Philip-4-3 (John-2) Yeaton and Mary Harvey

The one person I got wrong in my article which I regret is Philip^4-3 (John²) Yeaton.  I missed two very important clues for him because I was thinking too linearly.  I was looking for Yeatons in the censuses.  But in the 1790 census he is enumerated as Philip Eton and in 1800 he is enumerated as Philip Neaton.  Had I had those two censuses from Maine, his picture would have emerged more clearly.

Of course I hedged my bets and did note his deeds in Maine and the possible Harvey marriage.  I will admit I was against citing the Harvey marriage because it is only from a town history.  There is no primary document for it and my article was built solely from primary documents.  A gentleman with whom I was working was adamant about the marriage.  He was much older than I and is probably dead now, but he was right.  Certainly explains the use of   the name Harvey Yeaton.

This also solves the problem of the New Sharon, Maine Yeatons. There are two good gravestones which show a Philip and a John born in the 1770s buried at New Sharon.  They fit nicely into this family.

9. (iv) Philip⁴ Yeaton born say 1755.  The Philip Eton of Bristol, ME in the 1790 census; with 3 men over 16; two under 16 and 6 females; also the Philip Yeaton of Lebanon (indexed under the surname Neaton) in the 1800 census in Lebanon with 1 m 10-16, 2m 16-26, 1 m over 45; 2 females 10-16; f 16-26 and if over 45.  Definitely the same who bought land in Bristol in 1772 (Lincoln Co. Me Deeds 8:258).   Sold land in 1776 as Philip of Walpole. (Lincoln Co. Me. Deeds 12:268).  He married Mary Harvey as evidenced in the Town History of Nottingham, Deerfield and Northwood, p. 212. 

Children (list may not be complete):

i. John⁵, born 1771, died New Sharon, Me. 22 Feb. 1839 (gravestone) m. Temperance Cathcart, born 1779, died New Sharon, Me. 5 Dec. 1868, daughter of Hugh and Bathsheba (Allen) Cathcart.  At least five children: Thomas, Emily, Betsey, John H. and Lucy.

ii. Philip⁵, born 1773, died New Sharon, Me. 13 April 1863 (gravestone) m. at Farmington, Me. on 31 March 1801 [http://www.rootsweb.com/~mefrankl/fmara-carsley.htm] Patience Bowley, born January 1779, died New Sharon, Me., 6 October 1846, daughter of Gideon and Hannah (Strout) Bowley.  At least seven children: John, Naomi, Malinda, Cyrus, Addison, Albion K.P., and Joseph A.

iii. Mary⁵, born say 1775, married 23 October 1799 at Bristol, Me., Daniel Russ. [Bristol, ME Town Records, I:242]

iv. Abigail⁵, born say 1777, married 1798 Samuel Read who died at Bristol, Me. on 3 Jan. 1851.  11 children: John C., Henry, Harvey, Rufus R., Joe, Jane, Samuel P., Susan, Abigail, Mary, and Catherine.

v. Ann Harvey⁵, born say 1779, married 8 October 1802 at Waldoboro, Me., Abner Keene.

vi. Frances⁵, born 24 April 1781, married 8 July 1802 at Bristol, Me., Thomas Tibbetts.

vii. Benjamin⁵, born say 1783, died Bremen, Me., 26 Feb. 1855.  Married Jane Wallace who died after 1850.

viii. Harvey⁵, born say 1785 and died 21 Jan 1866 at Alna, Me., Married at Alna 12 October 1806 [Alna VRs, p. 403], Jane Clark, born say 1787, died 7 August 1875 at Alna.  At least one child:   James C.

ix. Susannah⁵, born about 1787, died after 1860 in Palermo, Me.  Married Daniel Nelson.

 

I photographed all the New Sharon Yeaton headstones and have posted them on this blog.  Use the category Yeaton or Gravestones to see them.

 

 

Comments

[Dan Atwell]

Martin,
We corresponded years ago. You may recall, I descend from Benjamin of Bremen, ME but I am still unable to prove Philip of Walpole (Bristol) was Benjamin's father other than by the fact that Benjamin (who never owned any land apparently) seems to have lived on land that Philip of Walpole had originally owned.

To your point, yes, a marriage to Mary Harvey explains the repetition of that name in the family of Philip of Walpole-Bristol-New Sharon, however, the Philip who married Mary Harvey remained in Portsmouth as far as I can tell. When you published your work, neither you (nor Jones) had any data on the "Philip of Portsmouth, mariner" who with wife, Mary, had several land transactions in Portsmouth between 1781 and 1790. It is only logical that since Mary Harvey married a Philip Yeaton "of Portsmouth," it must have been this man (not Philip of Walpole). I do not see any other Philip in Portsmouth during this time period. And the “History of Nottingham” source for the Yeaton-Harvey marriage specifically calls her “Mary, born March, 1746, and married Philip Yeaton of Portsmouth.”

