Isham Stinnett, Sr.

Information as given in Macoupin County Genealogy site by Anne Stinnett

Isham Stinnett was born May 29, 1769 in Amherst County, Virginia. He married Elizabeth Austin on April 14, 1789. She was born October 26, 1772 and was a member of the Davis Creek Baptist church, Claiborne County, Tennessee. Isham was on the tax list for Greene County, TN in 1799. He was a farmer and also a member of Davis Creek Baptist church in Claiborne County, Tennessee. He was granted land in Claiborne County and was involved in several land transactions from 1805 to 1838. He was summoned to jury duty in Claiborne County as well as being called to help lay out roads, review widow’s dowers, etc during the years 1806 to 1828. Isham was listed on the 1830 census of Claiborne County. The four females listed in the household are probably his wife Elizabeth and their three youngest daughters, Nancy, Mahala, and Olive. Elizabeth died August 16, 1835 in Speedwell, Claiborne County, Tennessee. Isham was married for the second time to Mrs. Rebecca Hollingsworth on May 17, 1836. He bought land in Macoupin County, Illinois in 1839. He probably moved there from Claiborne County, but there is a record that he deeded land in 1841 in Claiborne County, Tennessee to William T. Moss. He hasn’t been found on the 1840 census, but he is found on the 1850 census in Macoupin County, Illinois as a farmer with property valued at $4000. On March 25, 1856 by petition of Isham Stinnett, Jr., he was declared incompetent by the Macoupin County court because of old age. He died intestate on January 21, 1857 at Palmyra, Macoupin County, Illinois and is buried 1.5 miles NW of Palmyra in the Liscom (Hollingsworth) Cemetery.

Probate records on Isham's estate start Feb 21, 1857 with a sale bill of his personal estate naming buyers and amounts paid.

In Feb term, 1858, James Maddy, Mann H Maddy, and Wm A Hollingsworth petitioned the court to order Isham Stinnett Jr and Wm A Hollingsworth to report to the court the amount of the Estate- how much they had collected and how they disbursed it. It apparently took considerable time to accomplish this as we have on Page 22 & 23 of Order Book E, under Aug term 1859 heading, continued from page 21, which I failed to copy, the following:

"which was examined and ordered to be approved and recorded which it in words and figures following

W A Hollinssworth & Isham Stinnett Admrs Estate Isham Stinnett

In account with said estate

To Amt of original sale bill 314.20

 "	property taken by widow									  111.40

 "	Amt original inventory on file							1,649.62

 "  Interest collected on Notes due decd						  203.39

 "   	  "            "          "  Sale Notes    						     8.10

2,286.74

Contra

By Amt Pd widow in property 111.44

"     "     "  Credits March 16, 1858						296.99

"     "      "     "      Feb 9, 1859							390.43

"     "   Pd Isham Stinnett								  38.78

"     "     "  Same										  48.86

"     "     "  heirs George Stinnett							  21.00

"     "     "  Wiliam Stinnett								  48.86

"     "     "  Mann H Maddy								  37.32

"     "     "  Same										  49.86

"     "     " Rebecca Stinnett								286.75

"     "     " James Maddy									  37.27

"     "  Ordered to be Paid								406.66

"     "  error in inventory									  30.00

"     "  Commissions on 1106.86							  66.41

"     "   Pd Geo H Holliday, clk fee						   2.45

"     "   Retained for contingencies						   2.50

"      "  Retained for extra service						 15.00

1869.58

Balance 417.76

By notes of Mann H Maddy 71.23

Final balance 345.21

Given under my hand this Aug 18, 1859

Wm A Hollingsworth

By said account said Administrators charge themselves with the sum of Twenty two hundred and eighty six dollars and seventy four cents received on account of said Estate and claim credit by the sum of Nineteen hundred and forty one dollars and fifty three cents paid out to creditors & heirs and expense of administration

And the court being satisfied from the evidence adduced by them of the correctness of each of said credits It was ordered that they same be allowed and that they be credited with the several sums therein claimed,

It was ordered that - said administrators be allowed the sum of Sixty six dollars and forty one cents commission It is ordered that said Administrator be allowed the sum of Fifteen dollars for Extra Service.

And it appearing that there is still in the hands of said Administrators the sum of Three hundred and forty-five dollars and twenty one cents

It was ordered that they pay the same out as follows

To Rebecca Stinnett the Sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars and seven cents

"  William Stinnett the Sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  James Maddy the sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  Mann H Maddy the sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  John Stinnett the sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  Marcellas Smith the sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  William A Hollingsworth the sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  William W Hollingsworth the sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  Sarah & Peter Yocam heirs the sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  Isham Stinnett the sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  Heirs of George Stinnett the sum of Twenty three dollars and one cent

"  Wesley & Jesse Hunters heirs the sum of  Twenty three dollars and one cent

And report his doings herein to this court.

Isham Stinnett Jr &

W A Hollingsworth Admr

Estate of Isham Stinnett Citation for Settlement

Came the defendant by their attorney and on their motion a Rule was entered against the plaintiffs requiring the plaintiff to give bond for case which said motion was sustained and said plaintiff allowed until the next term of this court to show cause if any they can why they should not give bond for cash, in said cause. There upon the plaintiffs gave notice that they would amend this petition for citation which was agreed to by the defendant."

Question arises regarding the name Wesley, which was hand written and hard to decipher but is my best determination, which appears in court record and Ursula which appears on 1850 Census record and which name we use on our references to Jesse's wife. As part of my reasoning for accepting this difference I refer to her grandmother's name which was Ursula or Usla ISHAM. Then, considering that the name was written or transcribed from however it sounded when pronounced, I beleive we can accept these to be the same person.

To further support our contention that we have the correct family is the future closeness of the Jesse Hunter and Stinnett families, as well as record in Isham probate file of receipt from B F Hunter dated March 26, 1860 "Received of Wm A Hollingsworth - one of the Admr of Isham Stinnett Sr decd the sum of eisht dollars and 98 cents in full of any claim of the personal property in said estate"