John Manley (1642 - 1688)

Born 18 Sep 1642 in England

Ancestors

Descendants

Died Jan 1688 at age 45 in Westmoreland, Colony of Virginia

Problems/Questions Profile managers: Karen Lowe [send private message] and James Choma [send private message]

Biography

This biography is a rough draft. It was auto-generated by a GEDCOM import and needs to be edited.

Birth

Birth: ABT 1657 Westmoreland Co., VA, US^[1][2]

Marriage

Husband: John Manley

Wife: Restitute Whitson

User ID: 702ED9AE34C228438D9DEF34D941DBB880FD

Child: William Manley

Marriage:

Date: BET 1679 AND 1682

Place: Fairfax, Virginia

Death

Date: 1706 Fairfax Co., VA, US

Note: John has not been proven to be the father of William. He may have been the father of 4 sons: Thomas, Cornelius, John, and unknown (William?).

Sources

1. ↑ Source: #S1717 TMPLT FIELD Name: Page
2. ↑ Source: #S1779 TMPLT FIELD Name: Page

• Source: S1717 Abbreviation: MISSOURI: Short/Stone & Allied #2 Title: Short-Cardenas, Debby, MISSOURI: Short/Stone & Allied #2 (Email: susieqq@@myexcel.com) Subsequent Source Citation Format: Short-Cardenas, Debby, MISSOURI: Short/Stone & Allied #2 BIBL Short-Cardenas, Debby. MISSOURI: Short/Stone & Allied #2. Email: susieqq@@myexcel.com. TMPLT TID 0 FIELD Name: Footnote VALUE Short-Cardenas, Debby, MISSOURI: Short/Stone & Allied #2 (Email: susieqq@@myexcel.com) FIELD Name: ShortFootnote VALUE Short-Cardenas, Debby, MISSOURI: Short/Stone & Allied #2 FIELD Name: Bibliography VALUE Short-Cardenas, Debby. MISSOURI: Short/Stone & Allied #2. Email: susieqq@@myexcel.com.
• Source: S1779Borland, Jack. "Borland Tree" (www.ancestry.com) (Email: jborland@@denverpst.com)

The following added by Robert Bowman on October 2, 2017.

The following is a record of the courts findings in England by Sir Robert Raymond of Lincoln Inn on the inheritance of the Manley family:

Tyler's quarterly historical and genealogical magazine, Volume 1  By Lyon Gardiner Tyler Page 26. John Hallows, "late of Rachedale, County Palatine of Lancaster," was seized of 2400 acres in Virginia & died so seized, leaving issue Restitute, his daughter, who entered and married with one John Whitstone, & by him had Restitute, her daughter and heir, who intermarried with one Thomas Steele, and had issue Thomas Steele, eldest son & heir, and afterwards married with one Manly, and had issue two sons John and William Manly. Being a widow, the said Restitute made her will January 30, 1687, leaving her estate to her three sons, to remain in the hands of her ex'tor till the children arrived at the age of 16. Thomas Steele died when he had almost attained the age of 21 & without issue, after whose death John Manly entered into possession leaving issue the defendant. The lessor of the pltf is Samuel Hallows, son and heir of Matthew Hallows, who was eldest brother of said John Hallows. This case was sent from Virginia in 1722 and Sir Robert Raymond rendered an opinion upon it. Virginia Colonial DecisionsSir Robert Raymond’s Opinion in case sent from Virginia in 1722Case Int Hallows & Manly) Ejectment upon special verdict  Restitue Whitstone Steele Manley Last Will & Testament in Writing bearing Date the 30th of January 1687 in these Words I Give & Bequeath to my son Thomas Steel that Tract of Land I now live on (y’e Land in Dispute) to him and his Heirs forever. Item it is my Will that my three Children with their Estates remain in the Hands of my Ex’s till they shall come of Age of 16 Years & then to have their Estates; and the same Day made her Codicil in these Words “It is my Will that if my son Thomas Steel die in his Minority before he be of Age to enjoy my within mentioned Land, that, then my other two Sons, John & W’m Manly shall have the said Land equally to be divided between them & their Heirs forever. Thomas Steel at his Age of 16 entered into the Lands and took the Profits thereof, and lived till he had almost attained his Age of 21, & died without issue; After whose Death John Manly entered into the Lands and died in Possession leaving Issue the Def’t. The Lesser of the Pl’t is Samuel Hallows Son & Heir of Matthew Hallows, who was Son & Heir of Samuel Hallows who was eldest Brother of the said John Hallows. Q’r. What Estate Thomas Steel had in those Lands by  y’e Will of his Mother, and whether upon his dying before 21 tho’ in Possession, the Lands should go to Manly? And if Lands shall remain over upon Thomas Steel’s dying before 21 Q’r how this Issue could have inherited if he had had any? I am of Opinion, that Thomas Steel by Virtue of the Will and Codicil of his Mother Restitue Manly, (taking it for granted the Will and Codoicil were duly executed according to the Laws in Virginia), took Estate in Fee Simple, but subject to the Contingency of his dying in his Minority before he should be of Age to enjoy the Land devised, and if he died in his Minority before he should be of age to enjoy it, then y’e Land by the Codicil was devised over to John and William Manly in Fee as Tenants in common by Way of executory Devise. – Mr. Hallows Title depends upon the Constitution of those Words in the Codicil “If Thomas Steel die in his Minority before he be of Age to enjoy Land devised “, if by those Words Thomas Steel’s Death before 21 is to be understood, Mr. Hallows will have no Title because Tho’s Steel did die before his Age of 21: and in that Case if Thomas Steel had had Children they could not have taken this Estate; w’ch is so hard a Construction, that it can’t be imagin’d the Mother intended it should be so – But if those Words in y’e Codicil shall be refer’d to the Words of the Will whereby, by the Devise that y’e 3 Children with the Estates should remain in y’e Hands of her Exter, till they should come of Age of 16 years, and that then they should have their Estates that – that was the time of Enjoyment intended by the Codicil, then after Thomas Steel came to 16 he was seized in Fee absolutely, and the Executory Devise over to John & W’m Manly could never arise, but Mr. Hallows as Heir- at- Law to Thomas Steel will be entitled to these Lands.If upon Thomas Steel’s coming into Possession he had an absolute Fee Simple in the Lands Q’r whether the Lesser of the Plt. Hath not a good Title.And I apprehend this last Construction is the right Construction and is inforced by its obviating that Hardship, in some Measure, which the other Construction would introduce, in Relation to the Defeating y’e Children of Thomas Steel,  because it is not unreasonable to think that the Mother did not intend her Son should marry before 16 and if not he could have no children to be defeated by the Devise over. And therefore upon the whole, if Mr. Hallows proves his Pedigree plainly, I am of Opinion he hath a good Title to these Lands devised.Lincolns Inn                                                   Rob: Raymond                                                                       Mar: 28, 1722  (Note) This Opinion is published in North Carolina Law Repos. 72-4)