Re: Hannah Cooley Bearden...

From: The Cooleys <lvcooley5_at_cox.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:15:59 -0800

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&#39;m
>> confused as to why he would be mentioned in the notice in the paper that
>> was published in 1858.
>
Received on Tue Feb 26 2013 - 00:15:32 MST