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

Dear Leslie-- Fascinating stuff and I really mean that. The "drop rights", for instance; I've never really considered the kinds of neighbor-versus-neighbor conflicts that must inevitably have occurred in early European cities giving rise to common law solutions. I'm particularly interested in your comments on patents and deeds here, especially the part about assuming that "the Dutch West India Company had the legal status of 'over lord' to all patent holders in the colony, who were mere vassals". For some reason I'm kind of curious about what I suspect was the evolution of the DWIC. My understanding is that it was initially granted the right to trade from and with the new world. It would appear that the practical realities of that right eventually required WIC to get into the "government business". (I've almost always thought of New Netherlands as a sort of overgrown "company town" like Homestead, PA.) I have the idea that none of the early government was never actually intended and that the men on both sides of the Ocean sort of made it up as they went along over the space of several decades. It seems to me the evolving ad-hoc nature of New Amsterdam government until New York became a real colony under the British helps explain a loose and off-the-cuff flavor under the Dutch. Or am I talking through my hat here? --pete ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leslie B. Potter" <lbpotter@comcast.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 12:05 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

The colony of New Netherland was overseen by the Amsterdam Chamber of the West India Company, and operations here had to be consistent with the laws and customs of the city of Amsterdam. People who were dissatisfied with the enforcement of a regulation could protest up the chain from town government, the director of the colony, the West India Company, and ultimately the States General of the Netherlands. This was not ad hoc government. The English for decades were the ones to have an ad hoc government, with Dutch laws in this town, English laws in that one, each town with its own established church, and the whole operation dependent upon the whims of the Duke of York and the King of England. Your analogy of a company town has some merit. The person in charge of the colony was never called governor, but rather director, which is a business title. Because Stuyvesant oversaw the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao) as well as New Netherland, his title was director-general, and while he eventually put up with an elected council to advise him, he could act opposite to their advice if he thought it in the best interests of the WIC. His taking on the council was rather like a CEO putting up with a committee from the company labor unions. When Stuyvesant went too far, there was always recourse to his higher-ups. He tended to be a strict constructionist, adhering to the company's charter to the letter, and sometimes the Amsterdam Chamber had to write and tell him to relax a little, especially if it was bad politics and likely to rile the company's stockholders. Although theoretically the States General could abolish the company for not adhering to its charter, the last thing the Netherlands wanted was to have to assume responsibility for such a money-draining operation. In short, there were well established rules that the colony was supposed to operate under, but as with political bodies everywhere, practical decisions were often made at the expense of dreamy ideals. That is not an ad hoc government, it is a politically sensitive one. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "j. gonigam" <gonigam@gmail.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Purchase vs Patent grant > Dear Leslie-- > > Fascinating stuff and I really mean that. The "drop rights", for > instance; > I've never really considered the kinds of neighbor-versus-neighbor > conflicts > that must inevitably have occurred in early European cities giving rise to > common law solutions. > > I'm particularly interested in your comments on patents and deeds here, > especially > the part about assuming that "the Dutch West India Company had the legal > status of > 'over lord' to all patent holders in the colony, who were mere vassals". > For some reason I'm kind of curious about what I suspect was the evolution > of the DWIC. My understanding is that it was initially granted the right > to > trade from and with the new world. It would appear that the practical > realities of that right eventually required WIC to get into the > "government > business". (I've almost always thought of New Netherlands as a sort of > overgrown "company town" like Homestead, PA.) I have the idea that none > of > the early government was never actually intended and that the men on both > sides of the Ocean sort of made it up as they went along over the space of > several decades. It seems to me the evolving ad-hoc nature of New > Amsterdam > government until New York became a real colony under the British helps > explain a loose and off-the-cuff flavor under the Dutch. > > Or am I talking through my hat here? > > --pete > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Leslie B. Potter" <lbpotter@comcast.net> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 12:05 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Leslie, Thanks for all your work to answer my question. You've done way more than I would ever have asked. I've learned so much from what you've found. Thanks, Steve