NJGLOUCE-L Archives

Archiver > NJGLOUCE > 2002-09 > 1031099637


From: "Ed." <>
Subject: RE: [NJGLOUCE] witnesses as clues for maiden names
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:33:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <fc.0010c7b200587fbf3b9aca004c7aa749.587ff7@Capaccess.org>


Actually, I'm wondering if knowing the people who owned the ADJACENT
property might provide better clues to family relationships. Nothing is a
sure thing.
Ed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Judtith Newman [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 2:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [NJGLOUCE] witnesses as clues for maiden names


This is the genalogical version of an "urban legend" and while there were
many situations where the witnesses were related it is more likely because
they also lived nearby and were convenient.

Where dower rights exist they were and are protected by law not by
witnesses.

Judy Newman
writes:
>This was passed to me from another researcher recently;
>
>The following is from a Minnesota Genealogical Newsletter. "In the lower
>
>left corner of most old deeds you will find two to four witnesses. The
>first one is always from the husband's side, the next two from the
>wife's side. That is to protect her one half dower rights under the law.
>
>Nothing you will ever use will give greater clues to maiden names".
>
>
>I'm throwing this out to the lists, in hopes of generating some
>discussion on the topic. I work with many land records, and had heard a
>version of this before, but in reference to witnesses on wills and
>orphans rights. I've wondered how well it holds up in actual
>practice? And if so, would that only apply in certain time frames? .
>
>I might add that I very often do find there will be family relationships
>between grantors and grantees, and that sometimes isn't apparent on the
>surface, until I find the "invisible" tie through the female lines.
>However, I often see witnesses named as adjoining land owners in a
>deed, who might have simply had a property interest in the transaction,
>or were readily available?
>
>Any thoughts, or better yet, brief examples that might support or shoot
>down the maiden name theory? Sort of a straw poll I'm taking.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Val
>
>




This thread: