BRADFORD-L Archives
Archiver > BRADFORD > 2005-07 > 1120325090
From: "Leona" <>
Subject: Re: Solomon Bradford of Worcester County, Maryland: Dispelling Two Common Misconceptions
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:27:14 -0700
References: <79d120de0506202118621f7e32@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Adam,
I am confused, (so what else is new?).
Are you saying that there is only one Solomon Bradford and he is the son of Nathaniel Bradford (abt 1699-1759) and Mary ____ ? And that the Solomon Bradford who is said to be the son of John Bradford (abt 1716-1776) and Esther Smith does not exist?
Thanks, Leona
----- Original Message -----
From: adam bradford
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:18 PM
Subject: Solomon Bradford of Worcester County, Maryland: Dispelling Two Common Misconceptions
Having just returned from the Maryland Hall of Records, I have two
discoveries to report that should clear up a lot of the confusion
regarding Solomon Bradford of Worcester County - namely, whether there
were two Solomons, and whether one of these Solomons died in 1788.
The sole evidence for the presence of two Solomons comes from Ruth
Dryden's book on Worcester County land records. Under the history of
the tract JOHNS LOT she provides the following abstract: "17 May 1771
Solomon Bradford son of John sold to William Davis." It turns out
this is twice an error, as I discovered by viewing the actual deed.
First, the deed was not a sale, nor was Solomon's other deed on the
same day (to William, Jr. of St. Martin's Desert) a sale. Both these
were quitclaim deeds. William Bradford, Jr.and William Davis were
already in possession of the tracts. In 1771 Solomon was simply
selling them his rights to the land, as eldest son of the eldest son
of John of Accomack, and therefore John's heir at law. Furthermore, in
Solomon's quitclaim to William Davis he is not referred to as the son
of John, but the grandson of John - meaning John of Accomack.
Another error which has caused some confusion over Solomon is found in
a widely-viewed abstract of Pharoah Warren's will, namely the one
posted on the Ocean City Life-Saving Museum's website. The abstract
reads as follows: ". . . Wit: isaac Evans, Solomon Bradford, he is now
deceased, and Valentine Ryan. JW 13 202." But the actual record does
not refer to Solomon as deceased. Since only 2 of the 3 witnesses
appeared to prove the will, the abstractor must have extrapolated
Solomon's death. That is a misinterpetation of the record. As only two
witnesses were required for a will to be valid, Solomon's presence was
not necessary. Evans and Ryan were sufficient for probate.
This information should be of assistance to all of us trying to sort
out these Worcester Bradfords. It's also more proof, if proof was
needed, that it's always a good idea to check original records - every
abstractor makes mistakes now and then. I'll eventually place full
transcriptions of both these records on a website I've just started
developing at www.delmarvabradfords.com.
______________________________
This thread: