Author: Kris Hocker

From the Deed to the Wills The Ancestry of Abraham Huber (1847-1910)

Kris Hocker on 29 Jan 2016

In my last post, we learned that John and Christian Huber were tenants in common on a tract of land, containing about 55 acres. Abraham Huber purchased it from the Lancaster County Orphans Court in 1892.1 After reviewing the deed that provided this information, I have three questions I want to answer:

  1. What are “tenants in common?”
  2. Why, if they both died testate, was it the Orphans Court that sold the tract to Abraham?
  3. What was Abraham’s relationship to the two men, if any?

Tenants in Common

As tenants in common, John and Christian Huber each owned a portion of the 55 acres. Those portions were not necessarily equal. Additionally, “tenants in common”—as opposed to “joint tenants”—did not have the right of survivorship. After one tenant’s death, the rights to their portion remained with their estate instead of reverting to the other “tenant.”

Thus, the disposition of the tract would have been determined by John and Christian’s last wills and testaments.

Orphans Court

So, if John and Christian had the right to bequeath their land as they saw fit, and both men left wills, why was it the Orphans Court that sold the land?

John Huber died 11 Dec 1862. His last will and testament was proven 20 December 1862.2 He left his “equal undivided one half of the tract of land” he held with his “brother Christian Huber” to his wife during her lifetime. After her death, he directed his executors to sell the land and pay his children their shares, after paying out his specific bequests.

Christian Huber died 8 September 1881.3 His will was proven the 19th of September. He left his share to his nephew Abraham and niece Susan, children of his brother John, along with bequests to his grand nieces, and children of nephew John. He gave Abraham 2/3 of his real estate and Susan 1/3. He instructed that none of his land could be sold until after the death of John’s widow Margaret.

Margaret died 4 February 1890.4 By that time, Christian Huber5 and Tobias Huber,6 John’s sons and executors of his will, were deceased. Abraham was named administrator of her estate.7 As per the directions in his father’s will, Abraham put the land up for sale on 21 November 1891.8 Previously, on 5 October, Abraham had been granted by the court the right to bid on the land. His bid of $3,030 was the highest. I presume that as administrator of the estate, he couldn’t write a deed to himself, thus the Orphans Court deeded the property to him.

What Was Abraham’s Relationship to John & Christian?

Both John and Christian’s wills name Abraham as John’s son. John’s will names his other children as: Christian, Tobias, John, Susanna, Ann married to James McFalls, and Mary married to John Rineer. Christian’s will also identifies Margaret McFalls, Fannie Rineer, and Mariah Rineer as his great nieces. He also leaves a bequest to nephew John’s children, but does not provide their names.

So based on three documents—a deed and two wills—we can outline the family like this:

Children of Unknown Huber:

  1. John Huber (children listed in order from will)
    1. Christian Huber
    2. Tobias Huber
    3. John Huber
      1. Children
    4. Abraham Huber
    5. Susanna Huber
    6. Ann Huber married James McFalls
      1. Margareta McFalls
    7. Mary Huber married John Rineer
      1. Fannie Rineer
      2. Mariah Rineer
  2. Christian Huber

Starting with a Deed The Ancestry of Abraham Huber (1847-1910)

Kris Hocker on 25 Jan 2016

When you think of deeds you probably think of land transactions, right? So-and-so sold someone land in this place on that date. And why not? That’s what deeds are supposed to record.

But there have been many times when I’ve been surprised by just what else deeds record. Deeds come in different flavors.1 Sometimes, in order to adequately record the details of the transaction, they contain valuable information about the family involved in the purchase or sale.

Lancaster Co Deed D14:276

J.N.S. Hill C.O.C. to Abraham Huber (D14:276)

Take this deed, for instance.2 Straight off the bat we know that this deed is a deed of settlement. How do we know that? The party of the first part—the “person” selling the land—is a clerk of the Orphans Court for Lancaster County.

Despite the name, the Orphans Court dealt with more than just appointing guardians for “orphans.” In Pennsylvania it dealt with the details of settling an estate—both intestate and testate, recording the administration account, the appointment of guardians, the division of real estate amongst the heirs if it was not spelled out in the last will & testament (of there was one), petitions by heirs for specific pieces of land from the estate, and more.

In this deed, the Orphans Court is selling land to Abraham Huber from the estate of John and Christian Huber, tenants in common of a tract of land in Providence Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. It states that both men died with wills (testate) and identifies specifically where Christian Huber’s was recorded. This provides me with clues to two additional documents, potentially pertaining to Abraham Huber’s ancestry.

Furthermore, the metes and bounds identify the owners of neighboring properties. They are named as John Huber of Pequea Township, little John Huber, John Reinhart, and Benjamin Herr. The fact that one of the neighboring properties lies in Pequea Township provides a general location for the tract—on the border between Pequea and Providence townships. This not only helps me locate the land, but, in this case, most likely points to Abraham’s ancestry.

Check back to see what I can learn from John & Christian Huber’s wills.

Saturday Night Fun: Two Degrees of Separation

Kris Hocker on 23 Jan 2016

Every Saturday, Randy Seaver of Genea-Musings posts a fun idea for a genealogy game. This week’s is two degrees of separation: How far back in time can you get through an ancestor you knew through someone they knew?

Clyde Hoover and great-grandaughter Kris Hocker

Clyde Hoover and great-granddaughter Kris Hocker

Paternal Line

As a child in 1969, I met my paternal great grandfather Clyde Hoover. He was born 30 October 1886 and died 13 May 1972 in Pine Glen, Burnside Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania. He knew his maternal grandparents—Jacob C. Walker (3 November 1833—24 July 1915) and Mary M. Eckley (8 July 1836—18 July 1911). He may have also known his maternal great grandfather John D. Eckley (ca 1814—23 November 1890).

Maternal Line

4 generations Waage-Wieder-Greulich-Hocker

Mae (Waage) Wieder and great-granddaughter Kris Hocker

I met my great grandmather Mary Catharine (Waage) Wieder as an infant, too. She was born 27 October 1877 to Dr. Charles T. Waage (22 October 1827—6 March 1921) and his second wife Lydia S. Eschbach (3 October 1845—7 May 1910) and died 28 November 1970. She was baptized by her grandfather, Rev. Frederic Waage on 29 November 1877. Rev. Waage was born 17 August 1797 in Schleswig-Holstein, Denmark and died 23 August 1884 in Pennsburg, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

With only two degrees of separation, I can connect with a 4x great grandfather, born about 1814, in my paternal line and a 3x great grandfather, born in 1797, on my maternal line. So, I can connect with an ancestor born 171 years before me.

On the Subject of Dogs

Kris Hocker on 10 Jan 2016

My dogs are a big part of my life. I’ve lived with pets all my life. When I was born, my parents had two cats and a dog, so my sister and I grew up with pets in the house. Thinking about that made me curious about whether or not dogs were a part of my ancestors’ lives.

I already knew about some of the dogs my grandparents had. So, I went looking through the various boxes of photos I have from both sides of my family to see if I had photos of them. Sure enough, I do. Here’s a gallery of some of the images I found.

I found photos with dogs from the Hocker family that go back to my great grandfather William H. Hocker Sr. On the Greulich side, the photos only go back to my grandfather Russell R. Greulich’s youth. I don’t know if his parents’ families had dogs and didn’t have any photos of them, or just didn’t have dogs. The Snyders were farming folks, so maybe they had one.

Looking at the photos, I noticed that dogs played a very different role in the Greulich family versus the Hocker family. The photos of my grandfather Greulich’s dogs show them as pets, companions. These dogs lived with the family in the house. The choice of dog breeds—Boston Terrier and American Eskimo Dog—is also indicative of their roles.

The Hockers’ dog were hunting dogs as shown by the “catch-of-the-day” style photos. That the Hockers chose hounds (Beagles, I think) is further evidence that their dogs were working dogs. They lived in a dog run in the yard. It wasn’t until my family’s dog Major, a German Shepherd/Elkhound mix, went to live with my grandparents when my Dad was stationed overseas that they allowed a dog to live in the house with them.

Today, we have Golden Retrievers. While they’re trained to be hunting and retrieving dogs, they’re family pets. They perform in agility and obedience competition, and serve as models for my sister—an excellent dog photographer. And they rule the house.

“Trey and I,” featured image shows author and her Golden Trey. Photo © Karen Hocker Photography. 

Was Johann Adam Hacker a Redemptioner?

