Yes, it is confusing. But it seems clear that he had died. I wonder Hannah
applied for a pension.
-Michael
> If I remember correctly William is said to have died in 1847 (near Santa
> Fe?) while fighting in the Mexican War.
> Hannah is found on a Texas census in 1850 or 1860 living with one of
> their daughters.
>
> Could it be possible that the administrator was not aware that William
> had died or simply listed him as the
> proper heir in relation to Hannah? Would it have been good form back in
> those days to list Hannah Bearden,
> without mentioning her spouse? This way it's implied that she is the
> former Hannah Cooley, regardless if her
> husband is still living or still living with her. (I'm just riffing
> here, by the way.)
>
> I have yet to come across anything else on this lawsuit other than the
> re-prints in subsequent editions of the
> newspaper. * sigh *
>
>
>
>
> On 2/25/2013 8:29 AM, Michael Cooley wrote:
>> Yes, I'm confused by that too. I found the death record of one of their
>> sons last night but the informant didn't know who the parents were.
>> It's
>> possible that James didn't know that he had died, but that seems
>> unlikely.
>>
>>> In my researching last night I saw that William Bearden husband of
>>> Hannah
>>> Cooley died before 1950 - if this is the same William fro MO I'm
>>> confused as to why he would be mentioned in the notice in the paper
>>> that
>>> was published in 1858.
>>
>
> --
> <a href="http://newsummer.com/distlist">distlist 0.9</a>
> See http://ancestraldata.com/listarchive/johncooleylist/ for list
> information.
>
--
Second VP, the Cooley Family Association of America
President, the Genealogy Club of Humboldt State University
Administrator, the Eldridge Family DNA Project
Administrator, the Ashenhurst Family DNA Project (in the works)
Administrator, the alt-McDowell DNA Project
Co-Administrator, the Cooley Family DNA Project
Instructor "Genealogy and Family History," the Osher Lifelong Learning
Institute (OLLI)
Received on Tue Feb 26 2013 - 13:09:24 MST