Hi Yes I have Mrs Shoemakers book, and I did correspond withn her nmanyyears while we were both collecting data. I was checking one line for another Vqn Buskirk deescendant, when I rea;ized thre were 3 separate Van Orden / Van Norden connedtions. My appeal was really to someone with Van Orden records-perhaps they would have a reference to Dorothy identifying who that John was (it is in the stray, or unplaced section) I said it was a needle in a haystack queriy, a new attempt to place one more stray family. The names of John and Dorothy's children are similar to those in the family of Antje Van Buskirk m David Van Norden. Since her brother was one of those who left for Canada, there could be another brothe or nephew in he line so far undetected. I was hoping there might be a lead to open a new avenue for research. I had most of my success in pre computer days checking all if the inlaw families Allied Families sections of genealogies etc. I had not looked for Van Orden before, I note the Slot spouse as another target to check out. I know about the Dutch naming pattern of children for grandparents or near relatrives. It does not always work, but it is a lead worth pursuing. The name of David Van Orden, made me think of the Demarests affinity for that name. I found several Slot - Demarest marriages in my file. I was looking to connect the dots. It is circumstantial evidence so far, was hoping to someone could supply the missing link. I asm always happy to share the datta I have, I do get queries from Van Buskirks, and try hard to match the line they have to families that are traced in Mrs Shoemakes book, and a few lines I can add or adjust at times, that she did not find. Several of her stray families seem close to matching traced lines with probably a single generation missing. As you know this research is never done, there is always more to be found. Thank you for your help, and twor three other replies I have had today JOHN C VAN BUSKIRK http://www.geocities.com/vanbus1/ jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dorothy Koenig" <dkoenig@lmi.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Van Buskirk, Van Orden Van Norden > Dear John, If you have been researching the Van Buskirk family for > many years, you are probably aware of the massive, two-volume work > published in 1990 on this family by Irene English Shoemaker. It is > titled, "Van Buskirk, a Genealogy". On page 1090 of volume 2 she > says of your first couple of interest: > > "Pieter Van Orden > Born 12 July 1707 > Married 18 April 1734 at New York Lutheran Church > Parents: Adam Van Orden and Volkertje Slot > > Jannetje (Janje, Johanna) Van Buskirk (Major Thomas-2, Laurens A.-1) > Born Decemebr 1705 > Baptized 17 November 1706 at Hackensack, NJ > Parents: Major Thomas Van Buskirk and Margrietje Brickers > > Issue of Pieter Van Orden and Jannetje Van Buskirk: > > Adam, born 3 March 1735 > Jon P., born 18 September 1741" > > For your last couple of interest, see page 1604 of Volume 2: > > "John Van Buskirk > Married 30 June 1760, license issued at Hackensack, NJ > > Dorothy Van Norden > Born about 1740 > > Issue of John Van Buskirk and Dorothy Van Norden: > > 1) Theodosia, born about 1761 at Elizabeth, NJ. Married 1) Simon > Banta and 2) John Pullis > 2) Lawrence, born 13 January 1764; died 20 May 1844. Married 1) > Elizabeth Banta and 2) Violetta Van Horn > 3) John, married Elsie _____. Moved to Pennsylvania in 1817. > 4) Gabriel, born 1722, died in Liverpool, England, 17 March 1818, age 46 years > 5) William, blacksmith in New York City > > Information on this line was contributed by Carl Kuesthardt, New York > City, from records of Anita Van Buskirk Kuesthardt, deceased." > > I hope this helps fill out your jigsaw puzzle a bit :-). > > Dorothy > > >Hi This is a needle in the haystack question. I have been > >researching Van Buskirks for many years. I recently came across 3 > >separate couples, all in the 1700s in New Jersey. > >1) Antje Van Buskirk m, David Van Norden son of Adam Van Norden and ??? Slot. > >2) Jannetje or Joanna Van Buskrik m Peter Van Orden son of Adam Van > >Orden and Volketje Slot (sounds like the same family, different > >spelling) > > and a John Van Busirk m Dorothy Van Norden -no spedcific ID. I > >hope that someone has the early data on this family thatmwill > >connect the dots. These could also solve connetions to Van > >Buskirks, Demasrest. Banta, Westervelt, etc families in that area I > >have more specific dates, and a some clues -like a jig saw puzzle > >with one large piece missing, that perhaps you may have. > >thank you! JOHN C VAN BUSKIRK > >http://www.geocities.com/vanbus1/ > >jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com > > > > > >------------------------------- > >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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 4/25/2007 12:19 PM > >

