The entry on sheet 49 looks to be O.H., compare it to the O of Orsborn on the next page and of Otry on sheet 52.The C's on the page before in Cook and McCord are different.This writer's C on surnames has the smaller curl at the top pretty much throughout all these pages.
This looked like a typical double enumeration at first.But the usual tricks of deciding which is which don't work as well in this case (i.e. which was given by the head directly v. another family member or neighbor, or which was given based on a second piece of land).
The financial info on p.43 (Obadiah) is 450-100.On p. 49 (O.H.) it is 8000-3000, that's a huge discrepancy.In the 1870 census the widow Martha is shown with 450-200, looking standard that she is still on the land but that some personal property has been divided to the kids.
But I got hooked on this question, and the neighbor consistency is frustrating, not lending support one way or another. I checked a bunch of the neighbor names between 1860-1870 and they just weren't enumerated in any consistent patterns to help i.d. which 1860 info was more likely given directly by the family.There are similar surnames across the years, but not the exact same families in any case.In 1860 it is the O.H. family that is enumerated near future in-laws Williams (son John md. Texana Goode).In 1870 widow Martha Goode is enumerated next to daughter Texana and husband John Williams, but they may have been living with her, John Williams has no real estate value.
Anyway, the land records should give some answers as to what was going on.
You used the name John Obadiah Goode?I haven't seen anything but the O.H.; House of Goode only calls him Obadiah,; would appreciate hearing about how he's known as John Obadiah.
Good luck on the census question! Regards, Pam in CA (a collateral to these lines, I'm from John Goode and Elizabeth Jane Hawkins)