Re: Relinquishment of Dower right?
singhals
> I have been told for 3 decades now that in the Mid-Atlantic area, a
> man could not sell land without his wife's formal consent and
> relinquishment of her dower-right. This Relinquishment has provided
> the given name of any number of women who would be otherwise
> unknown.
>
> Cruising through deeds in Maryland, looking for clues to the
> identity of an unknown wife, in the early to mid 1700s, I'm finding
> deeds wherein the spouse of the grantors did NOT formally relinquish
> her Dower/Jointure rights; I find a few where the Party of the First
> Part is "John Dough and Jane his wife" but in most of them that
> phrase is missing and there is no relinquishment of dower right.
>
> Normally, one would posit that she had died prior to the date of the
> deeds -- even if that suggest an enormous number of widowers in the
> county.
>
> Unfortunately, in one case, I have a deposition a woman made dated
> _later_ than deeds in which she is not mentioned. That pretty much
> negates the rumors of her death. And if ONE of the ladies is
> living, it's not reasonable to assume none of the others are.
>
> Can anyone suggest a reason formal relinquishment wasn't recorded?
>
> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Thanks, everyone. I'm beginning to remember why I never much liked
looking at deeds!
SOME of the Relinquishments recorded contain both Dower and
Jointure; the ones I'm most interested in this week are from
1750-1760; I'm looking at official digital copies of the official
county records ... you gotta trust someone here because they no
longer allow the Average Joe access to the original books; I have no
idea why some living wives were named and others weren't (and no
interest in pursuing that as a dissertation); ALL the
relinquishments I've seen have been in the "Then Came before us" in
the part where the party of the 1st part accepts acknowledges etc
paymnet of the Consideration ... I have not seen a stand-alone.
Most of the dates are given once at the beginning of the deed and
thereafter "as first above written". And, unfortunately, yes, this
same family was involved later with a court battle involving a dower
right, the rights of which are still unclear.
Far's I can see, I'm back to: this particular clerk didn't waste
precious ink on the obvious.
Thanks, again.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
jyoun...@aol.com
> I've seen have been in the "Then Came before us" in the part
> where the party of the 1st part accepts acknowledges etc paymnet of
> the Consideration ... I have not seen a stand-alone. Most of the
> dates are given once at the beginning of the deed and thereafter "as
> first above written". And, unfortunately, yes, this same family was
> involved later with a court battle involving a dower right, the
> rights of which are still unclear.
>
> Far's I can see, I'm back to: this particular clerk didn't waste
> precious ink on the obvious.
>
> Thanks, again.
>
Cheryl-
Once again, I can only speak for NJ, not MD...and before the
Revolution MD may not have been as deeply rooted in English law as
NJ was. That may be where you are seeing the difference in
pre-Revolutionary MD deeds.
Joan
singhals
> the part where the party of the 1st part accepts acknowledges etc
> paymnet of the Consideration ... I have not seen a stand-alone.
> Most of the dates are given once at the beginning of the deed and
> thereafter "as first above written". And, unfortunately, yes, this
> same family was involved later with a court battle involving a dower
> right, the rights of which are still unclear.
>
> Far's I can see, I'm back to: this particular clerk didn't waste
> precious ink on the obvious.
>
> Thanks, again.
>
> Cheryl
I should've learned by now not to make sweeping generalizations in
public. :(
I've now found a stand-alone dower relinquishment ... but no sign of
the sale itself; [expletives deleted] thing says "above mentioned"
and the two documents above it are NOT sales and do NOT involve
people with either surname!
[psi]
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Robert Grumbine
> Cheryl-
>
> Once again, I can only speak for NJ, not MD...and before the
> Revolution MD may not have been as deeply rooted in English law as
> NJ was. That may be where you are seeing the difference in
> pre-Revolutionary MD deeds.
>
I've never thought about that possibility. I'd figured that the
British colonies, which both MD and NJ would have been, plus VA,
would all have had relatively similar legal systems to 1776 or so.
