Sorry for repeated listings to those of you who have more than one of these e-mail lists. I just wanted to throw my name out there for anyone new to the list and anyone I haven't talked to in a long time I am researching in Loudoun Co. and Fauquier Co. Va. into White Co. IL the Wilson and Chinn lines. In Chester S.C. into White Co. IL the Marlin and Adams lines. And in Butler Co. Ohio into White Co. IL the Skiles line. Marlin m. Adams in Chester S.C. and came to White Co. IL where my Adams line m. my Wilson line that had come from the Wilson/Chinn line in Loudoun/Fauquier Va. The Skiles line came out of Butler Co. Ohio and m. into the Wilson line. Would like to touch base with any old listers from when I first started my genealogy - see if we can help each other add on. Hope to talk to you soon. Janean

I appreciated Marty Hiatt's wonderful explanation on that notation often seen in the margin of deed books. I have another question about something I've read in the Loudoun Order Books that puzzles me and is not something I've seen in other county's order books. Unfortunately, I may not be quoting it exactly, The entry begins somewhat as follows: "John Doe, also known as I John Doe, appeared at the suit of..." I found almost identical wording on numerous occasions. When I first saw this, I thought it was some sort of initial preceding the given name, but then I realized that was absurd. Could it indicate that John Doe had been sworn in and made some sort of deposition, etc? An explanation would be much appreciated. Gary

Yes we do and one of them may have been a clergymen. Imagine that!

Let's move on please. Always be careful what you pay for!!! Rena List Adm

this guy must be a real charmer. Erik P Conard, Denver

updated aug 27 2005 Entries= 147279 please dont email and ask for more ,all info i have is posted , also dont ask me how im related , i am a very private person and dont care to discuss it, thank you. persons living or born after 1930 are listed as living smith etc. any corrections with valid proof or updates are greatly appreciated and will be added within a month. no arguments please ! see homepage for main surnames. thank you to all who have contributed . http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=fox2 D.L.M.F RETIRED P. I. , FAMILY GENEALOGIST homepage with surnames http://www.geocities.com/pifox1/index.html

Very interesting. I have found in my mom's familiy that the women controlled a lot more then people think. Her grandma purchased a home in Roanoke with her own money and the home was never in her husbands name. Niceta

nothing like a bit of humor on a genealogy list. As to the question of wives being examined to release dowers I have seen, in my personal research, cases where a wife, usually a widow by the time the suit was brought, would sue in chancery court to retrieve the value of her dower. This widow sued because her husband in 1838 sold a piece of property and she either did not relinquish her dower or it was not recorded. In 1881 she sued in chancery and retrieved 1/3 of not only the value of the land but also 1/3 of all the rents that had been collected over the years( Civil War and Reconstruction were in there so some years were not calculated). She must have had a very good lawyer because this was the second case that she brought ...the first involved a sale of land in 1857 which she also won. Her husband was very prominent in the county in those early years and the family literally had lost everything in the Civil War. This case took place in Franklin County VA . I also have cases in Fauquier where land that was inherited by the wife was later mortgaged and sold to pay debts of her husband. The dower was not relinquished when it was sold and 20 plus years later 1/3 of the value of the land with all its improvements (which were considerable) were retrieved in a chancery suit. I love chancery suits ...at least some of the women in my lines got smarter as they older. Susan

Oh what a pun, for so early on a Saturday! The "examined" that Chocy explained is not the same as the marginal notation. Yes, wives were examined to release their dower interest in any property held by their husbands. Her examination agreement/acknowledgment, was recorded in its own paragraph. The release "usually" followed the deed immediately, but could be recorded several pages later, maybe even in a different book. The marginal note did not refer to the release of dower. Deeds could be examined and delivered without the dower release (if a man was so casual or confident to purchase without that release). I have seen one instance where the wife would not release her dower. She moved to Ohio, and still maintained a life estate in the property of her deceased husband! Maiden names are another problem. If you see one, it probably indicates that the property being sold was the wife's property, inherited from her father or previous husband, now controlled by her current husband. Ms. Marty Hiatt, CGRS "Document what you find, listen to what you are told, and especially, love and respect your work." John Morris CGRS is a service mark of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license after periodic evaluations by the Board. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 6:56 AM Subject: Re: [VALOUDOU-L] Old Deed Records: What does "examined" mean? > Examined as found in Frederick County, Virginia acknowledged that the wife > had been examined alone and apart from her husband concerning the Indenture > (Deed, etc.) and that she was in agreement with the transaction of her own free > will and that she had not been pressured into signing the document. Once the > examination was done (sworn to by the examiners, signed, and sealed) the > document was sent/taken to be recorded. In Frederick County there is usually a > paragraph or two recorded with the document showing in legal terms the way in > which they were examined with all the signatures of those present for the > examination. Sometimes the person could not travel to the courthouse, so the > examining persons would travel to the person for the interview. Then the > documents were recorded. > Wives had dowry rights and this helped to protect them (supposedly). > Chocy > > ______________________________