VERY nice Jean, thanks for sharing! Cynthia In a message dated 4/26/2007 11:15:01 AM Mountain Daylight Time, jeanboute@yahoo.com writes: To view the interesting photos of New York City taken in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, click http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5010 Enjoy yourselves. Jean Boutcher JeanBout@juno.com ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Would you consider running the information on the Claes Cornelissen Van Schouw DNAproject again. So far we have 3 Clawsons, 1 Garrabrant and 3 Petersons with great matches. Let me know and I'll send info to you, with correct spellings, etc. Annie Peterson Johnson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dorothy Koenig" <dkoenig@LMI.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:45 AM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Queries for "New Netherland Connections" > Dear Friends, I am now putting together the May 2007 issue of New > Netherland Connections. I have on hand only a few queries; so now > would be an excellent opportunity for you to send me off-list a > statement of your longstanding brick wall or your current research > interest. > > Queries (of any length) are a regular feature of NNC, and they are > free to subscribers and to non-subscribers alike. Though many > readers are regular participants in this D-C discussion group, quite > a number are not. Here is a chance to get help from a wider audience. > > Dorothy > > ------------------------------- > 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 Jean, What a treasure archive! I just flicked through the photos quickly and feel as if I have been doing "time travel"! I plan to go back and spend a lot of time just looking at them all! Thanks so much for sharing this with the list! Elsie Wilson >To view the interesting photos of New York City taken >in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, click >http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5010 > >Enjoy yourselves. > >Jean Boutcher >JeanBout@juno.com Elsie H. Wilson 5620 Harris Cir. Fitchburg, WI 53575 (608) 835-6791 ehwilson@charter.net

Did you get the item on Van Buskirk and did it give you any new information? I went ahead and put it on the Dutch web in case anyaone else is working on this family. Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: "John VanBuskirk" <jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Van Buskirk, Van Orden Van Norden > Hi This is a needle in the haystack question. I have been researching > Van Buskirks for many years. I recently came across 3 separate couples, > all in the 1700s in New Jersey. > 1) Antje Van Buskirk m, David Van Norden son of Adam Van Norden and ??? > Slot. > 2) Jannetje or Joanna Van Buskrik m Peter Van Orden son of Adam Van Orden > and Volketje Slot (sounds like the same family, different spelling) > and a John Van Busirk m Dorothy Van Norden -no spedcific ID. I hope > that someone has the early data on this family thatmwill connect the dots. > These could also solve connetions to Van Buskirks, Demasrest. Banta, > Westervelt, etc families in that area I have more specific dates, and a > some clues -like a jig saw puzzle with one large piece missing, that > perhaps you may have. > thank you! JOHN C VAN BUSKIRK > http://www.geocities.com/vanbus1/ > jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > >

I have some van Buskirks in Ross Co OH in early 1800s. Would that help? carolyn On Apr 26, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Donna Stark wrote: > Did you get the item on Van Buskirk and did it give you any new > information? > I went ahead and put it on the Dutch web in case anyaone else is > working on > this family. Donna > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John VanBuskirk" <jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:12 PM > Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Van Buskirk, Van Orden Van Norden > > >> Hi This is a needle in the haystack question. I have been >> researching >> Van Buskirks for many years. I recently came across 3 separate >> couples, >> all in the 1700s in New Jersey. >> 1) Antje Van Buskirk m, David Van Norden son of Adam Van Norden >> and ??? >> Slot. >> 2) Jannetje or Joanna Van Buskrik m Peter Van Orden son of Adam >> Van Orden >> and Volketje Slot (sounds like the same family, different spelling) >> and a John Van Busirk m Dorothy Van Norden -no spedcific ID. I >> hope >> that someone has the early data on this family thatmwill connect >> the dots. >> These could also solve connetions to Van Buskirks, Demasrest. Banta, >> Westervelt, etc families in that area I have more specific dates, >> and a >> some clues -like a jig saw puzzle with one large piece missing, that >> perhaps you may have. >> thank you! JOHN C VAN BUSKIRK >> http://www.geocities.com/vanbus1/ >> jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