NY, with the Dutch, I wouldn't have been surprised by legacies of
the earlier traditions.
Does anyone have any surveys, leads, insight as to what the legal
system differences were like? In particular, VA up to ME as that's
where my crowd seems to have been (if they were on this side of the
ocean) before 1776.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net>
singhals
> > I've seen have been in the "Then Came before us" in the part
> > where the party of the 1st part accepts acknowledges etc paymnet of
> > the Consideration ... I have not seen a stand-alone. Most of the
> > dates are given once at the beginning of the deed and thereafter "as
> > first above written". And, unfortunately, yes, this same family was
> > involved later with a court battle involving a dower right, the
> > rights of which are still unclear.
> >
> > Far's I can see, I'm back to: this particular clerk didn't waste
> > precious ink on the obvious.
> >
>
> Once again, I can only speak for NJ, not MD...and before the
> Revolution MD may not have been as deeply rooted in English law as
> NJ was. That may be where you are seeing the difference in
> pre-Revolutionary MD deeds.
>
It /appears/ to be one clerk in one county who was omitting them for
reasons best known to himself, prolly the waste of ink issue (sale
couldn't be completed without her consent, and since I'm recording
the completion of the sale, she consented ...qed?)
At all events, on the one stand-alone relinquishment I've found, I'm
unable to find the sale it goes with. The grantee bought nothing
from nobody in the right year, and the Dower relinquishment is the
only document from the grantor's surname until about 12 years after
the relinquishment. I'm working up the energy to look in
surrounding and parent counties.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
JYoun...@aol.com
> I've never thought about that possibility. I'd figured that the
> British colonies, which both MD and NJ would have been, plus VA,
> would all have had relatively similar legal systems to 1776 or so.
> NY, with the Dutch, I wouldn't have been surprised by legacies of
> the earlier traditions.
>
Don't forget that Maryland was pretty much a Catholic Colony which
was not overly English. <g> In New Jersey, Catholicism was banned
before the Revolution. So there WERE differences in how English
laws and customs were enforced.
Joan
J. Hugh Sullivan
> > Cheryl-
> >
> > Once again, I can only speak for NJ, not MD...and before the
> > Revolution MD may not have been as deeply rooted in English law as
> > NJ was. That may be where you are seeing the difference in
> > pre-Revolutionary MD deeds.
> >
> > jyoun...@aol.com
>
> I've never thought about that possibility. I'd figured that the
> British colonies, which both MD and NJ would have been, plus VA,
> would all have had relatively similar legal systems to 1776 or so.
> NY, with the Dutch, I wouldn't have been surprised by legacies of
> the earlier traditions.
>
> Does anyone have any surveys, leads, insight as to what the legal
> system differences were like? In particular, VA up to ME as that's
> where my crowd seems to have been (if they were on this side of the
> ocean) before 1776.
>
I have a 26 page document that describes laws of early VA. Excerpts
are:
" Dowery. Any land, money, goods, or personal property brought by a
bride to her husband at the time of their marriage, over which he
then had complete control. Upon marriage a man and woman became
legally one and that one was the husband. Benefits: For the husband,
if the wife died, he kept it only for his lifetime and had to leave
it to her children, not any children he had with a susequent wife.
To her family, if the husband fell on hard times or died, his
relatives were responsible for her and their children. She couldn't
go knocking on her family's door.
" Dower. Provision made from a husband's estate for the support of
his widow, usually one-third of the value of the estate, but this
varied greatly.
Married women could not make wills. A married woman could not
devise land in a will, for she could not hold title to land
independently of her husband. Generally, a married woman could not
bequeath personal property either, since her personal property was
also her husbands. It was possible for a married woman to make a
will to bequeath personal property with the consent of her husband,
but this is so rare that genealogists can safely ignore the case. A
somewhat more common, but still rare, case is the prenuptial
agreement, which permitted a woman to retain her personal property
and dispose of it to her heirs. Prenuptial agreements were usually
written to have the same effect as wills, and generally no
subsequent will was necessary.
