Beautiful!. What a nice Christmas present. Merry Christmas! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugh Kincaid" <ukinc8@gmail.com> To: "KINCAID-LIST" <KINCAID-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:53 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Glasgow Bible Christmas Story > Merry Christmas!! > > > > A few of years ago some friends and I made a recording that we hope you > enjoy! > > > > It is the story of Jesus' birth, in Scottish dialect. It was adapted from > the Glasgow Bible. > > > > Click on the link below to listen and please pass it around to family and > friends. > > > > <http://www.mungall.com/audio/boj/Default.htm> > http://www.mungall.com/audio/boj/Default.htm > > > > Warmest wishes! > > > > Hugh Kincaid > > DNA 1261 > > Kingsport, TN > > ukinc8@gmail.com > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1850 - Release Date: 12/15/2008 5:04 PM

Merry Christmas!! A few of years ago some friends and I made a recording that we hope you enjoy! It is the story of Jesus' birth, in Scottish dialect. It was adapted from the Glasgow Bible. Click on the link below to listen and please pass it around to family and friends. <http://www.mungall.com/audio/boj/Default.htm> http://www.mungall.com/audio/boj/Default.htm Warmest wishes! Hugh Kincaid DNA 1261 Kingsport, TN ukinc8@gmail.com

Hi Hugh, I have it on my pc......and do play it every once in awhile, Love it............."Thanks You" Connie *In Beautiful Western Kentucky* DNA Kincaid # 3350 Group A set 2 b DNA Knight #N38010 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Connie's Links-Lots of Links-Try Them www.angelfire.com/ky2/connie/Links.html ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (\o/) Grandmothers are earth angels /_\ - Unknown. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugh Kincaid" <ukinc8@gmail.com> To: "KINCAID-LIST" <KINCAID-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:53 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Glasgow Bible Christmas Story Merry Christmas!! A few of years ago some friends and I made a recording that we hope you enjoy! It is the story of Jesus' birth, in Scottish dialect. It was adapted from the Glasgow Bible. Click on the link below to listen and please pass it around to family and friends. <http://www.mungall.com/audio/boj/Default.htm> http://www.mungall.com/audio/boj/Default.htm Warmest wishes! Hugh Kincaid DNA 1261 Kingsport, TN. ukinc8@gmail.com

Prior to the Kincaid Clan re-emerging in the 1960s, the Buchanan Clan claimed the Kincaids as a sept of the Buchanans and marketed to Kincaids to join their Clan. However, clearly the Kincaids and the Buchanans had separate and distinct lineages. It was only because a member of the main Buchanan line married the heiress of the Kincaid of Auchenreoch estates that they became known as Buchanan-Kincaids for a period. This is what created the confusion. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Margie von Marenholtz To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test My mother used to get a Buchanan periodical before joining Clan Kincaid. Does anyone know if the Kincaids were considered part of the Buchanan Clan? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Van Hout" <dutchtreat@prodigy.net> To: <Kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test > Interesting records of Scotland, some of which show a connection to the > Buchanan family: > > ROBERT KINCAID, probably son of > John K. of Auchenreoch and Agnes > Buchanan; M.A. (Glasgow 1658); > adm. about 1662 ; proposed to be trans, to > Kirkmahoe in 1672 ; deserted the charge > at the Revolution ; retired to Glasgow ; > died Aug. 1691, aged about 53. [Wodrow s > Hist., ii., 232; Reg. Old Dec., i. ; Glasg. > Tests.] > > > Kincaid, min. of Barnweil, and had issue > John, surgeon, Glasgow, died Jan. 1716; > Agnes, born 15th Nov. 1681 (marr. 20th > Dec. 1704, Thomas Buchanan, younger, > of Ardoch), died 9th June 1720. [Gray > Buchanan Coll., Lyon Office.] > > > WILLIAM CAMERON, born about > 7 1637, son of Archibald C., min. of > Buchanan ; educated at Univ. of > Glasgow ; M.A. (1657) ;....He died at Edinburgh, 29th > Jan. 1698. He marr. Mary Wauchope, who > survived him, and had issue Elizabeth > (marr. Robert Kincaid, schoolmaster, Salt- > coats), and eight others. [Glasg. Tests.; > Edin. Reg. (Bur.) ; Maitland Miscell., iv. ; > Acts of Ass., 1690, 1695.] > > > DAVID GEMMILL, eldest son of Alex- > 1798 ander G., tailor, Kirkintilloch, and > Margaret Gray ; educated at Univ. > of Glasgow ; licen. by Presb. of Glasgow > 3rd May 1797 ; min. here 1798-1815. In > 1815 he removed to Kirkintilloch, and > was chief magistrate from 1826 till his > death, 8th June 1842. He gave a site > for the erection of St David s Church > there, was the largest subscriber to the > building fund, and preached at the opening > of the church in 1836. He marr. (1) Alicia > (died s.p. 1822), eldest daugh. of John > Kincaid of Kincaid : (2) 12th Oct. 1824, > Agnes, daugh. of Walter Scott of Neilston, > Bonhill. [Watson s Kirkintilloch, 327.] > > > FRANCIS KINCAID, M.A. ; reader > 1634 1634. [Com. Records of Glasgoio.} > > WILLIAM KINCAID, vicar; died in > 1576 . > http://www.archive.org/stream/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft_djvu.txt > > > http://www.archive.org/stream/indexes500scotuoft/indexes500scotuoft_djvu.txt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 6:05 PM > Subject: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test > analysis&infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > > >> Your highlight part of the problem I have with the >> sample. To me the results would be better spread >> if I could prove that one of these were not of the >> Kincaids of Auchenreoch. >> >> Let's take sample 2617. This participant can be >> documented as a direct descendant of Rev. Joseph >> Kinkead of Killinchy, County Down (previously >> Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Stranolar, County Donegal) >> who was of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids. >> Now the participant (Bill Kincaid author of the This I'll >> Defend) firmly believes that their ancestor was of the >> Kincaids of Auchenreoch. It is clearly written in the >> family history that two sons of Rev. Joseph Kinkead >> (William and Robert) migrated to Virginia. The Kincaids >> of Mononogalia County are the best candidates to be >> of these sons. We have a participant, sample 14530, >> who claims descent from the Mononogalia Kincaids >> and the DNA fits for a connection to 2617. >> >> Now you note sample 94749 who is a descendant of >> Quintin Kinkaid of Muff Parish, County Donegal, Ireland. >> I can't eliminate him as a descendant of the Baronscourt, >> County Tyrone Kincaids (who I noted above are claimed to >> be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids). Rev. Joseph Kinkead's >> grandson, Rev. John Kincaid, was a curate of adjacent >> Templemore Parish. Another grand daughter married into >> the Brownes of adjacent Burt Parish. The Baronscourt >> Kincaids are dominant in County Tyrone and mid County >> Donegal (there are records clearly tying the families >> together) and there are strong links to the Chester Co., >> PA and Delaware Kinkeads. >> >> Then we have sample 23547 who descends from James >> Kincaid in Dalgrain, County Falkirk, Scotland. He clearly >> is connected to Archibald Kincaid of Heuch but Archibald >> died without issue and was succeeded by his brother, John >> Kincaid of Saltcoates. These Kincaids are without doubt >> direct descendants of the Kincaids of Warriston near >> Edinburgh of which the Kincaids of Auchenreoch also >> descend (the patriarch being Henry Kincaid, second son of >> John Kincaid of Warriston). I can't connect James Kincaid in >> Dalgrain to either these Kincaids of Heuch or Saltcoates as >> there is no James of record in the family. However, John Kincaid >> of Saltcoates was the son of John Kincaid of Heuch by >> Elizabeth Kincaid - Archibald seems to have been a half >> brother (i.e. he had a different mother than John). Elizabeth >> Kincaid seems to have been a sister of William and Walter >> Kincaid of Auchenreoch as John Kincaid of Heuch named William >> and Walter as tutors to his children in his testament testamentar. >> Thus, I can't rule out James Kincaid of Dalgrain being from >> the Kincaid of Auchenreoch family. >> >> So perhaps one can see that my perspective of the data I have >> makes me suspect the Kincaids of Auchenreoch having a good >> representation in our DNA project. I certainly would be more >> comfortable will a suggested AAV if one could prove more >> samples without ties to the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. >> >> Best wishes! >> >> Peter >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Sue Liedtke >> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis >> &infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland >> >> >> But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate >> during >> the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the >> PA/VA >> families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's >> sample >> was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not >> immigrated? >> 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His >> results >> do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your >> criterea >> for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's >> non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your >> mind? >> The testee was certainly non-US. >> >> Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the >> colonial >> immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the >> US >> for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA >> testing >> occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural >> that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is >> also >> a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your >> David's >> and his possible brother George's line. >> >> We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family >> (A). >> Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in >> Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is >> more >> ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the >> split >> probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of >> mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed >> lineage >> to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the >> oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. >> >> It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing >> only >> 1 representative of each identical result string then group together >> those >> who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an >> AAV >> for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that >> AAV >> represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of >> any >> given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of >> mutation >> for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or >> February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for >> work. >> >> Sue Liedtke >> To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I respectfully disagree in that there is no way that set 4 Kincaids could be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids if 2617, etc. are of the Auchenreoch/Warriston Kincaids. There is too much genetic distance between any of the set 4 members and any other set 1 members for there to be a common ancestor after the 1600s. The break had to have occurred early on in the Kincaid family tree (i.e. back in the 1400s or earlier). Best wishes! Peter P.S. Bear in mind that the earliest common ancestor for the Warriston/Auchenreoch Kincaids and other main branches of Kincaids (ie. Linlithgow, Coates, Kincaid of Kincaid) would be in the late 1400s or early 1500s. This is clear from paper records as this the line only emerged in the mid 1500s. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Liedtke To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA testanalysis&infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland In other words you may never find, no matter how many samples are found from any country, a Group A Kincaid that can be clearly shown to not be an Auchenreoch Kincaid. Sue Liedtke