Kris Hocker on 5 Jan 2016

Recently, I’ve been thinking about my ancestor Adam Hacker and his emigration from Germany to Pennsylvania. He was a very young man, just starting out in the world. What were the circumstances of his decision to leave? How prepared was he for the journey? Did the family, in fact, have enough money to pay for his voyage? These things led me to wonder whether or not he could have been a redemptioner.

What is a Redemptioner?

What is a redemptioner, you ask. Wikipedia defines them as “…European immigrants, generally in the 18th or early 19th century, who gained passage to American Colonies (most often Pennsylvania) by selling themselves into indentured servitude to pay back the shipping company which had advanced the cost of the transatlantic voyage.”1

Unlike indentured servants who made their contract prior to coming to the New World, redemptioners paid for their transportation upfront with credit, then had to come up with payment once they arrived at their destination.

The German Emigrant

About 50% of German emigrants during peak emigration years could not afford to pay for their passage.2 Since the price of passage, ranging from five to fourteen pounds sterling, often represented more than a year’s income for them, this is not surprising.

Nor was the ship’s fare their only expenditure. They had already paid—or become indebted for—the price of their passage down the Rhine to Rotterdam. This included the boat fare and fees at each custom house along the way. When they finally arrived at their destination, they also had to pay room and board while they were waiting for the ship to embark and purchase supplies for the voyage. One account states “many passengers have spent $176 from home to Philadelphia.”3 For many their options were limited.

Once they arrived in Philadelphia, the ship’s passengers were inspected by a physician before they were allowed to dock. Healthy immigrants were taken into town where they took the Oath of Allegiance to the King of England, then were returned to the ship. Those with the money to pay for their passage were allowed to leave. Those who did not were required to get it. How they did so was up to them. Some may have had friends or acquaintances who would give them a loan to pay the ship’s captain. Others might have had household goods that they could sell in Philadelphia to pay for their passage. Those not so lucky had to sell themselves into servitude to pay their debt to the ship’s captain within thirty days.

Redemptioners negotiated a contract based on their age, health, job skills or perceived productivity, education, and family circumstances.4 They indentured themselves for the shortest, fixed-term period that paid their debt based on the existing market conditions of the colony. These were usually three, five or seven year contracts.5

Johann Adam Hacker

When he was just 21 years-old, Johann Adam Hacker set out on his voyage to the New World. He left Rußheim in the spring of 17496 with several other villagers—Maria Margaretha (Hager) Elser, her new husband Heinrich Mock, and her children, Maria Catharina (Hager) Zimmerman and her sons, and Maria Barbara (Spöck) Schmid and her new husband Joh. Wendell Keller.7 He arrived in Philadelphia on 28 September.8

We don’t know whether or not he had the money to pay for his passage. But it’s most likely he was a far from wealthy man. His grandfather had been a cow herder, one of the lowliest of occupations in the village.9 Although he had risen to become a tailor prior to his death, his occupation was still one of the lowest paid. Adam’s father Christopher most likely learned the shoemaking trade from his step-father Johan Georg Schmidt.10 But from what I’ve seen from the records, there were a number of shoemakers in Rußheim, thus it was likely not a well-earning profession. Class structure in a German village at the time was not particularly fluid, and allowed for little personal advancement.

The Weidman Family

Adam married Maria Elisabetha Weidman sometime prior to 16 Dec 1753 when they sponsored her nephew Christopher Weidman in the Warwick congregation as a married couple.11 Elisabeth’s father Martin Weidman was a wealthy property owner in Cocalico Township. Unlike most German emigrants, the Weidmans had been well-to-do even before they immigrated.12 Their wealth only increased after their 1733 arrival. Martin purchased 200 acres in 1734.13 Between 1745 and 1758, he acquired the rights to an additional 1,000 acres.14

Because of their extensive land holding, the Weidmans, no doubt, required additional labor to work their land. Because of their wealth, they would have been able to purchase the indentures of their fellow countrymen as a source of this labor. Perhaps this is how Adam came to know Martin Weidman’s daughter. Perhaps he was a servant to Weidman, or perhaps Weidman paid off the passage for a fellow Badener.

In 1756, the first available tax record, Adam was taxed on 50 acres of land.15 I have not been able to find a record of how he acquired this land.

However, “[it] was decreed that bond servants should receive at the expiration of their term of service fifty acres of land from the Proprietary Government at the exceedingly low annual quit rent of two shillings, or about one cent per acre.”16 So, it’s not unrealistic to believe that he received this land from Martin Weidman—either as part of a settlement after he finished his contract or perhaps subsequent to his marriage to Maria Elisabetha.