Before you all rush to find original deeds, the last sentence in my previous message was missing a word. It should say, "If you do not see marginal notes...it means the original deed should still be in the courthouse. We all know things happen and documents vanish. Ms. Marty Hiatt, CGRS "Document what you find, listen to what you are told, and especially, love and respect your work." John Morris CGRS is a service mark of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license after periodic evaluations by the Board.

Bob, I am currently going through a number of Frederick County VA original Deed Books and I can say with certainty that they never did things exactly the same way twice! The answer to your question, only as I have observed myself, is that it is sometimes they did and sometimes they did not------------I don't know if there was a reason for why they did or didn't in a particular circumstance; however, it seems the wife's maiden name was usually mentioned when the property being dealt with had something to do with a former family that she was connected with such as former husband, her parents property, or any family/other party that may have given her interest in a property. As you know, most of the time, not always, the woman's husband took care of all the business transactions. Chocy

Thanks, Chocy, for the clarification about "examined". I have an example that has been really stiffling research on the McARTOR family. An "examination" of the wife of our oldest known relative only identifies her as "Mary". Were any of the wives ever fully identified; such as "Mary Brown McArtor" or "the former Mary Brown"? Boy, if they had only done that. Bob McArtor ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 6:56 AM Subject: Re: [VALOUDOU-L] Old Deed Records: What does "examined" mean? > Examined as found in Frederick County, Virginia acknowledged that the wife > had been examined alone and apart from her husband concerning the > Indenture > (Deed, etc.) and that she was in agreement with the transaction of her own > free > will and that she had not been pressured into signing the document. Once > the > examination was done (sworn to by the examiners, signed, and sealed) the > document was sent/taken to be recorded. In Frederick County there is > usually a > paragraph or two recorded with the document showing in legal terms the way > in > which they were examined with all the signatures of those present for the > examination. Sometimes the person could not travel to the courthouse, so > the > examining persons would travel to the person for the interview. Then the > documents were recorded. > Wives had dowry rights and this helped to protect them (supposedly). > Chocy > > > ==== VALOUDOU Mailing List ==== > Have you posted your Loudoun Co. surnames lately? > New members are joining our mailing list every day. > Be sure to periodically remind us of your Loudoun research interests. > >

Marty, That was a good explaination. I was not aware of the process. Thanks again, Chocy

Examined as found in Frederick County, Virginia acknowledged that the wife had been examined alone and apart from her husband concerning the Indenture (Deed, etc.) and that she was in agreement with the transaction of her own free will and that she had not been pressured into signing the document. Once the examination was done (sworn to by the examiners, signed, and sealed) the document was sent/taken to be recorded. In Frederick County there is usually a paragraph or two recorded with the document showing in legal terms the way in which they were examined with all the signatures of those present for the examination. Sometimes the person could not travel to the courthouse, so the examining persons would travel to the person for the interview. Then the documents were recorded. Wives had dowry rights and this helped to protect them (supposedly). Chocy

Thanks to Marty for a valuable education here! As so often happens with enlightenment, this brings up another question. The notation that caused my initial bewilderment is on a transfer of lease between John Butcher and Phillip France dated 13 March 1781. The original “lease for three lives” between John Carlyle as representative for George William Fairfax and John Butcher is dated 1 May 1761. (The “three lives” mentioned, by the way, are of John Butcher, Peter Shomaker, Jr., and John Carlyle.) This 1761 lease is referred to in a later transfer of lease from my ancestor Michael Ruse to James Hamilton dated 14th November 1804. I’ve been unable to find any reference to a document that transfers the lease to Michael Ruse. However, there is a margin note on the transfer from Butcher to France “Examd & deld Michl Rouse April 14. 1797”. Would I be justified in assuming this is the instrument that transferred the property to Michael? Or was Michael perhaps acting as an agent or administrator for Phillip France? Should I be looking for a different kind of record -- perhaps an administration account? Thanks again for everyone's generous help! Kathe