BUCHANAN, Charles, b 1728 Carbeth Sti. Sct. s/o Charles 8th of Carbeth BUCHANAN & Margaret KINCAID BUCHANAN, Charles Kincaid, s/o James BUCHANAN & Mary PATRICK BUCHANAN, Christian, b 1723 Carbeth Sti. Sct. d/o John 8th of Carbeth & Margaret KINCAID, spouse James MCGOUN *********** >From records on Ancestry.com, "Scottish -American Heirs, 1683-1883: BUCHANAN-KINCAID, Charles, in Brantford Can W, heir to uncle John Buchanan Kincaid, in Carbeth Sterlingshire, d. 14 March 1872. reg. 19 Dec 1872. "At one time Charles Kincaid Buchanan was the male repesentative of the family of Carbeth. Charles was the son of James Buchanan who settled in Canada, who in turn was the third son of John eleventh of Carbeth." (taken from paragraph below) BUCHANAN OF CARBETH The Buchanans of Carbeth are descended from Sir Walter Buchanan of that Ilk, via Thomas Buchanan, first of Gartincaber and Drummakill. Thomas was the tird son of Sir Walter ( second to reach adulthood ). Thomas was granted the lands of Gartincaber by his brother Patrick Buchanan of that Ilk as shown in a charter of 1461. Thomas Buchanan of Gartnegaber and Drummakill had three sons (1) Robert who succeeded to Drummakill and Moss,(2) Thomas of Carbeth, (3) Walter of Balwill. Thomas, first of Carbeth had a conveyancing of the lands of Carbeth from his father dated 31 May 1482, and died before 1493. He left two sons, (1) Thomas who succeeded (2) John in Easter Ballat. Thomas succeeded to Carbeth, to the Temple lands, and Boquhanbeg 10 June 1493. He appears to have lived quite a long time, and must have been over eighty when he died. Thomas had one son John who died before his father, without issue. His nephew Thomas ( sonof John in Easter Ballat ) succeeded to Carbeth. The family held Carbeth until the death of John Buchanan, twelfth Laird of Carbeth, who died 14 March 1872. He was succeeded by two daughters (1) Ann Jane Buchanan (2) Henriatta Charlotte Buchanan. The two daughters sold Carbeth. At one time Charles Kincaid Buchanan was the male repesentative of the family of Carbeth. Charles was the son of James Buchanan who settled in Canada, who in turn was the third son of John eleventh of Carbeth. The Buchanan famly of Blairlusk are Cadets of Carbeth and members of this family settled in Ireland and America. The family of William Boyton Buchanan of Los Angeles, whose son William Boyton Buchanan born 1908, are connected. The arms are listed in Volume I Plate 22 of a System of Heraldry by Alexander Nisbet, first published in 1722 and appear not to have been registered in the Public Register of all Arms and Bearings in Scotland. http://www.esd.co.nz/buchanan/body/xcarbeth.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Van Hout" <dutchtreat@prodigy.net> To: <Kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test > Interesting records of Scotland, some of which show a connection to the > Buchanan family: > > ROBERT KINCAID, probably son of > John K. of Auchenreoch and Agnes > Buchanan; M.A. (Glasgow 1658); > adm. about 1662 ; proposed to be trans, to > Kirkmahoe in 1672 ; deserted the charge > at the Revolution ; retired to Glasgow ; > died Aug. 1691, aged about 53. [Wodrow s > Hist., ii., 232; Reg. Old Dec., i. ; Glasg. > Tests.] > > > Kincaid, min. of Barnweil, and had issue > John, surgeon, Glasgow, died Jan. 1716; > Agnes, born 15th Nov. 1681 (marr. 20th > Dec. 1704, Thomas Buchanan, younger, > of Ardoch), died 9th June 1720. [Gray > Buchanan Coll., Lyon Office.] > > > WILLIAM CAMERON, born about > 7 1637, son of Archibald C., min. of > Buchanan ; educated at Univ. of > Glasgow ; M.A. (1657) ;....He died at Edinburgh, 29th > Jan. 1698. He marr. Mary Wauchope, who > survived him, and had issue Elizabeth > (marr. Robert Kincaid, schoolmaster, Salt- > coats), and eight others. [Glasg. Tests.; > Edin. Reg. (Bur.) ; Maitland Miscell., iv. ; > Acts of Ass., 1690, 1695.] > > > DAVID GEMMILL, eldest son of Alex- > 1798 ander G., tailor, Kirkintilloch, and > Margaret Gray ; educated at Univ. > of Glasgow ; licen. by Presb. of Glasgow > 3rd May 1797 ; min. here 1798-1815. In > 1815 he removed to Kirkintilloch, and > was chief magistrate from 1826 till his > death, 8th June 1842. He gave a site > for the erection of St David s Church > there, was the largest subscriber to the > building fund, and preached at the opening > of the church in 1836. He marr. (1) Alicia > (died s.p. 1822), eldest daugh. of John > Kincaid of Kincaid : (2) 12th Oct. 1824, > Agnes, daugh. of Walter Scott of Neilston, > Bonhill. [Watson s Kirkintilloch, 327.] > > > FRANCIS KINCAID, M.A. ; reader > 1634 1634. [Com. Records of Glasgoio.} > > WILLIAM KINCAID, vicar; died in > 1576 . > http://www.archive.org/stream/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft_djvu.txt > > > http://www.archive.org/stream/indexes500scotuoft/indexes500scotuoft_djvu.txt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 6:05 PM > Subject: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test > analysis&infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > > >> Your highlight part of the problem I have with the >> sample. To me the results would be better spread >> if I could prove that one of these were not of the >> Kincaids of Auchenreoch. >> >> Let's take sample 2617. This participant can be >> documented as a direct descendant of Rev. Joseph >> Kinkead of Killinchy, County Down (previously >> Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Stranolar, County Donegal) >> who was of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids. >> Now the participant (Bill Kincaid author of the This I'll >> Defend) firmly believes that their ancestor was of the >> Kincaids of Auchenreoch. It is clearly written in the >> family history that two sons of Rev. Joseph Kinkead >> (William and Robert) migrated to Virginia. The Kincaids >> of Mononogalia County are the best candidates to be >> of these sons. We have a participant, sample 14530, >> who claims descent from the Mononogalia Kincaids >> and the DNA fits for a connection to 2617. >> >> Now you note sample 94749 who is a descendant of >> Quintin Kinkaid of Muff Parish, County Donegal, Ireland. >> I can't eliminate him as a descendant of the Baronscourt, >> County Tyrone Kincaids (who I noted above are claimed to >> be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids). Rev. Joseph Kinkead's >> grandson, Rev. John Kincaid, was a curate of adjacent >> Templemore Parish. Another grand daughter married into >> the Brownes of adjacent Burt Parish. The Baronscourt >> Kincaids are dominant in County Tyrone and mid County >> Donegal (there are records clearly tying the families >> together) and there are strong links to the Chester Co., >> PA and Delaware Kinkeads. >> >> Then we have sample 23547 who descends from James >> Kincaid in Dalgrain, County Falkirk, Scotland. He clearly >> is connected to Archibald Kincaid of Heuch but Archibald >> died without issue and was succeeded by his brother, John >> Kincaid of Saltcoates. These Kincaids are without doubt >> direct descendants of the Kincaids of Warriston near >> Edinburgh of which the Kincaids of Auchenreoch also >> descend (the patriarch being Henry Kincaid, second son of >> John Kincaid of Warriston). I can't connect James Kincaid in >> Dalgrain to either these Kincaids of Heuch or Saltcoates as >> there is no James of record in the family. However, John Kincaid >> of Saltcoates was the son of John Kincaid of Heuch by >> Elizabeth Kincaid - Archibald seems to have been a half >> brother (i.e. he had a different mother than John). Elizabeth >> Kincaid seems to have been a sister of William and Walter >> Kincaid of Auchenreoch as John Kincaid of Heuch named William >> and Walter as tutors to his children in his testament testamentar. >> Thus, I can't rule out James Kincaid of Dalgrain being from >> the Kincaid of Auchenreoch family. >> >> So perhaps one can see that my perspective of the data I have >> makes me suspect the Kincaids of Auchenreoch having a good >> representation in our DNA project. I certainly would be more >> comfortable will a suggested AAV if one could prove more >> samples without ties to the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. >> >> Best wishes! >> >> Peter >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Sue Liedtke >> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis >> &infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland >> >> >> But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate >> during >> the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the >> PA/VA >> families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's >> sample >> was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not >> immigrated? >> 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His >> results >> do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your >> criterea >> for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's >> non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your >> mind? >> The testee was certainly non-US. >> >> Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the >> colonial >> immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the >> US >> for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA >> testing >> occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural >> that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is >> also >> a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your >> David's >> and his possible brother George's line. >> >> We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family >> (A). >> Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in >> Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is >> more >> ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the >> split >> probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of >> mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed >> lineage >> to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the >> oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. >> >> It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing >> only >> 1 representative of each identical result string then group together >> those >> who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an >> AAV >> for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that >> AAV >> represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of >> any >> given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of >> mutation >> for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or >> February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for >> work. >> >> Sue Liedtke >> To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Interesting records of Scotland, some of which show a connection to the Buchanan family: ROBERT KINCAID, probably son of John K. of Auchenreoch and Agnes Buchanan; M.A. (Glasgow 1658); adm. about 1662 ; proposed to be trans, to Kirkmahoe in 1672 ; deserted the charge at the Revolution ; retired to Glasgow ; died Aug. 1691, aged about 53. [Wodrow s Hist., ii., 232; Reg. Old Dec., i. ; Glasg. Tests.] Kincaid, min. of Barnweil, and had issue John, surgeon, Glasgow, died Jan. 1716; Agnes, born 15th Nov. 1681 (marr. 20th Dec. 1704, Thomas Buchanan, younger, of Ardoch), died 9th June 1720. [Gray Buchanan Coll., Lyon Office.] WILLIAM CAMERON, born about 7 1637, son of Archibald C., min. of Buchanan ; educated at Univ. of Glasgow ; M.A. (1657) ;....He died at Edinburgh, 29th Jan. 1698. He marr. Mary Wauchope, who survived him, and had issue Elizabeth (marr. Robert Kincaid, schoolmaster, Salt- coats), and eight others. [Glasg. Tests.; Edin. Reg. (Bur.) ; Maitland Miscell., iv. ; Acts of Ass., 1690, 1695.] DAVID GEMMILL, eldest son of Alex- 1798 ander G., tailor, Kirkintilloch, and Margaret Gray ; educated at Univ. of Glasgow ; licen. by Presb. of Glasgow 3rd May 1797 ; min. here 1798-1815. In 1815 he removed to Kirkintilloch, and was chief magistrate from 1826 till his death, 8th June 1842. He gave a site for the erection of St David s Church there, was the largest subscriber to the building fund, and preached at the opening of the church in 1836. He marr. (1) Alicia (died s.p. 1822), eldest daugh. of John Kincaid of Kincaid : (2) 12th Oct. 1824, Agnes, daugh. of Walter Scott of Neilston, Bonhill. [Watson s Kirkintilloch, 327.] FRANCIS KINCAID, M.A. ; reader 1634 1634. [Com. Records of Glasgoio.