I do believe you've found a bug! I just tried it and I had the same experience. One difference was that it wasn't the second marriage in time order, it was the second marriage I entered in the database, that wasn't found. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Bryan <c24m48@hotmail.com> To: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 10:13 PM Subject: [FO] Find Dialog, Second Spouse >I wonder if the following scenario is a bug I should report, if I am doing >something wrong, or if this is just the way it works. > >I have Mary Jane Peters m.(1) William England m.(2) John Letsinger. A Find >for "given names" "contains" "Mary" AND "married surname" "equal to" >"Letsinger" fails to find the person. If I change the surname to "England" >it all works as it should. I have double and triple checked and I am >confident I have spelled everything correctly in my Find request. > >This situation arose because I had a census entry for the widow Mary >Letsinger, and I was trying to use the power of the Find mechanism to find >all the possibilities in my data base as quickly as possible. So when I >first issued the Find, I didn't know for sure that Mary Jane Peters was the >right one. I subsequently found her by other means, but it sure would be >nice to be able to trust the Find mechanism in this case. > >I am on 9.02 (9.0 plus the patch). > >Thanks in advance for any advice. > >Jerry Bryan > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > >______________________________