The will names wife Susanna; sons John, William, James, Joseph, Ephraim, and Ebenezer; and daughters Mary Calhoun, Abigail, Sarah, and Lydia. William and James were appointed executors.

The eldest son John’s five-shilling bequest supplements provision already made for him. It should not be described as disinheritance. The will does not name John’s father or establish the earlier Scottish brotherhood.

Woodbury District probate register, composite volume listing 3–4, 1749–1760; will 29 June 1756, court acceptance 18 August 1756. The exact death date is retained from the family research, not read from the will.

J. Gardner Bartlett’s Robert Coe, Puritan, pages 88–89, abstracts John Coe’s will dated 29 January 1740 and proved 5 May 1741. It identifies daughter Abigail as John Guthrie’s wife and places the couple in Durham.

The cited original is Fairfield probate, volume 1741–1748, pages 58–62. The published abstract supplies a valuable relationship statement; examination of the original remains a research priority.

Abigail Coe’s November birth day and the couple’s 1727 marriage day differ among the profiles, published genealogies, and cited vital-record transcriptions. The Stratford entries referenced as LR2:57a and LR2:481a should be compared directly.

The child studies also retain specific questions: Mary’s possible additional son Joseph; the unsupported William attached to Ebenezer; Sarah Murray’s children versus those of Reuben’s later wife; and the identities of several Ingraham descendants. Lydia’s proposed 1831 death notice describes an 87-year-old woman formerly of Norwich, which does not yet securely identify the daughter born in 1746.

James Guthrie, born 1757, son of James Guthrie and Abigail Betts, is associated with a wife named Elizabeth or Betsey. He must not be merged with James Guthrie, about 1761–1839, husband of Mehitable Hickox, whose pension and Connecticut connections belong to a different man.

The Hickox husband’s possible placement in John Guthrie and Patience Knapp’s family remains a hypothesis. See Mistaken Identities: Connecticut & Massachusetts before attaching those military, marriage, or descendant records.

Connecticut, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1609–1999, Woodbury District, Probate Records volumes 3–4, 1749–1760; the reviewed viewer sequence includes images 248–249 of 488. The composite volume label and the register’s different paginations should be retained when locating the record.

• 29 June 1756: will signed; wife Susanna and ten surviving children named.
• 18 August 1756: William presents the will; the court accepts it for recording.
• 1757: Daniel Owen and Susanna appear in the proceedings concerning her rights in the estate. The court discusses missing inventory and debt information; a later entry refers to an agreement recorded on the next page.

The original register takes precedence over an index that assigns the will date to probate. The Connecticut State Library probate guide explains the distinction between probate volumes and separate estate papers.

• Robert Coe, Puritan, pages 88–89: John Coe’s will abstract and the Guthrie family list. Follow its citation to Fairfield probate, 1741–1748, pages 58–62.
• Bailey, Early Connecticut Marriages, Washington section, pages 95–97: John Guthrie–Patience Knap; James Calhoun–Mary Guthrie; Susanna Guthrie’s remarriage; and Eleser Ingraham–Lodia Guthrie.
• Connecticut State Library: vital records by town and probate districts by town: routes to the underlying collections.

Bailey’s page 97 reads 6 August 1765 for the Ingraham–Guthrie marriage. Page 96 prints Orson for Susanna’s later husband; the reviewed probate reads Owen. Neither discrepancy should be silently erased.

• Dunn & Dunn, Records of the Guthrie Family (1898), pages 3–6: origins and the founding family; pages 10–13 continue the children’s families and record leads.
• Laurence R. Guthrie, American Guthrie and Allied Families (1933): compare the origin discussion on pages 77–79 and the Connecticut descendant studies.
• The Three Brothers Tradition: the shared comparison for Branches B, F, and I.

The Scottish partnership, migration routes, Housatonic enterprise, four sons, and the connection between the two Johns are traditional claims awaiting documentary support. Repetition in later books does not necessarily represent independent testimony.

• Smith’s History of Chenango and Madison Counties (1880), Bainbridge chapter: William Guthrie, Reuben Kirby, settlement, town meetings, and church activity.
• Lenox Library, “Revolutionary Spirit in Lenox”: James Guthrie’s 1776 committee role.
• Two Centuries of New Milford (1907), printed page 47: Ephraim Guthrie in the published 1758 colonial-service roster. This is separate from Revolutionary service and the attributed powderhorn.
• Chipstone Foundation, American Furniture (2004), figure 5: a sawbuck table attributed to Truman Guthrie.
• William B. Murray’s 1928 Murray genealogy, pages 31–32: a comparative source for Sarah Guthrie and Reuben Murray’s family.

These published histories provide useful context and record leads. Exact dates, military identities, and property relationships should be checked against the records they cite.

• Stafford C. Cleveland, History and Directory of Yates County (1873), volume 1: the Ingraham family on pages 136–137 and the society’s membership and women’s histories.
• Yates County historian’s discussion of the 1792 tax roll: Eleazer’s presence and the surviving list’s provenance.
• Friends’ Burying Ground compilation and its notation guide: distinguish inscriptions from information supplied by historical lists and later research.
• Miles Avery Davis, History of Jerusalem (1912), pages 21–22: a lead to John Ingraham’s reported conveyance of 26 acres to his sister Rachel.

Lydia the mother and Lydia the daughter are separate people. The 1831 death notice, two women named Lament, and the John/Elisha/Eleazer generations require continued comparison. The cemetery compilation does not supply a death date for Lydia, wife of Eleazer.

Recorded participation includes Family Finder and the identified AncestryDNA participant. These entries describe project coverage; they are not a claim that every match has independently proved the entire ancestral path.

• William & Susanna Kirby: B346161.
• James & Abigail Betts: 88319 through Benjamin; B538614 and B667790 through Nathan and Mabelle Patterson; AncestryDNA participation associated with kit 1017666 through Benjamin.
• Joseph & Elizabeth Carpenter: 135266, 678385, B180556, B301149 through Truman.
• Joseph & Rachel Hand: 839545 through Joseph George; 980968 through Stephen.
• Mary & James Calhoun: 317589.
• Ebenezer & Hannah Richards: 58841 and 950276.

Nathan belongs beneath James and Abigail Betts in these pedigrees; he is not an additional son of John and Abigail Coe. Living participants are identified publicly by kit number only.