} WILLIAM KINCAID, vicar; died in 1576 . http://www.archive.org/stream/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft_djvu.txt http://www.archive.org/stream/indexes500scotuoft/indexes500scotuoft_djvu.txt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 6:05 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test analysis&infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > Your highlight part of the problem I have with the > sample. To me the results would be better spread > if I could prove that one of these were not of the > Kincaids of Auchenreoch. > > Let's take sample 2617. This participant can be > documented as a direct descendant of Rev. Joseph > Kinkead of Killinchy, County Down (previously > Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Stranolar, County Donegal) > who was of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids. > Now the participant (Bill Kincaid author of the This I'll > Defend) firmly believes that their ancestor was of the > Kincaids of Auchenreoch. It is clearly written in the > family history that two sons of Rev. Joseph Kinkead > (William and Robert) migrated to Virginia. The Kincaids > of Mononogalia County are the best candidates to be > of these sons. We have a participant, sample 14530, > who claims descent from the Mononogalia Kincaids > and the DNA fits for a connection to 2617. > > Now you note sample 94749 who is a descendant of > Quintin Kinkaid of Muff Parish, County Donegal, Ireland. > I can't eliminate him as a descendant of the Baronscourt, > County Tyrone Kincaids (who I noted above are claimed to > be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids). Rev. Joseph Kinkead's > grandson, Rev. John Kincaid, was a curate of adjacent > Templemore Parish. Another grand daughter married into > the Brownes of adjacent Burt Parish. The Baronscourt > Kincaids are dominant in County Tyrone and mid County > Donegal (there are records clearly tying the families > together) and there are strong links to the Chester Co., > PA and Delaware Kinkeads. > > Then we have sample 23547 who descends from James > Kincaid in Dalgrain, County Falkirk, Scotland. He clearly > is connected to Archibald Kincaid of Heuch but Archibald > died without issue and was succeeded by his brother, John > Kincaid of Saltcoates. These Kincaids are without doubt > direct descendants of the Kincaids of Warriston near > Edinburgh of which the Kincaids of Auchenreoch also > descend (the patriarch being Henry Kincaid, second son of > John Kincaid of Warriston). I can't connect James Kincaid in > Dalgrain to either these Kincaids of Heuch or Saltcoates as > there is no James of record in the family. However, John Kincaid > of Saltcoates was the son of John Kincaid of Heuch by > Elizabeth Kincaid - Archibald seems to have been a half > brother (i.e. he had a different mother than John). Elizabeth > Kincaid seems to have been a sister of William and Walter > Kincaid of Auchenreoch as John Kincaid of Heuch named William > and Walter as tutors to his children in his testament testamentar. > Thus, I can't rule out James Kincaid of Dalgrain being from > the Kincaid of Auchenreoch family. > > So perhaps one can see that my perspective of the data I have > makes me suspect the Kincaids of Auchenreoch having a good > representation in our DNA project. I certainly would be more > comfortable will a suggested AAV if one could prove more > samples without ties to the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. > > Best wishes! > > Peter > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sue Liedtke > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis > &infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > > > But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate during > the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the PA/VA > families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's > sample > was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not > immigrated? > 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His > results > do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your > criterea > for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's > non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your > mind? > The testee was certainly non-US. > > Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the colonial > immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the > US > for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA > testing > occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural > that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is > also > a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your > David's > and his possible brother George's line. > > We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family > (A). > Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in > Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is > more > ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the > split > probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of > mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed > lineage > to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the > oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. > > It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing > only > 1 representative of each identical result string then group together > those > who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an > AAV > for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that > AAV > represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of any > given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of > mutation > for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or > February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for > work. > > Sue Liedtke > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

My mother used to get a Buchanan periodical before joining Clan Kincaid. Does anyone know if the Kincaids were considered part of the Buchanan Clan? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Van Hout" <dutchtreat@prodigy.net> To: <Kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test > Interesting records of Scotland, some of which show a connection to the > Buchanan family: > > ROBERT KINCAID, probably son of > John K. of Auchenreoch and Agnes > Buchanan; M.A. (Glasgow 1658); > adm. about 1662 ; proposed to be trans, to > Kirkmahoe in 1672 ; deserted the charge > at the Revolution ; retired to Glasgow ; > died Aug. 1691, aged about 53. [Wodrow s > Hist., ii., 232; Reg. Old Dec., i. ; Glasg. > Tests.] > > > Kincaid, min. of Barnweil, and had issue > John, surgeon, Glasgow, died Jan. 1716; > Agnes, born 15th Nov. 1681 (marr. 20th > Dec. 1704, Thomas Buchanan, younger, > of Ardoch), died 9th June 1720. [Gray > Buchanan Coll., Lyon Office.] > > > WILLIAM CAMERON, born about > 7 1637, son of Archibald C., min. of > Buchanan ; educated at Univ. of > Glasgow ; M.A. (1657) ;....He died at Edinburgh, 29th > Jan. 1698. He marr. Mary Wauchope, who > survived him, and had issue Elizabeth > (marr. Robert Kincaid, schoolmaster, Salt- > coats), and eight others. [Glasg. Tests.; > Edin. Reg. (Bur.) ; Maitland Miscell., iv. ; > Acts of Ass., 1690, 1695.] > > > DAVID GEMMILL, eldest son of Alex- > 1798 ander G., tailor, Kirkintilloch, and > Margaret Gray ; educated at Univ. > of Glasgow ; licen. by Presb. of Glasgow > 3rd May 1797 ; min. here 1798-1815. In > 1815 he removed to Kirkintilloch, and > was chief magistrate from 1826 till his > death, 8th June 1842. He gave a site > for the erection of St David s Church > there, was the largest subscriber to the > building fund, and preached at the opening > of the church in 1836. He marr. (1) Alicia > (died s.p. 1822), eldest daugh. of John > Kincaid of Kincaid : (2) 12th Oct. 1824, > Agnes, daugh. of Walter Scott of Neilston, > Bonhill. [Watson s Kirkintilloch, 327.] > > > FRANCIS KINCAID, M.A. ; reader > 1634 1634. [Com. Records of Glasgoio.} > > WILLIAM KINCAID, vicar; died in > 1576 . > http://www.archive.org/stream/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft_djvu.txt > > > http://www.archive.org/stream/indexes500scotuoft/indexes500scotuoft_djvu.txt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 6:05 PM > Subject: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test > analysis&infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > > >> Your highlight part of the problem I have with the >> sample. To me the results would be better spread >> if I could prove that one of these were not of the >> Kincaids of Auchenreoch. >> >> Let's take sample 2617. This participant can be >> documented as a direct descendant of Rev. Joseph >> Kinkead of Killinchy, County Down (previously >> Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Stranolar, County Donegal) >> who was of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids. >> Now the participant (Bill Kincaid author of the This I'll >> Defend) firmly believes that their ancestor was of the >> Kincaids of Auchenreoch. It is clearly written in the >> family history that two sons of Rev. Joseph Kinkead >> (William and Robert) migrated to Virginia. The Kincaids >> of Mononogalia County are the best candidates to be >> of these sons. We have a participant, sample 14530, >> who claims descent from the Mononogalia Kincaids >> and the DNA fits for a connection to 2617. >> >> Now you note sample 94749 who is a descendant of >> Quintin Kinkaid of Muff Parish, County Donegal, Ireland. >> I can't eliminate him as a descendant of the Baronscourt, >> County Tyrone Kincaids (who I noted above are claimed to >> be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids). Rev. Joseph Kinkead's >> grandson, Rev. John Kincaid, was a curate of adjacent >> Templemore Parish. Another grand daughter married into >> the Brownes of adjacent Burt Parish. The Baronscourt >> Kincaids are dominant in County Tyrone and mid County >> Donegal (there are records clearly tying the families >> together) and there are strong links to the Chester Co., >> PA and Delaware Kinkeads. >> >> Then we have sample 23547 who descends from James >> Kincaid in Dalgrain, County Falkirk, Scotland. He clearly >> is connected to Archibald Kincaid of Heuch but Archibald >> died without issue and was succeeded by his brother, John >> Kincaid of Saltcoates. These Kincaids are without doubt >> direct descendants of the Kincaids of Warriston near >> Edinburgh of which the Kincaids of Auchenreoch also >> descend (the patriarch being Henry Kincaid, second son of >> John Kincaid of Warriston). I can't connect James Kincaid in >> Dalgrain to either these Kincaids of Heuch or Saltcoates as >> there is no James of record in the family. However, John Kincaid >> of Saltcoates was the son of John Kincaid of Heuch by >> Elizabeth Kincaid - Archibald seems to have been a half >> brother (i.e. he had a different mother than John). Elizabeth >> Kincaid seems to have been a sister of William and Walter >> Kincaid of Auchenreoch as John Kincaid of Heuch named William >> and Walter as tutors to his children in his testament testamentar. >> Thus, I can't rule out James Kincaid of Dalgrain being from >> the Kincaid of Auchenreoch family. >> >> So perhaps one can see that my perspective of the data I have >> makes me suspect the Kincaids of Auchenreoch having a good >> representation in our DNA project. I certainly would be more >> comfortable will a suggested AAV if one could prove more >> samples without ties to the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. >> >> Best wishes! >> >> Peter >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Sue Liedtke >> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis >> &infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland >> >> >> But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate >> during >> the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the >> PA/VA >> families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's >> sample >> was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not >> immigrated? >> 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His >> results >> do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your >> criterea >> for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's >> non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your >> mind? >> The testee was certainly non-US. >> >> Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the >> colonial >> immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the >> US >> for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA >> testing >> occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural >> that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is >> also >> a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your >> David's >> and his possible brother George's line. >> >> We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family >> (A). >> Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in >> Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is >> more >> ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the >> split >> probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of >> mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed >> lineage >> to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the >> oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. >> >> It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing >> only >> 1 representative of each identical result string then group together >> those >> who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an >> AAV >> for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that >> AAV >> represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of >> any >> given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of >> mutation >> for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or >> February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for >> work. >> >> Sue Liedtke >> To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

