The Cann research increasingly follows parcels rather than relying on repeated names. A deed can state a relationship, recite earlier ownership and identify heirs. It can also repeat an earlier error, omit a family member, or describe a different person with the same name.
Version 79 records a DelDOT historical study's account of the Boaz Boyce estate division in 1783, assigning a lot to Sarah and her husband Robert Cann. The study's chain of title names later Cann heirs and cites New Castle deeds and Orphans Court material. These are strong leads to the underlying records, not a declaration that every original has been inspected.
The separate Version 80 Delaware land update distinguishes Boyce lots 2 and 4 from lots 6 and 7. It reports William Cann's acquisition of approximately 133 acres from Jeremiah Reynolds in 1820, citing deed Y3/392, and a later division to Lydia A. Cann and Andrew Eliason. Parcel distinctions prevent names and acreage from being combined into a single invented transaction.
A particularly useful new lead places Daniel Cann on William Cann's farm in an 1836 estate survey. The report does not state Daniel's relationship to William. Residence or occupation is evidence of an association; kinship remains unknown.
The next step is to inspect the cited deeds, schedules and survey images, recording their exact wording and provenance. No relationship to another William Cann or to the proposed direct line is added merely because a person occupied a Cann property.
Sources & interpretation
References are research leads and citations, not confirmation that every original has been inspected. Questioned family connections remain unverified.