In the 1790's there were several court actions over land that was
patented by a father and two sons.  The father had long since died and
it was brother suing brother in the Prince Edward Disttrict 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 looked on the Deedmapper site and found this -

Seizin - Ownership or 'in fact' possession of a freehold estate.
Inferred here is an increasing degree of ownership with the passage of
time, as the possessor makes productive use of the land. Seizin was
originally not an estate, but a way to gain one, as by adverse
possession. This is rooted in the Roman concept that whoever worked the
land should be its owner. "
http://www.ultranet.com/~deeds/legal.htm

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.

Any ideas?

As always, thanks for your assistance.

Tammy Jones

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