IF all A-1 Kincaids are descended from the Auchenreoch Kincaids then we apparently know the DNA profile of this branch which is then represented in the study by the Group A AAV and repeated results can be eliminated thus shrinking the influence of this set. However, before you shrink it note the rate of mutation within the set and that the apparent connection between those in the set is at least prior to the mid 17th century. The very closely related A-2 Kincaids have not extended the lineage (proven or even suspected) into the 17th century. Here we may have skewed results due to heavy sampling of 2 relatively recent (given the extent of documentation) mutational sets. Set 4 appears to congregate around a c1800 group of suspected brothers. The proven mutational rate in this set is very high. The signature mutations (those held by the entire set) may have evolved at the same rapid rate so it is quite difficult to determine this lineage diverged from other A-2 Kincaids. Set 2b may be an over sampling of a single c1700 ancestor. Since we do not have a wide geographic sampling with documentation or even suspected connections as old as the Auchenreoch Kincaids can be traced, these entire sets may also be Auchenreoch Kincaids. What is needed is documentation clearly showing that these lines pre-date possible connection to Auchenreoch Kincaids. In other words you may never find, no matter how many samples are found from any country, a Group A Kincaid that can be clearly shown to not be an Auchenreoch Kincaid. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:05 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test analysis&infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > Your highlight part of the problem I have with the > sample. To me the results would be better spread > if I could prove that one of these were not of the > Kincaids of Auchenreoch. > > Let's take sample 2617. This participant can be > documented as a direct descendant of Rev. Joseph > Kinkead of Killinchy, County Down (previously > Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Stranolar, County Donegal) > who was of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids. > Now the participant (Bill Kincaid author of the This I'll > Defend) firmly believes that their ancestor was of the > Kincaids of Auchenreoch. It is clearly written in the > family history that two sons of Rev. Joseph Kinkead > (William and Robert) migrated to Virginia. The Kincaids > of Mononogalia County are the best candidates to be > of these sons. We have a participant, sample 14530, > who claims descent from the Mononogalia Kincaids > and the DNA fits for a connection to 2617. > > Now you note sample 94749 who is a descendant of > Quintin Kinkaid of Muff Parish, County Donegal, Ireland. > I can't eliminate him as a descendant of the Baronscourt, > County Tyrone Kincaids (who I noted above are claimed to > be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids). Rev. Joseph Kinkead's > grandson, Rev. John Kincaid, was a curate of adjacent > Templemore Parish. Another grand daughter married into > the Brownes of adjacent Burt Parish. The Baronscourt > Kincaids are dominant in County Tyrone and mid County > Donegal (there are records clearly tying the families > together) and there are strong links to the Chester Co., > PA and Delaware Kinkeads. > > Then we have sample 23547 who descends from James > Kincaid in Dalgrain, County Falkirk, Scotland. He clearly > is connected to Archibald Kincaid of Heuch but Archibald > died without issue and was succeeded by his brother, John > Kincaid of Saltcoates. These Kincaids are without doubt > direct descendants of the Kincaids of Warriston near > Edinburgh of which the Kincaids of Auchenreoch also > descend (the patriarch being Henry Kincaid, second son of > John Kincaid of Warriston). I can't connect James Kincaid in > Dalgrain to either these Kincaids of Heuch or Saltcoates as > there is no James of record in the family. However, John Kincaid > of Saltcoates was the son of John Kincaid of Heuch by > Elizabeth Kincaid - Archibald seems to have been a half > brother (i.e. he had a different mother than John). Elizabeth > Kincaid seems to have been a sister of William and Walter > Kincaid of Auchenreoch as John Kincaid of Heuch named William > and Walter as tutors to his children in his testament testamentar. > Thus, I can't rule out James Kincaid of Dalgrain being from > the Kincaid of Auchenreoch family. > > So perhaps one can see that my perspective of the data I have > makes me suspect the Kincaids of Auchenreoch having a good > representation in our DNA project. I certainly would be more > comfortable will a suggested AAV if one could prove more > samples without ties to the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. > > Best wishes! > > Peter > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sue Liedtke > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis > &infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > > > But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate during > the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the PA/VA > families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's > sample > was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not > immigrated? > 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His > results > do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your > criterea > for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's > non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your > mind? > The testee was certainly non-US. > > Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the colonial > immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the > US > for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA > testing > occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural > that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is > also > a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your > David's > and his possible brother George's line. > > We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family > (A). > Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in > Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is > more > ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the > split > probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of > mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed > lineage > to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the > oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. > > It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing > only > 1 representative of each identical result string then group together > those > who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an > AAV > for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that > AAV > represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of any > given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of > mutation > for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or > February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for > work. > > Sue Liedtke > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Your highlight part of the problem I have with the sample. To me the results would be better spread if I could prove that one of these were not of the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. Let's take sample 2617. This participant can be documented as a direct descendant of Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Killinchy, County Down (previously Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Stranolar, County Donegal) who was of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids. Now the participant (Bill Kincaid author of the This I'll Defend) firmly believes that their ancestor was of the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. It is clearly written in the family history that two sons of Rev. Joseph Kinkead (William and Robert) migrated to Virginia. The Kincaids of Mononogalia County are the best candidates to be of these sons. We have a participant, sample 14530, who claims descent from the Mononogalia Kincaids and the DNA fits for a connection to 2617. Now you note sample 94749 who is a descendant of Quintin Kinkaid of Muff Parish, County Donegal, Ireland. I can't eliminate him as a descendant of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids (who I noted above are claimed to be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids). Rev. Joseph Kinkead's grandson, Rev. John Kincaid, was a curate of adjacent Templemore Parish. Another grand daughter married into the Brownes of adjacent Burt Parish. The Baronscourt Kincaids are dominant in County Tyrone and mid County Donegal (there are records clearly tying the families together) and there are strong links to the Chester Co., PA and Delaware Kinkeads. Then we have sample 23547 who descends from James Kincaid in Dalgrain, County Falkirk, Scotland. He clearly is connected to Archibald Kincaid of Heuch but Archibald died without issue and was succeeded by his brother, John Kincaid of Saltcoates. These Kincaids are without doubt direct descendants of the Kincaids of Warriston near Edinburgh of which the Kincaids of Auchenreoch also descend (the patriarch being Henry Kincaid, second son of John Kincaid of Warriston). I can't connect James Kincaid in Dalgrain to either these Kincaids of Heuch or Saltcoates as there is no James of record in the family. However, John Kincaid of Saltcoates was the son of John Kincaid of Heuch by Elizabeth Kincaid - Archibald seems to have been a half brother (i.e. he had a different mother than John). Elizabeth Kincaid seems to have been a sister of William and Walter Kincaid of Auchenreoch as John Kincaid of Heuch named William and Walter as tutors to his children in his testament testamentar. Thus, I can't rule out James Kincaid of Dalgrain being from the Kincaid of Auchenreoch family. So perhaps one can see that my perspective of the data I have makes me suspect the Kincaids of Auchenreoch having a good representation in our DNA project. I certainly would be more comfortable will a suggested AAV if one could prove more samples without ties to the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Liedtke To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis &infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate during the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the PA/VA families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's sample was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not immigrated? 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His results do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your criterea for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your mind? The testee was certainly non-US. Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the colonial immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the US for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA testing occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is also a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your David's and his possible brother George's line. We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family (A). Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is more ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the split probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed lineage to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing only 1 representative of each identical result string then group together those who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an AAV for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that AAV represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of any given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of mutation for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for work. Sue Liedtke

