A great article on Colonial Currency appears in the June 2007 issue of Early American Life Magazine. Often when looking a deeds, wills or other early documents the currency used is always of interest. American apparently invented paper money, and in this particular article, there is a great history, as well as photo's of paper money used prior to 1800. Judy Cassidy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Dear Leslie, Thank you for all your hard work! I have learned to read your stuff when fully alert (as opposed to falling asleep at night) as it is always so interesting and informative. You certainly know a lot about property law! Barbara Barbara L. de Mare, Esq. ----- Original Message ---- From: Leslie B. Potter <lbpotter@comcast.net> To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 1:05:33 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant Dear Steve, Howard, Pete, and List, I apologize for taking so long. However, I was finally able to access a copy of "Commentaries on the Roman-Dutch Law" by Simon Van Leeuwen, LL.D. by going to the library of The Pennsylvania State University. Simon van Leeuwen published "Commentaries on the Roman-Dutch Law" in 1744. It was translated into English in 1820. I found Van Leeuwen's book to be much more succinct and instructive than either R. W. Lee's "An Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law" or Van Der Linden's "Institutes of the Laws of Holland". Steve raised the question of why did Adam Brouwer have both a deed (dated 1645) and a patent (dated 1647) for that portion of the subdivision of Hendrick Jansz's land, which he had purchased from Jansz. On the subject of alienation or transfer of property, Van Leeuwen states: "Feudal property is not divisible and ought only to be inherited by and to remain in one person; unless it be allowed and permitted by grand and consent from the lord, upon the application of the vassal." (See , in section 6 of Chapter 14 - entitled, 'Of Feudal Tenure' at page 167) Also in Chapter 15 - entitled, 'In what Manner Feudal Tenure is acquired', Van Leeuwen writes in sec. 2 (1) "[t]he fee is not divisible, (unless by consent, as we have already shewn), but devolves only upon one person to the exclusion of all others." (See page 172) Simple translation - Jansz had no right to subdivide his property and sell a portion thereof to Brouwer without getting authorization for the subdivision from his over lord. So without the patent, Brouwer's deed would not have been worth the paper upon which it was written. Although, I assume that Brouwer could have sued to get his money back under the Roman-Dutch version of the theory that says 'impossibility' makes the contract null and void. Van Leeuwen goes into much greater detail about Servitudes than either Lee or Van Der Linden. On the subject of "Drop-right" Van Leeuwen writes at page 196, "Sec. 8 Drop-right is the right of making the rain-water of my roof fall upon another's ground, which otherwise no person need suffer, as every one is bound to carry away or conduct the water of his own house upon or though his house. Whoever is obligated to receive upon his ground the water of another, is bound to leave for that purpose a certain vacant place not built upon, of the breath of about half a foot; but in some cities there are statutes which enact that every person, for his own convenience, and between houses and ground receiving water, may build and inclose it; provided he received the said water with a leaden gutter under the roof, and by that means carries off the water, and likewise all open watercourses may commonly be lead away under the earth. Sec. 9 The receiving of drops is the right of catching the rainwater running from another's roof or premises, for one's own benefit; for other wise, the water falling upon my roof or premises belongs to me." I have also been reading "History of the Roman-Dutch Law" by Johannes Willelmus Wessels, on-line. Like the other three authors, Wessels comments on law in the Netherlands and South Africa. Colonial New Amsterdam does not seem to have made an impression on Roman-Dutch legal scholars or had any effect on Roman-Dutch legal conventions. Therefore it is not mentioned. Yesterday, I started out to read the documents pertaining to the Dutch West India Company in "Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New York" by Callahan. Unfortunately, my asthma triggered and that finished me for the day. I assume that the Dutch West India Company had the legal status of "over lord" to all patent holders in the colony, who were mere vassals, but I just wanted to make sure. I have been reading Gerard on "New York Real Property" and the "Laws of the Duke of York", in order to better understand what effect the English take over had on the Roman-Dutch legal conventions as practiced by the ethnic Dutch. Although I know that the English confirmed the Dutch patents, I still have no feel for how the transition from Roman-Dutch law to English law was accomplished. I assume that the residents of the colony would have been able to subdivide their property under English law, but I have not yet found any specific evidence to support that assumption. I shall will report back when I have that area of the law sorted out. Sincerely, Leslie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Leslier, Thank you for all that research and information. I have been dealing with patents and deeds for 40 years, and often wondered what constituted the difference, but my curiosity was never tickled enough to actually try and find out. So now I know, thanks to you. Incidentally, something that most people may not know, is that the State of New York is still issuing patents, or at least they were the last time I checked, which was back in Mario Cuomo's time. They are recorded in the New York State Secretary of State's files. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leslie B. Potter" <lbpotter@comcast.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > Dear Steve, Howard, Pete, and List, > > I apologize for taking so long. However, I was finally able to access a > copy of "Commentaries on the Roman-Dutch Law" by Simon Van Leeuwen, LL.D. > by > going to the library of The Pennsylvania State University. Simon van > Leeuwen published "Commentaries on the Roman-Dutch Law" in 1744. It was > translated into English in 1820. I found Van Leeuwen's book to be much > more > succinct and instructive than either R. W. Lee's "An Introduction to > Roman-Dutch Law" or Van Der Linden's "Institutes of the Laws of Holland". > > Steve raised the question of why did Adam Brouwer have both a deed (dated > 1645) and a patent (dated 1647) for that portion of the subdivision of > Hendrick Jansz's land, which he had purchased from Jansz. > > On the subject of alienation or transfer of property, Van Leeuwen states: > > "Feudal property is not divisible and ought only to be inherited by and to > remain in one person; unless it be allowed and permitted by grand and > consent from the lord, upon the application of the vassal." (See , in > section 6 of Chapter 14 - entitled, 'Of Feudal Tenure' at page 167) > > Also in Chapter 15 - entitled, 'In what Manner Feudal Tenure is acquired', > Van Leeuwen writes in sec. 2 (1) > > "[t]he fee is not divisible, (unless by consent, as we have already > shewn), > but devolves only upon one person to the exclusion of all others." (See > page > 172) > > Simple translation - Jansz had no right to subdivide his property and sell > a > portion thereof to Brouwer without getting authorization for the > subdivision > from his over lord. So without the patent, Brouwer's deed would not have > been worth the paper upon which it was written. Although, I assume that > Brouwer could have sued to get his money back under the Roman-Dutch > version > of the theory that says 'impossibility' makes the contract null and void. > > Van Leeuwen goes into much greater detail about Servitudes than either Lee > or Van Der Linden. On the subject of "Drop-right" Van Leeuwen writes at > page > 196, > > "Sec. 8 Drop-right is the right of making the rain-water of my roof fall > upon another's ground, which otherwise no person need suffer, as every one > is bound to carry away or conduct the water of his own house upon or > though > his house. Whoever is obligated to receive upon his ground the water of > another, is bound to leave for that purpose a certain vacant place not > built > upon, of the breath of about half a foot; but in some cities there are > statutes which enact that every person, for his own convenience, and > between > houses and ground receiving water, may build and inclose it; provided he > received the said water with a leaden gutter under the roof, and by that > means carries off the water, and likewise all open watercourses may > commonly > be lead away under the earth. > > Sec. 9 The receiving of drops is the right of catching the rainwater > running > from another's roof or premises, for one's own benefit; for other wise, > the > water falling upon my roof or premises belongs to me." > > I have also been reading "History of the Roman-Dutch Law" by Johannes > Willelmus Wessels, on-line. Like the other three authors, Wessels comments > on law in the Netherlands and South Africa. Colonial New Amsterdam does > not > seem to have made an impression on Roman-Dutch legal scholars or had any > effect on Roman-Dutch legal conventions. Therefore it is not mentioned. > Yesterday, I started out to read the documents pertaining to the Dutch > West > India Company in "Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New York" > by > Callahan. Unfortunately, my asthma triggered and that finished me for the > day. I assume that the Dutch West India Company had the legal status of > "over lord" to all patent holders in the colony, who were mere vassals, > but > I just wanted to make sure. > > I have been reading Gerard on "New York Real Property" and the "Laws of > the > Duke of York", in order to better understand what effect the English take > over had on the Roman-Dutch legal conventions as practiced by the ethnic > Dutch. Although I know that the English confirmed the Dutch patents, I > still > have no feel for how the transition from Roman-Dutch law to English law > was > accomplished. I assume that the residents of the colony would have been > able > to subdivide their property under English law, but I have not yet found > any > specific evidence to support that assumption. I shall will report back > when > I have that area of the law sorted out. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Dear Steve, Howard, Pete, and List, I apologize for taking so long. However, I was finally able to access a copy of "Commentaries on the Roman-Dutch Law" by Simon Van Leeuwen, LL.D. by going to the library of The Pennsylvania State University. Simon van Leeuwen published "Commentaries on the Roman-Dutch Law" in 1744. It was translated into English in 1820. I found Van Leeuwen's book to be much more succinct and instructive than either R. W. Lee's "An Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law" or Van Der Linden's "Institutes of the Laws of Holland". Steve raised the question of why did Adam Brouwer have both a deed (dated 1645) and a patent (dated 1647) for that portion of the subdivision of Hendrick Jansz's land, which he had purchased from Jansz. On the subject of alienation or transfer of property, Van Leeuwen states: "Feudal property is not divisible and ought only to be inherited by and to remain in one person; unless it be allowed and permitted by grand and consent from the lord, upon the application of the vassal." (See , in section 6 of Chapter 14 - entitled, 'Of Feudal Tenure' at page 167) Also in Chapter 15 - entitled, 'In what Manner Feudal Tenure is acquired', Van Leeuwen writes in sec. 2 (1) "[t]he fee is not divisible, (unless by consent, as we have already shewn), but devolves only upon one person to the exclusion of all others." (See page 172) Simple translation - Jansz had no right to subdivide his property and sell a portion thereof to Brouwer without getting authorization for the subdivision from his over lord. So without the patent, Brouwer's deed would not have been worth the paper upon which it was written. Although, I assume that Brouwer could have sued to get his money back under the Roman-Dutch version of the theory that says 'impossibility' makes the contract null and void. Van Leeuwen goes into much greater detail about Servitudes than either Lee or Van Der Linden. On the subject of "Drop-right" Van Leeuwen writes at page 196, "Sec. 8 Drop-right is the right of making the rain-water of my roof fall upon another's ground, which otherwise no person need suffer, as every one is bound to carry away or conduct the water of his own house upon or though his house. Whoever is obligated to receive upon his ground the water of another, is bound to leave for that purpose a certain vacant place not built upon, of the breath of about half a foot; but in some cities there are statutes which enact that every person, for his own convenience, and between houses and ground receiving water, may build and inclose it; provided he received the said water with a leaden gutter under the roof, and by that means carries off the water, and likewise all open watercourses may commonly be lead away under the earth. Sec. 9 The receiving of drops is the right of catching the rainwater running from another's roof or premises, for one's own benefit; for other wise, the water falling upon my roof or premises belongs to me." I have also been reading "History of the Roman-Dutch Law" by Johannes Willelmus Wessels, on-line. Like the other three authors, Wessels comments on law in the Netherlands and South Africa. Colonial New Amsterdam does not seem to have made an impression on Roman-Dutch legal scholars or had any effect on Roman-Dutch legal conventions. Therefore it is not mentioned. Yesterday, I started out to read the documents pertaining to the Dutch West India Company in "Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New York" by Callahan. Unfortunately, my asthma triggered and that finished me for the day. I assume that the Dutch West India Company had the legal status of "over lord" to all patent holders in the colony, who were mere vassals, but I just wanted to make sure. I have been reading Gerard on "New York Real Property" and the "Laws of the Duke of York", in order to better understand what effect the English take over had on the Roman-Dutch legal conventions as practiced by the ethnic Dutch. Although I know that the English confirmed the Dutch patents, I still have no feel for how the transition from Roman-Dutch law to English law was accomplished. I assume that the residents of the colony would have been able to subdivide their property under English law, but I have not yet found any specific evidence to support that assumption. I shall will report back when I have that area of the law sorted out. Sincerely, Leslie

Many of you have asked, The Dorland Enigma Solved is priced at 36.00 + 4.00 shipping. Judy Cassidy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

>From my understanding the book Pioneers on the Bay of Quinte was a local offering and the submissions were made by family members. This was written in the early 1900's. Another note of interest. The Noxon's who migrated north to Ontario were Quaker's, as were many of those who migrated from Dutchess Co. N.Y. Ruth ----- Original Message ----- From: "E Johnson" <iris.gates@gmail.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Thomas NOXON two or three > Thanks to everyone responding about the Noxons and the Hoogebooms. We > had internet down here for a while, so I'm just now catching up. > > Ruth, thanks for the link to the Noxons of Ontario. I would very much > like to see some documentation and some dates to support the > statements on p. 76: > "The Noxon family is descended from Andrew Noxon, of Ayershire, > Scotland. His son, James D. Noxon, married the daughter of Sir Samuel > Pascoe, governor of Jamaica. The young people, indeed, eloped from > Jamaica to New York and there took up their permanent abode." > > There are many Noxons who appear in the last 400 years in various > records of England; no Scots by this name came up in books I checked > on HQ. But it looks as if this family begins several decades after the > one I'm looking at. The Thomas Noxon family is the one I am after. Is > it known how the the Andrew Noxon family are connected with the Thomas > Noxon family? > > This (from Pam) is interesting: > >> New York Historical Society , Page 99 >> Thomas Noxon Junr., Joyner, R was made Freeman 24 Nov 1719 > > If by 1728 he was "late of the Island of Jamaica but now of Co. of > Newcastle in North America" (per his land record in Delaware), it > seems he didn't hang around in NY very long. > > Thanks also Pam, for the list of occupations and dates of freeman > status of these men. > > > I found a little more on Bartholomew Noxon in a different version of > Albany wills abstracts. This abstract from > Abstracts of wills of Dutchess County, New York. Pub. New York: (pub. > unknown), 1939: > (my transcription of this entry from web, pdf version of the book): > p. 2-3 > Bartholmew Noxon, Dutchess County > February 12, 1784 > Mentions: > deceased brother Thomas Noxon, New Castle Co. > eldest son Thomas Noxon, now deceased > second son Simon > daughter Margrit, now deceased > fourth son