We left our last post with the death of John Tapscott. On 2 Nov
1871 in Clark County his widow, Elizabeth, married Oliver York. Oliver was born
around 1834 or 1835 in Kentucky to John and Drusilla York. On 23 Sep 1830, John
York had made bond to marry Drusilla Black in Bracken County, Kentucky. During
the 1840s (based largely on children’s ages) John, Drusilla, and
their four children (Melvina, Aven, Oliver, and Amanda) arrived in Clark
County, Illinois, from Kentucky. (Around the time that John Tapscott's parents had made a similar trip.)
Trees Referencing Trees |
John Tapscott’s brother, William, took over administration of John’s
estate, which was much more difficult that William expected. For two years he
tried to settle debts, but failed to do so. Then on 17 May 1872 he published a
notice in the Marshall Herald announcing an 18 Jun 1872 court hearing to sell
two 40-acre plots of John’s land “or as much thereof as shall be necessary to
pay debts against the estate of said John Tapscott. deceased.” Summoned to appear in court were most of
John’s living siblings and the children of those deceased, along with husbands
in the case of women (sorry, that’s the way things were). Named were
(2) orphaned children of Jacob Tapscott
Lavina, Andrew, Margaret. Ann
(3) Sarah Ann (Tapscott) Sanders, William Sanders
(4) Frances (Tapscott) Lockard, Samuel Lockard
(5) Lydia (Tapscott) Cardell, William Cardell
(6) Major Tapscott
But some siblings were missing. William, of course, since he was
the person arranging the court action, but also James W. Tapscott, Nancy
(Tapscott) Siverly, Elizabeth (Tapscott) Sweitzer, and Samuel Tapscott. James
may have been deceased by the time the notice was published. His death date is
uncertain. But the others were certainly living. Were there separations within
the family? Later in life Elizabeth exhibited a rather free spirited lifestyle
that could cause familial problems (see Enigmatic Sweitzers, 29 May 2016, 30
May 2016) but the court action notice was published before her nonconformist
activities. Of Samuel, there is no doubt. He was a bounder (posting of 25 Jun 2015). If not
rejected from family activities he surely should have been. And Nancy? Other than indications of a low
economic position and her husband’s illiteracy, probably because he was
German-born, there seems to be nothing to set the Siverlys apart. But, of course, family feelings could not legally eliminate heirs. And there was
another missing heir—John’s widow.
No comments:
Post a Comment
To directly contact the author, email retapscott@comcast.net