I encourage you to do a search for laws. They varied considerably
by state and period. They are very interesting reading.
Hugh
Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
Ukes
singhals <sing...@erols.com> wrote:
> > > I've seen have been in the "Then Came before us" in the part
> > > where the party of the 1st part accepts acknowledges etc paymnet of
> > > the Consideration ... I have not seen a stand-alone. Most of the
> > > dates are given once at the beginning of the deed and thereafter "as
> > > first above written". And, unfortunately, yes, this same family was
> > > involved later with a court battle involving a dower right, the
> > > rights of which are still unclear.
> > >
> > > Far's I can see, I'm back to: this particular clerk didn't waste
> > > precious ink on the obvious.
> > >
> > > Cheryl Sing...@erols.com
> >
> > Once again, I can only speak for NJ, not MD...and before the
> > Revolution MD may not have been as deeply rooted in English law as
> > NJ was. That may be where you are seeing the difference in
> > pre-Revolutionary MD deeds.
> >
> > Joan <jyoun...@aol.com>
>
> It /appears/ to be one clerk in one county who was omitting them for
> reasons best known to himself, prolly the waste of ink issue (sale
> couldn't be completed without her consent, and since I'm recording
> the completion of the sale, she consented ...qed?)
Release of dower wasn't required in order for property to be sold.
Dower gave a widow a life estate in one-third of the property her
husband owned during the marriage. A husband could convey his
property without his wife being on the deed (or without her
releasing her dower in a separate document), but if the husband did
so, the purchaser of the property ran the risk that if the husband
died, his widow might demand a life estate in one-third of the
conveyed property. Having the wife on the deed, or getting a
separate deed from the wife releasing her dower, protected the
purchaser, but it wasn't required for the property to be sold.
> At all events, on the one stand-alone relinquishment I've found, I'm
> unable to find the sale it goes with. The grantee bought nothing
> from nobody in the right year, and the Dower relinquishment is the
> only document from the grantor's surname until about 12 years after
> the relinquishment. I'm working up the energy to look in
> surrounding and parent counties.
A woman's dower rights could be released years after the husband
sold the property. I'm not sure why any document releasing dower
would be recorded in a county where the husband had not sold
property. Maybe the deed from the husband was given years earlier,
or maybe the deed from the husband was not recorded. Something may
have prompted the dower to be released years later such as the
grantee who got the land from the husband wanted to sell the
property but his prospective purchaser was worried about the
possibility of a dower claim.
Jerry
Ukes <duke_of...@hotmail.com>
Ukes
I'm a lawyer admitted to practice in Maryland & Virginia, and I used
to be admitted in NJ, but let that one lapse.
I've never heard or read anything that suggests that Maryland
followed English law any less than other colonies such as New
Jersey. In fact, Article 5 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights
now in effect starts by saying:
"That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of
England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law,
and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the
Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by
experience, have been found applicable to their local and other
circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the
Courts of Law or Equity..."
Jerry
Ukes <duke_of...@hotmail.com>
Ukes
That makes dower waaay more complicated than it needs to be for
genealogists researching in 1600's-1800's America, and isn't very
helpful. It's not even a very informative definition of the dower
that we're interested in.
Dower was the right of a widow to a life estate in one-third of the
land that her husband owned in a freehold estate [i.e. not a life
estate] at any time during the marriage.
Here's an example:
Husband (H) & wife (W) are married in 1750. In 1760 H sells a tract
of land he owns called the Ponderosa to a buyer, and W is not a
party to the deed conveying the Ponderosa. In 1780 H dies, and W
survives him. W now has a dower "consummate" interest in all of the
property that H owned during the marriage, and she is entitled to a
life estate in one-third of that property, including the Ponderosa
sold by H in 1760. Between 1760 and 1780, W had only a "dower
inchoate" interest in the Ponderosa, since her dower rights were
contingent on her surviving her husband. If W died before H, there
could not be a dower claim asserted against the Ponderosa as a
result of the 1760 sale that only H was a party to.