Taxes are universal but adverse possession is not! Here is Colorado adverse possession was abused so much in a Boulder "land grab" situation that the legislation will likely change. It is a legacy from the mining days. Cheers! -----Original Message----- From: kincaid-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:kincaid-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Norman Kincaide Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:22 AM To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions Also if the mineral rights owner does not pay the taxes on those rights they could be put up for sale to collect the unpaid taxes.  And they could also revert over time to the present surface property owner through adverse possession. Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> To: bkinkade55@yahoo.com; kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:46:50 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions One of the great things about our list is that we help each other from time to time. I should have mentioned that several states have laws that cause the title to mineral rights to revert to the current landowner after a period of years or other conditions like no sales in a given period of time. Norman's post reminded me that I need to deed some mineral rights we have in CA to our children. Some states have a list of "unclaimed property" and mineral rights sometimes are on them. Don   ----- Original Message -----   From: Robert Kinkade   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:22 AM   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions   Thanks to all making recent posts about deeds and mineral rights. You've reminded me that when my grandfather sold his farm in southern Illinois (near Olney) that he retained the mineral rights, which I understand is fairly normal to do. He then passed away back in 1991 and I don't think that anything legally official was done about the mineral rights for heirs. I will now look into that.   Robert Bruce Kinkade   #35915   --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> wrote:   From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net>   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 10:05 PM   We arrived in Arizona this afternoon and will try to catch up on emails.. We have   had experience several times with deed errors so will give some input on this   subject.   In the states we have dealt in, the procedure to correct deed errors is similar   to Canada. The seller may file a Correction Deed which is the simplest and   easiest way to correct the mistake. If the Seller or heirs are not available,   then the main way left is to have a lawyer go through a court process to clear   the title using the correct information. They basically sue those who have held   title to the land giving notice that they are correcting the Deed. They have to   publish a notice of the suit in public newspapers a certain number of times and   allow plenty of time for anyone to respond. We bought 200 acres in PA once that   had 7 items to correct. There were no objections by anyone so the suit cleared   the title problems and the new deed with the corrections was accepted by the   title company as clear title. Some lawyers and title companies will accept   affidavits done by neighbors, buyers or relatives who knew what was intended by   the original deed in which the mistake was mad!   e. Affidavits are used more to clear up mineral right ownership in Texas and   New Mexico. We sure hope Norman's father can get his deed corrected. We are   getting a little royalty from a 20 acres parcel my grandfather acquired back in   1918. New methods of drilling has opened up lots of land to oil or gas   production. I would also recommend that all that own mineral rights to land they   have sold to make sure a transfer is recorded to heirs so that children,   grandchildren, great grandchildren and other heirs will receive any royalty   payments on any future production. State laws vary but in Texas for instance, a   production company must try to locate all the rightful owners of mineral rights   under land they want to drill a well or wells under but if they can't locate   all of them, they can still drill and the money goes to the state which holds it   for 7 years after which if no one claims it, it becomes state property.   Don     ----- Original Message -----     From: Peter A. Kincaid     To: kincaid@rootsweb.com     Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:13 PM     Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman     Under the registry system in my area, a gross error     in the description creates a defect in the title     which has to be rectified by a deed of rectification     by the grantors to the original deed where the     error occurred.  If not possible (ie. the grantors     has since passed) then the situation is much     complicated and a quieting of titles process may     be required.     Best wishes!     Peter       ----- Original Message -----       From: Utahn1@aol.com       To: Kincaid@rootsweb.com       Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:30 PM       Subject: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman       ----- Forwarded Message ----       From: Norman Kincaide  <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com>       To: kincaid@rootsweb.com       Sent: Tuesday,  December 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM       Subject: Deeds and legal  descriptions       Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in  a timely       fashion.  I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions  of the       Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO.  My Dad  asked   me to look       into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch  which was   sold       in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co.  So I went to the  Pueblo County   Court       House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring  when I was a kid       and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand  ediface.  I   found       that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights  attached to two lots,   one       of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21.  But the section number was       incorrect (it should have been section 20) and  applied to a section to the   east       of where our ranch was.  I verifed this  with the Mapping office in the   court       house.  So the lesson here is if the  section or the lots in a deed   don't       match what is indicated on the map or  the       survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the   survey       itself.  This error had been carried on the original deed for the  mineral       rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought   it to       the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the       interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to   one of  our       neighbors and was never part of our ranch.  So this has inspired me to   look       further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County,   CO.  So       I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W.I. Sanford,  my       step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in   1911.       Sincerely       Norman Kincaide       To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:         http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kinca id%20%20DNA.xls       -------------------------------       To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the   quotes in the subject and the body of the message     To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:       http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kinca id%20%20DNA.xls     -------------------------------     To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the   quotes in the subject and the body of the message   To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kinca id%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the   quotes in the subject and the body of the message           To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kinca id%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kinca id%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kinca id%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate during the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the PA/VA families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's sample was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not immigrated? 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His results do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your criterea for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your mind? The testee was certainly non-US. Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the colonial immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the US for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA testing occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is also a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your David's and his possible brother George's line. We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family (A). Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is more ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the split probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed lineage to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing only 1 representative of each identical result string then group together those who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an AAV for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that AAV represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of any given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of mutation for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for work. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis & infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > Sue wrote: > >>The whole project would shrink >>to the point where it would be quite difficult to draw any conclusions at >>all. > > > My point is exactly this. We can't make any conclusions > yet because we don't any non American samples to > support the AAV (apparent ancestral value) suggested by > the superior number of American samples. The AAV of > Group A as suggested may in the end be the true ancestral > value but we can't say for sure yet. We need more Old > World samples. I think (this is my opinion) that there are > a lot of participants in our project descended from the same > 18th century family which is skewing results - just as results > would be skewed by the descendants of David Kincaid of > Londonderry, Northern Ireland if we just considered non > American samples. > > I have before that stated before that, for one, it is still uncertain > if the true ancestral value for DYS 459a,b is 9,10 or 9,9. > I still think it is 9,9. The implications are this. If it is > 9,9 then one can look at the bulk of set 1a being of the > same 17th or 18th century family. If it is 9,10 then one > can't make any conclusions about any of them being > related to each other (without supporting paper records) > as they are simply carrying the values for the tested 67 > markers that the original Kincaid had. > > One other point to remember that is not DNA related is > this. Before DNA 'the bulk of' American genealogies had > their Kincaids descended from the so called sons > of Alexander of edinburgh, the alledged three brothers of > Albermarle County (David, Joseph, and James Kinkead) and > their related Rev. John Kinkead (John the Clerk), or John Kincaid, > the patriarch. If the bulk of American Kincaids claimed > descent from this small group of Kincaids before DNA > testing, why would one not think there would likely be a > bias in DNA testing results for American Kincaids - and > thus treat results cautiously until non American DNA tests > support the American data. > > I would like people to think in terms of sampling. If during > an election we sampled mostly Republicans, what do you > think the survey would suggest about who will win the election. > If we sampled mostly people from the state of Michigan, what > do you think the survey will suggest about what Americans > think about a bailout of the US automakers. You can appreciate > a bias will suggest different things about the whole population. > It is only natural to think that a strong sampling bias of American > participants in our DNA project may be suggesting something > different about the whole Kincaid population (hence our Kincaid > patriarch) than if we had a better balanced project. > > Best wishes! > > Peter > > P.S. My comments were given as a reaction to the comment that > the 67 marker testing is of little value. I think one should at least > look at upgrades for the non American tests (i.e. 2617, 23547, > 64507, 94749, and 98268 for starters) before we can rule out > whether there is any further markers of significance in the 37-67 > group of markers. > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sue wrote: >The whole project would shrink >to the point where it would be quite difficult to draw any conclusions at >all. My point is exactly this. We can't make any conclusions yet because we don't any non American samples to support the AAV (apparent ancestral value) suggested by the superior number of American samples. The AAV of Group A as suggested may in the end be the true ancestral value but we can't say for sure yet. We need more Old World samples. I think (this is my opinion) that there are a lot of participants in our project descended from the same 18th century family which is skewing results - just as results would be skewed by the descendants of David Kincaid of Londonderry, Northern Ireland if we just considered non American samples. I have before that stated before that, for one, it is still uncertain if the true ancestral value for DYS 459a,b is 9,10 or 9,9. I still think it is 9,9. The implications are this. If it is 9,9 then one can look at the bulk of set 1a being of the same 17th or 18th century family. If it is 9,10 then one can't make any conclusions about any of them being related to each other (without supporting paper records) as they are simply carrying the values for the tested 67 markers that the original Kincaid had. One other point to remember that is not DNA related is this. Before DNA 'the bulk of' American genealogies had their Kincaids descended from the so called sons of Alexander of edinburgh, the alledged three brothers of Albermarle County (David, Joseph, and James Kinkead) and their related Rev. John Kinkead (John the Clerk), or John Kincaid, the patriarch. If the bulk of American Kincaids claimed descent from this small group of Kincaids before DNA testing, why would one not think there would likely be a bias in DNA testing results for American Kincaids - and thus treat results cautiously until non American DNA tests support the American data. I would like people to think in terms of sampling. If during an election we sampled mostly Republicans, what do you think the survey would suggest about who will win the election. If we sampled mostly people from the state of Michigan, what do you think the survey will suggest about what Americans think about a bailout of the US automakers. You can appreciate a bias will suggest different things about the whole population. It is only natural to think that a strong sampling bias of American participants in our DNA project may be suggesting something different about the whole Kincaid population (hence our Kincaid patriarch) than if we had a better balanced project. Best wishes! Peter P.S. My comments were given as a reaction to the comment that the 67 marker testing is of little value. I think one should at least look at upgrades for the non American tests (i.e. 2617, 23547, 64507, 94749, and 98268 for starters) before we can rule out whether there is any further markers of significance in the 37-67 group of markers.