The discrepancy is that Philip of Portsmouth and Philip of Walpole were active at roughly the same time in their respective locations.

An announcement in the New-Hampshire Gazette, Portsmouth, NH, Saturday, 19 Feb 1780 shows Philip Yeaton was delinquent on his taxes on his property in Wakefield, NH. Philip of Dover (b.1726) was one of the original proprietors there, but we know he settled in Berwick, ME about 20 miles away. So, the Philip who was paying taxes there was (probably) his son, Philip of Portsmouth, delinquent on the taxes for his share of his father's property.

On 17 May 1781 Meriam Rait, widow of William Rait, yeoman, John Rait, yeoman, Andrew Rait, yeoman, Reuben Juryman, yeoman & Mary his wife "in his right", & Meriam Rait single woman, all of Kittery, York Co, convey to Philip Yeaton of Portsmouth, NH, mariner, two lots of land in Portsmouth.

Strafford Co, NH Deed Book 8 p.61
Samuel Hall of Wakefield, tax collector, for 55 pounds 15 shillings & 8 pence and 9 pence due on the first division Lot of the original right of Philip Yeaton paid by Eliphalet Philbrook of Wakefield, yeoman, grants and conveys to Philbrook a part of a lot of Land in Wakefield containing six acres, being Lot number ninety-one in the first division of the original right of Philip Yeaton in said town, the said Eliphalet being the highest bidder on the same at public vendue held this day, 3 Nov 1781
Witness Mark Pitman & Josiah Hall

2 July 1787
Philip Yeaton of Portsmouth, Mariner & wife Mary convey a tract of land in in Portsmouth to John Wendell Jr. The tract was obtained by Philip from the estate of Daniel Evans, Mariner, in judgment of a debt. Mary relinquishes her right of dower in the property. Both Philip and Mary signed the deed and appeared in person before the Portsmouth JP on 2 Jul 1787.

20 July 1789
Philip Yeaton of Portsmouth, Mariner, conveys to Thomas O[r]dionne half a lot of land in Pickerings Neck. "Mary my wife" relinquishes her right of dower in the property. Both Philip & Mary signed and appeared before the Portsmouth JP on 21 July 1789.

The 1790 census of Portsmouth, NH shows:
Philip Yeaton
1m 16>
2fem

The "Mary Yeaton" listed alone in the 1790 Portsmouth census appears to be the widow of John Drew Yeaton. She sold land in Portsmouth in 1786 as his Executrix.

4 Aug 1790
Philip Yeaton of Portsmouth, Mariner, conveys to George How Jr. half of a parcel of land in Portsmouth Philip bought from the widow Meriam Rait of Kittery, it being the other half of the lot Philip had sold to Thomas O[r]dionne. "Mary my wife" relinquishes her right of dower in the property. Both Philip & Mary signed and appeared before the Portsmouth JP on 4 Aug 1790.

Salem Gazette, Tuesday, 22 Dec 1795 (Salem, MA)
DIED]
"At Portsmouth [...] Mr. PHILIP YEATON."

NH Death and Burial Index shows the following:
Name: Philip Yeaton
Gender: Male
Death Date: abt 1795
Burial Date: Dec 1795
Burial Place: Wakefield, Carroll, New Hampshire
Death Age: 40
FHL Film Number: 15582

Since Philip is buried in Wakefield, then this might be Mary (Harvey)'s death record--my apologies for not having source info:
Name: Mary Yeaton
Gender: Female
Death Date: abt 1795
Burial Date: Feb 1795
Burial Place: Wakefield, Carroll, New Hampshire
Death Age: 57

These burials are also published as being "Portsmouth" death records, so whether they are buried in Wakefield or Portsmouth, I cannot say.

Children of Philip of Portsmouth & Mary Harvey:

1.) John F. Yeaton, bap.17 Jul 1785 Portsmouth (bapt. also recorded in Wakefield). He was possibly the "child of Mr. Philip Yeaton's" whose death was reported in FOWLE'S NEW-HAMPSHIRE GAZETTE, AND THE GENERAL ADVERTISER, Portsmouth, NH, Friday, Nov 11, 1785.

2.) Julia Ann Yeaton, bap.May 1788, Portsmouth (bapt. also recorded in Wakefield). She would be the 2nd female in the 1790 census listing (Mary Harvey being the 1st and John F. having died).

A note in my d-base from the “older” man you mentioned (who was Nick Sanborn, I believe) reads: “Myself and other researchers had assumed Mary Harvey was Philip [of Walpole]'s spouse because the name Harvey carries down in the family but there were other Harvey families in NH and ME (and Ireland and Scotland) in the mid-1700's. In addition, Philip of Walpole had no (known) children named after Mary Harvey's parents, Robert and Ann.”