> Married women could not make wills. A married woman could not
> devise land in a will, for she could not hold title to land
> independently of her husband. Generally, a married woman could not
> bequeath personal property either, since her personal property was
> also her husbands. It was possible for a married woman to make a
> will to bequeath personal property with the consent of her husband,
> but this is so rare that genealogists can safely ignore the case. A
> somewhat more common, but still rare, case is the prenuptial
> agreement, which permitted a woman to retain her personal property
> and dispose of it to her heirs. Prenuptial agreements were usually
> written to have the same effect as wills, and generally no
> subsequent will was necessary.
>
> I encourage you to do a search for laws. They varied considerably
> by state and period. They are very interesting reading.
Substantive law (i.e., what are the rights and duties that apply -
this is what most people think of as "the law") shouldn't vary as
much during the colonial period as procedural law (what rules have
to be followed to enforce a legal right - e.g., what court does the
claim have to be filed in, what are the deadlines, etc).
Blackstone's Commentaries, which were written in the 1760's and are
widely available on the web, provide an excellent source for
understanding substantive law during the colonial period.
While knowing what the applicable law was is very important for
genealogists, knowing the law unfortunately doesn't always tell us
much about what *common practices* were.
For example, a court selected and appointed guardians for children
under 14, and the law gave a preference in those cases to certain
relatives, especially maternal uncles, being selected as guardians.
So if a child is under 14, the law provides a strong indication that
his/her guardian was a relative (which assumes there were available
relatives to serve as guardian).
But when after a child turned 14, he/she could select who he/she
wanted to be their guardian. So the law doesn't allow us to infer
that the guardian they selected was a relative. But was it still the
*practice* by those over 14 to select relatives? I've been told that
it was, but I haven't found any research that has specically focused
on what the common *practice* was that would allow inferences to be
drawn.
Jerry
Ukes <duke_of...@hotmail.com>
J. Hugh Sullivan
Ukes <duke_of...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> While knowing what the applicable law was is very important for
> genealogists, knowing the law unfortunately doesn't always tell us
> much about what *common practices* were.
My intent was to post a synopsis of the law as written by
professional investigators, and I believe I succeeded.
> For example, a court selected and appointed guardians for children
> under 14, and the law gave a preference in those cases to certain
> relatives, especially maternal uncles, being selected as guardians.
> So if a child is under 14, the law provides a strong indication that
> his/her guardian was a relative (which assumes there were available
> relatives to serve as guardian).
>
> But when after a child turned 14, he/she could select who he/she
> wanted to be their guardian. So the law doesn't allow us to infer
> that the guardian they selected was a relative. But was it still the
> *practice* by those over 14 to select relatives? I've been told that
> it was, but I haven't found any research that has specically focused
> on what the common *practice* was that would allow inferences to be
> drawn.
Good genealogical practice does not allow one to infer anything
without proper notation that it is not proven fact if others are to
see his work.
I can post a synopsis of the law on guardians if you wish. I made no
attempt to explain a couple of the innumerable different events that
occurred in practice.
For example I have found several instances where people recorded
instruments in an adjacent county because the courthouse was closer
than the one in his county. I suspect there are many instances where
documents were never filed - but it's really tough to find something
that never existed.
Another instance would be the wars, fires and floods that destroyed
records thus making it appear many transactions were not done
according to law.
I'm not a lawyer but I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last October.
8-)
singhals
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> Ukes <duke_of...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > While knowing what the applicable law was is very important for
> > genealogists, knowing the law unfortunately doesn't always tell us
> > much about what *common practices* were.
>
> My intent was to post a synopsis of the law as written by
> professional investigators, and I believe I succeeded.
And what was "common practice" in County A could well be unheard of
in County B. Whether the practice occurred in the Deeds, the Wills,
or the Criminal courts.