In Conclusion

Without further information, I can only conclude that he might have been a redemptioner. But it’s something I hadn’t even considered before. If he was a redemptioner, I think it would say quite a bit about the family’s economic status in Rußheim and the options for future advancement there.

Between his arrival in 1749 and late 1753, Adam demonstrated himself and his ability to provide for a wife and family sufficiently to convince Martin Weidman—a successful, wealthy man—that he was a wise choice as husband for his eldest daughter. Furthermore, his younger brother did the same after his arrival in 1751, marrying Weidman’s daughter Anna Margaretha sometime after 28 July 1754.17 I think this speaks well for Adam and George’s determination to make the most out of the opportunities they found in the new world.

2015: The Year In Review

Kris Hocker on 31 Dec 2015

Happy New Year's

At this time of year, it’s become a tradition to look back at the highlights from the previous year. You see this a lot with television news programs… and online with blogs. So, here goes.

Looking Back

This year has not been a terribly prolific year for blog posts. I’ve done a fair amount of writing. It just hasn’t been for the blog. I wrote a total of 17 posts, as follows:

  • January: 2 posts
  • May: 3 posts
  • August: 3 posts
  • September: 2 posts
  • October: 3 posts
  • November: 2 posts
  • December: 2 posts (including this one)

Rather pathetic actually.

Perhaps that’s why the top ten viewed pages were all written in prior years and most have appeared on previous years’ top ten lists.1

  1. Jacob Hoover (ca 1746-1800) (#5 in 2014)
  2. Making a Deed Map from Old Metes and Bounds
  3. Pennsylvania Warrant Township Maps (#9 in 2014)
  4. 5,000 Acres—Where Did It All Go?
  5. Andreas Huber Origins: Trippstadt, Ellerstadt, or Ittlingen? (#8 in 2014)
  6. Lancaster County Deed Books Online (#4 in 2014)
  7. Huber Immigrants (#6 in 2014)
  8. Friday Finds: Trinity Lutheran Birth and Baptismal Records Online (#7 in 2014)
  9. How to Use the Online Land Records at the PA State Archives (#3 in 2014)
  10. Pennsylvania Genealogical County Map (#2 in 2014)

Although I didn’t write much this year, I did improve over last year on the number of views and unique visitors—24,000+ and 11,000+, respectively. I hope that’s because more people are finding the information I’ve posted useful and relevant.

Looking Forward

However, I would like my total number of posts to go up in 2016!

Since I tend to write when I’ve research to report—or to organize said research into coherent conclusions—I’ve either not been terribly successful, or perhaps not so active with my family research.

I know I’ve been actively researching. But I’m the first to admit it’s been all over the place—work on my family lines, work for several writing projects, and just data collection for specific surnames. None of it significant enough to compile into a compelling article.

So, to accomplish my first goal of writing more, I’ve got to set another goal. To be more organized and targeted in my research.

This one I find difficult to do. Online access to records has spoiled me. I love that feeling of success when you find what you’re looking for. And the online data is so easily accessible it’s easy to get distracted as new questions come up—whether they pertain to the original research question or not.

But once you’ve tapped all the available online sources, it’s all too easy to get distracted or simply turn to another research question and start the process all over—never fully finishing the research on the first topic because you haven’t completed a “reasonably exhaustive” search by including offline records. Oy!

So, my goals for 2016—in order for everything else to fall in line—must be as follows:

  1. Focus – Pick a project, topic, or family line and focus on it.
  2. Plan – Decide on a research plan and stick to it. Plan out posts on the calendar; don’t wait for inspiration to strike.
  3. Write – Compile and organize the research results, then write them up. Write up what I already know for the people/topics in the calendar; feed this into the research plan to fill in the gaps.
  4. Share – And lastly, share what I’ve written. Maybe a reader will have more information or suggestions on where to look next.

Now to sit down and decide where I’m going to focus for 2016 and start planning.

How was your 2015?

FamilySearch Adds New Features for Digitized Films

Kris Hocker on 7 Nov 2015

Good news. FamilySearch is adding new features to their site this month. A new thumbnail gallery is being added to the fill-screen image view and new icons are being added to the catalog which will indicate if films have been indexed or digitized online or still need to be ordered as films from the FHL.

Check out this post on the FamilySearch site for the details!