Hi all, See: http://www.nnp.org/nni/Publications/zwieten.pdf I'm not sure this answers Steve's original question, but it does give a good background with many references. And it does mention paying in installments. I think Steve is right that that 25 guilders mentioned is only the last payment and Adam had paid more earlier. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com

Dear John, If you have been researching the Van Buskirk family for many years, you are probably aware of the massive, two-volume work published in 1990 on this family by Irene English Shoemaker. It is titled, "Van Buskirk, a Genealogy". On page 1090 of volume 2 she says of your first couple of interest: "Pieter Van Orden Born 12 July 1707 Married 18 April 1734 at New York Lutheran Church Parents: Adam Van Orden and Volkertje Slot Jannetje (Janje, Johanna) Van Buskirk (Major Thomas-2, Laurens A.-1) Born Decemebr 1705 Baptized 17 November 1706 at Hackensack, NJ Parents: Major Thomas Van Buskirk and Margrietje Brickers Issue of Pieter Van Orden and Jannetje Van Buskirk: Adam, born 3 March 1735 Jon P., born 18 September 1741" For your last couple of interest, see page 1604 of Volume 2: "John Van Buskirk Married 30 June 1760, license issued at Hackensack, NJ Dorothy Van Norden Born about 1740 Issue of John Van Buskirk and Dorothy Van Norden: 1) Theodosia, born about 1761 at Elizabeth, NJ. Married 1) Simon Banta and 2) John Pullis 2) Lawrence, born 13 January 1764; died 20 May 1844. Married 1) Elizabeth Banta and 2) Violetta Van Horn 3) John, married Elsie _____. Moved to Pennsylvania in 1817. 4) Gabriel, born 1722, died in Liverpool, England, 17 March 1818, age 46 years 5) William, blacksmith in New York City Information on this line was contributed by Carl Kuesthardt, New York City, from records of Anita Van Buskirk Kuesthardt, deceased." I hope this helps fill out your jigsaw puzzle a bit :-). Dorothy >Hi This is a needle in the haystack question. I have been >researching Van Buskirks for many years. I recently came across 3 >separate couples, all in the 1700s in New Jersey. >1) Antje Van Buskirk m, David Van Norden son of Adam Van Norden and ??? Slot. >2) Jannetje or Joanna Van Buskrik m Peter Van Orden son of Adam Van >Orden and Volketje Slot (sounds like the same family, different >spelling) > and a John Van Busirk m Dorothy Van Norden -no spedcific ID. I >hope that someone has the early data on this family thatmwill >connect the dots. These could also solve connetions to Van >Buskirks, Demasrest. Banta, Westervelt, etc families in that area I >have more specific dates, and a some clues -like a jig saw puzzle >with one large piece missing, that perhaps you may have. >thank you! JOHN C VAN BUSKIRK >http://www.geocities.com/vanbus1/ >jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com > > >------------------------------- >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 view the interesting photos of New York City taken in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, click http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5010 Enjoy yourselves. Jean Boutcher JeanBout@juno.com

