Person:Samuel Peirce (5)

Browse
m. 20 Jan 1703/04
  1. Anne Pierce1704 - Bef 1736
  2. Joshua Pierce1705/06 - 1794
  3. Mary Pierce1707 -
  4. Henry Pierce1710 - Aft 1736
  5. Samuel PeirceAbt 1712 - Bef 1761
  6. Moses PierceAbt 1717 - 1791
  7. Daniel Pierce1718 - 1719
  • HSamuel PeirceAbt 1712 - Bef 1761
  • WMary Jaques1712 - 1805
m. 19 Oct 1738
Facts and Events
Name Samuel Peirce
Gender Male
Birth[2] Abt 1712 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage 19 Oct 1738 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United Statesto Mary Jaques
Death[1] Bef 3 Jun 1761 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Essex County, MA: Probate File Papers, 1638-1881: Online database. (New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2014)
    Case 21225 Peirce Samuel Junr, Newbury 1761 June8.

    3 Jun 1761: Inventory of Sam'll Pierce Late of Newbury Deceasd: £190-18-4, by Ralph Cross, Moses Bradstreet, Gideon Woodwell.
    8 Jun 1761: Bond of Mary Pierce Widow of Newbury as administratrix of her husband Samuel Peirce late of Newbury Dec'd Intestate.

  2. Source:Pierce, Frederick Clifton. Peirce Genealogy : Being the Record of the Posterity of John Pers, an Early Inhabitant of Watertown, in New England, Who, p. 235, shows Samuel and Moses as twins, "b. Feb. 10, 1717". No such birth record is found, and the settlement of the father's estate indicates Samuel, if not both sons, were born by 1715 since Samuel gives bond for payment to his co-heirs. No bond is found for Moses, so this is less clear, but the presumption is that settlement was delayed until 1736 to allow the two heirs that received land to attain legal age. The estimate shown "abt 1712", comes from Source:Pramberg, Noreen C. Four Generations of the Descendants of Daniel Pierce, p. 12, which appears to be based on the age of his wife. As explained on p. 4, it is very hard to distinguish the families of Samuel Peirce and Mary Brown, and Samuel Peirce and Mary Jaques. It does appear from the probate of this Samuel that there was no mention of any children, as suggested in that discussion.