It was "common practice" in my home-town to use two men from the
bench on the courthouse porch when witnesses to documents were
needed. The Clerk sent a go-fer out to the porch, the go-fer
pointed to one of the two benches and held up 1 or 2 fingers,
depending on how many witnesses were needed. If any of those
witnesses were kin to anyone involved in the transaction, it was
pure chance. /I/ know this because I watched it happening and asked
my GF about it and he said /his/ GF had explained it to him. I've
heard some amazingly clever explanations of how some of those folks
were related!
....
> Another instance would be the wars, fires and floods that destroyed
> records thus making it appear many transactions were not done
> according to law.
In some sections of MD/PA/VA, where the three states disputed
ownership of territory, the prudent man recorded the deed to his
land in all three jurisdictions, ensuring his ownership regardless
of who eventually won the dispute.
> I'm not a lawyer but I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last October.
How'd you manage to /sleep/ there?!? I've been in quieter 707s.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
jyoun...@aol.com
> I'm a lawyer admitted to practice in Maryland & Virginia, and I used
> to be admitted in NJ, but let that one lapse.
>
> I've never heard or read anything that suggests that Maryland
> followed English law any less than other colonies such as New
> Jersey. In fact, Article 5 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights
> now in effect starts by saying:
>
> "That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of
> England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law,
> and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the
> Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by
> experience, have been found applicable to their local and other
> circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the
> Courts of Law or Equity..."
>
Jerry-
I wouldn't argue with you that this is how things were supposed to
be...but I do know that some aspects were handled differently in the
different Colonies. For example, Maryland and Pennsylvania didn't
persecute Catholics (they looked the other way perhaps) while New
Jersey did (prior to the Revolution).
Joan
J. Hugh Sullivan
<sing...@erols.com> wrote:
> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
The inmates, er, renters were at the casions all night.
Hugh
Ukes
Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> Good genealogical practice does not allow one to infer anything
> without proper notation that it is not proven fact if others are to
> see his work.
Good genealogical practice requires us to document our sources and
explain our reasoning. This means that the inferences that we draw
from the law or common customs explained so others can either accept
or reject them.
>I can post a synopsis of the law on guardians if you wish.
Thanks, but I'm familiar with it in New Jersey at least.
> I made no
> attempt to explain a couple of the innumerable different events that
> occurred in practice.
>
> For example I have found several instances where people recorded
> instruments in an adjacent county because the courthouse was closer
> than the one in his county.
What kind of instruments were they?
> I suspect there are many instances where
> documents were never filed - but it's really tough to find something
> that never existed.
>
> Another instance would be the wars, fires and floods that destroyed
> records thus making it appear many transactions were not done
> according to law.
I've seen a number of references to unrecorded deeds that were
"destroyed by accident of fire"
Jerry
Ukes <duke_of...@hotmail.com>
Ukes
Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com> wrote:
> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> > Ukes <duke_of...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > While knowing what the applicable law was is very important for
> > > genealogists, knowing the law unfortunately doesn't always tell us
> > > much about what *common practices* were.
> >
> > My intent was to post a synopsis of the law as written by
> > professional investigators, and I believe I succeeded.
>
> And what was "common practice" in County A could well be unheard of
> in County B. Whether the practice occurred in the Deeds, the Wills,
> or the Criminal courts.
>
> It was "common practice" in my home-town to use two men from the
> bench on the courthouse porch when witnesses to documents were
> needed. The Clerk sent a go-fer out to the porch, the go-fer
> pointed to one of the two benches and held up 1 or 2 fingers,
> depending on how many witnesses were needed. If any of those
> witnesses were kin to anyone involved in the transaction, it was
> pure chance. /I/ know this because I watched it happening and asked
> my GF about it and he said /his/ GF had explained it to him. I've
> heard some amazingly clever explanations of how some of those folks
> were related!
>
> ....
Quaker marriage certificates have columns at the bottom of them with
the signatures of the witnesses to the wedding. For many decades
genealogists have called one column (IIRC the far right hand
column) of marriage certificates "the family column" because they
noted that the *common practice* appeared to be for the family of
the bride and groom to sign this column.