Deeds were not written in the courthouse. Either an attorney, or educated neighbor drew the document. On early deeds both grantor & grantee signed. The deed was read to the buyer & seller to make sure it was correct, then the seller signed it. Three witnesses were required (In Virginia) to verify & sign the transaction. They were saying, "Yes, the seller knew what he was doing, both agreed to the terms, and that is the seller's signature." (Based on my experience, no one verified the metes and bounds). One or both of the parties, grantor or grantee, took the original document to court and paid to have it recorded. When the clerk had time, the deed was copied on to a large page that would eventually be bound into a book with other deeds. Ergo, the signatures in books are not original. If the grantor/seller took the deed to the clerk, he did not need witnesses. He, the grantor, verified that it was his desire to sell, he agreed to the terms, and signed the deed. The deed was "acknowledged" in front of the clerk, and that's why no witnesses were named. Now for the marginal notes: Examined means someone has compared the original with the recorded copy and they match. Land was usually purchased on credit, over 3 years. The number of years could be different, and some men probably bought with cash or a trade. You can tell by looking at the terms within the deed. While the land was in limbo, the original deed remained in the courthouse. The buyer was the man who went back in to pick up his deed once he had completely paid for the land. He took a note/release that said he had satisfied his debt. Or maybe the seller was in town at the same time and they both went to see the clerk. A neighbor could also pick up the deed. All that was needed was some kind of proof that the land had been paid for. The clerk then examined the two deeds for accuracy, and handed, or delivered, the original to the buyer or his agent. The clerk signed, sometimes with initials, and dated the delivery. Compare the date of the deed, usually on the first line, with the date of delivery. If you do not see marginal notes, "examined & delivered" or some abbreviated form thereof, it means the original deed is still in the courthouse. Please let me know if I wasn't clear in this explanation. Ms. Marty Hiatt, CGRS "Document what you find, listen to what you are told, and especially, love and respect your work." John Morris CGRS is a service mark of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license after periodic evaluations by the Board. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathe Richards" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:58 PM Subject: Old Deed Records: What does "examined" mean? > Hi, All! > > I've been transcribing some old deed records and > noticed that sometimes there is a notation in the > margin next to the statement indicating it was > recorded that says "examined" or sometimes "examd". > Sometimes it's the word alone. Sometimes there is a > name and date. Sometimes is says "examined and > delivered to" (in various abbreviations) followed by a > name and a date. > > What does this mean? Who is doing the examining? > Does it indicate some kind of change of ownership? > > I'd appreciate any enlightenment here.... > > Thanks, > > Kathe (Ruse) Richards > > ______________________________

I can only relate what happened to one of the deeds I have from way back when: the deed was for purchase of land; the seller asked that the deed be recorded at the court house. The Clerk's office entered in the margin that a copy of the recordied deed was delivered to the purchaser. This is the explanation I was given for the margin notes. The seller perhaps wished to be absolved from any future property tax, and the Clerk made sure that the new owner was aware that he now owned that land "legally," and is responsible for any future assessments. If it were just "examined," it was probably verified by the Clerk's office that the action had indeed taken place and both parties were aware of it. Someone else with more knowledge will probably jump in here and discuss this and maybe correct my thinking on the "examined" part. Subject: [VALOUDOU-L] Old Deed Records: What does "examined" mean? > Hi, All! > > I've been transcribing some old deed records and noticed that sometimes there is a notation in the margin next to the statement indicating it was recorded that says "examined" or sometimes "examd". Sometimes it's the word alone. Sometimes there is a name and date. Sometimes is says "examined and delivered to" (in various abbreviations) followed by a > name and a date. > > What does this mean? Who is doing the examining? > Does it indicate some kind of change of ownership? > > Kathe (Ruse) Richards