Good Luck Leslie. I do not envy you your research into New York State law at all. There was the law as practiced under Dutch-Roman law to 1664. Then came Anglo Saxon law with the colony being the property of the Duke of York under grant from the king. The Dutch seized and held the colony again 1673-74, and then back to the English. But with the death of King Charles II and the accession of the duke of York as James II, New York was thereafter a crown colony. Until the first State Constitution which ended the claims of royal authority. All of this had its legal implications. My advice: be nice to the librarians at the law library. They might be able to direct you to the one book that answers all your questions. At least when I was working at the NY State Library, I found the State Law Librarian (who was himself a lawyer) able to reduce my searches immensely. As to the WIC's interest in the property withiin the colony, as I understand it the States General of the United Netherlands granted the Atlantic colonies to the WIC to take all the risks and enjoy all the privileges, including raising its own army and navy to defend them. I think that land within New Netherland was the Company's, lock stock and barrel. And as for the Indians, by the way, they were given presents to get them to sign off on the land, which was intended to keep them content. But they really didn't own the land on which they lived, since properrty could only be owned and granted by the Christian princes of the world. Try and sell that idea today! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leslie B. Potter" <lbpotter@comcast.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > Hi Steve, Pete, Howard, and All, > > Thank you for the details. > > It would appear that the Dutch West India Company reserved the right to > approve all subdivisions of land patents that it had granted. So Adam > Brouwer's deed would have been worthless if the DWIC had not granted him a > patent for the metes and bounds of the land recited in his deed. That is > the easy part! The hard questions are: > > 1. by what authority did the DWIC retain the right to approve Jansen's > subdivision; and, > > 2. what interest in the land did the DWIC have to convey to patentees? > > At present I do not have the answer to either question. > > At page 150 R. W. Lee writes: > "In this section we speak of what is commonly called land tenure, i.e. of > the different kinds of ownership of land recognized by law. In England all > land is held by feudal tenure mediately or immediately of the Queen, who > is > 'Sovereign Lord, or Lord Paramount, either mediate of immediate, of all > and > every parcel of land within the Realm". In Holland feuds (leen-goed) > existed > side by side with lands held allodially (eigen-goed). Feudal lands were > governed by the rules of the feudal law (leen-recht), which was > administered > by feudal courts (leen-gerechten). Allodial lands were owned according to > the ordinary principles of the common law and subject to the jurisdiction > of > the ordinary courts. The principal difference between these two kinds of > ownership is that feuds are always held by the landowner as tenant of > another, while allodial property is owned, like movables, by an absolute > and > independent title. > > In Dutch Law feuds (leenen) were always held on condition of military > service. This continued in theory to be the case until the end of the > Republic, except were the land had been allodialized. There was nothing in > Dutch law precisely corresponding to the English tenure in free and common > socage. But there existed from ancient times an institution which in many > respects approached to socage tenure, though it exhibited also analogies > with copyhold and leasehold. This was variously known as tijnsrecht or > cijnsrecht (census right) or erfpacht (hereditary lease), erfhuur > (hereditary hire), and by other like names. It was a grant of land for an > indefinite or limited period subject to the payment of an annual rent > (cyns - census). Originally the grantor was regarded as owner of the land, > the grantee merely as having a jus in re aliena. Later, the position was > reversed. The grantee became the owner, with free rights of alienation > inter > vivos or by will, in default of which the land passed to his heirs by > intestate succession." > > Because Lee tends to go from medieval Roman/Dutch law to 20th century > South > African law and Van Der Linden's real property section does not provide > the > detail that I need, I think that I am headed for a law library. So on > Saturday I shall wander down to Wilmington, DE for the purpose of visiting > the law library at Widener University's Delaware Law School. According to > Widener's on-line catalog, the law school's library has several books on > real property law in New York State and the legal history of New York > State > that I want to read. > > I'll let you know what I find. So stay tuned.... > > Leslie > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:52 PM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > > >> Hi all, >> >> From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:25 AM >> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant >> >> >>> The plot of land that Adam Brouwer purchased from Hendrick Jansen and >>> the >>> patent he received from the company both appear to be for the same >>> parcel >>> of land. Was this common to receive a patent for land you already >>> owned? >>> What is the distinction between land owned through purchase and land >>> granted by patent? Did a patent grant different rights to the property? >>> Any clarification would be appreciated.< >> >> Some details for Leslie. >> >> In the beginning -- >> Hendrick Jansen Smith got a grant (patent) to lot #4 in Block C of >> Stokes' >> Dutch grants map on 13 June 1644. Stokes Icon 2:368 Also see GG p. 98. >> >> Then in Feb 21 1645 Hendrick appears to have given a "deed" to Adam >> Brouwer >> for a part of the above lot #4. This piece is now called lot #5. >> Stokes ibid. >> >> Then on 7 Feb 1647 Adam gets his patent for the above lot #5. >> Also see GG p. 167. >> >> I think that to understand the ownership you would need to understand >> the control the DWIC had and what they allowed people to do at >> that time. That is, whichever Freedoms and Exemptions act was in effect. >> This was the time when Kieft was director. >> There wasn't city government until 1653. >> >> >> If anyone wants to see the complete text of a typical "patent" or >> "grant", >> see page 11 of New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch; volumes GG, HH, >> II; >> Land Papers. Because the 'boilerplate' was pretty much the same, they >> printed the complete one only this one time. >> >> Regards, >> Howard >> hswain@ix.netcom.com >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >

Howard, Actually, it seems like Adam may already have been paying on the property and they made it formal before the last payment was due. How else would you take "on which house and garden Adam shall pay within three months from date twenty-five guilders, which shall be the last payment." Assuming "from date" means 21-Feb-1645 then his final payment of 25 guilders is due 21-May-1645. Steve -----Original Message----- From: dutch-colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dutch-colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Howard Swain Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:21 PM To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant Hi all, Thanks. This brings up the interesting point that he got a house in addition to whatever right he got to the lot. 25 guilders seems to me to be pretty cheap just for the house. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > All, > > I sent this offline to Leslie to look at but here are the details behind > some of the transactions that Howard mentioned. > > Steve > > Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642-1647, Volume II /Translated > and annotated by Arnold J. F. Van Laer; edited with added indexes by > Kenneth Scott and Kenn Stryker-Rodda > > Contract of sale from Hendrick Jansen to Adam Brouwer of a house and > garden on Manhattan Island > > [141c] On this day, date underwritten, Hendrick Jansen from > Jeveren, locksmith, and Adam Brouwer have in love and friendship, in the > presence of the witnesses hereto invited, agreed and contracted about > the purchase of a certain house and lot for a garden situated on the > island of Manhatans, formerly occupied by Jeuriaen Roodolf. Hendrick > Jansen from Jeveren sells the aforesaid house and lot to Adam Brouwer > above mentioned, who also acknowledges that he has bought the same, with > all that is fastened by earth and nail, in true and full ownership, on > which house and garden Adam shall pay within three months from date > twenty-five guilders, which shall be the last payment. In witness and > token of the truth this is signed by the parties and the witnesses > hereto invited, in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, the 21st of > February 1645. > > This is the AB mark of Adam Brouwer > Heindreick Jansz > Willem Breidenbent > Pauwlus Van der Becke > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary ------------------------------- 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

Hi Steve, Pete, Howard, and All, Thank you for the details. It would appear that the Dutch West India Company reserved the right to approve all subdivisions of land patents that it had granted. So Adam Brouwer's deed would have been worthless if the DWIC had not granted him a patent for the metes and bounds of the land recited in his deed. That is the easy part! The hard questions are: 1. by what authority did the DWIC retain the right to approve Jansen's subdivision; and, 2. what interest in the land did the DWIC have to convey to patentees? At present I do not have the answer to either question. At page 150 R. W. Lee writes: "In this section we speak of what is commonly called land tenure, i.e. of the different kinds of ownership of land recognized by law. In England all land is held by feudal tenure mediately or immediately of the Queen, who is 'Sovereign Lord, or Lord Paramount, either mediate of immediate, of all and every parcel of land within the Realm". In Holland feuds (leen-goed) existed side by side with lands held allodially (eigen-goed). Feudal lands were governed by the rules of the feudal law (leen-recht), which was administered by feudal courts (leen-gerechten). Allodial lands were owned according to the ordinary principles of the common law and subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The principal difference between these two kinds of ownership is that feuds are always held by the landowner as tenant of another, while allodial property is owned, like movables, by an absolute and independent title. In Dutch Law feuds (leenen) were always held on condition of military service. This continued in theory to be the case until the end of the Republic, except were the land had been allodialized. There was nothing in Dutch law precisely corresponding to the English tenure in free and common socage. But there existed from ancient times an institution which in many respects approached to socage tenure, though it exhibited also analogies with copyhold and leasehold. This was variously known as tijnsrecht or cijnsrecht (census right) or erfpacht (hereditary lease), erfhuur (hereditary hire), and by other like names. It was a grant of land for an indefinite or limited period subject to the payment of an annual rent (cyns - census). Originally the grantor was regarded as owner of the land, the grantee merely as having a jus in re aliena. Later, the position was reversed. The grantee became the owner, with free rights of alienation inter vivos or by will, in default of which the land passed to his heirs by intestate succession." Because Lee tends to go from medieval Roman/Dutch law to 20th century South African law and Van Der Linden's real property section does not provide the detail that I need, I think that I am headed for a law library. So on Saturday I shall wander down to Wilmington, DE for the purpose of visiting the law library at Widener University's Delaware Law School. According to Widener's on-line catalog, the law school's library has several books on real property law in New York State and the legal history of New York State that I want to read. I'll let you know what I find. So stay tuned.... Leslie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > Hi all, > > From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:25 AM > Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > > >> The plot of land that Adam Brouwer purchased from Hendrick Jansen and the >> patent he received from the company both appear to be for the same parcel >> of land. Was this common to receive a patent for land you already owned? >> What is the distinction between land owned through purchase and land >> granted by patent? Did a patent grant different rights to the property? >> Any clarification would be appreciated.< > > Some details for Leslie. > > In the beginning -- > Hendrick Jansen Smith got a grant (patent) to lot #4 in Block C of Stokes' > Dutch grants map on 13 June 1644. Stokes Icon 2:368 Also see GG p. 98. > > Then in Feb 21 1645 Hendrick appears to have given a "deed" to Adam > Brouwer > for a part of the above lot #4. This piece is now called lot #5. > Stokes ibid. > > Then on 7 Feb 1647 Adam gets his patent for the above lot #5. > Also see GG p. 167. > > I think that to understand the ownership you would need to understand > the control the DWIC had and what they allowed people to do at > that time. That is, whichever Freedoms and Exemptions act was in effect. > This was the time when Kieft was director. > There wasn't city government until 1653. > > > If anyone wants to see the complete text of a typical "patent" or "grant", > see page 11 of New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch; volumes GG, HH, > II; > Land Papers. Because the 'boilerplate' was pretty much the same, they > printed the complete one only this one time. > > Regards, > Howard > hswain@ix.netcom.com > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

