Andersons of Colonial N. Carolina

This patent is not to be found in Nugent’s Cavaliers and Pioneers which caused some relief to my consternation and confusion when Jennifer from California found it by one of those horrid, tedious page by page searches. Several aspects of the patent and its subsequent re-patent 10 years later are becoming important for a better understanding of the immigrant John Bryant.

My theory of this guy assuming room temperature in 1680 is proving controversial and hard to swallow for my cohorts… and I am feverishly attempting to gather my notes and mount a defense … to “prove it, dammit”… so to speak. I get a kick out of this sort of thing…the bodies of deceased John Bryans are beginning to pile up (in my mind at least) so some ‘splainin’ is in order.

One important aspect of this patent of 1672 is that it relocates the immigrant from his lair at Indian Creek (since at least 1652) and moves him about eight mile or so southwest (and perhaps importantly) across the border from Nansemond to Isle of Wight. That is why so many records show up for this guy… otherwise he would have been hopelessly vaporized in the burned embers of the three Nansemond fires.

Also of import is the neighbor Thomas Mason…I am just beginning to figure him out.. I really can’t comment on him except to mention I have a “hunch” he married into the Bryant line. He shows up in too many deeds to be an idle bystander. He seems to be a contemporary of the old man… note that he received his 1000 acre patent in 1666… a few years before Bryan. Bryan will later begin to buy in to this land… as also will some descendants.

Below is the nitty gritty details of the two patents… again, finders credit to Jennifer Thornton.

Click the filename (in blue) under the image for a larger image to zoom…

The strange dotted line in the 1682 patent is just to draw attention to the errors present and in contrast to the original 1672 patent. There is just no way a “pretty” match is going to present itself on a map.

Now go back to the Post below this one and see if it might make more sense that a John Bryan died in 1680.

Note also that I mentioned a “testamentary deed”… my friend David Gammon turned me on to that term… likewise Traci the Librarian once scolded me (correctly so) for using the term “will” when I referred to a deed.

I noted in the prior Post that “a” John Bryan issued that “testamentary” deed to his son in 1725. It was written in the deed that the property did not become “owned” by the son until the death of his father and mother.

With that said, note the specifics of this deed of 1731:

Is it not clear to be seen that both the John Bryan (of 1725 deed AND his wife) are deceased by 1728… as is stated above when the son gave the land to his brother? The son could not dispose of the land unless his father was dead.

Now let me kill another John Bryan in 1710. At that date Needham Bryan “conveyed” 170 acres to James Nolliboy. (Needham’s brother John Bryan was involved… which just confuses the matter). The property being sold was noted in 1710 as “being formerly granted John Bryan Deced Bearing date …1682″.

This is where I get to eat some crow. Try as I might, I just cannot make a case for a John Bryan wedged in between one who died between 1680 and 1682 and his son who died in 1728.

Luckily I found instructions…

How to Eat Crow (Literally)

This is critical to understand… if I am correct that the immigrant died in 1680… then the person being referred to here in 1682 is his son. And he is also dead as is referenced “part of a patten of 344 acres formerly granted John Bryan Deced Bearing date…1682″. If my reasoning is flawed, it is the fuzziness surrounding the patent of 1682… the old man could not have “devised” it in 1682 if he was dead in 1680.

Here is the smoking gun…

Well… at least we have successfully proven the demise of the immigrant. However…that just sounds downright weird.