Peter > second daughter Gertrude Losie > grand daughter Elizabeth Losie > Margaret Noxon, daughter of Peter's son Benjamin > son Robert, my page folio bible > daughter-in-law Hester > Dr. Cary > Executors, David and John Craige > p. 2-4 (Bartholmew Noxon, continued). > Catharine Harris, Late of Dutchess County, decd. > Abraham Gooding and Elenor, his wife, late of the County of New Castle > in Delaware > son James Noxon, son Benjamin Noxon and Robert Noxon, Executors. > Signed: Bartholomew Noxon > Witnesses: John Delong > David Britt > [[my typo here --another BRITT I think]] > App. June 15, 1791 > > I know _The Noxon Family In North America_ may help, and I have > inquiries pending. For now, if anyone here can comment on the identity > of Abraham Gooding and Elenor, his wife, I would appreciate it. > Abraham Gooding (sometimes "Goodwin" but I think that's an English > misinterpretation) owned land just next to the Noxon land in > Appoquninimink. > I wonder if Abraham Gooding's wife, Elenor, is a Noxon. Or for what > reason are they in this will? Also, does this indicate that Abraham > Gooding and wife, Elenor, "late of the County of New Castle in > Delaware," had left that place by the time will was written? > But especially, who's Elenor? > > > Thanks again; back later if I can fill in any more blanks pertinent here. > > With appreciation, > Liz J > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.6/794 - Release Date: 5/8/2007 > 2:23 PM > >

Carolyn, Just read the ones you're interested in and delete the rest. I skip anything genealogical and just read the history items. Peter. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Leonard" <buffalo234@cox.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Thomas NOXON two or three > Can ANYONE tell me how to get subscribed to the digest version of > this mail list? I have tried everything and nothing works, but the > MANY emails are too much for me and I will have to unsub from it soon. > > Thanks, > Carolyn > Hugs, > Carolyn > Remember you have a friend in Oklahoma -- endlessly sorting out dead > relatives! > Researching COZINE in Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New > Jersey, Nieuw Amsterdam (New York) and the Netherlands. > See the photos of our DUTCH COUSINS gathering in Kentucky in 2005 here: > http://homepage.mac.com/carolynleonard/Dutch_Cousins/PhotoAlbum33.html > and The Anderson Cow Palace meeting house > http://homepage.mac.com/carolynleonard/Dutch_Cousins/PhotoAlbum32.html > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Yes -0- but I want the days postings all in one email. That is how I used to be subscribed. Now I can't get back there. I receive hundreds of emails each day and it takes longer to open each one and read t o see if I care, before I decide to delete -- and it is overwhelming when I first open my mailbox each morning. With the digest version, you just receive ONE email and you can slide through it. You would probably like it better too. Best, Carolyn On May 9, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Peter Christoph wrote: > Carolyn, > Just read the ones you're interested in and delete the rest. I skip > anything > genealogical and just read the history items. > > Peter. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carolyn Leonard" <buffalo234@cox.net> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 12:07 PM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Thomas NOXON two or three > > >> Can ANYONE tell me how to get subscribed to the digest version of >> this mail list? I have tried everything and nothing works, but the >> MANY emails are too much for me and I will have to unsub from it >> soon. >> >> Thanks, >> Carolyn >> Hugs, >> Carolyn >> Remember you have a friend in Oklahoma -- endlessly sorting out dead >> relatives! >> Researching COZINE in Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New >> Jersey, Nieuw Amsterdam (New York) and the Netherlands. >> See the photos of our DUTCH COUSINS gathering in Kentucky in 2005 >> here: >> http://homepage.mac.com/carolynleonard/Dutch_Cousins/ >> PhotoAlbum33.html >> and The Anderson Cow Palace meeting house >> http://homepage.mac.com/carolynleonard/Dutch_Cousins/ >> PhotoAlbum32.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH- > COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Can ANYONE tell me how to get subscribed to the digest version of this mail list? I have tried everything and nothing works, but the MANY emails are too much for me and I will have to unsub from it soon. Thanks, Carolyn Hugs, Carolyn Remember you have a friend in Oklahoma -- endlessly sorting out dead relatives! Researching COZINE in Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Nieuw Amsterdam (New York) and the Netherlands. See the photos of our DUTCH COUSINS gathering in Kentucky in 2005 here: http://homepage.mac.com/carolynleonard/Dutch_Cousins/PhotoAlbum33.html and The Anderson Cow Palace meeting house http://homepage.mac.com/carolynleonard/Dutch_Cousins/PhotoAlbum32.html

