John Lyon: Thanks for the comments/clarification. Clearly a more orderly procedure than what I had perceived, and which is apparently verified by the lack of any such "foreign" deeds in my limited searching. I did read with interest but selectively (maybe a third of it) in "Breviate" when the discussion was on the list recently. "Nearest courthouse" came from some Virginia reading, and I may have interpreted it too broadly there also. Well, live and (hopefully) learn. Your comments actually simplify the search process for me ("results" from the process are a different matter). Thanks again for the clarification. Joe Lake john lyon wrote: > I’m not clear on how you derived “nearest courthouse” as a criterion for > recordation of deeds as being suggested by the Lewes site’s rundown. Deeds were > recorded in the venue (county and Province) where people paid their taxes. This > was in Maryland counties for those in the “disputed” parts of Delaware resolved by > the Mason-Dixon survey, et al. The article says nothing different. You won’t > find “Delaware” (Pennsylvania) residents (as they perceived it at that time) > recording deeds in MD. > > That said, after 1750 or so, I do find a few (very, very few, like less than ten) > cases of a “Marylander” recording his deed in both Worcester (or Dorchester) and > Sussex. The deeds acknowledge the boundary issue, and are clear that the deed > holder simply wanted to make sure his bases were covered for clear title, whatever > happened to the border. These people clearly knew what was coming down. > > The above also said, I see no deeds at all by “then-Sussex” residents also (or > instead) filing in MD counties because of any confusion. > > A small exception: in the early 1680s, some Penn warrants were granted south of the > Indian River. Within a couple of years, though, Maryland just barged in and > re-issued patents overlaying some of those (and the others just vanished into > oblivion, it seems). All this is discussed in the “Breviate”, as explored a few > months back in the thread on list here. The Penns took no further specific action > except the continuing overall court cases against the Calverts on the boundary. > Later on, I see nothing at all in which Penn surveyors and Calvert surveyors were > unambigously fussing with any continuing effect over the same ground. The border > was a "practical" agreement locally, no matter what was going on in the sky above > where the Proprietors debated in their powdered wigs, sniffing their snuff. > > John > <joslake@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>The premise (as more or less restated in the Lewes Hist. Society paragraph above): >>Colonial Americans in all states sometimes filed legal documents in the nearest >>county seat whether or not it was "their" legal county seat. And in MD/DE with the >>border disputes and attendant confusion that tendency should have been even more >>prevalent. >