Hi Cindi, sorry for the delay in my reply. Here is what I have on the surname BELL. 600. 8/13/97 mee BELL, Elizabeth; Cambridge, WAS. See 6595. 601. 6/22/91 gor BELL, Isaac; ---, ---. See 8450. 602. 5/22/00 gor BELL, Isabel. See 605. 603. 7/3/92 gee BELL, James, farmer; Salem, WAS. See 8575. 604. 2/7/97 mor BELL, James, gentleman; ---, CLI; Canadians & Nova Scotia Refugees' Pat., CLI; mee 2867 ( A:285 ) 605. 5/2/00 gor BELL, James, ( w. Isabel ); Salem, WAS; Slaem, WAS; gee 7726. (E:236 ) 606. 2/25/01 gee BELL, James, Salem, WAS. See 209/ 607. 11/1/79 gee BELL, William; New Perth, CHA. See 1429. 608. 4/9/96 gor BELL, William; merchant; City of N.Y. "land (set) apart for the military ", CLI; co-gees 262,304,3881. (A:475 ) Hope this helps Pete [email protected] ******************* bj21 wrote: > Could you look up the surname of Bell? > > I am especially interested in clinton and Essex Counties in NY. > > Cyndi > -----Original Message----- > > > > >PART 2 > > > >LANDHOLDERS, 1764-1802 > > > > > >The postings in this section reflect all the transactions of all the > >grantees, grantors, mortgagees, and mortgagors whose land records were > >filed, 1772 through 1802, in the deed and mortgage books of the > >northeastern counties of Washington, Clinton, and Essex. Franklin and > >Warren, as shown on the map facing the title page, today lie in the > >region of concern. However, since both were formed after 1802, their > >names are not mentioned in this report. > > > >Frequently in the eighteenth century many years elapsed between the date > >of a land contract’s signing and the date of its filing. Therefore, it > >is not incongruous to note in Part 2 that many of the documents bear > >dates within the time span 1764 through 1771 despite -the fact that none > >of these records was filed until after 12 March 1772, the formation date > >of Washington County. > > > >Concerning the numbered entries in this section the left-margin dates > >are those of contract signings. Gee, ~, mee, and mor symbolize grantee, > >~ mortgagee, and mortgagor respectively. These postings define the > >contract roles of the persons whose names immediately follow them. > >Postings immediately succeeding the columnized names are the residence > >places of these persons • The underlined expressions indicate land > >locations. > > > >Key entries, those which contain the land locations and which identify > >all the transaction participants by name or number, are pre-signalled > >through the underlining of their left—margin entry numbers • These > >specialized entries through end—codings (example, D:12) specify the > >volume and page of the source book. Car-headed entries are drawn from > >deed books; mor-headed from mortgage books. The counties where the books > >are filed are those noted in the underlined land—location postings. The > >Charlotte and Albany County lands of reference are filed in Washington > >County. > > > >Two or more related entries must be reviewed before any land transaction > >becomes clear. Once the reader has selected an entry, regardless its > >nature, he is automatically led to its related posting(s). For example, > >if one starts with the entry for Albert Baker, Jr. which reads > > > >350. 4/29/95 gee Baker, Albert, Junr.; Kingsbury, WAS. See 2348. he is > >led to > > > >~ 4/29/95 gor Everson, Jacob (w. Margaret); Clinton, DUT; Argyle. WAS; > >co—gees 350, 362, 363. (B—2:5l7) > > > >which in turn refers him to > > > >362. 4/29/95 gee Baker, Caleb; Kingsbury, WAS. See 2348. and to > > > >363. 4/29/95 gee Baker, Charles; Kingsbury, WAS. See 2348. From the > >above four entries one concludes that 29 April 1795 Jacob Everson > > > > > >13 > > > >and his wife Margaret, both of Clinton, Dutchess County, sell a land > >parcel in p~gyle, Washington County, to Albert (Junior), Caleb, and > >Charles Baker, all three of Kingsbury, Washington County. > > > >It is immaterial whether the reader starts his review with entry number > >350, 362, 363, or 231+8. Inevitably, the same four elements will be > >drawn together. > > > >The entry items fore a directory of all participants in all land sales > >and mortgage agreements of record within the time period of concern. For > >that reason one finds, pertaining to the above transaction, this > >additional entry: > > > >2349. 4/29/95 gor Everson, Margaret. See 2348. > > > > > > > > > >In the entries of Part 2 persons’ names are generally spelled in the > >form fi~~t found on the documents of reference. These symbols and > >abbreviations are here used: > > > >CHA — Charlotte County, NY ESS — Essex County, NY > > > >CLI - Clinton CounLy, NY WAS - Washington County, NY > > > >Dist.. — District, a subdivision of a county > > > >Pat. - a land patent. > > > >All places in New York, where possible, are posted as town and county > >(wiih state deleted) as indicated in “a” below. All out—of-stats > >locations are posted as in “b”. > > > >a) Washington, WT (town of Washington, Dutchess County, New York) > > > >b) Poultney, RUT, VT (town of Poultney, Rutland County, Vermont). > > > >Present—day town locations of some of Part 2’s outmoded place—names > >(ex~.D1Ple, Walloomsack Patent) may be determined through reference to > >the place index of Part 1. > > > >Note: Sequentially through time local regions in New York have been > >defined as patents or manors, precincts, districts, townships, and > >finally towns. In northeastern New. York the first town was formed in > >1785 and the thirteenth mid—year 1788. By the end of 1802 the number of > >such units had increased to twenty-five. > > > >Cautions: In New York prior to 1772 all records of transactions > >concerning any lands north of Kingston were indiscriminately filed in > >Albany. Those relatively few pertaining to northeastern New York, > >difficult to cull from the massive set, have not been here pursued. > > > >With few exceptions the data posted in this section have been drawn from > >the opening lines of the 3550 records reviewed. The detailed land > >descriptions, found mid—section on most documents, occasionally contain > >genealogically—significant material. These mid—sections have not been > >here reviewed. > > > > > > > >14 > > > > > >Hope this explains better than I did. -- > > > >