Thank you to our friend, Paul Lee, for correction to my last post. Paul pointed out that the “Charge of the Meetinge House” listed acres of commonage possessed, not necessarily a man’s entire holding. While I won’t pretend to fully understand the nuances of commonage as they relate to total holding, Pelletreau says in History of Long Island,
The original settlers of the town paid an equal proportion of the cost, and consequently owned an equal share in the premises. Of the original laying out of the home lots no record remains, but it seems as if each man had thirteen acres for a home lot, and an equal share in all the land that was undivided. From this a “13 acre lot” meant a whole share, and was the same as a £150 lot was in Southampton. If a man sold his lot, it meant that he disposed of his home lot and his share in the undivided lands, which was called his “Right of commonage.”
By the way, Paul has an excellent blog http://a400yearstory.wordpress.com that may be interest to descendants of Ralph Dayton, as he is also a descendant.