All, I sent this offline to Leslie to look at but here are the details behind some of the transactions that Howard mentioned. Steve Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642-1647, Volume II /Translated and annotated by Arnold J. F. Van Laer; edited with added indexes by Kenneth Scott and Kenn Stryker-Rodda Contract of sale from Hendrick Jansen to Adam Brouwer of a house and garden on Manhattan Island [141c] On this day, date underwritten, Hendrick Jansen from Jeveren, locksmith, and Adam Brouwer have in love and friendship, in the presence of the witnesses hereto invited, agreed and contracted about the purchase of a certain house and lot for a garden situated on the island of Manhatans, formerly occupied by Jeuriaen Roodolf. Hendrick Jansen from Jeveren sells the aforesaid house and lot to Adam Brouwer above mentioned, who also acknowledges that he has bought the same, with all that is fastened by earth and nail, in true and full ownership, on which house and garden Adam shall pay within three months from date twenty-five guilders, which shall be the last payment. In witness and token of the truth this is signed by the parties and the witnesses hereto invited, in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, the 21st of February 1645. This is the AB mark of Adam Brouwer Heindreick Jansz Willem Breidenbent Pauwlus Van der Becke Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary Adam and Hendrick had a small legal disagreement about the transference of the title which I assume was worked out. New York Historical Manuscripts - Land Papers GG, HH, LL Page 48 GG 167 Patent to Adam Brouwer We, William Kieft, Director-General, and the Council on behalf of the High and Mighty Lords, the States General of the United Netherlands, the Prince of Orange and the noble Lords, the Managers of the incorporated West India Company in New Netherlands residing, by these presents do publish and declare that we, on this day the date underwritten, have given and granted to Adam Brouwer a certain lot for a house and garden out of the lot of Hendrick Jansz which was laid out by the surveyor on 2 June 1644; it extends in front along the road from the east end 9 rods (1 Dutch rod = 12 feet), 2 feet, 2 inches and 7 grains; on the west side 6 rods to the rear of the house along a fence; further on as the fence runs 2 rods, 9 feet, 2 inches; on the west side the length to the rear of the lot is 5 rods, 6 inches; the breadth in the rear or on the north side is 3 rods, 8 feet, one inch and 2 grains; on the east side in length next to the lot of Willem Bredenbent 9 rods, 7 feet, 3 inches and one grain; amounting in all to 61 rods, 5 feet, 8 inches and 3 grains, with the express conditions etc. Done at Fort New Amsterdam, 7 February 1647. It is excepted that Hendrick Smith shall have the privilege of passing over the land of Adam Brouwer until the aforesaid Adam shall build on the road and no longer. Manual of the Corporation of the City of New York (Valentine's Manual), Volume 1861 Page 589 19th August, 1656. Adam Brouwer, of Long Island, to Dirck van Schelluyne, Notary Public and concierge of the City. A house and lot north of the begun Graft, between the lot of Jan the cooper on the west, and Egbert Woutersen on the east. Width in front on the street, with free drop on both sides, 1 Rhineland rod 4 feet 6 inches. Being premises patented to said Brouwer, 7th February, 1647. -----Original Message----- From: dutch-colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dutch-colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of j. gonigam Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:51 PM To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant Guys-- While the specific details of the transaction might be tedious I suspect it still might be of interest generally as an illustrative example. I, for one, look forward to gleaning whatever I can from the discussion. For those whom it fails to interest there is the ever-handy "delete" key. --pete

