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

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

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 >