Person:John Dawson (29)

John Dawson
b.Cal 1677
m. Bef 1677
  1. John DawsonCal 1677 - Aft 1737
m. 1 Jul 1708
m. Bef 1716
  1. Timothy Dawson1716 - 1740
  2. Robert Dawson1717/18 - 1799
  3. John DawsonCal 1720 - 1787
  4. Titus DawsonCal 1722 - 1742
Facts and Events
Name[1] John Dawson
Gender Male
Birth[1] Cal 1677
Marriage 1 Jul 1708 East Haven, New Haven, Connecticut, United Statesto Sarah Chidsey
Marriage Bef 1716 East Haven, New Haven, Connecticut, United States (probably)to Mary Luddington
Death[1][2] Aft 1737 East Haven, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
References
  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Dawson, in Jacobus, Donald Lines. Families of Ancient New Haven. (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Pub. Co., 1974)
    3:526.

    "John (Dawson), d after 1737; …"

  2. Dawson, Charles C. A record of the descendants of Robert Dawson of East Haven, Conn: including Barnes, Bates, Beecher, Bissell, Calaway, Carpenter, Cary, Colman, Doolittle, Doud, Douglass, Dresser, Evans, Fox, Fuller, Grannis, Johnson, Meloy, Morse, Parsons, Perkins, Richmond, Rogers, Sigourney, Sill, Smith, Stone, Tuttle, Van Buren, Walker, Werdon, Whittlesey, Woodruff, and numerous other families, with many biographical and genealogical notes concerning the same. (Albany, N.Y.: J. Munsell, 1874)
    14-15.

    "In 1737 [John Dawson] and his wife were parties to a sale of land of her late father, William Luddington, sold to pay the debts of his estate [June 21, 1737. ─ N. H. R., vol. 10, p. 366. In the same year, it having been voted in a village meeting 'to sell the parsonage and constitute a permanent fund with the avails,' he and a few others entered their protest against the sale of the property [E. H.. R., p. 66]. Dodd states that he died Aug. 28, 1732, aged 55 [E. H. R., p. 166]. As to the year the error is manifest; it may have been 1737, but could not have been earlier [The original record, which Dodd must have seen but incorrectly transcribed, as to date, and perhaps as to age, has not been found by the compiler hereof, and the discrepancies here apparent cannot at present be explained. … It is not impossible that J. D. was son of the second wife of R. D., since 1683 + 55 = 1738.