An Uncertain Life, Part 3

Elizabeth, widow of John Tapscott, and her new husband, Oliver York, soon found that they were being omitted in legal notices about sales of John’s estate. Oliver, Elizabeth, and William Tapscott, John’s brother and administrator, came to an agreement. At the June 1872 term of the Clark County court, agreeing not to press the lack of notification, “Elizabeth E. York & Alvin [Oliver?] York waive further process and enter this appearance being as fully as if they had been served with process two days before the present term of this court.” By 21 June 1872 notices of sales of John Tapscott’s estate included the phrase “subject to the widow’s dower.”

The term “widow’s dower” in William Tapscott’s newspaper notices last appears in a 23 Oct 1873 announcement in the Marshall Weekly Messenger. Then Elizabeth and Oliver York disappear, never to be seen again. What happened to them? Nobody knows, or at least are not saying.

Administration of John Tapscott’s estate drug on for years, and William was under continuous legal harassment for not settling debts. Finally, in Dec 1891, over two decades after John’s death, William “Tabscott” issued a final report, showing $670.24 received from estate sales and 732.88 paid out, including $125.40 going to John’s widow. John had left a burden, not a benefit. The final report included William’s comment

“The undersigned states that he believes the foregoing report to be accurate but that he believes that he has been for a number of years unable to find the papers in said court concerning said estate … and that this report or one due in this case would have been made years ago but for the absence of said papers, which he hopes to be able to get but can not.

An Uncertain Life, Part 2

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

We know relatively little of John, Drusilla, and their family. But that is not one sees when looking at family trees on Ancestry.com. Seldom has one seen such ridiculous, scandalously undocumented, and laughable trees. Drusilla Black has become “Drusilla Eveningstar” (in one case, a native American, “Druscilla Princess Eveningstar”); John, who is sometimes from Ulster, New York, marries Drusilla in Clark County, Illinois, even though their children are all born in Kentucky; and their son Aven is morphed into Aven Hall York, who just happened to have the same first name, but the wrong birth date, birthplace, and residence. Of course, the only sources for most of the posted information are other trees. Trees referencing trees. Well, enough polemics.

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

(1) Thomas Tapscott

(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.

We will look at that with our next posting.