Mertz Genealogy - Person Sheet
Mertz Genealogy - Person Sheet
NameDavid Johnson 
3032
3032Spouses
Marriageabout 1780
My Comments notes for David Johnson
He had a tract surveryed he named Lightfoot on 1 Jan 1761 -- same date that John Rchardson had Rchardsons Chance surveyed. But he didn’t complete the patent. Instead his widow did and incorporated it into Widows Prospect.
Parent-Proof notes for Alice (Spouse 1)
So there was the widow Alice Johnson who became Christopher Mutchner’s second wife. I believe she may have been born Alice Richardson.
My Comments notes for Alice (Spouse 1)
There was a woman named Alice who was born Alice Richardson (I believe), whose first husband was David Johnson and who later married Christopher Mutchner. She was not our ancestor, nonetheless her story is very important to how I have come to certain key conclusions about the Mutchner, the McClung and the Richardson families and her story finds its way into my story of all of these families. I will tell her story in pieces.
Alice is important to the Mutchner story because she had a piece of land surveyed in 1786 when she was the widow Alice Johnson which was patented in 1790 to Alice Mutchner, then intermarried with Christopher Mutchner. The land was called Widows Prospect.
It is what happened to this tract of land in later years that is interesting. A substantial part of the original tract eventually ended up in the hands of Christopher Slade (Jr.) and was mentioned in his will. But long before that, several deeds were recorded in respect of this tract of land and there are four peculiarities regarding these transactions that I am unable to fully understand and explain:
1. It was clearly her land but because of the times I would have thought she would still have needed her husband to be a party to any eventual sale of it. So it is interesting that in 1800, she sold it, all 201 acres, to Philip Mutchner, but there was no mention of Christopher on that deed. It may be that, in essence, she sold only her interest in it -- but it is peculiar because of not mentioning Christopher Mutchner, who was still quite alive.
2. Now the deed when she sold the land to Philip, referred to her first as "Alice Johnston (alias) -- Mutchner" and then "Alice Johnston (otherwise) Mutchner" four times. I guess I'll let this one go, I think it is just poor wording -- they probably wanted the Johnson name as a means of identification since it was surveyed for Ales Johnson. I would have called her Alice Mutchner widow of David Johnson deceased -- but that would have made my life too easy. I notice she did sign the deed just Alis Mutchner and when recorded it said Alis Mutchner personally appeared.
3. Philip then sold two acres, a very small piece of Widows Prospect to Thomas Ayres (his name will come up again in the McClung chapter) and there was no mention of Christopher on that deed either -- which I suppose makes sense since Alice sold the land only to Philip.
4. But then, 7-8 years later, when Philip sold the remaining large part of the tract to Abraham Slade (which is how it later ended up with Abraham’s grandson Christopher), all of a sudden, Christopher Mutchner became a party to that transaction. Abraham, of course, was Christopher’s son-in-law, but that does not explain why his name was all of a sudden necessary on the deed of sale.
So Christopher's role -- not named in the earlier deeds but then named in 1810 is still peculiar. It may be that Alice had died between 1800 and 1810, but still it cannot be argued that Christopher inherited her ownership, since she had already sold it to Philip when she was still alive. I simply don’t understand -- but it doesn't really matter. I’m certain I know what happened to the land and I’m certain of the implied relationships.
Now your aunt can be your father’s sister -- but she can also be your mother’s sister or even the wife of a brother of either your mother of father. Obviously, I’ve tried to see if any of these different ways might be the case but I couldn’t get any lead on which it might be. But we know that Alice was the aunt of Adam McClung’s daughters and I believe was Letitia’s sister. There is a story to be told in the land patent records for Baltimore County -- four patents in particular pertain.
On Jan 1, 1761, John Richardson had a tract of land surveyed he called Richardsons Chance. It was never patented but record of it is listed among Baltimore County’s unpatented certificates.
On the same date, David Johnson had a survey made for a tract he called Lightfoot. It also was never patented but record of it too is found in the unpatented certificates of Baltimore County.
In 1786, Alice Johnson had a survey made for a tract she called Widows Prospect and it included Lightfoot and part of what was called Richardsons Choice. Now, I have compared the metes and bounds descriptions and Richardsons Choice is in fact the same tract of land apparently actually called Richardsons Chance.
About the same time Alice also pursued a patent, on behalf of the children of her sister (I believe) for land called McClungs Inheritance and that tract of land included the remainder of Richardsons Chance not included in Widows Prospect.
My theory then became that John Richardson was the father of Letitia and Alice. He died perhaps in the 1770’s or so, I theorized, and his daughters and their husbands basically split his unpatented land and combined their separate pieces with adjoining land which each couple then farmed. In the early 1780’s or so, Adam McClung died, his son John died, David Johnson died and in fact I think Letitia died -- leaving Alice and her six nieces to formalize what had been the informal land ownership situation for many years prior.
I have also seen two different references to one other transaction.
• A query posted in a Maryland genealogical bulletin said: “Searching for parents of Letitia Richardson who married Adam McClung, who on 7 Sep 1782 applied to purchase 136 acres of confiscated British property adjoining ‘Richardson’s Purchase’”. Becky found a similar citation clarifying that the adjoining land was, in fact, Richardson’s Chance.
