Duncans in Shelby Co. KY Tax and Court Records


Duncan research files of
Mary Ann (Duncan) Dobson
the Genealogy Bug

Last revised January 17, 2004


Shelby Co. KY tax list (1792-1815 on FHL film 8,227; 1816+ on FHL film 8,228)
1792: No Duncan
1793: No list
1794: Dunkin, James, 1 white over 21, 5 horses, 1 white 16-21 - List #1
      Dunkin, Nimrod, 1w, 5h - List #2
      Dunkin, Benjamin, 1w, 1h
1795: Duncan, Benj., 1w, 2h - List #1
      Duncan, Nimrod, 1w, 3h, 130a Lick Creek
      Duncan, James, 1w, 5h, 1w 16-21 - List #2
1796: Dunken, James, 1w, 5h, 2w 16-21, 400a & 50a Gesses Crk. - List #1
      Duncan, Benj., 1w, 2h, 100a Fisk? Cr. - List #2
      Duncan, Nimrod, 1w, 3h, 176-1/2a (no watercourse)
1797: Dunkin, Nimrod, 176-1/2a Fisk? Cr., 1w, 3h - List #1
      Dunkin, Benja., 100a Fisk? Cr., 1w, 3h
      Dunken, Marshel, 1w, 7h, 1w 16-21 - List #2
      Dunken, Wm., 1w, 1h
      Dunken, James, 1w, 6h, 2w 16-21
1798: No list
1799: Dunkin, Benja., 1w, 4h - List #1
      Duncan, Nimrod, 1w, 2h
      Dunkim, Marshall Sr., 1w, 3h - List #2
      Dunkim, Marshall, 0w, ?h, 1w 16-21
1800: Duncan, Benja., 100a Tick? Cr., 1w, 5h - List #1
      Duncan, Nimrod, 176-1/2a Tick? Cr., 1w, 3h
      Dunkim, William, 1w 16-21 - List #2
      Dunkim, Samuel, 1w, 3h
      Dunkim, Marshal, 1w 16-21
      Dunkim, Marshal Sr., 147-3/4a Elk Cr., 1w, 4h, 1w 16-21
1801: Dunkin, Benja., 100a Tick Cr., 1w, 3h - List #1
      Dunkin, Nimrod, 130a Tick Cr., 1w, 2h
      Duncan, Samuel, 1w, 2h, 1w 16-21 - List #2
      Duncan, Marshall, 142-1/2a Elk Cr., 1w, 3h, 1w 16-21
1802: Dunkim, Nimrod, 176-1/2a Tick Cr., 1w, 11h - List #1
      Dunken, Benjamin, 100a Tick Cr., 1w, 5h
      Duncomb, Marshall Jr., 1w, 2h - List #2
      Duncomb, Marshall Sen., 142-1/2a Elk Crk, 1w, 3h
      Duncomb, Robert, 1w, 2h
      Duncan, Samuel, 1w, 1h
      Duncan, William, 1w, 1h
1803: Duncan, Nimrod, 130a Tick Cr., 1w, 5h - List #1
      Duncan, Benjamin, 100a Tick Cr., 1w, 5h
      Duncan, William, 1w, 3h - List #2
      Duncan, Samuel, 1w, 3h
      Duncan, same for Daniel Walker, 100a Gests Cr.
      Duncan, Marshall, 142-3/4a Elk Crk, 1w, 4h, 1w 16-21
      Duncan, Sally, 50a Elk Crk, 0w, 0h
1804: Duncan, Nimrod, 130a & 46a Tick Creek, 1w, 6h - List #1
      Duncan, Samuel, 1w, 4h
      Duncan, Benjamin, 100a Tick Creek, 1w, 8h
      Duncan, Wm., 1w, 3h - List #2
      Duncan, Sally, 50a Elk Creek, 0w, 0h
1805: Duncan, Nimrod, 130a Tick Cr., 0w, 3h - List #1
      Duncan, Benjamin, 100a Tick Cr., 1w, 8h
      None List #2
