was Martha Garner the wife of John Jenkins?
In 1988 Amelia Cleland Gilreath published the hypothesis identifying Martha, wife of John Jenkins, then of William Harness, as Martha Garner, daughter of John and Susanna (Keene) Jenkins.She acknowledged that there was no primary evidence for this identification but interpreted second evidence from land records to suggest the identification.
As she stated in The Jenkins of Northern Neckand Old 96 (1988), p. 173, and again in The Grandparents (2000), p.252:
[John Jenkins] “Married Martha [believed to be Garner] the dau. of John and Susanna (Keene) Garner.To date there is no primary proof available other than wording of deeds [ i.e. “just right and inheritance” or “diver good cause or reason”], to prove Martha’s father was John Garner.However, theses Deeds lead one to believe there was a family relationship.”
Like other Jenkins researchers, I admired Gilreath’s work and was delighted at the possibility that Martha’s family had been found, yet I have never been persuaded that the secondary evidence from land records was conclusive.I am now convinced that the deeds, even as secondary evidence, simply do not support Gilreath’s conclusions.Part of the reason why it is important to set this out is that Martha Garner now appears wholesale as John Jenkins’ wife in other published work and on the internet, and that is short-circuiting the research necessary to determine who she really was.Given the close relations between the Jenkins and Garner families, other evidence might well demonstrate that Martha was indeed Martha Garner, but till such evidence surfaces, the most we can conclude is that the two families were close neighbors busily involved in each other’s lives.
There seems to be one chief deed containing the two phrases that Gilreath uses to suggest the identification of Martha, John Jenkins’ wife, as Martha Garner, daughter of John and Susanna (Keene) Garner:
“John Jenkins of Cople Paris, West’d. co., planter...to John Gardner & Vincent Gardner, for divers good causes & considerations in the law...all interest in 100 a. commonally called Horne Point on Youcomoco River in Cople Parish....”[Grandparents, p. 257]
Gilreath believes that the deed shows family relationships between John Jenkins, who married Martha Garner, and Vincent Garner, who had married John Jenkins’ sister:
“Note: this is obviously the land that Nicholas obtained from Samuel Earle in 1669.Since John is selling his “interest” in the land, it makes one wonder what the other two children of Nicholas’ did not sign over their interest in the land.This is why I concluded that Nicholas’ other child is a daughter who married Vincent Garner and that John had married Martha Garner.On 29 May 1695 John Jenkins acknowledged this deed and stated that “the premises conveyed are the right and inheritance of John Garner and Vincent Garner.”[Grandparents, p. 257]
There are several possibilities why Nicholas Jenkins’ other children did not join in this deed.One might be that they were dead.The other is that, as daughters, they had no right in the land.Here C17 law might help us and I do not know what it is, but I’d be willing to guess that, since Nicholas Jenkins died intestate, all the land went to his son.Nicholas certainly had the right to give or bequeath land to his daughters (or anyone else) but he did not do so before he died, and he did do so by will and last testament.
I believe that the deed above is much duller in its implications, just part of chain of earlier deedsclearing up a mess left by his father’s death 22-23 years before.He was basically quitclaiming rights to land which his father had sold John Garner Sr; John Jenkins had to do this because his father died before executing a deed for the land which he had sold to John Garner.The following chain of deeds and wills puts the John Jenkins 1695 transaction in what I hope is the proper light.
1. Samuel Earle sold the land to Nicholas Jenkins in 1669; [Westmoreland County Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, p. 52; Westmoreland County Deeds and Wills 1, p. 355; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pt. 1, p. 55]:
Samll. Earle of Yeocomiccoe, planter, in Westmoreland County, to Nicholas Jenkings.100 acres in Horne Point, beginning at the pointe and running up Yeocomicoe River to Spring Neck;27 October 1669.
2. Nicholas Jenkins sold the land to John Garner and Robert Middleton three years later in 1672; [Westmoreland County Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, p. 156a; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pt. 2, pp. 58-59]:
Samll. and Bridgett Earle’s sale of land to Nich: Jenkins record in foll. 52.
Nicholas Jenkins unto John Garner and Robt. Middleton.All my interest of this land.Witnesses Andrew Reade and Timothy WigJohn.26 Dec. 1672.Nicholas Jenkins appointed his well beloved friend Samll. Earle his attorney to acknowledge a parcell of land lying in Horne poynt Neck unto John Gardner and Robt. Middleton; 1 July 1673.Samll. Earle as attorney acknowledged the sale 24 September 1673.