Hi This is a needle in the haystack question. I have been researching Van Buskirks for many years. I recently came across 3 separate couples, all in the 1700s in New Jersey. 1) Antje Van Buskirk m, David Van Norden son of Adam Van Norden and ??? Slot. 2) Jannetje or Joanna Van Buskrik m Peter Van Orden son of Adam Van Orden and Volketje Slot (sounds like the same family, different spelling) and a John Van Busirk m Dorothy Van Norden -no spedcific ID. I hope that someone has the early data on this family thatmwill connect the dots. These could also solve connetions to Van Buskirks, Demasrest. Banta, Westervelt, etc families in that area I have more specific dates, and a some clues -like a jig saw puzzle with one large piece missing, that perhaps you may have. thank you! JOHN C VAN BUSKIRK http://www.geocities.com/vanbus1/ jvanbus1@twcny.rr.com

what is the address to register for the digest version? <buffalo234@cox.net> carolyn On Apr 25, 2007, at 2:50 PM, j. gonigam wrote: > Guys-- > > While the specific details of the transaction might be tedious I > suspect it > still might be of interest > generally as an illustrative example. I, for one, look forward to > gleaning > whatever I can from the discussion. For those whom it fails to > interest > there is the ever-handy "delete" key. > > --pete > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Leslie B. Potter" <lbpotter@comcast.net> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:21 PM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > > >> Steve, >> I'll try and sort it out for you, but I am going to need more >> specific >> information. Such as the date of the "purchase", date of the >> "patent", the >> location of the property and the names of the parties to each of >> the above >> enumerated instruments. >> >> I feel that title work in New York State is nothing if not >> complicated and >> difficult. The parties to any instrument could convey only the >> interest, >> which they actually held in the land. Consequently, no one gets >> good fee >> simple title to real estate in New York State until 1841. So >> please delete >> all of your modern notions of land ownership and we shall dig into >> the >> matter. Since the details of this matter could become tedious for >> the > rest >> of the list, you may want to consider contacting me "off list". >> >> Leslie >> >> >> I feel that title work in New York State is nothing if not >> complicated and >> difficult. The parties could only convey the interest which they >> actually >> held in the land. Consequently, no one gets good fee simple title >> to real >> estate in New York State until 1841. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> >> To: "dutch-colonies: rootsweb.com" <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:25 PM >> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant >> >> >>> The plot of land that Adam Brouwer purchased from Hendrick Jansen >>> and > the >>> patent he received from the company both appear to be for the same > parcel >>> of land. Was this common to receive a patent for land you already > owned? >>> What is the distinction between land owned through purchase and land >>> granted by patent? Did a patent grant different rights to the >>> property? >>> Any clarification would be appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Steve >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Hi all, Thanks. This brings up the interesting point that he got a house in addition to whatever right he got to the lot. 25 guilders seems to me to be pretty cheap just for the house. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > All, > > I sent this offline to Leslie to look at but here are the details behind > some of the transactions that Howard mentioned. > > Steve > > Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642-1647, Volume II /Translated > and annotated by Arnold J. F. Van Laer; edited with added indexes by > Kenneth Scott and Kenn Stryker-Rodda > > Contract of sale from Hendrick Jansen to Adam Brouwer of a house and > garden on Manhattan Island > > [141c] On this day, date underwritten, Hendrick Jansen from > Jeveren, locksmith, and Adam Brouwer have in love and friendship, in the > presence of the witnesses hereto invited, agreed and contracted about > the purchase of a certain house and lot for a garden situated on the > island of Manhatans, formerly occupied by Jeuriaen Roodolf. Hendrick > Jansen from Jeveren sells the aforesaid house and lot to Adam Brouwer > above mentioned, who also acknowledges that he has bought the same, with > all that is fastened by earth and nail, in true and full ownership, on > which house and garden Adam shall pay within three months from date > twenty-five guilders, which shall be the last payment. In witness and > token of the truth this is signed by the parties and the witnesses > hereto invited, in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, the 21st of > February 1645. > > This is the AB mark of Adam Brouwer > Heindreick Jansz > Willem Breidenbent > Pauwlus Van der Becke > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary

Hi all, From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:25 AM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > The plot of land that Adam Brouwer purchased from Hendrick Jansen and the patent he received from the company both appear to be for the same parcel of land. Was this common to receive a patent for land you already owned? What is the distinction between land owned through purchase and land granted by patent? Did a patent grant different rights to the property? Any clarification would be appreciated.< Some details for Leslie. In the beginning -- Hendrick Jansen Smith got a grant (patent) to lot #4 in Block C of Stokes' Dutch grants map on 13 June 1644. Stokes Icon 2:368 Also see GG p. 98. Then in Feb 21 1645 Hendrick appears to have given a "deed" to Adam Brouwer for a part of the above lot #4. This piece is now called lot #5. Stokes ibid. Then on 7 Feb 1647 Adam gets his patent for the above lot #5. Also see GG p. 167. I think that to understand the ownership you would need to understand the control the DWIC had and what they allowed people to do at that time. That is, whichever Freedoms and Exemptions act was in effect. This was the time when Kieft was director. There wasn't city government until 1653. If anyone wants to see the complete text of a typical "patent" or "grant", see page 11 of New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch; volumes GG, HH, II; Land Papers. Because the 'boilerplate' was pretty much the same, they printed the complete one only this one time. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com

Steve, I'll try and sort it out for you, but I am going to need more specific information. Such as the date of the "purchase", date of the "patent", the location of the property and the names of the parties to each of the above enumerated instruments. I feel that title work in New York State is nothing if not complicated and difficult. The parties to any instrument could convey only the interest, which they actually held in the land. Consequently, no one gets good fee simple title to real estate in New York State until 1841. So please delete all of your modern notions of land ownership and we shall dig into the matter. Since the details of this matter could become tedious for the rest of the list, you may want to consider contacting me "off list". Leslie I feel that title work in New York State is nothing if not complicated and difficult. The parties could only convey the interest which they actually held in the land. Consequently, no one gets good fee simple title to real estate in New York State until 1841. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> To: "dutch-colonies: rootsweb.com" <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:25 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > The plot of land that Adam Brouwer purchased from Hendrick Jansen and the > patent he received from the company both appear to be for the same parcel > of land. Was this common to receive a patent for land you already owned? > What is the distinction between land owned through purchase and land > granted by patent? Did a patent grant different rights to the property? > Any clarification would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Steve > > ------------------------------- > 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

Guys-- While the specific details of the transaction might be tedious I suspect it still might be of interest generally as an illustrative example. I, for one, look forward to gleaning whatever I can from the discussion. For those whom it fails to interest there is the ever-handy "delete" key. --pete ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leslie B. Potter" <lbpotter@comcast.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > Steve, > I'll try and sort it out for you, but I am going to need more specific > information. Such as the date of the "purchase", date of the "patent", the > location of the property and the names of the parties to each of the above > enumerated instruments. > > I feel that title work in New York State is nothing if not complicated and > difficult. The parties to any instrument could convey only the interest, > which they actually held in the land. Consequently, no one gets good fee > simple title to real estate in New York State until 1841. So please delete > all of your modern notions of land ownership and we shall dig into the > matter. Since the details of this matter could become tedious for the rest > of the list, you may want to consider contacting me "off list". > > Leslie > > > I feel that title work in New York State is nothing if not complicated and > difficult. The parties could only convey the interest which they actually > held in the land. Consequently, no one gets good fee simple title to real > estate in New York State until 1841. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> > To: "dutch-colonies: rootsweb.com" <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:25 PM > Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > > > > The plot of land that Adam Brouwer purchased from Hendrick Jansen and the > > patent he received from the company both appear to be for the same parcel > > of land. Was this common to receive a patent for land you already owned? > > What is the distinction between land owned through purchase and land > > granted by patent? Did a patent grant different rights to the property? > > Any clarification would be appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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

The plot of land that Adam Brouwer purchased from Hendrick Jansen and the patent he received from the company both appear to be for the same parcel of land. Was this common to receive a patent for land you already owned? What is the distinction between land owned through purchase and land granted by patent? Did a patent grant different rights to the property? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Steve