Hello Averil,

The Thomas Looney shoemaker in the deed you quoted
["Wm Creetch + wife margt Creetch als Looney(former. wife of John Looney decd) ack from Thos Looney(shoemaker, Maughold) sum of £21 3s 4d being a mortgage on 2 parcels of. Ballagilley dated 9 Jan 1756 together with a further sum of £10 being consideration of another mortgage on a parcel. called Chooilrenny dated 26 Nov 1757 and discharge Wm Callow who mortgaged the sd premises and Thos Looney who hath. lately purchased sd parcels may 58 - [cancelled]dated 26 Nov 1757...."]
can't be the son of John Looney & Margaret Kelvy (bapt 1748) because in 1757 he was only 9 years old.

He was old enough to be the Thomas mentioned in the latter part of the deed
["1779...ack from Thos Looney(shoemaker, Maughold) sum of £21 3s 4d being a mortgage on 2 parcels of. Ballagilley dated 9 Jan 1756..."]
but I think it is far more likely to refer to the same earlier Thomas, shoemaker. As they were using shoemaker as his identification in the deed I don't think they could just swap to a different Thomas in mid-deed.

When I first read that deed transcript I thought that maybe he was a close relative of John's and wondered where he fitted in (having not looked at the earlier generations).

Sue