New Jersey marriage bond, 11 March 1768 - Daniel Cooper Esq. and Daniel Cooper Jun. Esq., both of Morris County, bound to Gov. William Franklin for a licence for Daniel Cooper Esq. to marry Grace Manning, widow. Vol. C p. 449; DGS 4836070 item 2, image 529.

What this document records

Record

One printed-form marriage bond of 500 pounds, completed in manuscript, with two obligors.

Page number at head

449

Text as written: opening

KNOW all Men by these Presents, That We Daniel Cooper Esq[r] & Daniel Cooper Jun[r] Esq[r] boath of the County of Morris and Province of New Jersey are holden and do stand justly indebted unto His Excellency William Franklin Esq[r] in the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds, of current lawful Money of New-Jersey, to be paid to his said Excellency William Franklin Esq[r] his Successors or Assigns...

Text as written: dated

Sealed with our Seals Dated this Eleventh Day of March Annoque Domini One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty eight

Text as written: condition

THE Condition of this Obligation is such, That whereas the above-bounded Daniel Cooper Esq[r] and Daniel Cooper Jun[r] Esq[r] hath obtained Licence of Marriage for Daniel Cooper Esq[r] of the one Party, and for Grace Manning of [struck through, reads like Essex] County Widdow of the other Party: Now, if it shall hereafter appear, that they the said Daniel Cooper Esq[r] and Grace Manning have any lawful Let or Impediment of Pre-Contract, Affinity, or Consanguinity to hinder their being joined in the holy Bands of Matrimony...

Text as written: witness

Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Peter Kemble

Text as written: signature

Daniel Coop[er] - one signature legible; a second is obscured by a seal blot

Spellings as written: boath

for "both"

Spellings as written: widdow

for "widow"

Reading notes: it resolves the three candidate problem this entry was written around

This entry carried three candidate identifications and said "Resolution requires FHC-image-pull + cross-reference". The image has now been pulled and it resolves them, on the face of the document and without inference: BOTH Daniel Coopers are named, and they are distinguished. The obligors are "Daniel Cooper Esq[r]" AND "Daniel Cooper Jun[r] Esq[r]". The licence is then stated to be "for Daniel Cooper Esq[r]" - the one WITHOUT "Junior" - and the closing clause names "the said Daniel Cooper Esq[r] and Grace Manning" as the couple. So the GROOM is the elder Daniel Cooper, and the younger stood as his co-bondsman. That is candidate (b): Daniel Cooper Sr Daniel Cooper Sr, aged 73. Candidate (a), Daniel Jr, is in the document - but as the bondsman, not the groom. Candidate (c), a different Monmouth Daniel, is excluded: both men are declared "boath of the County of Morris".

Reading notes: the bride is a widow

"Grace Manning of [-] County Widdow". The county word is struck through and does not resolve; it reads like Essex and is NOT asserted. "Manning" is therefore her married surname, not necessarily her maiden one - which matters for any search for her origins.

Reading notes: and daniel sr married a second grace

Worth stating plainly because it is a standing conflation hazard. Daniel Cooper Sr Daniel Cooper Sr's known first wife was GRACE RUNYON. This bond has him marrying GRACE MANNING, a widow, in 1768. Two wives named Grace, a generation apart. Any source naming "Daniel Cooper and his wife Grace" after March 1768 may mean either woman, and the catalog should not assume Runyon.

Reading notes: the son stood bond for his father

A father and son jointly bound for 500 pounds, the father marrying. The son is styled Esq. as well. Nothing in the document states the relationship - it says only that both are Daniel Cooper of Morris County, one Junior - so the father-son reading rests on the names and the catalog's own Daniel Cooper Sr/Daniel Cooper Jr framework, not on the bond.

What this document does not say

No ages, no parents, no residence beyond "the County of Morris", no occupation, no maiden name for Grace Manning, no previous husband, and no statement anywhere that the two Daniel Coopers are father and son. It is a bond, not a marriage record: it licenses the marriage and does not record that it took place.