Thanks to everyone responding about the Noxons and the Hoogebooms. We had internet down here for a while, so I'm just now catching up. Ruth, thanks for the link to the Noxons of Ontario. I would very much like to see some documentation and some dates to support the statements on p. 76: "The Noxon family is descended from Andrew Noxon, of Ayershire, Scotland. His son, James D. Noxon, married the daughter of Sir Samuel Pascoe, governor of Jamaica. The young people, indeed, eloped from Jamaica to New York and there took up their permanent abode." There are many Noxons who appear in the last 400 years in various records of England; no Scots by this name came up in books I checked on HQ. But it looks as if this family begins several decades after the one I'm looking at. The Thomas Noxon family is the one I am after. Is it known how the the Andrew Noxon family are connected with the Thomas Noxon family? This (from Pam) is interesting: > New York Historical Society , Page 99 > Thomas Noxon Junr., Joyner, R was made Freeman 24 Nov 1719 If by 1728 he was "late of the Island of Jamaica but now of Co. of Newcastle in North America" (per his land record in Delaware), it seems he didn't hang around in NY very long. Thanks also Pam, for the list of occupations and dates of freeman status of these men. I found a little more on Bartholomew Noxon in a different version of Albany wills abstracts. This abstract from Abstracts of wills of Dutchess County, New York. Pub. New York: (pub. unknown), 1939: (my transcription of this entry from web, pdf version of the book): p. 2-3 Bartholmew Noxon, Dutchess County February 12, 1784 Mentions: deceased brother Thomas Noxon, New Castle Co. eldest son Thomas Noxon, now deceased second son Simon daughter Margrit, now deceased fourth son Peter second daughter Gertrude Losie grand daughter Elizabeth Losie Margaret Noxon, daughter of Peter's son Benjamin son Robert, my page folio bible daughter-in-law Hester Dr. Cary Executors, David and John Craige p. 2-4 (Bartholmew Noxon, continued). Catharine Harris, Late of Dutchess County, decd. Abraham Gooding and Elenor, his wife, late of the County of New Castle in Delaware son James Noxon, son Benjamin Noxon and Robert Noxon, Executors. Signed: Bartholomew Noxon Witnesses: John Delong David Britt [[my typo here --another BRITT I think]] App. June 15, 1791 I know _The Noxon Family In North America_ may help, and I have inquiries pending. For now, if anyone here can comment on the identity of Abraham Gooding and Elenor, his wife, I would appreciate it. Abraham Gooding (sometimes "Goodwin" but I think that's an English misinterpretation) owned land just next to the Noxon land in Appoquninimink. I wonder if Abraham Gooding's wife, Elenor, is a Noxon. Or for what reason are they in this will? Also, does this indicate that Abraham Gooding and wife, Elenor, "late of the County of New Castle in Delaware," had left that place by the time will was written? But especially, who's Elenor? Thanks again; back later if I can fill in any more blanks pertinent here. With appreciation, Liz J

I just received this message from Diane Barth Swartz, Barbara's daughter, regarding the Dorland Enigma Solved and want to pass this on to all of you. Notices should be arriving at your homes in the next week. I have not yet seen them myself. "I am sending out mailers for orders. The book is still at the printers and should be to me before May 25" Diane Barth Swartz. Judy Cassidy ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Hi John Van Buskirk, There was a Hoogeboom Family History published in 2003 by Sarah Davies Hogoboom. She lives in Madison, Wisconsin and her email address was belhog2@aol.com. Richard

so that is the origin of the name Hugaboon? I know some descendants if so. Best, Carolyn Hugs, Carolyn Remember you have a friend in Oklahoma -- endlessly sorting out dead relatives! Researching COZINE in Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Nieuw Amsterdam (New York) and the Netherlands. See the photos of our DUTCH COUSINS gathering in Kentucky in 2005 here: http://homepage.mac.com/carolynleonard/Dutch_Cousins/PhotoAlbum33.html and The Anderson Cow Palace meeting house http://homepage.mac.com/carolynleonard/Dutch_Cousins/PhotoAlbum32.html On May 8, 2007, at 9:06 AM, John VanBuskirk wrote: > > > > > > > > > You probably aleady have this, on this family. JOHN C VAN BUSKIRK > http://www.geocities.com/vanbus1/ > jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com > > > > Descendants of Peter Hoogeboom > > > > Generation No. 1 > > > 1. PETER1 HOOGEBOOM He married ? 1719. > > Notes for PETER HOOGEBOOM: > > remained in Holland name means high tree traces basck in holland to > 1372 per Van Buren Genealogy > > other Hoogebooms in Athens NY area Cornelius (son of Jan > Cornelisse) b1625 sn outstanding notary died sept 1, 1684 widow > Christina Geelvinck died 1690s no issue > > > Children of PETER HOOGEBOOM and ? are: > > 2. i. BARTHOLOMEW (MAAS)2 HOOGEBOOM, d. 1702. > > ii. JAN HOOGEBOOM, m. MARIA. > > Notes for JAN HOOGEBOOM: > > "Of Brooklyn NY 1662 > > > > iii. CORNELIUS HOOGEBOOM, m. ANNA CORNELISSE SCHLECT, 1719. > > Notes for CORNELIUS HOOGEBOOM: > > tile asnd brick maker and school teacher rendered manharttan > indeoendant of outside sources cor bricks > > . > > > > Generation No. 2 > > > 2. BARTHOLOMEW (MAAS)2 HOOGEBOOM (PETER1) died 1702. He married > CATHRYN ?. She died 1707. > > Notes for BARTHOLOMEW (MAAS) HOOGEBOOM: > > arrived in Beverwyk )Albany) 1657 he was called to accounts by high > sheriff for playing golf on a public day of prayer mar 20,1657 > > enrolled Dutch Church 1683 bought land from Jan Martinsen Van > Alstine also part of my family tree > > > > > Children of BARTHOLOMEW HOOGEBOOM and CATHRYN ? are: > > i. ARRIIENTJE3 HOOGEBOOM, m. (1) JEAN SPAN; m. (2) ADRIANUS STEYDEN. > > **. GERTRUY HOOGEBOOM, m. THOMAS NOXEN. > > iii. ANTJE HOOGEBOOM, m. HENRY POSSE. > > iv. DIRCK HOOGEBOOM, m. MARIE BELMONT. > > 3. v. PIETER MAASE HOOGEBOOM, b. 1676; d. 1758. > > vi. "ONE CHILD LOST" HOOGEBOOM, b. 1682. > > vii. BARTHOLOMEW HOOGEBOOM, b. December 30, 1683; m. SARAH PEKOK. > > > > Generation No. 3 > > > 3. PIETER MAASE3 HOOGEBOOM (BARTHOLOMEW (MAAS)2, PETER1) was born > 1676, and died 1758. He married JANNETJE MULDER January 28, > 1697/98, daughter of CORNELIUS MULDER and HILLETJE LOCKERMANSE. > > > Children of PIETER HOOGEBOOM and JANNETJE MULDER are: > > i. PETER4 HOOGEBOOM. > > ii. RACHEL HOOGEBOOM. > > my lineiii. TRYNTJE (CATHERINE) HOOGEBOOM, b. September 03, 1699; > m. PHILIP CONYN, 1723; b. May 24, 1694. > > iv. CORNELIUSA HOOGEBOOM, b. January 15, 1700/01. > > v. BARTHOLOMEW HOOGEBOOM, b. May 10, 1702; m. HENDRICKJE MULDER. > > vi. ARIANTJE HOOGEBOOM, b. May 13, 1705; m. (1) LAURENS VAN ALEN, > 1734; m. (2) JOHANNES SHUTE, May 02, 1748. > > vii. MARIA HOOGEBOOM, b. February 23, 1706/07; m. JOCHEM VAN > VALKENBURG. > > viii. JOHANNES HOOGEBOOM, b. July 04, 1708; m. ELBERTJE VAN ALEN, > March 08, 1729/30; b. January 05, 1706/07. > > ix. GERTRUY HOOGEBOOM, b. January 22, 1709/10; m. WILLIAM VAN NESS, > 1732. > > x. JEREMIAH HOOGEBOOM, b. October 14, 1711; m. (1) JANNETJE VAN > ALEN; m. (2) ANNETJE VAN HOESEN. > > xi. ANNETJE HOOGEBOOM, b. October 19, 1712. > > xii. HILLETJE HOOGEBOOM, b. January 08, 1713/14; m. JOCHEM RADCLIFFE. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH- > COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Some of the Noxon family migrated to Prince Edward County, Ontario (as did many families from Dutchess County, N.Y.) One Canadian site that has digitized many books www.ourroots.ca included a digital copy of Pioneer Life on the Bay of Quinte. This book lists some information about the Noxon family. This url should take you to the Table of Contents. The Noxon family info begins on Pg. 76 http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=764979 Hope this helps. Ruth ----- Original Message ----- From: "E Johnson" <iris.gates@gmail.com> To: "Dutch Colonies" <Dutch-Colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 6:12 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Thomas NOXON two or three > There was a Thomas NOXON married Geertruyt HOOGEBOOM 23 December 1691, > Albany, NY. They baptized a child, Catharina, in New York DRC in 1692, > then baptized several subsequent children in Kingston DRC between 1696 > and 1707. I think there may have been other children, but in the > Kingston there is record of: Pieter, 1696; Thomas (jr), 1698; > Elisabet, 1700; Bartholomaeus, 1703; Anna, 1707. > > Where did this Thomas NOXON come from? > > Is he related in some way to the Thomas NOXON of Jamaica (West Indies) > who owned land at least by the 1720's in the area of Middletown, > Delaware? See land record below. > > Or, did the son, Thomas NOXON jr (the one b. 1698) move to Jamaica, > and then to New Castle County, Delaware, by the 1720's? > > Or are these entirely separate families? > > Because I have one land record from Delaware which gives Jamaica as > the former residence of the Thomas Noxon of Delaware: > > "Notice 7 Aug. 1728. Know all men that I, Thomas NOXON (late of the > Island of Jamaica but now of Co. of Newcastle in North America) > merchant, for good causes, me thereunto moving and more especially for > consideration of several Negroes to me this day assignes and set over > a Hogshead of Rum and a Hogshead of Sugar by Thomas Simson, late of sd > Island but now of the City of Philadelphia, gent... I assign to sd > Simsom [[sic]] a judgement obtained in 1724 against the Estate of > Thomas Cardiff, late of sd Island, Esq., decd., now on record in the > Court of Spanish Town in sd Island for the sum of 182 pounds. Signed > Thomas Noxon. Wit: Cantwell Garetson, Mary Willson. Affidavit by > Andrew Petterson, one of his Majesties Justices, that on 8 Aug 1728 , > Thomas NOXON personally appeared before him and swore voluntary act to > Deed. > (New Castle Land records I1-9) > > This Thomas NOXON of Jamaica and of New Castle County died in New > Castle count around 1743. He owned land and lived near Appoquinimink > Creek. He had purchased land between Appoquinimink Creek and a branch > from it called Sassafras Branch, where he built a mill. The land had > come from Capt. Edmund Cantwell (wife was Mary de Haes, d/o Roelof & > Gertrurie Jacobson), who willed it in 1669 to his children, one of > whom was Elizabeth, who was the wife of Henry Garretson (aka "Van der > Hof") --a son of one of the Garretson brothers arriving at the time of > the "Prins Maurits" shipwreck of March 1657. > > Thomas NOXON of New Castle County was married to Mary Pierce. I have > no info on her. They had a son Benjamin. I think he is the one who was > married on 9 December 1754, Old Drawyer's Church, Middletown, > Delaware, to Elizabeth Harrison Ward. > > Land in the area of (now) Noxontown, near Middletown, Delaware changed > hands many times, including among families of my own. Persons all > around here are intermarried with Dutch persons who had been among the > earliest residents of Delaware, or with Dutch or Dutch-associated > persons who had come from various places in the Dutch colonies. > > Again, my questions: > > Does the Thomas NOXON of Delaware connect in some way to the one from > Kingston NY? > > Did the Thomas Noxon of Kingston have a son, Benjamin? I don't see a > birth record for him yet Noxon-Hoogeboom researchers list one said to > be born ca 1705 or so. If Thomas Noxon of Kingston did have a son > Benjamin, what became of him? Where are his records? > > And finally, does anyone know what became of Thomas NOXON, jr, son of > Thomas Noxon of Kingston, who was bapt 1698? > > Answers to any of these questions would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks extremely, > Liz J > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/792 - Release Date: 5/6/2007 > 9:01 PM > >