Hi My name is Alberta Kinkade Porter. My grandfather was Roy or Robert Kinkade and he was born in Kentucky but at one point he lived in Oliney Ill. What line is your family from? Mine is Robert and Mary Kinkade from Hardin County Kentucky. Hope to hear from you. Alberta Porter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Kinkade" <bkinkade55@yahoo.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions Thanks to all making recent posts about deeds and mineral rights. You've reminded me that when my grandfather sold his farm in southern Illinois (near Olney) that he retained the mineral rights, which I understand is fairly normal to do. He then passed away back in 1991 and I don't think that anything legally official was done about the mineral rights for heirs. I will now look into that. Robert Bruce Kinkade #35915 --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> wrote: From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 10:05 PM We arrived in Arizona this afternoon and will try to catch up on emails. We have had experience several times with deed errors so will give some input on this subject. In the states we have dealt in, the procedure to correct deed errors is similar to Canada. The seller may file a Correction Deed which is the simplest and easiest way to correct the mistake. If the Seller or heirs are not available, then the main way left is to have a lawyer go through a court process to clear the title using the correct information. They basically sue those who have held title to the land giving notice that they are correcting the Deed. They have to publish a notice of the suit in public newspapers a certain number of times and allow plenty of time for anyone to respond. We bought 200 acres in PA once that had 7 items to correct. There were no objections by anyone so the suit cleared the title problems and the new deed with the corrections was accepted by the title company as clear title. Some lawyers and title companies will accept affidavits done by neighbors, buyers or relatives who knew what was intended by the original deed in which the mistake was mad! e. Affidavits are used more to clear up mineral right ownership in Texas and New Mexico. We sure hope Norman's father can get his deed corrected. We are getting a little royalty from a 20 acres parcel my grandfather acquired back in 1918. New methods of drilling has opened up lots of land to oil or gas production. I would also recommend that all that own mineral rights to land they have sold to make sure a transfer is recorded to heirs so that children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and other heirs will receive any royalty payments on any future production. State laws vary but in Texas for instance, a production company must try to locate all the rightful owners of mineral rights under land they want to drill a well or wells under but if they can't locate all of them, they can still drill and the money goes to the state which holds it for 7 years after which if no one claims it, it becomes state property. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter A. Kincaid To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman Under the registry system in my area, a gross error in the description creates a defect in the title which has to be rectified by a deed of rectification by the grantors to the original deed where the error occurred. If not possible (ie. the grantors has since passed) then the situation is much complicated and a quieting of titles process may be required. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Utahn1@aol.com To: Kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:30 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM Subject: Deeds and legal descriptions Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in a timely fashion. I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO. My Dad asked me to look into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch which was sold in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co. So I went to the Pueblo County Court House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring when I was a kid and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand ediface. I found that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights attached to two lots, one of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21. But the section number was incorrect (it should have been section 20) and applied to a section to the east of where our ranch was. I verifed this with the Mapping office in the court house. So the lesson here is if the section or the lots in a deed don't match what is indicated on the map or the survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the survey itself. This error had been carried on the original deed for the mineral rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought it to the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to one of our neighbors and was never part of our ranch. So this has inspired me to look further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County, CO. So I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W.I. Sanford, my step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in 1911. Sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotesin the subject and the body of the message

One of the great things about our list is that we help each other from time to time. I should have mentioned that several states have laws that cause the title to mineral rights to revert to the current landowner after a period of years or other conditions like no sales in a given period of time. Norman's post reminded me that I need to deed some mineral rights we have in CA to our children. Some states have a list of "unclaimed property" and mineral rights sometimes are on them. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Kinkade To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions Thanks to all making recent posts about deeds and mineral rights. You've reminded me that when my grandfather sold his farm in southern Illinois (near Olney) that he retained the mineral rights, which I understand is fairly normal to do. He then passed away back in 1991 and I don't think that anything legally official was done about the mineral rights for heirs. I will now look into that. Robert Bruce Kinkade #35915 --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> wrote: From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 10:05 PM We arrived in Arizona this afternoon and will try to catch up on emails. We have had experience several times with deed errors so will give some input on this subject. In the states we have dealt in, the procedure to correct deed errors is similar to Canada. The seller may file a Correction Deed which is the simplest and easiest way to correct the mistake. If the Seller or heirs are not available, then the main way left is to have a lawyer go through a court process to clear the title using the correct information. They basically sue those who have held title to the land giving notice that they are correcting the Deed. They have to publish a notice of the suit in public newspapers a certain number of times and allow plenty of time for anyone to respond. We bought 200 acres in PA once that had 7 items to correct. There were no objections by anyone so the suit cleared the title problems and the new deed with the corrections was accepted by the title company as clear title. Some lawyers and title companies will accept affidavits done by neighbors, buyers or relatives who knew what was intended by the original deed in which the mistake was mad! e. Affidavits are used more to clear up mineral right ownership in Texas and New Mexico. We sure hope Norman's father can get his deed corrected. We are getting a little royalty from a 20 acres parcel my grandfather acquired back in 1918. New methods of drilling has opened up lots of land to oil or gas production. I would also recommend that all that own mineral rights to land they have sold to make sure a transfer is recorded to heirs so that children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and other heirs will receive any royalty payments on any future production. State laws vary but in Texas for instance, a production company must try to locate all the rightful owners of mineral rights under land they want to drill a well or wells under but if they can't locate all of them, they can still drill and the money goes to the state which holds it for 7 years after which if no one claims it, it becomes state property. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter A. Kincaid To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman Under the registry system in my area, a gross error in the description creates a defect in the title which has to be rectified by a deed of rectification by the grantors to the original deed where the error occurred. If not possible (ie. the grantors has since passed) then the situation is much complicated and a quieting of titles process may be required. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Utahn1@aol.com To: Kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:30 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM Subject: Deeds and legal descriptions Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in a timely fashion. I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO. My Dad asked me to look into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch which was sold in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co. So I went to the Pueblo County Court House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring when I was a kid and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand ediface. I found that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights attached to two lots, one of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21. But the section number was incorrect (it should have been section 20) and applied to a section to the east of where our ranch was. I verifed this with the Mapping office in the court house. So the lesson here is if the section or the lots in a deed don't match what is indicated on the map or the survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the survey itself. This error had been carried on the original deed for the mineral rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought it to the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to one of our neighbors and was never part of our ranch. So this has inspired me to look further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County, CO. So I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W.I. Sanford, my step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in 1911. Sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Okay, but from my limited knowledge, doesn't adverse possession vary from state to state; i.e. from 7 to 21 years in varying states?     Bob --- On Fri, 12/12/08, Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Date: Friday, December 12, 2008, 10:22 AM Also if the mineral rights owner does not pay the taxes on those rights they could be put up for sale to collect the unpaid taxes.  And they could also revert over time to the present surface property owner through adverse possession. Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> To: bkinkade55@yahoo.com; kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:46:50 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions One of the great things about our list is that we help each other from time to time. I should have mentioned that several states have laws that cause the title to mineral rights to revert to the current landowner after a period of years or other conditions like no sales in a given period of time. Norman's post reminded me that I need to deed some mineral rights we have in CA to our children. Some states have a list of "unclaimed property" and mineral rights sometimes are on them. Don   ----- Original Message -----   From: Robert Kinkade   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:22 AM   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions   Thanks to all making recent posts about deeds and mineral rights. You've reminded me that when my grandfather sold his farm in southern Illinois (near Olney) that he retained the mineral rights, which I understand is fairly normal to do. He then passed away back in 1991 and I don't think that anything legally official was done about the mineral rights for heirs. I will now look into that.   Robert Bruce Kinkade   #35915   --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> wrote:   From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net>   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 10:05 PM   We arrived in Arizona this afternoon and will try to catch up on emails.. We have   had experience several times with deed errors so will give some input on this   subject.   In the states we have dealt in, the procedure to correct deed errors is similar   to Canada. The seller may file a Correction Deed which is the simplest and   easiest way to correct the mistake. If the Seller or heirs are not available,   then the main way left is to have a lawyer go through a court process to clear   the title using the correct information. They basically sue those who have held   title to the land giving notice that they are correcting the Deed. They have to   publish a notice of the suit in public newspapers a certain number of times and   allow plenty of time for anyone to respond. We bought 200 acres in PA once that   had 7 items to correct. There were no objections by anyone so the suit cleared   the title problems and the new deed with the corrections was accepted by the   title company as clear title. Some lawyers and title companies will accept   affidavits done by neighbors, buyers or relatives who knew what was intended by   the original deed in which the mistake was mad!   e. Affidavits are used more to clear up mineral right ownership in Texas and   New Mexico. We sure hope Norman's father can get his deed corrected. We are   getting a little royalty from a 20 acres parcel my grandfather acquired back in   1918. New methods of drilling has opened up lots of land to oil or gas   production. I would also recommend that all that own mineral rights to land they   have sold to make sure a transfer is recorded to heirs so that children,   grandchildren, great grandchildren and other heirs will receive any royalty   payments on any future production. State laws vary but in Texas for instance, a   production company must try to locate all the rightful owners of mineral rights   under land they want to drill a well or wells under but if they can't locate   all of them, they can still drill and the money goes to the state which holds it   for 7 years after which if no one claims it, it becomes state property.   Don     ----- Original Message -----     From: Peter A. Kincaid     To: kincaid@rootsweb.com     Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:13 PM     Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman     Under the registry system in my area, a gross error     in the description creates a defect in the title     which has to be rectified by a deed of rectification     by the grantors to the original deed where the     error occurred.  If not possible (ie. the grantors     has since passed) then the situation is much     complicated and a quieting of titles process may     be required.     Best wishes!     Peter       ----- Original Message -----       From: Utahn1@aol.com       To: Kincaid@rootsweb.com       Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:30 PM       Subject: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman       ----- Forwarded Message ----       From: Norman Kincaide  <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com>       To: kincaid@rootsweb.com       Sent: Tuesday,  December 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM       Subject: Deeds and legal  descriptions       Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in  a timely       fashion.  I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions  of the       Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO.  My Dad  asked   me to look       into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch  which was   sold       in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co.  So I went to the  Pueblo County   Court       House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring  when I was a kid       and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand  ediface.  I   found       that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights  attached to two lots,   one       of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21.  But the section number was       incorrect (it should have been section 20) and  applied to a section to the   east       of where our ranch was.  I verifed this  with the Mapping office in the   court       house.  So the lesson here is if the  section or the lots in a deed   don't       match what is indicated on the map or  the       survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the   survey       itself.  This error had been carried on the original deed for the  mineral       rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought   it to       the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the        interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to   one of  our       neighbors and was never part of our ranch.  So this has inspired me to   look       further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County,   CO.  So       I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W.I. Sanford,  my       step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in   1911.       Sincerely       Norman Kincaide       To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:         http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls       -------------------------------       To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the   quotes in the subject and the body of the message     To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:       http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls     -------------------------------     To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the   quotes in the subject and the body of the message   To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the   quotes in the subject and the body of the message           To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Also if the mineral rights owner does not pay the taxes on those rights they could be put up for sale to collect the unpaid taxes.  And they could also revert over time to the present surface property owner through adverse possession. Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> To: bkinkade55@yahoo.com; kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:46:50 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions One of the great things about our list is that we help each other from time to time. I should have mentioned that several states have laws that cause the title to mineral rights to revert to the current landowner after a period of years or other conditions like no sales in a given period of time. Norman's post reminded me that I need to deed some mineral rights we have in CA to our children. Some states have a list of "unclaimed property" and mineral rights sometimes are on them. Don   ----- Original Message -----   From: Robert Kinkade   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:22 AM   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions   Thanks to all making recent posts about deeds and mineral rights. You've reminded me that when my grandfather sold his farm in southern Illinois (near Olney) that he retained the mineral rights, which I understand is fairly normal to do. He then passed away back in 1991 and I don't think that anything legally official was done about the mineral rights for heirs. I will now look into that.   Robert Bruce Kinkade   #35915   --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> wrote:   From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net>   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 10:05 PM   We arrived in Arizona this afternoon and will try to catch up on emails.. We have   had experience several times with deed errors so will give some input on this   subject.   In the states we have dealt in, the procedure to correct deed errors is similar   to Canada. The seller may file a Correction Deed which is the simplest and   easiest way to correct the mistake. If the Seller or heirs are not available,   then the main way left is to have a lawyer go through a court process to clear   the title using the correct information. They basically sue those who have held   title to the land giving notice that they are correcting the Deed. They have to   publish a notice of the suit in public newspapers a certain number of times and   allow plenty of time for anyone to respond. We bought 200 acres in PA once that   had 7 items to correct. There were no objections by anyone so the suit cleared   the title problems and the new deed with the corrections was accepted by the   title company as clear title. Some lawyers and title companies will accept   affidavits done by neighbors, buyers or relatives who knew what was intended by   the original deed in which the mistake was mad!   e. Affidavits are used more to clear up mineral right ownership in Texas and   New Mexico. We sure hope Norman's father can get his deed corrected. We are   getting a little royalty from a 20 acres parcel my grandfather acquired back in   1918. New methods of drilling has opened up lots of land to oil or gas   production. I would also recommend that all that own mineral rights to land they   have sold to make sure a transfer is recorded to heirs so that children,   grandchildren, great grandchildren and other heirs will receive any royalty   payments on any future production. State laws vary but in Texas for instance, a   production company must try to locate all the rightful owners of mineral rights   under land they want to drill a well or wells under but if they can't locate   all of them, they can still drill and the money goes to the state which holds it   for 7 years after which if no one claims it, it becomes state property.   Don     ----- Original Message -----     From: Peter A. Kincaid     To: kincaid@rootsweb.com     Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:13 PM     Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman     Under the registry system in my area, a gross error     in the description creates a defect in the title     which has to be rectified by a deed of rectification     by the grantors to the original deed where the     error occurred.  If not possible (ie. the grantors     has since passed) then the situation is much     complicated and a quieting of titles process may     be required.     Best wishes!     Peter       ----- Original Message -----       From: Utahn1@aol.com       To: Kincaid@rootsweb.com       Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:30 PM       Subject: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman       ----- Forwarded Message ----       From: Norman Kincaide  <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com>       To: kincaid@rootsweb.com       Sent: Tuesday,  December 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM       Subject: Deeds and legal  descriptions       Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in  a timely       fashion.  I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions  of the       Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO.  My Dad  asked   me to look       into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch  which was   sold       in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co.  So I went to the  Pueblo County   Court       House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring  when I was a kid       and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand  ediface.  I   found       that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights  attached to two lots,   one       of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21.  But the section number was       incorrect (it should have been section 20) and  applied to a section to the   east       of where our ranch was.  I verifed this  with the Mapping office in the   court       house.  So the lesson here is if the  section or the lots in a deed   don't       match what is indicated on the map or  the       survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the   survey       itself.  