> // cut // > = > > I note there is "common or undivided land" to the east > > of Samuel Risling, suggesting an inheritance: either testate or > > intestate. Possibly a Risling? Or another relative? > = > "Common or undivided land" refers to land that had been acquired by > the Hartford proprietors, but had not yet been been divided among > them. > = > Jerry Ukes <[email protected]> Sometimes common land was never intended to divided. It was used by any / all of the owners as a place to graze livestock. In essence, each "owner" had easement rights for grazing, but nothing else. Regards, Arnold <><><><><><><><><><><> Arrowhead Images <[email protected]> <><><><><><><><><><><> Today is a non trivial event!

Anyone who has access to Heritage Quest might want to note that they now have the 1880 images online. And if you've been relying on the LDS FamilySearch for your 1880 info, better recheck with the images. I'm finding a lot of obvious errors. "Bill Kinnersley" <[email protected]>

> To recap: 4 out of 5 responders said the wording did not appear to > support your conclusion. > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> I don't know. The fact that 4 out of 5 people came up with an interpretation of a document that other evidence establishes was wrong isn't exactly a good thing, is it? Jerry

[email protected] wrote: > Laws of intestacy vary with time and place and are very intricate, > as you know. They varied by state / colony / province. When > replying to your posting, I was thinking of the situation where > possibly John Crow died intestate but had no children. (I wasn't > considering the very early date.) > > Regarding land ascending lineally through laws of intestacy, most > definitely it does occur. Where there were no children, and after > the widow's dower, frequently intestacy laws state that the estate > was to be distributed: > > "equally to the next of kin of the intestate of equal degree and > those who represent them" > > With that in mind, here in Nova Scotia (mind you, after 1758), the > above was applied as follows: > > That either of the intestate's parents would take to the exclusion > of his siblings, which was later modified by directing that if the > intestate's father predeceased him, the mother shared equally with > the intestate's siblings and their representatives. etc. That's undoubtedly a statute that changed the English common law that all the English colonies in North America started with. Under the common law rules of intestacy, property never lineally ascended. When this rule was changed (which all states almost certainly have changed) it was changed by statute. I assume that Nova Scotia also followed the English common law, although I suppose that it's possible it followed Scottish law that was different. In that case, if Nova Scotia law provided that property could lineally ascend, it's because a law was enacted that changed the common law rule. The best known common law intestacy rule that was changed was primogeniture, which all or nearly all US states had effectively abolish through legislation by the years shortly after the Revolutionary War (although a few colonies had abolished it before then). > For degrees of consanguinity, see: > http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/22/title22sec2843-A.html > > Regarding the land in question, is there no way you can determine > how the neighbor Jeremiah Risling or even Richard Risling himself, > obtained their land (other than John Crow's land)? I quoted the deed to Jeremiah Risley that I believe is the deed whereby he got the land that is mentioned in the Samuel Risley deed. The deeds don't have meets & bounds descriptions, and the one to Jeremiah Risley only has one dimension ( forty-three rods in width), and so the boundaries of the land are determined by the lines of the abutting property owners and, in one case, a path. In any event, the boundary "butted north on land of Jeremiah Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" in the Samuel Risley deed undoubtedly refers to land that Jeremiah Risley was deeded. Another reason for concluding that the abutting land of Jeremiah Risley that was being referred to is the same land that he had been deeded 3 days earlier by Richard Risley is that the need to place the description "as may appear by a deed from his father" suggests that the boundaries of Jeremiah's land were not yet well known. > I note there is "common or undivided land" to the east > of Samuel Risling, suggesting an inheritance: either testate or > intestate. Possibly a Risling? Or another relative? "Common or undivided land" refers to land that had been acquired by the Hartford proprietors, but had not yet been been divided among them. Jerry Ukes <[email protected]>

> I have found the death of my great-great grandfather recorded in the > 1880 U.S. Mortality Census in East Feliciana Parish, LA. > > I would like to look at the death records upon which the census is > based, because the census is the only record I have of his death. > I've checked Ancestry.com and cyndislist.com but neither are very > clear as to how the census is conducted. Can I get access to these > records myself? > > Kberry <[email protected]> You might try the following web site for the Louisiana State Archives: http://www.sec.state.la.us/archives/gen/cpa-index.htm They have death records but I do not know how far back they go. Stan Barras [email protected]