1806: Duncan, Nimrod, 130a & 46-1/2a Tick Cr., 1w, 8h
      Duncan, Samuel, 1w, 4h
1807: Duncan, Nimrod, 130a & 46a Tick Creek, 1w, 9h, 1w 16-21
1808: Duncan, Nimrod, 130a & 46a Tick Creek, 1w, 9h, 1w 16-21 - List #1
      Duncan, Jessee, 1w, 4h, 1w 16-21, 3 blacks
      Duncan, William, 1w, 1h
      Duncan, Robert, 1w, 3h - List #2
      Duncan, Marshall, 1w, 6h
1809: Duncan, Sally, 50a Elk Creek, 0w, 0h - List #1
      Duncame, Marshall, 1w, 4h
      Duncan, William, 1w, 1h - List #2
      Duncan, Jesse, 1w, 3h, 3b
      Duncan, Nimrod, 176-1/2a Tick Creek, 1w, 13h
1810: No list
1811: (No Thomas Brite)
      Duncan, Michael, 1w, 3h
      Duncan, Richard, 1w, 1h
      Duncan, Jessee, 1w, 1h, 1w 16-21, 3b
      Duncan, Nimrod, 176a & 250a Tick Creek, 1w, 8h, 2w 16-21
1812: Duncan, Nimrod, 176a & 250a Tick Creek, 1w, 9h
      Duncan, John, 1w, 0h
      Duncan, Marshall, 1w, 2h
      Duncan, Jessee, 1w, 4h, 3b
      Duncan, Richard, 1w, 1h
1813: Duncan, Richd., 1w, 1h
      Duncan, Jas., 1w, 2h
      Duncan, Jessee, 1w, 3h, 2b
      Duncan, Nimrod, 130a & 46a & 250a, 1w, 7?h
      Duncan, John, 1w, 0h
      Duncan, Marshall, 1w, 2h
1814: Duncan, John, 1w, 1h
      Duncan, Nimrod, 136a Tick Crk, Shelby Co., 250a The Grant, Henderson Co, 1w, 8h
      Duncan, Marshall, 1w, 3h
      Duncan, Jesse, 1w, 3h, 3b
      Duncan, Jacob, 1w, 1h
1815: Duncan, John, 1w, 1h - Duncan's Co., 18th Reg.
      Duncan, Jessee, 1w, 0h
      Duncan, Nimrod, 176a & 250a, 1w, 6h
      Duncan, Marshall, 1w, 3h
1816: Duncan, Richard, 1w, 1h - 85th Reg.
      Duncan, John, 1w, 1h
      Duncan, Nimrod, 176a Tick Cr., 250a Tick Cr., Henderson Co, 1w, 3h
      Duncan, Allen, 1w, 1h - 18th Reg.
      Duncan, Jacob, 1w, 1h - 85th Reg.
      Duncan, Jessee, 1w, 7h, 4b
1817: Duncan, Jessee, 1w, 9h, 4b - Ford's Co.
      Duncan, Jacob, 1w, 1h
      Duncan, John, 1w, 1h - 37th Reg.
      Duncan, Nimrod, 130a & 40a Tick Cr., 250a Tick Cr., Henderson Co.
      Duncan, Alin, 1w, 0h - 18th Reg.
1818: No list
1819: Duncan, Allen, 1w, 2h - Dist. #2
      Duncan, Nimrod, 130a, 46a Tick Cr.; 250a Henderson Co., 1w, 3h
      Duncan, John, 1w, 1h
      Duncan, Joseph, 1w, 1h
      Duncan, Jessee, 220a Guists Crk, 3w, 8h, 4b - Dist. #2(sic)
      Duncan, Martin C., 1w, 3h, 1b
1820: Duncan, Nimrod, 176-1/2a Tick Crk, 250a Ohio River Henderson Co., 2w, 2h - Dist. #2
      Duncan, Aderson, 1w, 2h
      Duncan, Jessee, 219a Guests Cr., 3w, 9h, 6b
      Duncan, Allen, 1w, 2h
      Duncan, Martin C., 1w, 2h, 1b - Dist. #3

