Elizabeth, I don't know how to tell you this, but we attorneys are word-smiths. I felt that your translation of my explanation was a little imprecise, which is why I became confused by it in my fatigue Friday afternoon. Deeds and mortgages, which are written in the indenture format, usually start out with the following wording or similar wording... "This Indenture made this X day of Y month, in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty-nine, between John Jones, of the Borough of West Chester, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Agnes Jones, his wife (hereinafter called the Grantors), of the first part, and Henry Brown also of the said Borough and Commonwealth (hereinafter call the Grantee), of the Second Part." When the instrument starts out saying "This Indenture" one is immediately alerted to the format of the document but not the subject of the instrument. So when my NPS-ranger-friends used to tell me that had found an "Indenture", they were using the word "Indenture" as a noun and substituting the word it for a more accurate term to describe the instrument in question. Therefore, I had to keep asking them what kind of an instrument were they were actually talking about - a deed, a mortgage, or an employment contract. Although I have not read an Indenture of Apprenticeship recently, I seem to remember that the wording of the first paragraph was very similar to the first paragraph of a deed, which has been written in indenture form. That is to say that the Indenture of Apprenticeship starts out "This Indenture made this X day of Y month, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred eighty-nine...." Please keep in mind that all employment contracts (even modern executive employment contracts) are in effect "MASTER-SERVANT" relationships. Now when you are dealing with a colonial employment contract in which the consideration for the term of labor is payment of a a person's ship-passage, the person, who is being bound, is said to be "indentured to the Master" with whom he is contracting. So the person, who is selling his labor to the Master in exchange for having his ship-passage to America is binding himself to the Master, usually for a period of seven years. By the act of contractually binding himself to the master, the servant is "indenturing" himself to the master; therefore he referred to as an "indentured" servant. The same linguistic acrobatics apply to a minor child, who has been "indentured" to a master craftsman for a period of years by his parents. I hope that this explanation makes your writing project a little easier for you. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Leslie -------------- Original message -------------- From: Elizabeth Johnson <elizajohn@sbcglobal.net> > And again, thank you for your time! What you are saying is what I understood, I > think it is my writing and purpose of writing that is confusing you, I think. > I'm attempting an explanation of why the connection of the word "indentured" to > any given person should not be assumed to mean that the person is an indentured > servant. > > You said: An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered > into an employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed > upon consideration." > > and > > "The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, has > also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period of time > for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. > (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911)" > > > You said " Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as specific as > saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color of the > paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls into the > "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are you > reading." > > I said "Being indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than > being in a contract or a legal agreement with another person or persons with > the terms of the indenture determined by document itself. In short, an > indenture is the general term for the format in which any number of agreements > could be written > Is this not the same? > > But then, I said "but unless specifically stated in the document itself, being > indentured was not synonymous with the word servant." and this needs rewording. > I know what I was trying to say and missed. I meant wished to put across the > idea that if a person was said to be indentured to another person, but the > terms of the indenture are not given,it meant only that there was a contract or > an agreement between these persons that could cover have covered a myriad of > topics only one of which would be the agreement to become an indentured servant. > The use of the word indenture without the terms of the Indenture being given > tells nothing more than that there is an agreement between the parties and an > obligation is established in the indenture. > > How is this different? Too wordy? Did I miss the point totally? What am I > leaving out? > > It's not just you, I had my husband read it and he was confused until I > explained the whole thing to him and this is what I didn't want to have to do. > > Perhaps I could just say that an indenture is a form of a contract and without > knowing the contents of the contract, one knows nothing about the purpose or > obligation inherent in the contract. Thus, the combining of the two words > indentured and servant based upon a document associating the word "indentured" > with a name means nothing unless the contents of the indenture are known. > Case in point, a man contracts with another for the production and delivery of > beer for an 8 year period in exchange for certain goods and properties. In > these same documents, this is later referred to as an indenture. The next > reference I see to this in another book, refers to the man as an indentured > servant and cites the above reference. > > And the other option is to trash what I have written and start over....Bah > Humbug.. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time. > > Elizabeth > > > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: > Elizabeth, > > I read your interpretation of my explanation and got confused. Let me start > again. > > You said: "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, > written in duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or > parchment, words or letters of the alphabet being written between the two > counterparts. The counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a > wavy or indented line through these words or letters (hence the name > "indenture"), and each party received one of the counter parts. In case of later > dispute as to the authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be > fitted together to settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania > page 141.) > > > "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, written in > duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or parchment, words or > letters of the alphabet being written between the two counterparts. The > counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a wavy or indented > line through these words or letters (hence the name "indenture"), and each party > received one of the counter parts. In case of later dispute as to the > authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be fitted together to > settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania page 141.) > > Also see Theodore Plucknett"s, A Concise History of the Common Law at pages > 612-613. Although I have a copy of Van Der Linden's Institutes of the Laws of > Holland and Xeroxed extensive portions of Simon Van Leeuwen's Commentaries of > the Roman Dutch Law, neither of these book speaks to the format of legal > instruments. > > An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered into an > employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed upon > consideration. > > The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, has > also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period of time > for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. > (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911) > > It is the subject matter and terms of the individual contract, which are > important not the format in which the contract is drafted. > > When I began working with the rangers at the Saratoga National Historical Park, > they used to get all excited when they found an "Indenture", until they got > tired of my asking them if the instrument were a deed, a mortgage, or an > employment contract. Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as > specific as saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color > of the paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls > into the "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are > you reading. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Elizabeth Johnson > > > Thank you! As any good lawyer does, you have forced me to look at the bigger > > picture. It does help because I had narrowed my thinking down to the issue of > > indenture only in the terms of the person and the two most frequently seen > > applications of the word in both Dutch and English histories, excluding legal > > documents, and genealogies: The training of the person such as in the case of > a > > minor, who would be placed in an apprenticeships for training in exchange for > > whatever was specified, money or labour, for a specific amount of time. It > > seems that these are usually referred to by historians as apprenticeships such > > as "he apprenticed to...." which then hints at the nature of the endenture. > The > > general term would be indenture. The other usage, which is what I see when, > > reading through quite a few genealogies, is the word "indenture" combined with > > servant. I believe that in the 17th Century, this particular type of indenture > > placed the person into a state of servitude and > > allowed them to be categorized as an indentured servant, for a period of time > > in exchange for something of monetary value which in that era was often a > > passage from Europe to a determined destination. > > > > What you are saying is, I believe, is what I originally thought but somehow > > lost in my narrow focus: The discussion that started this train of thought was > > the classification of several persons as endentured servants based upon the > name > > of the person or persons being combined with the words "indentured to". Being > > indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than being in a contract > > or a legal agreement with another person or persons with the terms of the > > indenture determined by document itself. In short, an indenture is the general > > term for the format in which any number of agreements could be written but > > unless specifically stated in the documented itself, being indentured was not > > synonymous with the word servant. > > > > I'm frequently rushing when I pose a question to the list and should probably > > wait until I have the time to fully explain myself. > > > > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: > > Elizabeth, > > > > An "Indenture" is just one of many types of format in which any number of > types > > of contracts can be written. Deeds, mortgages, contract for the sale of > chattel, > > and employment contracts are just a few of the types of instruments, which are > > commonly written in the "Indenture" format. All of the aforementioned > > instruments can also be written in other formats. > > > > What is significant is not the format in which the instrument is written, but > > rather the subject matter with which instrument deals. What is important is > > whether the instrument a deed, a mortgage, a contract for the sale of chattel > or > > an employment contract. > > > > Hope that this helps. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Leslie Potter > > PA Atty ID # 16580 > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > From: Elizabeth Johnson > > > > > It wasn't too long ago that I asked a similar question and didn't get a > chance > > > to thank those who responded. I'm still on the same subject, but from > perhaps > > a > > > little different angle. If one boarded a ship in Texel, and paid for his own > > > trip and had a contract for specific services, for a specific time and wage > to > > > van Rensselaer, it is my impression that this is a contract as it is called > > but > > > not an indenture. A second party, on the same ship, has his passage paid but > > by > > > whom is unknown. He may have paid his own. The next mention of this second > > > person is when he draws his wages from the colony. Contract or indenture? or > > is > > > it possible to tell? > > > > > > Any help is appreciated > > > > > > Elizabeth > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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