> I agree: > IMO, FoxIt Reader has made Acrobat a waste of time. > I always hated how l-o-n-g it took Acrobat (as well as > > mousepotato I like the look of Foxit. However Acrobat has Bookmark and Page navigation and all I could see in Foxit was scroll down the pages as opposed to bouncing around Acrobat's thumbnails. Which I can quickly increase to 3 columns etc to help find page I want. I am talking large directories like Trade and Street. Did I miss something in Foxit? I must say I just do not understand all the Apps they allow for in Acrobat. I just want a Reader. I do not notice much difference in time to open Foxit vs Acrobat and for web files. Why does it ask if I want to Save or Open - can I change that? -- Ron Lankshear - Sydney Aust (from London- Shepherds Bush & Chiswick) http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~lankshear/ Ron <[email protected]>

> > I have found the death of my great-great grandfather recorded in the > > 1880 U.S. Mortality Census in East Feliciana Parish, LA. > > > > I would like to look at the death records upon which the census is > > based, because the census is the only record I have of his death. > > I've checked Ancestry.com and cyndislist.com but neither are very > > clear as to how the census is conducted. Can I get access to these > > records myself? > > > > Kberry <[email protected]> > > My understanding is that the census taker, among all the other > questions they had to ask, also asked "has anyone in this household > died in the census year (the year just previous to the census > date)". > > So there is no other source for this information than the family > member who was supplying the information.. > > Given that you have the time period of their death, you could check > local cemetery records to see if they have any more information. > > Gerry <[email protected]> what about wills? in UK we have a central court probate registry of Wills & Administrations from 1858 to date Hugh W Hugh Watkins <[email protected]>

> I have found the death of my great-great grandfather recorded in the > 1880 U.S. Mortality Census in East Feliciana Parish, LA. > > I would like to look at the death records upon which the census is > based, because the census is the only record I have of his death. > I've checked Ancestry.com and cyndislist.com but neither are very > clear as to how the census is conducted. Can I get access to these > records myself? > > <[email protected]> As I understand it, the census taker asked (among all the other questions to those he visited) if anyone in the household had died during the year preceding the census date. If so, then that information was recorded on the mortality schedule, just as other information was recorded on the population schedule, and other schedules. The information found on the mortality schedules is not based on some other death record, but on the responses given to the census taker as he visited each household. A few counties (parishes in LA) in the South may have kept other types of death records as early as 1880, but I think you will find these to be both rare and incomplete, if you find them at all. Other sources for death information that you might investigate include tombstone inscriptions, interment records (especially if buried in a town or city), church records, published obituaries, and family Bible records. "Ron Head" <[email protected]>

> I have found the death of my great-great grandfather recorded in the > 1880 U.S. Mortality Census in East Feliciana Parish, LA. > > I would like to look at the death records upon which the census is > based, because the census is the only record I have of his death. > I've checked Ancestry.com and cyndislist.com but neither are very > clear as to how the census is conducted. Can I get access to these > records myself? > > Kberry <[email protected]> My understanding is that the census taker, among all the other questions they had to ask, also asked "has anyone in this household died in the census year (the year just previous to the census date)". So there is no other source for this information than the family member who was supplying the information.. Given that you have the time period of their death, you could check local cemetery records to see if they have any more information. Gerry <[email protected]>

HI: I have found the death of my great-great grandfather recorded in the 1880 U.S. Mortality Census in East Feliciana Parish, LA. I would like to look at the death records upon which the census is based, because the census is the only record I have of his death. I've checked Ancestry.com and cyndislist.com but neither are very clear as to how the census is conducted. Can I get access to these records myself? Kberry [email protected]

mousepotato wrote: >I agree: >IMO, FoxIt Reader has made Acrobat a waste of time. >I always hated how l-o-n-g it took Acrobat (as well as >almost all Adobe's apps!). I assume you are talking about Acrobat Reader. I just opened Ver 7 and it took about 9 seconds and once opened it reopens almost instantaneously. bob gillis > to load...good grief! >I stumbled upon FoxIt, what a gem...and FAST. >I haven't looked back >"mousepotato" <[email protected]>