Return to the Shelby Co. KY Research File


"Reports of cases at common law and in chancery decided by the Court of Appeals of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, during Spring term 1813 to Fall term 1814 inclusive" ("Kentucky Reports" Vol.6) by Geo. M. Bibb, Second edition, Vol.III; Vol.6, pgs.131 to 135 (California State Law Library 12/2003) (MAD: Shelby Co. KY)
      MARSHALL vs. DUPUY, &c.; Court of Appeals of Kentucky; 6 Ky. 131; 3 Bibb 131; June 30, 1813, Decided.
      OPINION of the Court, by Judge LOGAN. -- The appellant exhibited his bill in chancery to recover from the appellees land to which they hold the elder patents. He claims under an entry made the 12th day of December 1782, as follows: "William Helm enters 300 acres, part of a treasury warrant withdrawn from Meadow run, on Clear creek, joining James Duncan and Withers' 1000 acres on the north side of said p. 9, 5 B."
      It was argued that this entry is void on account of the uncertainty and want of meaning in the letters and figures subjoined to it: but it is conceived that the total want of any probable and intelligible meaning in those letters and figures could not have misled or had any influence in the construction and understanding of the entry; they seem entirely inexplicable and destitute of meaning to the reader, and should therefore be disregarded. The entry would then stand thus: to join James Duncan and Withers' 1000 acres on the north side.
      John Withers, Sarah Vancleave, assignee, &c. and James Duncan, entered 1000 acres, on the 30th of May 1780, "on the head of a small creek, a branch of Clear creek, running in opposite to John Bailey's cabin, on the other side of the creek, to include a cabin built by Evan Hinton."
      The name of Sarah Vancleave, as assignee, &c. is interlined in the entry book in different ink from the residue of the entry: from which it was contended in argument that the interlineation was subsequent to the date of Helm's entry, and ought not to be taken as prejudicial to the description therein.
      It seems unnecessary to examine this objection, because it is conceived that in either view the description is sufficient, in as much as it is not shewn or pretended that there was any other entry in the name of Duncan and Withers on the waters of Clear creek of 1000 acres, or which could have created a doubt of this being the one referred to; and the description given in Helm's entry would have directed to this entry with certainty.
      It becomes necessary, therefore, to ascertain the position of Duncan and Withers' entry, before that of Helm can be fixed to any precise spot. Their entry calls to lie on the head of a small creek running into Clear creek opposite to John Bailey's cabin. A creek answering this description is delineated on the connected plat; and both Bailey's and Hinton's cabins are sufficiently established.
      Whether the call for the head of the creek shall be considered as general description only, or as a precise and locative call, is the first question which occurs for determination. If it can be viewed as descriptive only of the neighborhood of the land, and the call for the cabin is made to regulate the form and precision of the entry, then the entry of Helm, when placed to adjoin it according to its calls, will not comprehend any of the land lying within the present survey, and the decree of the court below would therefore be correct. But a different result will be produced by treating both as special and locative calls, to lie on the head of the creek and include the cabin.
      Hinton's cabin stood on a branch emptying into Clear creek below Bailey's cabin. The entry calling to include it, and to lie on the head of a different stream, clearly shews that the calls are locative, and were intended to give position and figure to the land.
      It was argued that the call for the head of the creek is a vague and indefinite call, and must therefore be disregarded. The creek is represented to its source in the connected plat, and there is no evidence contradictory to what is thereby shewn; from which there does not appear any uncertainty with regard to the head of the creek. And the head of a creek, if certain and special to a given spot, formed and marked out by nature as evidently the source of the stream, is equal to any other certain object of description to sustain an entry. Were this the only call, no doubt could exist as to the sufficiency of the entry. But very serious doubts have arisen from considering the calls together, for the cabin and the head of the creek, owing to a fork of the creek which lies between the main branch and Hinton's cabin, and which presents a head not less certain than that shewn on the other fork. The difference in the length of these forks is about 100 poles; but the smallest approximates much nigher to the cabin built by Hinton, and the distance from where the cabin stood to the head of the main fork being about two miles, renders it considerably doubtful which of the two was intended. As the entry, however, calls expressly to lie on the head of the creek, and as a doubt cannot exist as to what forms the head, we think the express call should not be disregarded by yielding to the presumption that the head of the other fork was intended.
      The next subject for consideration is with respect to the manner of surveying this entry. In the case of Frye vr. Esry, Hug. Rep. 53, it was decided that an entry calling to include two objects some distance apart, should be surveyed as much longer than wide as those objects were distant from each other. But it is a general rule, settled in the construction of entries, that they should be surveyed in a square, unless the express calls, or those clearly implied, shall otherwise direct. The objects may be so distant from each other as to render it entirely improbable that the locator intended that his entry should be so extended beyond the inclusion of one of the objects. But an entry to which a base has been given, or that is in part located, and calls to include a distant object, has been ruled just to include the object. In the case under consideration the locator in the first place seems to fix his entry on the head of the creek; but he then manifests an intention of appropriating the land between that and the cabin, by calling to include the cabin; and from the distance between these objects, having located on the head of the creek and next called to include the cabin, it seems to be the most probable and just inference that he intended to just include the cabin. We are therefore of opinion that the entry should be surveyed on the head of the longest fork laid down in the plat, and extended in the direction to the cabin built by Hinton, just to include said place within the centre of the southern boundary, and extended equal distances eastwardly and westwardly from the place where the cabin stood and the head of the creek, just including both places, as nearly in a square as their distance will permit.
      It remains only to direct the manner of laying down the entry of the appellant. It calls to adjoin the preceding entry on the north, and should be surveyed in a square from the centre of the northern boundary of the other, running at right angles therefrom. As this mode of surveying the two claims will give to the appellant some land lying within his survey as made, we are of opinion that for so much he holds the superior right, and that the appellees should be compelled to convey the same by deed without warranty, as they rely solely on their elder patents.
      Wherefore it is decreed and ordered that the decree of the circuit court be reversed; that the cause be remanded to said court, in order that a decree of that court may be entered agreeable to the foregoing opinion, and such other decree and orders made as may be necessary to carry the same into effect. And it is farther decreed and ordered that the appellees do pay to the appellant his costs expended in the prosecution of this appeal.

Return to the Shelby Co. KY Research File


Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in Kentucky

Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page