3. Nicholas Jenkins died between 27 July 1673 when he dated his will and 29 November 1673 when his will was proven in Westmoreland County Court; [Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pt. 2, p. 71].Nicholas Jenkins was clearly still alive when he gave power of attorney to Samuel Earle to acknowledge the sale of the 100 acres to John Garner and Robert Middleton, but he may have already been dead when Samuel Earle actually made the acknowledgment 24 September 1673.
4. For whatever reason, John Garner and Robert Middleton were anxious about their title to the 100 acres, and so they got depositions from the witnesses to the sale and from Nicholas Jenkins’ widow to confirm their title; [Westmoreland County Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pp. 177-177a; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pt. 2, pp. 77-78]:
Andrew Reade, aged about [ ]6 yeares of therabouts, saith that uppon 26 Xber [Dec.] last Nich: Jenkins did assigne all his interest of a bill of sale of 100 acres of land baring date 27 8ber [Oct.] 1669 unto Robt. Middleton and Jno. Gardner.Middleton and Gardner past there bill each of them for 1500 pounds of tobacco.25 Feb. 1673/4
Timothy WigJohn, aged about 21 or thereabouts, depose to that above written.25 Feb. 1673/4.
Robt Jefferies, aged about 35 yeares or therabouts, saith that uppon 18 July last I was with Jno. Garnder and Robt. Midleton at Nich: Jenkins’ house when he lay uppon his death bedd where Jno: Gardner and Robt. Midleton was talking about confirmation of land bought of him.He said as God is my witnesse I meane nothing but honesty in the matter.”25 Feb. 1673/4.
Amy Jenkins, aged about 45 years or thereabouts, saith that upon 15 July last Jno. Gardner and Robt. Midleton was at her house talking with her husband concerning the confirmation of land they bought of him.He said as God is my witnesse I meane nothing but honesty n the matter.It was uppon his death bed..25 Feb. 1673-/4.
5. Later that same year John Garner and Robert Middleton were still nervous about their title to the land, and so they got legal assurance from Nicholas Jenkins’ widow Amy and her new husband William Rogers; [Westmoreland County Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pp. 212; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pt. 3, pp. 18]:
Bond of Wm. Rogers and Amy Rogers unto Robt. Middleton and Jno” Gardner.For 6000 pounds of tobacco.To keepe harmeless from all ejectments by reason of a sale of 100 acres sold by Nich: Jenkins, deceased, which was not acknowledged before his decease.28 8ber 1674.
6. Now comes John Jenkins deed to John Garner and Vincent Garner; [abstracted in Westmoreland County Deeds and Wills No. 2, 1691-1699, pp. 24-24a; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds & Wills No. 2, 1691-1699, p. 12]:
Here follows a transcript of the indenture taken from a microfilm copy of the Westmoreland land records.(The spelling and punctuation have been modernised.)
“This indenture made this 15th day of January Anno Dom. 1694 Between John Jenkins of the Parish of Cople in the County of Westmoreland, Planter of the one part, and John Gardner and Vincent Gardner both of the Parish and County aforesaid of the other Part, Witnesseth that the said John Jenkins for divers good and valuable causes and considerations in the Law, him thereunto moving, have granted, bargained, sold, and by these presents doth grant, bargain, and sell unto the said John Gardner and Vincent Gardner and their heirs, all his right, title, interest, property, claims, and demand whatsoever, which he the said John Jenkins now hath or which he may, might, or ought to have of and in 100 acres of land be the same more or less commonly called Horne Point, situate, lying, and being on Youcomoco River in the said Parish of Cople, to have and to hold the aforesaid, right, title, interest, property, claim, and demand whatsoever of him the said John Jenkins of, in, and to the said land and premisses aforesaid, unto them the said John Gardner and Vincent Gardner, their heirs, and assigns forever.And the said John Jenkins for himself doth covenant, promise, and agree to and with the said John Gardner and Vincent Gardner, their heirs, and assigns, that he hath not by any ways or means whatsoever, heretofore alienated or made away his right and interest to the premises aforesaid, to any person or persons whatsoever, and that the said John Gardner and Vincent Gardner, their heirs and assigns shall and may peaceably have, hold, and enjoy the same from time to time and at all times hereafter without the lett or interruption of the said John Jenkins, his heirs, and assigns, or any person or persons claiming by, from, or under him or them, and further that the said John Jenkins, his heirs, and assigns shall and will at any time within six months, upon the request of the said John and Vincent, their heirs, or assigns, or assigns [sic], any or either of them acknowledge these presents in the County Court of Westmoreland.In witness whereof, the parties above named have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.”
