann(can't read)

We find that the said Thomas, John and William sold apart of the said
1162 acres contained in the inclusive patent aforesaid to Robert Glover
and John Hoy by Indentures duly recorded in the County of Albemarle and
Buckingham to which deeds and Indentures we refer to in these words to
wit, This Indenture __  This Indenture __

We find that the said Thomas Jones departed this life sometime before
the year 1770 and after the year 1766 intestate and that the said John
Jones is the eldest son and Heir at law of the said Thomas Jones,
deceased.

We find that the said William Jones is in possession of the four hundred

acres of land patented to the said Thomas Jones on the 12th day of
January 1746 as aforesaid and that the said four hundred acres is the
land in contest and which from the survey marked A appears to be four
hundred and thirty acres.

We find that John Jones the defendant is in possession of the 400 acres
granted to his father by patent as aforesaid on the 10th day of June
1740 and of the tract of land for which he obtained a patent as
aforesaid on the same day and year last mentioned.

We find that besides the tract of land now in contest, the said William
Jones is in possession of the tract for which he obtained a patent on
the 10th day of June 1740 as aforesaid.

Upon the whole if the Law be for the Defendant, we find for him the
Lands in thebount mentioned; But if the Law be for the Tenant, we find
for him.


Ben Overstreet

And this cause is continued till the next Term for the matters of Law
arising upon the Special Verdict to be argued.

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html