Hi Liz, You wrote: > Marriage record no help --at > least the one I can see, 23 December 1691, Albany, NY DRC, just > appears to indicate the couple were both from "NA." (New Amsterdam??) If you check the List of Abbreviations for the Albany records, Holland Society Yearbook of New York (1904), page 84, you will see: A., Albany (same as N.A.). A. Co., Albany County. N. Albany, N.A., New Albany. From (for what it is worth): The Burghers of New Amsterdam and the Freemen of New York New York Historical Society (1985) , Page 93 Thomas Noxon, Distiller, was made Freeman 29 Mar 1714/15 New York Historical Society , Page 99 Thomas Noxon Junr., Joyner, R was made Freeman 24 Nov 1719 New York Historical Society , Page 110 Peter Noxon, Cooper, R was made Freeman 23 Jan 1727/28 New York Historical Society , Page 114 Bartholomew Noxon, Cutler, R[egistered] was made Freeman 21 Apr 1730 Your other questions may be answered in: The Noxon Family In North America (Revised Edition Vols 1 & 2] France Forrester Walker Stenberg The Gregath Publishing Co. 1999 [first published in 1990] Stenberg, France Forrester Walker, (1932- ) The Noxon family in North America Publisher Cullman, AL : Gregath Co., c1990. Descript 720 p. ; 28 cm. PO Box 1045, Cullman AL 35056-1045. Regards, Pam Sears

You probably aleady have this, on this family. JOHN C VAN BUSKIRK http://www.geocities.com/vanbus1/ jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com Descendants of Peter Hoogeboom Generation No. 1 1. PETER1 HOOGEBOOM He married ? 1719. Notes for PETER HOOGEBOOM: remained in Holland name means high tree traces basck in holland to 1372 per Van Buren Genealogy other Hoogebooms in Athens NY area Cornelius (son of Jan Cornelisse) b1625 sn outstanding notary died sept 1, 1684 widow Christina Geelvinck died 1690s no issue Children of PETER HOOGEBOOM and ? are: 2. i. BARTHOLOMEW (MAAS)2 HOOGEBOOM, d. 1702. ii. JAN HOOGEBOOM, m. MARIA. Notes for JAN HOOGEBOOM: "Of Brooklyn NY 1662 iii. CORNELIUS HOOGEBOOM, m. ANNA CORNELISSE SCHLECT, 1719. Notes for CORNELIUS HOOGEBOOM: tile asnd brick maker and school teacher rendered manharttan indeoendant of outside sources cor bricks . Generation No. 2 2. BARTHOLOMEW (MAAS)2 HOOGEBOOM (PETER1) died 1702. He married CATHRYN ?. She died 1707. Notes for BARTHOLOMEW (MAAS) HOOGEBOOM: arrived in Beverwyk )Albany) 1657 he was called to accounts by high sheriff for playing golf on a public day of prayer mar 20,1657 enrolled Dutch Church 1683 bought land from Jan Martinsen Van Alstine also part of my family tree Children of BARTHOLOMEW HOOGEBOOM and CATHRYN ? are: i. ARRIIENTJE3 HOOGEBOOM, m. (1) JEAN SPAN; m. (2) ADRIANUS STEYDEN. **. GERTRUY HOOGEBOOM, m. THOMAS NOXEN. iii. ANTJE HOOGEBOOM, m. HENRY POSSE. iv. DIRCK HOOGEBOOM, m. MARIE BELMONT. 3. v. PIETER MAASE HOOGEBOOM, b. 1676; d. 1758. vi. "ONE CHILD LOST" HOOGEBOOM, b. 1682. vii. BARTHOLOMEW HOOGEBOOM, b. December 30, 1683; m. SARAH PEKOK. Generation No. 3 3. PIETER MAASE3 HOOGEBOOM (BARTHOLOMEW (MAAS)2, PETER1) was born 1676, and died 1758. He married JANNETJE MULDER January 28, 1697/98, daughter of CORNELIUS MULDER and HILLETJE LOCKERMANSE. Children of PIETER HOOGEBOOM and JANNETJE MULDER are: i. PETER4 HOOGEBOOM. ii. RACHEL HOOGEBOOM. my lineiii. TRYNTJE (CATHERINE) HOOGEBOOM, b. September 03, 1699; m. PHILIP CONYN, 1723; b. May 24, 1694. iv. CORNELIUSA HOOGEBOOM, b. January 15, 1700/01. v. BARTHOLOMEW HOOGEBOOM, b. May 10, 1702; m. HENDRICKJE MULDER. vi. ARIANTJE HOOGEBOOM, b. May 13, 1705; m. (1) LAURENS VAN ALEN, 1734; m. (2) JOHANNES SHUTE, May 02, 1748. vii. MARIA HOOGEBOOM, b. February 23, 1706/07; m. JOCHEM VAN VALKENBURG. viii. JOHANNES HOOGEBOOM, b. July 04, 1708; m. ELBERTJE VAN ALEN, March 08, 1729/30; b. January 05, 1706/07. ix. GERTRUY HOOGEBOOM, b. January 22, 1709/10; m. WILLIAM VAN NESS, 1732. x. JEREMIAH HOOGEBOOM, b. October 14, 1711; m. (1) JANNETJE VAN ALEN; m. (2) ANNETJE VAN HOESEN. xi. ANNETJE HOOGEBOOM, b. October 19, 1712. xii. HILLETJE HOOGEBOOM, b. January 08, 1713/14; m. JOCHEM RADCLIFFE.

Aha! Thank you, Pam. So my Thomas Noxon of New Castle (County), Delaware really was the son of Thomas Noxon and Geertruy Hogeboom --since he was the brother of Bartholomeus of Poughkeepsie, abstract of the will you kindly found. The land record I have also indicates that Thomas, oldest son of Thomas Noxon and Geertruy Hogeboom, had been a resident of the Island of Jamaica until sometime in the 1720's. Interestingly, Bartholomeus Noxon of Poughkeepsie says in his will, written 1781, that he's the "only brother or heir of Thomas Noxon of New Castle, Delaware." If Bartholomeus here is correct and the abstract is good, it means that Thomas Noxon of Delaware had no heirs, or none living by 1781! There is a probate file in Delaware dated 1743, for a Thomas Noxon, which I'll have to order. And thanks for the additional baptism here. One of the sponsors, Meuis Hogenboom, must be Bartolomeus, Geertruy's father. That would give us known baptisms for: Catherina, 25 September 1692 - New York Dutch Reform Church Alida , 1 April 1694 - Albany NY Pieter, 18 October 1696 - Dutch Church, Kingston, NY Thomas (jr), 18 September 1698 - Kingston, NY --possibly the one who d. Delaware 1743. Elisabet, 6 October 1700 - Kingston, NY Bartholomaeus, 7 March 1703 - Kingston, NY Anna, 7 May 1707 - Kingston, NY Interesting that Bartolomeus' name was not used until the third son. But I think Thomas Noxon was English. Marriage record no help --at least the one I can see, 23 December 1691, Albany, NY DRC, just appears to indicate the couple were both from "NA." (New Amsterdam??) There would be room for another son (perhaps Benjamin?) before the birth of Anna... wonder why no record. Are Kingston baptisms missing any in the early 1700's for some reason? It's really good to see the abstract of the Bartolomeus will. Although this does leave the Benjamin Noxon whom I thought might be a son of Thomas Noxon of Delaware, still parent-less for the time being. He died ca 1775, possessed of plenty of land near Middletown, Delaware. The probate file for him must be big; the listing has dates 1775-1814, making me think that case lasted quite a while. So let me ask these questions: Has a will ever been found for Thomas Noxon, Senior, and/or for Geertruy Hogeboom?? Did Bartolomeus Hogeboom leave a will which helps any? Just in case, what became of Benjamin, son of Bartolomeus Noxon of Poughkeepsie? So one down, and my questions about Benjamin Noxon, alleged son of Thomas Noxon of Kingston, remain open for now. More digging to do. I'll be back whenever I find something. Meanwhile maybe someone has another piece of the puzzle? Thanks very much! Liz J