The Philip who first appears in Bristol, ME (at that time called Walpole) in Feb 1772 can be tracked in land records there as a grantor, grantee and witness from 1772 to 1775. Then, as you may recall I pointed out to you many years ago, he is listed erroneously in the 1790 census as Philip "Eten." The census suggests there were 4 sons and 5 or 6 daughters.

In May 1793, he witnessed a deed in Bristol and then purchased land in Sandy River (i.e. New Sharon) on 8 Oct 1794. He can be tracked in New Sharon (as separate from his [assumed] son, Philip Yeaton Jr.) in land and census records until 1810 at which point he disappears. No burial or probate record.

Unfortunately, no wife is ever mentioned for Philip of Walpole in ANY of the many deeds he was involved in. Philip may have had a HARVEY ancestor which would explain the name being used by his descendants, but I don't see any Harvey families being part of the Bristol settlers and it doesn't look like any of Mary Harvey's siblings ever went up to Bristol or sold any land rights there. John MELOON, for example, (who purchased land in Bristol with Philip in 1772) had a share in the Bristol land thru his wife, Elizabeth MOORE. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Philip's wife was also a MOORE or was from the PLUMER, MILLER, ERSKINE, REED or JONES families who settled in Bristol. These families are all connected in the area through quitclaim deeds. Since Philip seems to be the only YEATON who settled in Bristol, his connection to the area is likely to be through his wife; otherwise he would surely have had siblings or cousins also claiming land up there?

There was a "Martha Yeaton" who "moved onto" Philip's New Sharon property in 1784 according to the book "New Sharon Remembered" but her connection to Philip is not stated. She may have been a wife (or a 2nd or 3rd wife). Or none of the above.

In short, I do not believe Philip of Walpole-Bristol is the man who married Mary Harvey.

Of the children of Philip of Walpole, as far as I can tell, you are only missing Sarah "Sally" Yeaton b.abt 1780 who married 29 March 1801 at Nobleboro, ME to Asa REED, brother of Samuel Reed who married her sister Abigail. I have never heard of the Ann Harvey you list marrying in Waldoboro but it is the right area. There is also a Polly Yeaton who had marriage intentions 21 Dec 1790 at Boothbay, ME with Thomas Bracket of Bristol. If he was from Bristol, she may have been as well?

That is my very very wordy two-cents, Martin. I'm glad to see you are still researching this impossibly complicated family and thank you for all of your hard work.

Dan Atwell

[Martin Hollick]

That Philip of Portsmouth was Philip Drew-4 Yeaton, son of John3-2 and Elizabeth (Drew) Yeaton. He married Mary Sheriff 10 nov 1767 at Portsmouth [“Records of the South Portsmouth Church of Porstmouth, NH” by Alfred Gooding, NEHGR 81 (1927) -84 (1930); 82:302]. He died 1802 and his probate is extant. (Rockingham Co. Probate). See my article: Who Were the Parents of Hopley Yeaton, New Hampshire Genealogical Record, Vol. 20 (2003):49-56.

[Dan Atwell]

Thanks for replying and my apologies. I never read the Hopley Yeaton article. My focus has always been primarily on trying to untangle all the different Philips.

So then both Philip Drew Yeaton and a different Philip Yeaton were connected to Wakefield? Who was the man buried Dec 1795 in Wakefield whose death was published in the Salem, MA newspaper as dying in Portsmouth?

[Martin Hollick]

That was Philip4-3-2 Yeaton. See my recent blog posting on him.

[Dan Atwell]

Great, Thank you!

[Dan Atwell]

Concerning Philip of Walpole, I'm not sure he is the man in the 1800 Lebanon census as Philip Neaton.

Lincoln Co Deed Book 41, p.209 shows "Philip Yeaton of Nobleborough" (i.e., Bristol, i.e., Walpole) on 8 Oct 1794 buying land in Unity (which became New Sharon).

The 1800 New Sharon census shows Philip Yeaton as 1m 45>, 1f 16-26 and 1f >45. This cannot be his son Philip as he would only be about 27 years old. The younger female is probably Susannah as she did not marry until 1804. The other (known) daughters were either married by 1800 or remained in Bristol (according to their marriage records). The exception being Sally and husband Asa Reed who moved to New Sharon by 1810 and then further into Franklin Co, ME.

Philip's neighbors in the 1800 New Sharon census include Gideon Bowley (father of Philip Jr.'s wife Patience Bowley) and a Nathaniel Harvey who could be related to Mary Harvey? And as we know, the eldest sons (John and Philip Jr.) also settled in New Sharon.

Took me a while to find this as the online indexes do not show any Yeatons in New Sharon as it was in Kennebec County at the time.