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary-Gene Page" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <"Glenda Frank Moser JoMa2991"@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:22 PM Subject: {not a subscriber} Chancery Case M-806 > Here is another Chancery case (I believe this one is in 1871) about which > I have questions. > > M 806 Garrett vs Garrett > > "William E. Garrett son of Enoc Garrett, Children of Enoch; William E. > Garrett, John W. Garrett, Joseph F. Garrett, Susan R. Garrett wife of John > Kerchival, Albert T. Garrett, Samuel E. Garrett, Robert L. Garrett, Mary > Melissa Garrett (under age 21 in 1871) grandaughter Eliz. Garrett- > daughter of deceased daughter S. Eliza Garret w. of Samuel H. Garrett..." > > The following are the names from the Moser / Frank Family Tree list on > WorldConnect: > > Sara c1828 > John c1830 > Joseph c1832 > Susan c1835 > Albert c1837 > William c1839 > James c1842 > Robert c1847 > > Does anyone know whether S. Eliza Garrett is Sara Eliza? And who was > Samuel H. Garrett? > > By the way, Enoch died in 1866. Mary Melissa could have been born after > 1850. Enoch's wife, Hannah Batson, was estimated to have been born c1806, > which would make her 44 or older at Mary's birth. > > Also, apparently James had died prior to 1871 (if that is the date of this > case). >

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary-Gene Page" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:08 PM Subject: {not a subscriber} Chancery cases from MRCACG > > I believe the original message from MRCACG was on 4 May 2000. I am trying > to > identify some of the GARRETTs mentioned therein. (All one entry.) > > Loudoun M-6820, 1843: Septhen Garrett vs Joseph Garrett > > "James Garrett deceased Stephen Garrett complaint Joseph Garrett James > bought > land from Joseph Stephen & Euphemia his wife & James Garrett of 2nd part > Joseph > son of Stephen Stephen sells to James 255 acres" > > Without punctuation, it is very difficult to determine who is who, but I'm > wondering if anyone knows about the following: > > First, I believe all of the mentioned are descendants of Joseph > (1760-1827) and > Sarah TOLDS GARRETT (except James?). > > "James GARRETT deceased" - the only James I know of within this time frame > (1843) is James, son of Thomas and Ann CURRY GARRETT, born 1792 in Loudoun > Co. > This James md Betty WILLETT, in ALA, I believe. I have no further > information > on him, so do not know if he was in VA after the marriage, whenever tha > was. > There IS a land purchase by a J. GARRETT from Henry COOK in 1838, Marshall > Co > TN; have no idea if it is same man. I don't know when or where James died. > (If > it is James son of Thomas & Ann, James would have been cousin to Stephen.) > > Stephen GARRETT (1787-1850), son of Joseph and Sarah Toles, md Euphemia > BEAM. > They would be the couple named. > > Joseph Garret. Jr (1790-?) md Hethy POTTER, was brother of Stephen. > > BUT, Joseph and Stephen's sister, Rebecca (1797-?), md Joseph JAMES. Given > the > dates, Rebecca could have had a son old enough to be doing business by > 1843, so > could she have been mother to a Joseph Garrett JAMES? (It's a stretch, but > possible?) > > Who would be James Garrett of 2nd part? > > I don't have names of any children for Stephen and Euphemia. > > The original entry as printed could be read: > > James Garrett Deceased [and] Stephen Garrett complan[an]t[s] > [against] Joseph Garrett > James bought land from Joseph > > or > > against Joseph Garrett James... > > anyway, from that point on I am lost. > > Suggestions or clarification anyone? > > Mary-Gene Page > California >

Would the person replying to this email (Pat, Marty, etc.?) please post it to the list. I too am interested in learning an accurate explanation of "examined" noted on a deed. I assumed it was part of the entry process but I know of deeds that are listed as "examined & delivered" 10 years after the land was sold (1770-1780). Thank you Kathe for bringing up the question. Susan McIntyre Kathe Richards wrote: >Hi, All! > >I've been transcribing some old deed records and >noticed that sometimes there is a notation in the >margin next to the statement indicating it was >recorded that says "examined" or sometimes "examd". >Sometimes it's the word alone. Sometimes there is a >name and date. Sometimes is says "examined and >delivered to" (in various abbreviations) followed by a >name and a date. > >What does this mean? Who is doing the examining? >Does it indicate some kind of change of ownership? > >I'd appreciate any enlightenment here.... > >Thanks, > >Kathe (Ruse) Richards > > > > >