Behan’s in Toledo, Ohio
Below are two entries from the Toledo, OH city directories, we know from Michael’s obituary the family lived for a time in Toledo.
1880 City Directory
1882 City Directory
In the 1879-1880 directory you can see Mary (widow of Andrew), daughter Catherine and son Frank all living at 88 Jervis. Listed below at a different address is Michael. Michael and Elizabeth Stanton were married in 1879, I believe the Michael listed is the son of Mary and brother of Frank and Catherine. However, Daniel was married by 1869 and living in Illinois. I am not convinced this is brother Daniel, it could be but could also be an uncle or cousin. Daniel was a commonly used name in the Behan family.
What I find interesting is the next city listing with Mary, Cathrine and Frank. Two things stand out, the first is Mary is listed now as widow of Wm. There is no evidence to suggest Mary remarried, so perhaps Andrew was William Andrew.
The second point of interest is the John Behen. The oldest son listed with the family in the 1860 census is John. I have not had much luck locating him or his family after the 1860 census. Perhaps this John is the oldest son.
As with any new peice of information I now have more questions than answers!
Below are two entries from the Toledo, OH city directories, we know from Michael’s obituary the family lived for a time in Toledo.
1880 City Directory
1882 City Directory
In the 1879-1880 directory you can see Mary (widow of Andrew), daughter Catherine and son Frank all living at 88 Jervis. Listed below at a different address is Michael. Michael and Elizabeth Stanton were married in 1879, I believe the Michael listed is the son of Mary and brother of Frank and Catherine. However, Daniel was married by 1869 and living in Illinois. I am not convinced this is brother Daniel, it could be but could also be an uncle or cousin. Daniel was a commonly used name in the Behan family.
What I find interesting is the next city listing with Mary, Cathrine and Frank. Two things stand out, the first is Mary is listed now as widow of Wm. There is no evidence to suggest Mary remarried, so perhaps Andrew was William Andrew.
The second point of interest is the John Behen. The oldest son listed with the family in the 1860 census is John. I have not had much luck locating him or his family after the 1860 census. Perhaps this John is the oldest son.
As with any new peice of information I now have more questions than answers!
