I have followed some Cambridge deeds (Cambridge lots 44 and 66) back to land sold by an Abraham J Lansingh (and wife Catherine) in the 1770-80s to some Mushets and separately to an Elisha Brewer. When I then look for Lansingh in the grantee indexes there is a deed between Abraham J Lansingh and a John Clark (grantee) 7 June 1773 , notes said "Land 2000 acres , 10 miles E. from South Bay, Charlotte County" can anyone tell me if that land would be the Cambridge township area? Thanks, Mike

Dear Mike and List, Michael McAlonie wrote: >I have followed some Cambridge deeds (Cambridge lots 44 and 66) back to land sold by an Abraham J Lansingh (and wife Catherine) in the 1770-80s to some Mushets and separately to an Elisha Brewer. When I then look for Lansingh in the grantee indexes there is a deed between Abraham J Lansingh and a John Clark (grantee) 7 June 1773 , notes said "Land 2000 acres , 10 miles E. from South Bay, Charlotte County" > >can anyone tell me if that land would be the Cambridge township area? > >Thanks, Mike > On page 382 of the Calendar of Colonial New York Manuscripts - Indorsed Land Papers (1643-1803) the following item appears: October 9, 1765 - Petition of Quartermaster John Clark, for 2,000 acres of land, to the west of land laid out for Sir John St. Clair, Lieuts. James Dow and Archd. Blane. Vol XX page 9 On page 521 of the Calendar of Colonial New York Manuscripts - Indorsed Land Papers (1643-1803) the following item appears: "March 6, 1771 - Return of survey for John Clark, a tract of 2,000 acres of land, in the county of Albany, ten miles east from South bay, (Castleton, Rutland Co., Vermont) - Vol. XXVII page 84 Map of the same - Vol. XXVII page 84 I suspect that the New York State Archives would be able to supply you with more detailed information on this parcel of land. Hope that this helps, Leslie Potter

Dear Mike and List, Michael McAlonie wrote: >1. if someone owned more than one piece of property in 1779 would they appear more than once on the Cambridge district tax lists, or just the one time. Wondering if I am looking at two people with a common name or possibly only one individual who was said to own more than one farm. > You are looking at two different men. In the 18th Century the "English common law rule" was that each man was taxed on all of the land that he owned, wherever it might be situate, in the Township or Tax District in which he lived. The New York "quirk" to this general rule seems to be that the names of the members of the wealthy Dutch Patroon might be found on the tax lists of districts in which they had LARGE holdings as well as the tax district in which they also lived. >2. if someone is on that 1779 Cambridge district tax list as owning real estate is it common to not find any deeds in Albany or Ft Edward for them back to that year? > NO ONE IN NEW YORK STATE OWNS THEIR LAND UNTIL 1841, when the New York Legislature FINALLY abolished the medieval Dutch Patroon system. The people on the 1779 Cambridge District Tax List were all tenant farmers. Most to them possessed freehold leases, i.e. a lease for an indefinite time period, and therefore were legally capable of being recorded. However, because these instruments were leases and not fee simple deeds as the New Englanders were used to, they simply did not bother to record their leases. You will find some early conveyancing instruments that read like English common law deeds, but the legal effect of these documents is still a medieval Dutch freehold lease dressed up in English common law terms of art. Whether a tenant was required to pay the real estate taxes on the farm which he occupied depended solely on the terms of his lease. Very few of the leases from before the Revolution survive. Leases do not leave the paper trail that a deed does even though a tenant farmer could legally sell his lease to another settler. Howard Swain of the "Dutch Colonies mailing list" sent me the following e-mail after I had volunteered to do look ups in my newly acquired book, "Calendar of New York Colonial Manuscripts - Indorsed Land Papers (1643-1803)". Howard wrote: > I have never understood what these "Indorsed Land Papers" are and > how they relate or compare to other land records, such as those cited > by Stokes in his Iconography or those in account books GG, HH, II, > which were published as New York Historical Mss.: Dutch -- Land Papers. > > I have had good luck finding people I research in Stokes or the > GG, HH, II book, but not in this Indorsed Land Papers book. I have never seen, let alone used the books to which Howard refers. Has anyone on the Washington County mailing list had experience with the books that Howard cites? I am always looking for more potential sources of freehold leases for the Saratoga Tax District of Albany County, NY. Hope that this helps some. Leslie Potter

>Leslie Potter wrote: > In the 18th Century the "English common law rule" was that each man was taxed on all of the land that he owned, wherever it might be situate, in the Township or Tax District in which he lived. Just for general information, this was not the case here in Virginia. A person was taxed on land or personal property in the county in which it was located -- if he owned land or other personal property (e.g., in the south, slaves) in several counties he would be taxed separately in each place. The tax record would contain a note that he lived elsewhere. He would, however, only pay the poll tax in the county in which he resided. Kathy Liston