About 10 years ago an article was published in The American
Genealogist (I think) in which the author researched whether there
was any truth to the claim that the far right hand column was
typically signed by family members of the bride and groom. He
analyzed hundreds of marriage certificates from several Monthly
Meetings and found that family members were heavily concentrated in
the so called "family column".
This study provides evidence that Quakers did have a *common
practice* of having a "family column" on their marriage
certificates. There's no law that required this practice, but
knowing that this common practice existed is useful to genealogists
nevertheless.
My guess is that there are a number of other common practices that
were followed in centuries past, which if documented, would be of
value to genealogists as well. These common practices, however, are
harder to document than finding a law in a book.
Jerry
Ukes <duke_of...@hotmail.com>
J. Hugh Sullivan
Ukes <duke_of...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
> > Good genealogical practice does not allow one to infer anything
> > without proper notation that it is not proven fact if others are to
> > see his work.
>
> Good genealogical practice requires us to document our sources and
> explain our reasoning. This means that the inferences that we draw
> from the law or common customs explained so others can either accept
> or reject them.
I believe that is what I said.
> > I made no
> > attempt to explain a couple of the innumerable different events that
> > occurred in practice.
> >
> > For example I have found several instances where people recorded
> > instruments in an adjacent county because the courthouse was closer
> > than the one in his county.
>
> What kind of instruments were they?
As I recall they were land sales. In any event they were by a man
in Nash Co. NC who recorded in Johnston Co. NC.
singhals
> > I've never thought about that possibility. I'd figured that the
> > British colonies, which both MD and NJ would have been, plus VA,
> > would all have had relatively similar legal systems to 1776 or so.
> > NY, with the Dutch, I wouldn't have been surprised by legacies of
> > the earlier traditions.
> >
>
> Don't forget that Maryland was pretty much a Catholic Colony which
> was not overly English. <g> In New Jersey, Catholicism was banned
> before the Revolution. So there WERE differences in how English
> laws and customs were enforced.
>
> JYoun...@aol.com
Ummm, ahhhh, cuz, how *do* I say this in the spirit of the season?
It doesn't affect the dower issues, but --
Maryland started out as an Irish Catholic colony, but The Lords
Proprietary were fond of their holdings, and well before George I,
it was officially C of E; it continued to be a bit more tolerant of
Catholics for obvious reasons, but was not an officially Catholic
colony for long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Maryland
(whose date line needs work -- consistency is always nice with
dates) has some info as well.
My other sources, ICAC, Maryland State Archives, and Maryland
History textbooks in elementary schools at various time periods.
Also, there's the anecdotal POV that an officially Catholic colony
would have dealt with Francis Asbury and his methodism movement
quite differently.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Bob Melson
Er, 'scuse me for butting in, but was it not that the Lords Calvert
or Baltimore were Catholic? Because the holders of the grant were
Catholic, it was considered that the colony was or would also be
Catholic. I'm sure somebody (Cheryl?) will slap me down on this,
but ISTR learning something on this order back in the halcyon days
of my childhood.
Senescent Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
Bob Melson <amia...@mypacks.net>
singhals
>
> Er, 'scuse me for butting in, but was it not that the Lords Calvert
> or Baltimore were Catholic? Because the holders of the grant were
> Catholic, it was considered that the colony was or would also be
> Catholic. I'm sure somebody (Cheryl?) will slap me down on this,
> but ISTR learning something on this order back in the halcyon days
> of my childhood.
>
Oh, yes, the Lords Baltimore were Irish and Catholic. And for a
while the Proprietary was Catholic. Don't forget it was illegal in
England to practice Catholicism, so while Maryland "tolerated"
Catholics more gracefully, early on, they Conformed and were
officially C of E. As I said, well before George I.
And, the surname is Calvert, the title is Baron Baltimore, address
is Lord Baltimore.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>