I agree: IMO, FoxIt Reader has made Acrobat a waste of time. I always hated how l-o-n-g it took Acrobat (as well as almost all Adobe's apps!) to load...good grief! I stumbled upon FoxIt, what a gem...and FAST. I haven't looked back ~mousepotato~ "mousepotato" <[email protected]>

> Where can I obtain a listing of all USCT Units, Regiments, Rosters, etc. HI: Here's the link to the Civil War Soldiers and Sailor System. The site is run by the National Park Service and has links to: Soldiers, Sailors, Regiments, Cemeteries, Battles, Prisoners, Medals of Honor, and National Parks. Click on Soldiers for individuals. It will find U.S. Colored Troops soldiers. http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/ Kberry [email protected]

[ All, and especially Carol: this note was originally posted to ROOTS-L. The ROOTS-L listowner forwarded it to Methods because she knows that Carol and other useful folks read Methods. Please reply to *BOTH* the original poster and to Methods. Thanks, Mod ] This message is addressed to: Carol Botteron, Maintainer, Civil War Units File and/or anyone else who might have the information. Where can I obtain a listing of all USCT Units, Regiments, Rosters, etc. Thanks for any assistance or suggestions! Bennie L. Phifer III West Chester, Ohio [email protected]

>>>>No. "his father" is John Crow, dec'd. >>>> >>>>"...that I (Richard Risley) bought of John Crow dec'd... as may >>>>appear by a deed from his father." >>>> >>>>Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> >>> >>>Thank you for sharing your interpretation. It's interesting that >>>four out of five people share that interpretation, because it's one >>>that hadn't occurred to me before. I still don't think, based on the >>>text, that it's the most plausible interpretation. Furthermore, the >>>evidence shows that John Crow deeded 330 acres in East Hartford to >>>Richard Risley in 1682. John Crow was the largest landowner in >>>Hartford, and he died in 1686. >>> http://tinyurl.com/klpcj >>>So John Crow was living when he deeded land to Richard Risley. >>> >>>Ukes >> >>And thus *dead* by 1716, the date of the deed in which he was >>identified as "dec'd". > > Absolutely. > >>Thus far the stated facts do not support >>anything beyond a similarity of surname for the Risleys you mention. > > If the pronoun "his" as used in "butted north on land of Jeremiah > Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" (as used in the > Richard Risley - Samuel Risley deed) refers to the father of > Jeremiah Risley (which I believe is a reasonable interpretation), > and the land of Jeremiah Risley that is being referred to is the > land that Richard Risley deeded to Jeremiah Risley three days > earlier (which is compatible with the abutting property owners) then > the two deeds, read together, probably provide *direct* evidence > that Jeremiah Risley was the son of Richard Risley. > > This isn't a "slam dunk". Rather, it requires piecing information > from different sources together, like pieces of a puzzle, to come to > a conclusion. But it's the search for the pieces of the puzzle and > the challange of attempting to put them in the correct place, that > makes genealogy interesting to me. > > As I mentioned previously, there is strong *indirect* evidence that > Jeremiah was the son of Richard. The "father of modern genealogy" > Donald Lines Jacobus, in his article "The Risley Family of > Connecticut", The American Genealogist, vol 25, p. 233-246 (Oct. > 1949), indicated that "there there can be no doubt that the Risleys > of the next generation [including Jeremiah] were children of Richard > and Rebecca [(Adams) Risley]". > >>However, your family, your research, your conclusions. > > IMO, one of the greatest contributions the Internet can make to > genealogy is providing a forum for sharing background information > that helps put genealogical information in context. Properly > interpreting the meaning of documents and knowing relevant laws, > rules and customs allow us to put the information we do have in > better context can (sometimes) allow us to establish family > relationships that would otherwise be unrecognized. Which, I > suppose, is a big part of what "genealogy methods" should be about. > > Jerry Ukes <[email protected]> All very well and good, Jerry, but you didn't ask us for our opinion on ALL the evidence (or even the preponderance); you asked us what we thought *A* specific deed said. To recap: 4 out of 5 responders said the wording did not appear to support your conclusion. HTH Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

Laws of intestacy vary with time and place and are very intricate, as you know. They varied by state / colony / province. When replying to your posting, I was thinking of the situation where possibly John Crow died intestate but had no children. (I wasn't considering the very early date.) Regarding land ascending lineally through laws of intestacy, most definitely it does occur. Where there were no children, and after the widow's dower, frequently intestacy laws state that the estate was to be distributed: "equally to the next of kin of the intestate of equal degree and those who represent them" With that in mind, here in Nova Scotia (mind you, after 1758), the above was applied as follows: That either of the intestate's parents would take to the exclusion of his siblings, which was later modified by directing that if the intestate's father predeceased him, the mother shared equally with the intestate's siblings and their representatives. etc. For degrees of consanguinity, see: http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/22/title22sec2843-A.html Regarding the land in question, is there no way you can determine how the neighbor Jeremiah Risling or even Richard Risling himself, obtained their land (other than John Crow's land)? Are there no early land transactions or probate records for the families? Personally, I would also study the neighbors, witnesses and associates (as also suggested by Cheryl), platting the land over time, etc. I note there is "common or undivided land" to the east of Samuel Risling, suggesting an inheritance: either testate or intestate. Possibly a Risling? Or another relative? Good luck! Gwen -- Gwen P. King, B.Sc., M.L.I.S. Lorneville, Cumberland County, Nova Scotia e-mail: [email protected]

X-Originating-IP: [142.177.93.213] From: [email protected] Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: A Deed From Whose Father? Old-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:16:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Diso-8859-1 Message-Id: <[email protected]= mpatico.ca> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Diagnostic: Unprocessed X-Envelope-To: GENMTD-L-request Resent-To: [email protected] Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:20:12 -0700 Resent-From: Karen Isaacson Leverich <[email protected]> Resent-Message-Id: <[email protected]> Laws of intestacy vary with time and place and are very intricate, as you know. They varied by state / colony / province. When replying to your posting, I was thinking of the situation where possibly John Crow died intestate but had no children. (I wasn't considering the very early date.) Regarding land ascending lineally through laws of intestacy, most definitely it does occur. Where there were no children, and after the widow's dower, frequently intestacy laws state that the estate was to be distributed: "equally to the next of kin of the intestate of equal degree and those who represent them" With that in mind, here in Nova Scotia (mind you, after 1758), the above was applied as follows: That either of the intestate's parents would take to the exclusion of his siblings, which was later modified by directing that if the intestate's father predeceased him, the mother shared equally with the intestate's siblings and their representatives. etc. For degrees of consanguinity, see: http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/22/title22sec2843-A.html Regarding the land in question, is there no way you can determine how the neighbor Jeremiah Risling or even Richard Risling himself, obtained their land (other than John Crow's land)? Are there no early land transactions or probate records for the families? Personally, I would also study the neighbors, witnesses and associates (as also suggested by Cheryl), platting the land over time, etc. I note there is "common or undivided land" to the east of Samuel Risling, suggesting an inheritance: either testate or intestate. Possibly a Risling? Or another relative? = Good luck! Gwen -- Gwen P. King, B.Sc., M.L.I.S. Lorneville, Cumberland County, Nova Scotia e-mail: [email protected]

Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> wrote: >> > No. "his father" is John Crow, dec'd. >> > >> > "...that I (Richard Risley) bought of John Crow dec'd... as may >> > appear by a deed from his father." >> > >> > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> >> >> Thank you for sharing your interpretation. It's interesting that >> four out of five people share that interpretation, because it's one >> that hadn't occurred to me before. I still don't think, based on the >> text, that it's the most plausible interpretation. Furthermore, the >> evidence shows that John Crow deeded 330 acres in East Hartford to >> Richard Risley in 1682. John Crow was the largest landowner in >> Hartford, and he died in 1686. >> http://tinyurl.com/klpcj >> So John Crow was living when he deeded land to Richard Risley. >> >> Ukes > >And thus *dead* by 1716, the date of the deed in which he was >identified as "dec'd". Absolutely. >Thus far the stated facts do not support >anything beyond a similarity of surname for the Risleys you mention. If the pronoun "his" as used in "butted north on land of Jeremiah Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" (as used in the Richard Risley - Samuel Risley deed) refers to the father of Jeremiah Risley (which I believe is a reasonable interpretation), and the land of Jeremiah Risley that is being referred to is the land that Richard Risley deeded to Jeremiah Risley three days earlier (which is compatible with the abutting property owners) then the two deeds, read together, probably provide *direct* evidence that Jeremiah Risley was the son of Richard Risley. This isn't a "slam dunk". Rather, it requires piecing information from different sources together, like pieces of a puzzle, to come to a conclusion. But it's the search for the pieces of the puzzle and the challange of attempting to put them in the correct place, that makes genealogy interesting to me. As I mentioned previously, there is strong *indirect* evidence that Jeremiah was the son of Richard. The "father of modern genealogy" Donald Lines Jacobus, in his article "The Risley Family of Connecticut", The American Genealogist, vol 25, p. 233-246 (Oct. 1949), indicated that "there there can be no doubt that the Risleys of the next generation [including Jeremiah] were children of Richard and Rebecca [(Adams) Risley]". >However, your family, your research, your conclusions. IMO, one of the greatest contributions the Internet can make to genealogy is providing a forum for sharing background information that helps put genealogical information in context. Properly interpreting the meaning of documents and knowing relevant laws, rules and customs allow us to put the information we do have in better context can (sometimes) allow us to establish family relationships that would otherwise be unrecognized. Which, I suppose, is a big part of what "genealogy methods" should be about. Jerry Ukes <[email protected]>

