OK, Lee - let's see what we can figure out. I hope you saw my corrected list
of heirs summoned by the courts where I added the name of Nancy Cox that I
had left off.
First, if I understand your 1840 Census numbers correctly there is one extra
male child in the household and three female children missing (Ann, Ruth and
Jane since Margaret was deceased by 1840). Even if the census taker put one
of the girls in the male category there are still two single girls missing.
Would not presume where they might be since he didn't even get the parents in
the right place.
1850 Census is a mess for Henderson Co. Even with the 991 names missed on the
microfilm and later listed in a book by Lois Dorsey, it doesn't fix make much
sense. I have not seen the actual census, have you? In Ms Dorsey's
explanation she says "when children appeared at the top of a column, without
parents, we took the liberty of adding a logical family or a place to refer
to" - whatever that means. I understand from others that the several
numbering "systems" were apparently used and after the pages got mingled, no
one was sure of the correct consecutive order. Also don't know if the Cagle
children were involved in this. Some of the kids may or may not have been
boarded but it is quite possible - this was done often so they could be near
schools. But if the Robinsons and Cagles were next door, this makes no sense.
I am on firmer ground on the two Nancy Cagles:
1) Leonard Cagle and Mary Osborne married 19 Jan 1819. This date is shown in
several Cagle and Osborne Bibles.
2) Ann Cagle was born 18 March 1820 (also in more than one Family Bible). If
Nancy Cagle Summey was born 7 March 1820 she could not be the daughter of
Leonard and Mary Cagle, whose children line up in a neat two year span.
Anyway, why would there be two children who survived named the same name?
The estate papers I have mostly concern law suits brought against the assets
of Leonard Cagle Estate by others involved in business dealings with Leonard
at the time of his death or unpaid taxes on property after his death. James
Henry Cagle apparently did not take care of business and eventually lost much
property through neglect or whatever. John Summey had to go back to Court
years later to force James Henry to provide him with the deed to the property
he purchased in 1867.
Most of these proceedings did not address a will - Court was interested in
any one who might have legal claim to the property. This means spouse and
children - or if a child is deceased, the heirs of that child. Therefore,
since the wife of Leonard was deceased and the only deceased child (Margaret)
left no children, the court tried to notify all children still living. All of
them are accounted for and Nancy Cagle Summey is not listed among the
children of Leonard Cagle. Mary Osborne Cagle told her sons, Charles and
Jacob, that Leonard intended for James Henry to have the home place (and
whatever property went with it, I guess). I don't think anyone challenged
this.
Leonard was a very successful man, owning property and businesses all over
the area. He started young and was involved in numerous "deals" when he died.
Don't know how long he was ill but it was long enough for Charles to travel
from MS to NC during the Civil War to see him before he died.
Hope this one doesn't have too many mistakes - I really need a proof reader!!
Dana Meara