The following extract is from Brown, 1854:18-19

p. 18
About the year 1726, James Moore (1) and and his brother Joseph, left Ireland, and settled in Chester county, Pennsylvania (2). Joseph died in 1728, whilst engaged in preparing fo the ministry. James married Jane Walker, a descendant of the Rutherfords of Scotland. (3)
p. 19
The family Bible (4) which was brought by the Walkers from Ireland, having in it the register for several generations, was in the possession of some of their descendants, since the commencement of the present century. It may still be in existence somewhere in Kentucky; and if so, is either in the possession of some one bearing the name of Walker, or whose ancestors bore that name. John Walker and his son-in-law, James Moore (5), left Pennsylvania and settled in Rockbridge county, Virginia, near the Jump Mountain. James Moore died about 1792, and his wife some two years after him. They were both buried in a graveyard near to where they had lived. No stone markes the grave of either, for it was not until a later period that the custom of marking particular graves in that way, was introducted into that part of the country. Their memorial is written on more lasting monuments in the character of their descendants.


(1) James Moore would have been about 15 years of age at the time

(2) It is likely that the actual settlement location was somewhere on the Nottingham Lots, probably near Rising Sun Cecil County MD, where the Walkers would settle. The date of settlment of the Moore's is the same as the main date given by White 1902 for the Walker (1726). The implication is that the Moore's arrived with the Walkers. However, despite the similarity in arrival date, the two families may have come over separately. Also, there is a possibility alluded to in White in several places that the actual date of arrival of the Walkers was either 1728, (See [Rutherfordiana/Source Material Extracts/Margaret Walker|Letter from Margaret Walker, c1900]] or even later.

(3) It is noteworthy that this passage only "a descendant of the Rutherfords of Scotland". It does not suggest any particular line of Rutherfords, other than the point that they were "of Scotland". Some Rutherford researchers have stated that all Rutherfords of Scotland arise from a common ancestor in mideval Scotland. This seems unlikely, a view supported by YDNA evidence which seems to indicate multiple indendent lineages. (See Rutherford Genforum for a brief discussion of this.)

(4) This is most likely the bible now known as the Rutherford family bible, as described by White 1902. If so, this Bible still survives, but is not readily available for examination. (See Rutherford Genforum). While there may be additional family information contained in this bible, that information may no longer be recoverable. As the current (2005) owner states:

There are two pages of genealogical information. One, which is barely legible contains the same information given in Mrs. Whites excellent genealogy; a copy of said information, made by my father is enclosed herewith. The final entry, my fathers demise, was made by me. The other page is almost completely illegible and I doubt, very much, that readable copies could be made no matter how good the photographer or how sophisticated his equipment.

A transcription of the remaining legible page is given as

James Rutherford - Apr. 26 - 1768
James [Walker] Rutherford Hudson - Oct. 15 - 1777
Margaret Hudson Walker - Oct. 23 - 1782
Jean Walker Patterson - Dec. 23 - 1810
John Patterson - he died & left to his brother
Col. William Patterson - Oct. 23 - 1888
Mary Ann Patterson Creel - Aug. 15 - 1898
Abba B. Creel Walker - Feb. 25 - 1929
D C Walker – June 20, 1949

This death record appears to be the transmission chain for this work. The information contained on the illegible page, may in fact be recoverable with modern techniques, but it is unlikely that such techniques would be applied to this particular problem. The possibility also exists that additional information is contained in the bible, but that for unknown reason was not included in the transcription of the letter cited above.

(5) This seems to contradict what White 1902 has to say about the Walker settlment on Walkers Creek. While James Moore is known to have aquired property on Walkers Creek by 1743, and was presumably there at an earlier date, 1734 would seem to be too early. Borden's Grant, which contains the Walker Creek/Jump Mountain area, was not opened for settlment until c1738. There is no verifiable indication of a settlement in that immediate area prior to that date. If the Walkers had settled here in 1734 it would seem that they would have established "corn rights" that would presumably supercede Borden's grant, and there would presumably be some record of discussions over that point. If there were such discussions, no one has pointed them out.

More pertinently, according to White 1902 James Moore was the soninlaw of John Walker II. John II died 1734, having made a trip to the Valley of Virignia to establish a homesite for his family. This homesite is believed to have been somewhat further north on Beverly's Grant near Staunton. After John II's death, John III and relations are said to have established themselves on this homesite. His brotherinlaw John Campbell is said to have joined him. It would not be unreasonable to think that his other brotherinlaw, James Moore did something similar. There is no question that James Moore was on Walkers Creek by 1743, along with other family relations (cousins Alexander Walker, and John Walker). One explanation for this is that these three relatives had not aquired land on Beverley's Manor, and were living with John II or other relations until they could move out on their own. In this event, they might have been responsive to Benjamin offers in 1738 for cheap land to any willing to settle within the boundaries of his grant.

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.