>>>>The following is an abstract I prepared of a deed found at Hartford >>>>Deeds, Book 3, p. 228 [FHL 4511]: >>>> >>>>I Richard Risley of Hartford Connecticut for and in consideration of >>>>the natural love and affection I do bear unto my loving son Samuel >>>>Risley have given granted and I the said Richard Risley for my self >>>>and my heirs do fully and absolutely give grant and confirm unto my >>>>said son Samuel Risley his heirs and assigns forever two ...parcels >>>>of land situated on the east side of the Connecticut River in the >>>>town of Hartford aforesaid. [description of first parcel omitted] >>>>also more one parcel of land lying or being part of the land that I >>>>bought of John Crow deceased butted north on land of Jeremiah Risley >>>>as may appear by a deed from his father and to begin as far west as >>>>the said Jeremiah Risleys land and there butt west on my own land >>>>south on land of Thomas Spencer east on common or undivided land for >>>>him my son Samuel Risley his heirs executors administrators and >>>>assigns to have and to hold. In witness whereof I the said Richard >>>>Risley have set my hand and seal this nineteenth day of March Anno >>>>Dom 1716/7 >>>> >>>>Does "his father" as used in "butted north on land of Jeremiah >>>>Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" refer to the father >>>>of Jeremiah Risley or the father of Samuel Risley? >>>> >>>>Ukes >>> >>>No. "his father" is John Crow, dec'd. >>> >>>"...that I (Richard Risley) bought of John Crow dec'd... as may >>>appear by a deed from his father." >>> >>>Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> >> >>Thank you for sharing your interpretation. It's interesting that >>four out of five people share that interpretation, because it's one >>that hadn't occurred to me before. I still don't think, based on the >>text, that it's the most plausible interpretation. Furthermore, the >>evidence shows that John Crow deeded 330 acres in East Hartford to >>Richard Risley in 1682. John Crow was the largest landowner in >>Hartford, and he died in 1686. >> http://tinyurl.com/klpcj >>So John Crow was living when he deeded land to Richard Risley. >> >>Ukes > >And thus *dead* by 1716, the date of the deed in which he was >identified as "dec'd". Thus far the stated facts do not support >anything beyond a similarity of surname for the Risleys you mention. > >However, your family, your research, your conclusions. > >Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> I'm talkin' to myself again ... John Crow dec'd by 1716 had land described in a deed from his father. This land was purchased from Crow by Risley and then deeded in 1716 to Risley's son. Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

This morning on Barbara Walter's "The View", a representative from the Sorenson Institute was interviewed regarding the worldwide genetic database they are compiling through DNA donations. You provide a sample of your DNA (cheek swabbing) and they run it through their database and link you up with your pedigree listing the genetic markers...you also provide them with at least 3 generations of your personal pedigree. The whole thing is free and the look-up, after all is said and done, is by surname only unless you opt for further genetic screening. Do you think that this will help or hinder in the process of accumulating information and what ramifications do you think this will have with compiling genealogy? If you are interested in seeing what this is all about, the website is http://smgf.org/ I'm interested in your opinions. katy <[email protected]>