Hi Liz, Thomas Noxon and Geertruy Hogeboom also baptized a daughter, Alida, at Albany in 1694: Alida #737; Bapt. Date: 01 Apr 1694; Father: Tammus Noxen; Mother: Geertruy Hogenboom; Sponsors: Meuis Hogenboom; Hendrik V. Renselaar, Antje Hogenboom Source: Records of the Albany Reformed Church [1683-1809] Bartholomeus Noxon, the son baptized at Kingston on 7 Mar 1703, removed to Dutchess County, leaving a will which answers your main question: [NYG&BR 61:121] Abstracts of Wills Recorded at Poughkeepsie, Dutchess Co., NY Will dated 12 Feb 1781; probated 9 Jul 1791. Wife's name not mentioned; "only brother or heir of Thomas Noxon of New Castle, Delaware." Oldest son Thomas, son Simon, and daughter Margaret were dead. Named sons Bartholomew, Peter, James, Benjamin and Robert; daus. Gertrude Losie and Fanny. Granddaughters Elizabeth Losie and Margaret Noxon, dau of Peter. Executors: sons James, Benjamin & Robert. Wit: John Delong, David and Peter Brill. Regards, Pam Sears

There was a Thomas NOXON married Geertruyt HOOGEBOOM 23 December 1691, Albany, NY. They baptized a child, Catharina, in New York DRC in 1692, then baptized several subsequent children in Kingston DRC between 1696 and 1707. I think there may have been other children, but in the Kingston there is record of: Pieter, 1696; Thomas (jr), 1698; Elisabet, 1700; Bartholomaeus, 1703; Anna, 1707. Where did this Thomas NOXON come from? Is he related in some way to the Thomas NOXON of Jamaica (West Indies) who owned land at least by the 1720's in the area of Middletown, Delaware? See land record below. Or, did the son, Thomas NOXON jr (the one b. 1698) move to Jamaica, and then to New Castle County, Delaware, by the 1720's? Or are these entirely separate families? Because I have one land record from Delaware which gives Jamaica as the former residence of the Thomas Noxon of Delaware: "Notice 7 Aug. 1728. Know all men that I, Thomas NOXON (late of the Island of Jamaica but now of Co. of Newcastle in North America) merchant, for good causes, me thereunto moving and more especially for consideration of several Negroes to me this day assignes and set over a Hogshead of Rum and a Hogshead of Sugar by Thomas Simson, late of sd Island but now of the City of Philadelphia, gent... I assign to sd Simsom [[sic]] a judgement obtained in 1724 against the Estate of Thomas Cardiff, late of sd Island, Esq., decd., now on record in the Court of Spanish Town in sd Island for the sum of 182 pounds. Signed Thomas Noxon. Wit: Cantwell Garetson, Mary Willson. Affidavit by Andrew Petterson, one of his Majesties Justices, that on 8 Aug 1728 , Thomas NOXON personally appeared before him and swore voluntary act to Deed. (New Castle Land records I1-9) This Thomas NOXON of Jamaica and of New Castle County died in New Castle count around 1743. He owned land and lived near Appoquinimink Creek. He had purchased land between Appoquinimink Creek and a branch from it called Sassafras Branch, where he built a mill. The land had come from Capt. Edmund Cantwell (wife was Mary de Haes, d/o Roelof & Gertrurie Jacobson), who willed it in 1669 to his children, one of whom was Elizabeth, who was the wife of Henry Garretson (aka "Van der Hof") --a son of one of the Garretson brothers arriving at the time of the "Prins Maurits" shipwreck of March 1657. Thomas NOXON of New Castle County was married to Mary Pierce. I have no info on her. They had a son Benjamin. I think he is the one who was married on 9 December 1754, Old Drawyer's Church, Middletown, Delaware, to Elizabeth Harrison Ward. Land in the area of (now) Noxontown, near Middletown, Delaware changed hands many times, including among families of my own. Persons all around here are intermarried with Dutch persons who had been among the earliest residents of Delaware, or with Dutch or Dutch-associated persons who had come from various places in the Dutch colonies. Again, my questions: Does the Thomas NOXON of Delaware connect in some way to the one from Kingston NY? Did the Thomas Noxon of Kingston have a son, Benjamin? I don't see a birth record for him yet Noxon-Hoogeboom researchers list one said to be born ca 1705 or so. If Thomas Noxon of Kingston did have a son Benjamin, what became of him? Where are his records? And finally, does anyone know what became of Thomas NOXON, jr, son of Thomas Noxon of Kingston, who was bapt 1698? Answers to any of these questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks extremely, Liz J

Good Morning Jon, Thanks you are a gooder kid!!!!. Have a great day, Pat in soggy KS, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Wenzel" <jdw22745@yahoo.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Seeking subscriber to TAG > Hello Pat, > Type in The American Genealogist (TAG) in google. > Select the second title, Back Issues. They have The > October 2002 issue for sale. It is $9.00. > Have a GOOD day, > Jon Wenzel > > > --- Patsy Sutton <patsysutton@pixius.net> wrote: > >> Good Morning , >> >> I would like to make contact with someone who is a >> subscriber to the TAG >> (The American Genealogist). I am needing a copy >> of an aricle that >> appeared in the October 2002 Volume 7 #4 issue. >> >> Thanks for any assistance and have a great day. >> >> Pat in KS >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >> to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of the message >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Be a PS3 game guru. > Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! > Games. > http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/791 - Release Date: 5/6/2007 > 9:07 AM > >