Janet and all:  Because of the custom and usage and the fact that NO consideration was required to be paid to Bentley for the use of the land, I believe he was of age OR had a legal guardian whose name should appear in the courts' minutes or orders both before and after this entry.   Why?  Because this was not a simple buy/sell or lessor/lessee deal, and it reveals that a bargain involving some relationship other than lease.  That relationship was not at arm's length.        

Let me try to respond generally about the rights of minors (and thanks for not expecting precise answers, since there are none because courts can always intervene promptly to protect any child).   I (we?) have been remiss in failing to break these questions into the legal parts.  

First, there is/was no rule that prohibited anyone from transferring anything to whomever he/she chose.  Further, there is no requirement that I determine anyone's age when dealing with them over land.  So, I am not required to ascertain or even care about the ages of those to whom I convey or buy something of value.  BUT, when I do that the risks are almost completely MINE. 

Presuming such a deal, we must next consider how a) I as transferor and b) the child as transferee are legally affected.  The law is/was very clear; if that child at reaching age 21 decides he does not like the deal we made, he may legally disavow the bargain, and the court will decide how much I must repay him for the purchase and for any events that affected that child since that purchase.   I am stuck with my bargain, but the child is not.

Next, what happens when I buy something from the child.  Again, he can disavow that sale upon reaching "age", the court will make that child "whole", and my interests will be quite secondary.  So, I likely will be ordered to return or transfer back the goods/land and (or) pay money equal to the value of that asset, and again, be ordered to compensate the minor for any loss of bargain or costs he may have suffered by selling it to me.  Again, I am on the short end of the stick, the theory being that I surely should have known better, no matter what the circumstances.  To deal with a minor is to take ALL the risk.

Notice, these were buy/sell examples.  It is a tad different when a child inherits land, other assets, or a partially completed land grant.  If he indeed had the rights to inherit, and has now inherited the rights to the patent when the process is completed and it issues, then that patent will go forward and be issued.  Note, that again the child will here be in a position of owning something that he can do with as he pleases, including sell or transfer it to others.  BUT, when he does that, the person who dealt with him will once more be at his own risk, since this child, as all others, can disavow his actions when coming of age.

Since your question a few days ago, I have done a lot of looking, Janet, and I have concluded to my satisfaction (at least) that there were no rules of church or even parish-wide force and effect in the early VA disciplines that prescribed an age for baptism.   The parish registers I have (5) reveal baptisms at varying ages.  I believe that the weather, the priests/preachers, the distance from the churchhouse, and whether or not the preacher "rode circuit", all served in determining when the kids were baptized.  One more factor that was at play was whether or not the discipline in question believed that a child could not go to Heaven until it had been baptized. 

So, the rule remains, "Buy or sell or lease land  from to or from kids as you choose, but know that if the child does not have a guardian or parent dealing for and with him ion the bargain, you do so at your own and serious risk."  The other question is best answered through your efforts to ascertain whether or not the religious discipline in question had local/parish rules or beliefs about the appropriate times for baptism.          Paul    

  

     
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: [log in to unmask] 
  ....Hello Everyone, 

  As the person who began this particular query, I'll recap by saying I was curious whether you all thought that the Samuel Bentley, baptized in 1719, No. Farnham Parish, Richmond Co. could also be the Samuel Bentley who has a land patent in 1734 in then Prince George Co., now Amelia Co. (Raleigh Parish).   My assumption was that one had to be 21 to obtain a patent, and that baptisms usually followed soon after birth.  FYI, I am still looking for more information on the baptism question, as Samuel had a sister baptized about two years before him, and a brother two years after him, I feel confident the parents didn't wait until all three were what we'd now consider school age. 

  I was quickly disabused of the notion of needing to be 21 to be granted a patent, though it is unclear to me whether or not this is something that can be done independently by an under 21 year old alone.  ALL the examples given to me had to do with patents obtained as a result of a person's will -- a grandfather directing patents be obtained for all his grandsons, a father bequeathing land which he had already entered but apparently not patented to an unborn child if a son (Andrew Moorman, see:http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~lksstarr/reports/andmrwll.txt..A patent was taken out for an Andrew Moorman in 1792). 

  But nevertheless...About six months following the above mentioned Samuel Bentley obtaining his patent in 1734, he turned around and leased six acres to his probable cousin/brother John Bentley, who I believe was then the Sexton of the Flat Creek Chapel per Bristol Parish Records.     

  Here are the abstracted entries (for which I have the originals transcribed).   Do you think Samuel Bentley would have had to have been 21 to lease a portion to John Bentley?  FYI, I have already been told no, especially if John were a brother who trusted Samuel Bentley not to later renounce the lease when he turned 21. 

  1734 - SAMUEL BENTLEY'S (w 1784) 1734 LAND PATENT 

  1734- 3 Oct  Prince George {later Amelia} in 1734 == Samuel BENTLEY receives a VA Land Grant for 400 acres s. side of the Appomatox river.  Both sides of Pruits Creek, adjoining Joseph ECHOLS.  Book 15, p. 354. 

  Amelia Co., Deed book 1 page 2 
  Samuel Bentley of the county of Amelia <snip>  lease unto John Bentley of the above said county one parcel of land lying and being in the county of Amelia on Pruits Creek. Beginning on Richard Eckholses line <snip> containing about six acres <snip> the said John doth agree to and with the Said Samuel to pay him One ear of corn for 2 Year rent in acknowledgment of the said land to be paid yearly upon demand every Christmas Day <snip> In witness whereof the parties above I have hereunto set their hands and seals this -Day of July 1735. 
  James Clark John Forguson Samuel Bentley. 

  FYI, I am not necessarily looking for definitive answers.  I am looking for the judgments of other researchers if presented with this information.   

  Best Regards, 
  Janet (Baugh) Hunter

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