Hello Averil & LWJ.

As this thread is disappearing off the side of the screen I am taking it back to the middle with another heading.

I decided to look at this from a different angle - to look at the John son of Daniel Looney who you (Averil) keep inserting in place of John's son John following his father's 1770 deed and will.

Daniel Loony / Isabel Cashin marr 30 Mar 1769.
Maughold baptisms:
LOONEY John Daniel Looney/ Isabel Cashen Parish Church 14 Jan 1770
LOONEY Robert Daniel Looney/ Isabel Cashen Parish Church 14 Mar 1773
LOONEY Margaret Daniel Looney/ Isabel Cashen Parish Church 31 Dec 1775
LOONEY William Daniel Looney/ Isabel Cashen Parish Church 17 Jan 1779
LOONEY Mary Daniel Looney/ Isabel Cashen Parish Church 17 Mar 1782
LOONEY Thomas Daniel Looney/ Isabel Cashen Parish Church 20 Feb 1785
LOONEY Jane Daniel Looney/ Isabel Cashen Parish Church 9 Aug 1789
LOONEY Esther Daniel Looney/ Isabel Cashen Parish Church 6 May 1792

Daniel Looney & Isabel Cashen of the Crow Creen, Maughold, made their will on 13 Jan 1825.
Mentioned were:
late daughter Esther’s children Robert & John Quayle
Son Robert
Daughter Jane and her daughter Jane Calley

QUAYLE, Esther 1825 Maughold LOONEY, WILL: E 1 0106425. Were next of kin named as supervisors? Was her eldest brother John even alive?

The reason I ask this is because of the Deed Oct 1823 Daniel Looney & wife Isabella “Given Granted Bargained Confirmed and sold” Crow Creen to son Robert.
Was John dead in that second son Robert obtained their (“Heirship”) property?
Why was Robert permitted to have Crow Creen ahead of John? Crow Creen had gone from John & Margaret Kelvie to eldest son Daniel (on condition he gave up his half of Gob no Scoote), then to …. Robert?? It is most unusual for the eldest son not to have signed his agreement, or for it to have been explained such as something wrong with the eldest son and being unable to look after the farm.
And goes against everything you have been writing about heirship.

Please don't say John had inherited elsewhere without producing the document, and even if he had it wouldn't affect his rights as eldest son and heir.

I think he could have been dead before 1823, and after removing the infant burials, these John Looneys remain:
John LOONEY May 25 1783
John LOONEY Jun 9 1795
John LOONEY May 31 1810
Will for: LOONEY, John 1811 Maughold E 1 0106414.

Has anyone looked at this will?

Sue