This indenture was witnessed by Simon Robins, Sarah Waggott, Richard Sutton, and John Jenkins acknowledged this conveyance in court 29 May 1695.
Several points are worth considering here.First, John Garner was evidently the same man who bought the land in 1672.Next, the deed itself is unusual in several respects: first it mentions “interest” in the land,not the land itself; most deeds speak not of “interest in 100 acres” but of “100 acres”.Second, it does not appear that the Garners had to pay anything.While the wording of the deed rambles around, it is nevertheless to all appearances a quitclaim deed.John Garner still wanted clear title to the land, and John Jenkins was willing to give it to him.John Jenkins’ conveyance of his “interest” in keeping with “for divers good causes and considerations in the law” thus probably means nothing more than that John Jenkins is acknowledging his father’s sale of the land.
The reason why John Garner associated his son Vincent Garner in this legal assurance becomes apparent in his will, dated 22 January 1702/3, proven 26 May 1703, in which he gave Vincent the same 100 acres: “And I give unto my said son Vincent Garner and to his heirs a parcel of land lying in horn point.”[Westmoreland County Deeds and Wills No. 3, 1701-1707, pp. 153-154; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds and Wills No. 3, 1701-1707, pp. 44-45]John Garner, who knew that he was going to leave the tract to his son Vincent, was simply looking ahead.
The words “right and inheritance of John Garner and Vincent Gardner” in the 1695 acknowledgement of the deed thus probably mean the right of John Garner (who bought the land) and the inheritance of Vincent Garner (who his father had decided was going to inherit the land).Though the wording is not particularly clear, it seems to mean that Vincent was going to gain title of the land because he was his father’s heir, not because he was Nicholas Jenkins’ son-in-law.Even if Gilreath’s analysis were correct, it remains puzzling why Vincent Garner’s father should also figure in the deed: John Garner might have a claim because he bought the land, but he certainly had no claim to Jenkins land by right of inheritance.
Here I might add that one problem with my interpretation is that Vincent Garner in his own will, dated 30 September 1710, proven Northumberland County VA, bequeathed the 100 acres which “he bought from John Jenkins”.Even here though, Vincent Garner thought he had bought the land, not got it through family ties.
If this analysis of the deed is correct, then the deed does not demonstrate, even as secondary evidence, that Martha Garner was John Jenkins’ wife.
A further bit of circumstantial evidence puzzles me.On 26 June 1717 Martha Jenkins testified that her husband John Jenkins had died intestate.The Court gave her letters of administration for her late husband’s estate, and George Eskridge was her security.[Westmoreland County Order Book 1705-1721, p. 313; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Order Book 1705-1721, pt 7, p. 2]Though I have not paid close enough attention to the relationships of those posting bond for others in probate matters, my impression nonetheless remainsthat they are often close kin. I have wondered why, if Martha were indeed Martha Garner, one of her remaining brothers did not post bond.There may well be good reasons, but possibly Martha was closely related instead to George Eskridge, a possibility worth investigating.Henry Garner was one of four men appointed to appraise John Jenkins’ estate, but that is something that the neighbors, rather than family members, habitually did.
Yet another bit of circumstantial evidence.We know that Martha Garner was alive 22 January 1702/3 when her father left her a legacy.She was also alive 31 March 1718 when her brother Benjamin left her a legacy.Maddeningly , neither her father’s will nor her brother’s will gives her a surname.Benjamin’s will specifies the surname of everyone else in the will including that of his sister Mary Price.A possible conclusion might be that Martha Garner was unmarried in 1702 and remained unmarried in 1718.As against this theory, Mary Garner appears in her father’s will without surname, yet she was apparently married by 1682, twenty years before her father wrote his will.
Certainly others might well differ in their analysis of the deed or its relation to other deeds and documents, and I’m eager to see what others have to say on the matter.
Best wishes to you all.
Scott Swanson
Department of History
Butler University
4600 Sunset Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana46208-3485
[email protected]
More Replies:
-
Re: was Martha Garner the wife of John Jenkins?
melba doucet 3/22/05