Dan

[Dan Atwell]

I'm sorry, I was not clear. What I mean is, if you search the 1800 census index for New Sharon, the Yeaton listings will not come up because the index defaults to the modern location in Franklin County (which did not exist yet). In 1800, New Sharon was part of Kennebec County so if you just search for Yeatons in Kennebec County in 1800, Philip and John will show up in New Sharon. I hate that the indexes do this but I am sure you have encountered this before.

Dan

[Martin Hollick]

Perhaps the Philip Neaton in 1800 is Philip-4 Richard-3 Philip-2 who married Dorcas Worster. But they married in 1798 and wouldn't have many children. Confusing to say the least. You've inspired me to do another Yeaton blog posting.

[Dan Atwell]

Great! Keep up the good work!

For that Philip I have that he was b.18 June 1772 in Berwick, York Co, ME to Richard Yeaton and Experience Pray. He married Dorcas 24 May 1798 in Berwick, mortgaged land in Belgrade on 21 Aug 1809 (he was literate, btw), served in Army in War of 1812 from Belgrade (record states he was born in Somersworth, NH and received a pension for his service). Then listed in 1850 and 1860 Federal Census in Belgrade (in 1850 he was living in a cluster of closely-related families including his brother, Paul, and Paul's children.) Philip died 31 May 1870 in Belgrade. Don't know if any of that is helpful.

[Dan Atwell]

Btw, the 1800 New Sharon Federal Census shows a John Yeaton with the following household:
2m 16-26, 1m 45>, 1f 10-16, 1f 16-26, 1f 45>. Record states they "emigrated" to New Sharon in 1798 from Maine. (Sadly, Philip's listing there does not give any information in this field). Do you know who this man is? He is too old to be Philip of Walpole's son, John.

[Martin Hollick]

I have pretty much retired from genealogy so I don't have an Ancestry.com account to check on censuses. I have no one in my database that matches a John Yeaton born circa 1750 to be this man. Could he be John-5 Philip-4-3 John-2 and living with his inlaws who would be over 45?

I now remember why I hated the Yeatons so much. Always another question, always no answer.

[Dan Atwell]

The 1800 census could possibly be John-5 with in-laws. He was married to Temperence Cathcart by 1796 based on children's births but I see no evidence of her father, Hugh Cathcart, ever settling in Maine. Again, my ancestor is John's (assumed) younger brother, Benjamin, so I haven't invested much time the Cathcarts.

I just thought you might have known of a brother combination of Philip and John that might point toward a mutual father. I understand your process-of-elimination (or so it seems to me) assignment of Philip of Walpole as Philip4, Philip-3, John-2, Richard-1 but the hard evidence seems to be lacking. I could literally write a book on Philip-Walpole and still cannot prove who his parents, siblings or any of his children were or the name of any wife (unless he was indeed the man who married Mary Harvey).

Btw, not a single one of the 10 assumed children of Philip-Walpole named a son (or even a grandson) Philip and only two of them named a daughter Mary. The name Harvey does repeat in the family but so do the names John and Abigail. Not that naming patterns are the most reliable evidence for parentage, but it is odd that none of Philip's assumed children named a child after him.

Lastly, Martin, I share your disgust 100%. No other family in my tree has given me as much frustration and disappointment as my Yeaton line. It amazes me that there is so much information that we have all collected and still, as you say, always another question without a reliable answer.

Once again, thank you for all of your work. It is appreciated!

Dan

[Martin Hollick]

Well misery loves company and I feel your pain. I can't place my Sarah Yeaton in this family either to a genealogical proof. All we can do is help others who are Yeatons.

[Martin Hollick]

Also you may want to reconsider the identification of Benjamin Yeaton. I proved the royal descent from Henry III to Rose Stoughton and she could be your ancestor.
1. Rose Stoughton m. Richard Otis
2. Martha Otis m. John Pinkham
3. James Pinkham m. Elizabeth Hopley
4. Hannah Pinkham m. Philip Yeaton
5. Philip Yeaton, Jr. m. Mary Harvey
6. Benjamin Yeaton m. Jane Wallace

[Dan Atwell]

Benjamin Yeaton never bought or sold any land himself and without his birth record, his marriage record or Philip Yeaton's probate papers, I personally don't feel comfortable attaching the two men. (Benjamin's sole vital record is his death record which does not list his parents.)

The only thing Benjamin shares with Philip is that (a.) both men can be placed in the Bristol area (albeit more than ten years apart) and (b.) in 1790, Benjamin would have been the right age to be one of the 2 males <16 in Philip Yeaton's census listing. Is it LIKELY Philip was Benjamin's father? Sure, but only because there doesn't seem to be any other candidate. I wouldn't bet on it based solely on the criteria above.

Sadly, for me, the line hits its dead-end here.