I’ve never found that “purchase application” though it resonates with the patent for McClung’s Inheritance which included part of Richardson’s Chance plus 147 acres of vacant land.
One final note: sometimes when I hit a total dead-end and, no matter what I do, cannot figure out who someone was (when, as in this case, I think I know their full name), I begin to wonder whether there was some huge transcription error and my starting fact was totally erroneous. But in this case, I know that the name of this woman was indeed Letitia Richardson, as her daughter Mary named a daughter of hers: Letitia Richardson McClung.
Alice is important to the Mutchner story because she had a piece of land surveyed in 1786 when she was the widow Alice Johnson which was patented in 1790 to Alice Mutchner, then intermarried with Christopher Mutchner. The land was called Widows Prospect.
It is what happened to this tract of land in later years that is interesting. A substantial part of the original tract eventually ended up in the hands of Christopher Slade (Jr.) and was mentioned in his will. But long before that, several deeds were recorded in respect of this tract of land and there are four peculiarities regarding these transactions that I am unable to fully understand and explain:
1. It was clearly her land but because of the times I would have thought she would still have needed her husband to be a party to any eventual sale of it. So it is interesting that in 1800, she sold it, all 201 acres, to Philip Mutchner, but there was no mention of Christopher on that deed. It may be that, in essence, she sold only her interest in it -- but it is peculiar because of not mentioning Christopher Mutchner, who was still quite alive.
2. Now the deed when she sold the land to Philip, referred to her first as "Alice Johnston (alias) -- Mutchner" and then "Alice Johnston (otherwise) Mutchner" four times. I guess I'll let this one go, I think it is just poor wording -- they probably wanted the Johnson name as a means of identification since it was surveyed for Ales Johnson. I would have called her Alice Mutchner widow of David Johnson deceased -- but that would have made my life too easy. I notice she did sign the deed just Alis Mutchner and when recorded it said Alis Mutchner personally appeared.
3. Philip then sold two acres, a very small piece of Widows Prospect to Thomas Ayres (his name will come up again in the McClung chapter) and there was no mention of Christopher on that deed either -- which I suppose makes sense since Alice sold the land only to Philip.
4. But then, 7-8 years later, when Philip sold the remaining large part of the tract to Abraham Slade (which is how it later ended up with Abraham’s grandson Christopher), all of a sudden, Christopher Mutchner became a party to that transaction. Abraham, of course, was Christopher’s son-in-law, but that does not explain why his name was all of a sudden necessary on the deed of sale.
So Christopher's role -- not named in the earlier deeds but then named in 1810 is still peculiar. It may be that Alice had died between 1800 and 1810, but still it cannot be argued that Christopher inherited her ownership, since she had already sold it to Philip when she was still alive. I simply don’t understand -- but it doesn't really matter. I’m certain I know what happened to the land and I’m certain of the implied relationships.
Now your aunt can be your father’s sister -- but she can also be your mother’s sister or even the wife of a brother of either your mother of father. Obviously, I’ve tried to see if any of these different ways might be the case but I couldn’t get any lead on which it might be. But we know that Alice was the aunt of Adam McClung’s daughters and I believe was Letitia’s sister. There is a story to be told in the land patent records for Baltimore County -- four patents in particular pertain.
On Jan 1, 1761, John Richardson had a tract of land surveyed he called Richardsons Chance. It was never patented but record of it is listed among Baltimore County’s unpatented certificates.
On the same date, David Johnson had a survey made for a tract he called Lightfoot. It also was never patented but record of it too is found in the unpatented certificates of Baltimore County.
In 1786, Alice Johnson had a survey made for a tract she called Widows Prospect and it included Lightfoot and part of what was called Richardsons Choice. Now, I have compared the metes and bounds descriptions and Richardsons Choice is in fact the same tract of land apparently actually called Richardsons Chance.
About the same time Alice also pursued a patent, on behalf of the children of her sister (I believe) for land called McClungs Inheritance and that tract of land included the remainder of Richardsons Chance not included in Widows Prospect.
My theory then became that John Richardson was the father of Letitia and Alice. He died perhaps in the 1770’s or so, I theorized, and his daughters and their husbands basically split his unpatented land and combined their separate pieces with adjoining land which each couple then farmed. In the early 1780’s or so, Adam McClung died, his son John died, David Johnson died and in fact I think Letitia died -- leaving Alice and her six nieces to formalize what had been the informal land ownership situation for many years prior.
I have also seen two different references to one other transaction.
• A query posted in a Maryland genealogical bulletin said: “Searching for parents of Letitia Richardson who married Adam McClung, who on 7 Sep 1782 applied to purchase 136 acres of confiscated British property adjoining ‘Richardson’s Purchase’”. Becky found a similar citation clarifying that the adjoining land was, in fact, Richardson’s Chance.
I’ve never found that “purchase application” though it resonates with the patent for McClung’s Inheritance which included part of Richardson’s Chance plus 147 acres of vacant land.
One final note: sometimes when I hit a total dead-end and, no matter what I do, cannot figure out who someone was (when, as in this case, I think I know their full name), I begin to wonder whether there was some huge transcription error and my starting fact was totally erroneous. But in this case, I know that the name of this woman was indeed Letitia Richardson, as her daughter Mary named a daughter of hers: Letitia Richardson McClung.