This error had been carried on the original deed for the  mineral       rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought   it to       the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the        interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to   one of  our       neighbors and was never part of our ranch.  So this has inspired me to   look       further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County,   CO.  So       I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W.I. Sanford,  my       step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in   1911.       Sincerely       Norman Kincaide       To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:         http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls       -------------------------------       To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the   quotes in the subject and the body of the message     To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:       http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls     -------------------------------     To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the   quotes in the subject and the body of the message   To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the   quotes in the subject and the body of the message           To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks to all making recent posts about deeds and mineral rights. You've reminded me that when my grandfather sold his farm in southern Illinois (near Olney) that he retained the mineral rights, which I understand is fairly normal to do. He then passed away back in 1991 and I don't think that anything legally official was done about the mineral rights for heirs. I will now look into that.   Robert Bruce Kinkade #35915   --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> wrote: From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 10:05 PM We arrived in Arizona this afternoon and will try to catch up on emails. We have had experience several times with deed errors so will give some input on this subject. In the states we have dealt in, the procedure to correct deed errors is similar to Canada. The seller may file a Correction Deed which is the simplest and easiest way to correct the mistake. If the Seller or heirs are not available, then the main way left is to have a lawyer go through a court process to clear the title using the correct information. They basically sue those who have held title to the land giving notice that they are correcting the Deed. They have to publish a notice of the suit in public newspapers a certain number of times and allow plenty of time for anyone to respond. We bought 200 acres in PA once that had 7 items to correct. There were no objections by anyone so the suit cleared the title problems and the new deed with the corrections was accepted by the title company as clear title. Some lawyers and title companies will accept affidavits done by neighbors, buyers or relatives who knew what was intended by the original deed in which the mistake was mad! e. Affidavits are used more to clear up mineral right ownership in Texas and New Mexico. We sure hope Norman's father can get his deed corrected. We are getting a little royalty from a 20 acres parcel my grandfather acquired back in 1918. New methods of drilling has opened up lots of land to oil or gas production. I would also recommend that all that own mineral rights to land they have sold to make sure a transfer is recorded to heirs so that children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and other heirs will receive any royalty payments on any future production. State laws vary but in Texas for instance, a production company must try to locate all the rightful owners of mineral rights under land they want to drill a well or wells under but if they can't locate all of them, they can still drill and the money goes to the state which holds it for 7 years after which if no one claims it, it becomes state property. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter A. Kincaid To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman Under the registry system in my area, a gross error in the description creates a defect in the title which has to be rectified by a deed of rectification by the grantors to the original deed where the error occurred. If not possible (ie. the grantors has since passed) then the situation is much complicated and a quieting of titles process may be required. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Utahn1@aol.com To: Kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:30 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM Subject: Deeds and legal descriptions Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in a timely fashion. I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO. My Dad asked me to look into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch which was sold in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co. So I went to the Pueblo County Court House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring when I was a kid and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand ediface. I found that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights attached to two lots, one of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21. But the section number was incorrect (it should have been section 20) and applied to a section to the east of where our ranch was. I verifed this with the Mapping office in the court house. So the lesson here is if the section or the lots in a deed don't match what is indicated on the map or the survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the survey itself. This error had been carried on the original deed for the mineral rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought it to the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to one of our neighbors and was never part of our ranch. So this has inspired me to look further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County, CO. So I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W.I. Sanford, my step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in 1911. Sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The State Journal-Register, Springfield, Illinois Donald T. Kincade GIBSON CITY - Donald Terrance "Don" Kincade, age 87, of Gibson City died at 7:37 a.m. Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2008, at the Heartland Health Care Center in Paxton. His funeral service will be 1:30 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008, at Lamb Funeral Home in Gibson City with the Rev. Kevin Boesen officiating. Burial will be in Drummer Township Cemetery in Gibson City with military rites by the Lee Lowery American Legion Post 568. Visitation will be for one hour before the service. Don was born Dec. 16, 1920, in Cheneyville, a son of Otis O. and Flossie Wintersteen Kincade. He married Goldie Cupp on May 23, 1942, in St. Charles, Mo. She survives in Gibson City. Also surviving is a daughter, Sharon (Delmar) Heavilin of Gibson City; a son, Donald (Cinda Schien) Kincade of Springfield; four grandchildren, Courtney and Christopher Kincade of Springfield, Sherri Kincade of Tampa, Fla., and Michael (Jody) Heavilin of Green Valley; three great-grandchildren, Jacob and Ryan Heavilin of Green Valley and Jessie Reffue of Tampa, Fla.; two brothers, John Kincade of Gibson City and Phil Kincade of Panama City, Fla.; and two sisters, Toby Gagnon of Decatur and Wilma Penny of Bethel, Ohio. He was preceded in death by an infant daughter; a brother, Harold Kincade; and two sisters, Jean Stocker and Annabelle Dixon. Don retired as a grain buyer and licensed commodity trader after 32 years with Central Soy. He served in the U.S. Air Force during World War II and the Illinois Army National Guard. He was a member of the Lee Lowery American Legion Post. He enjoyed working with youth in Little League Baseball. He was instrumental in bringing Wildcat League Youth Baseball to Gibson City. He was a member of the United Methodist Church in Gibson City. He was an avid White Sox fan and GCMS Falcon football fan. He delighted in his family, especially grandchildren and great-grandchildren. In lieu of flowers, memorials may be made to the Gibson Area Hospital or to Carle Hospice Program.

We arrived in Arizona this afternoon and will try to catch up on emails. We have had experience several times with deed errors so will give some input on this subject. In the states we have dealt in, the procedure to correct deed errors is similar to Canada. The seller may file a Correction Deed which is the simplest and easiest way to correct the mistake. If the Seller or heirs are not available, then the main way left is to have a lawyer go through a court process to clear the title using the correct information. They basically sue those who have held title to the land giving notice that they are correcting the Deed. They have to publish a notice of the suit in public newspapers a certain number of times and allow plenty of time for anyone to respond. We bought 200 acres in PA once that had 7 items to correct. There were no objections by anyone so the suit cleared the title problems and the new deed with the corrections was accepted by the title company as clear title. Some lawyers and title companies will accept affidavits done by neighbors, buyers or relatives who knew what was intended by the original deed in which the mistake was made. Affidavits are used more to clear up mineral right ownership in Texas and New Mexico. We sure hope Norman's father can get his deed corrected. We are getting a little royalty from a 20 acres parcel my grandfather acquired back in 1918. New methods of drilling has opened up lots of land to oil or gas production. I would also recommend that all that own mineral rights to land they have sold to make sure a transfer is recorded to heirs so that children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and other heirs will receive any royalty payments on any future production. State laws vary but in Texas for instance, a production company must try to locate all the rightful owners of mineral rights under land they want to drill a well or wells under but if they can't locate all of them, they can still drill and the money goes to the state which holds it for 7 years after which if no one claims it, it becomes state property. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter A. Kincaid To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman Under the registry system in my area, a gross error in the description creates a defect in the title which has to be rectified by a deed of rectification by the grantors to the original deed where the error occurred. If not possible (ie. the grantors has since passed) then the situation is much complicated and a quieting of titles process may be required. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Utahn1@aol.com To: Kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:30 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Deeds and legal descriptions from Norman ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Norman Kincaide <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:03:03 AM Subject: Deeds and legal descriptions Dear Kincaid listers, I hope this message reaches you all in a timely fashion. I have been researching the deed and legal descriptions of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch where I grew up in Pueblo County, CO. My Dad asked me to look into a matter in which his name was still attached to our ranch which was sold in 1983 to the Pueblo Bank & Trust Co. So I went to the Pueblo County Court House, a beautiful grand building that was awe inspiring when I was a kid and especially when the Christmas lights decorated its grand ediface. I found that my Dad still had a fraction of mineral rights attached to two lots, one of 24 acres and one of 28 acres in section 21. But the section number was incorrect (it should have been section 20) and applied to a section to the east of where our ranch was. I verifed this with the Mapping office in the court house. So the lesson here is if the section or the lots in a deed don't match what is indicated on the map or the survey there may be clerical error in the legal description or on the survey itself. This error had been carried on the original deed for the mineral rights in 1985 and not discovered until I looked at the deed and brought it to the mapping department and the mapping director and I looked at the interactive map that showed the wrong section, a section that belonged to one of our neighbors and was never part of our ranch. So this has inspired me to look further into the origin of the Sanford/Kincaide ranch in Pueblo County, CO. So I am going to look at all of the deeds pertaining to W.I. Sanford, my step-grandfather, who started farming and ranching in Pueblo County, CO in 1911. Sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message