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

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

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

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?

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

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

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!

Same Name, Same Place, Same Person? Using Deeds to Distinguish Between Two Men of the Same Name and Location

In a previous post, I wrote about the problem of determining how many Henry Hoovers there were in Martic Township. I listed the land warrants and patents and subsequent deed transfers for several parcels of land. But I didn’t go into any detail on what these documents actually said. So, in this post, I plan to go into more detail on how I used deeds to distinguish between multiple men of the same name who lived in the same area at the same time.

Note: I’ve used Hoover as the primary spelling of the surname through this post. The spellings–Huber, Hoober, Huver, Hoover, and Hover–were all used interchangeably throughout documents from the 18th century. Specific spellings directly from a document are shown here in quotes.

One Henry Hoover

The research that I’ve seen online and in published materials says that there was one Henry Hoover who owned land on Pequea and Beaver creeks at the junction of present-day West Lampeter, Pequea, Providence and Strasburg townships. He married Katherine Good, daughter of Jacob Good, and died in 1757. Richard Warren Davis has apparently identified him as a son of Jacob & Barbara (__) Huber of Conestoga Township.1

Hoover land patents in Conestoga/Martic Township area

Hoover land patents in Conestoga/Martic Township area

In 1733, Michael Shank sold his rights to 250 acres at the junction of Pequea and Beaver creeks to Jacob Good and Henry Hoover. Jacob took 106 acres to the south and Henry took 144 acres to the north.2 These tracts are labelled B2 and B3 on the map. Both were warranted in 1717 to Shank and patented 15 April 1740—along with tract B4 which was originally surveyed to Jacob Good3—to “Henry Hoober.” Also in the year 1733, Henry Hoover warranted 160 acres in Martic Township (B1).4 He never surveyed land for this warrant.5

Jacob Good bequeathed a tract surveyed to him, containing about 180 acres, and all improvements to his son-in-law “Henry Hover” in his last will and testament, written 12 September 1739.6 Henry was named sole executor and required to provide for Jacob’s widow Barbara and to allow her to live in the “dwelling house.” Letters testamentary were issued to “Henry Houer” 22 January 1741/2. An inventory was filed for the estate in 1741/2.7

Henry Hoover warranted an additional 171 acres in Martic Township on 13 November 1744 and had it surveyed on 20 December 1744 (B5).8 This plus the land mentioned previously brings the total acreage owned by Henry Hoover in Martic Township to 489 acres.

“Henry Huver” left a will, dated 27 August 1757 and proven on 29 December 1757.9 In it, he left to “John Huber the Half of my Real & Personal Estate of Lands Money & Goods to him forever & ye other half unto my Daughter Elizabeth Bayers she to have ye same divided between the aforesaid John Huber her Brother; & ye said Elizabeth Bayers Equally & Impartially.” He named his “loving Friends Martin Bear & Henry Huber Executors.” [Emphasis mine.] Letters testamentary were granted to his two executors on 29 December 1757. An inventory was filed on the estate of “Henry Hoover” a weaver of Martic Township in 1758.10

John and Elizabeth (Hoover) Boyers sold their 1/2 share of Henry Hoober’s land to her brother John on 8 February 1758.11 The deed specifies this land in metes and bounds that match tract B2 on the map, containing 144 acres. “John Huber” wrote his last will and testament on 9 January 1793 and it was proven on 3 April 1799.12 He directed that all his estate–both real and personal–should be sold to the highest bidder. On 14 May 1799, his executors “Henry Huber,” his son, and “John Huber,” a friend, sold 144 acres to Henry Bowman.13

So, if the land inherited by John Hoover and Elizabeth (Hoover) Boyers totaled 144 acres, what happened to all the other lands warranted or patented to “Henry Hoober?”

Two Henry Hoovers

We know there were two Henry Hoovers of legal age by 1757–as “Henry Huver” named his friend Henry Huber as one of his executors in the will he wrote in August of 1757.14 His neighbor “Jacob Huber” (A1 & A2 on map) also named his friend “Henry Hoover” as one of his executors in his will, written 29 July 1759.15 The question is whether or not there were two men of that name, of legal age, by 1740 when the multiple tracts were patented. The answer, I believe, can be found by examining later deed records.

Martic Township Hoover property

Martic Township Hoover property

On 6 June 1767, Henry and Katharine Hoover sold several tracts of land to John Hoover and Jacob Hoover. They sold two tracts to their son John Hoover—80 acres from the tract of 106 acres (B3, map #2) patented to Henry Hoover in 174016 and 64 acres (B5, map #2) from the parcel of 171 acres warranted to Henry Hoover in 1744.17 They sold the residue from these two tracts—137 acres (B4, map #2)—to Jacob Hoover.18

But if Henry died in 1757, how did he and his wife sell land in 1767? The deeds to John Hoover were typed, indicating that a copy had been made from the earlier handwritten record, likely sometime in the 20th century. Could the typist have read 1757 as 1767? Certainly, it’s possible.

However, the land the couple sold to Jacob was sold by his executors on 25 August 1790. The deed was recorded 7 October 1819 and appears to be the handwritten record of the recorder.19 It, too, indicates that Henry and his wife sold the land to Jacob on 6 June 1767. This date was most likely copied from Jacob’s unrecorded deed of his purchase of the land from Henry and Katharine Hoover.

Furthermore, the 171-acre tract warranted to Henry Hoover 13 November 1744 was patented to the warrantee, i.e. Henry, on 14 April 1761.20 Since “Henry” died in 1757, this land could not have belonged to the same man.

Additionally, the John Hoover who inherited land in Henry Hoover’s 1757 will died in 1799, leaving a will directing that his land be sold. His will named his widow Ann and eight children: “Henry, Mary, Jacob, John, Christian, David, Anne & Christina.”21

The John Hoover, who purchased land from Henry and Katharine Hoover in 1767, died intestate prior to 21 April 1810.22 This John left a widow named Mary and nine children: “Mary the wife of Peter Huber aforesaid, Barbara Huber, John Huber, Christina Huber, Esther Huber, Abraham Huber, Ann Huber, Susanna Huber, and Elizabeth Huber.”23

As you can see, there were two men named John Hoover, both sons of men named Henry Hoover who lived in Martic Township on adjoining properties. Could one man have two sons with the same name? Yes, but usually not two living sons.

Furthermore, even though three of the pieces of land under discussion were patented on 15 April 1740 to “Henry Hoober,” only one of them could have been owned by the Henry who died in 1757. Therefore, there must have been two Henry Hoovers–one who split Michael Shank’s land with Jacob Good and died in 1757, and Jacob’s son-in-law, who patented his lands, selling them to his sons in 1767.

Is there any other evidence to support this conclusion? Yes.

Tax records provide some additional information. There were two Henry Hoovers listed in Martic Township tax records for 175124 and 1757.25 A Henry Hoover also appears in tax records for 1758 and 1759.26 Also, Jacob Hover, “Henry’s son,” is listed in Martic Township tax records in 176927 and 177028, though Henry is not. And as far as I can tell from the records, the Henry who died in 1757 did not have a son named Jacob.

Conclusions

Based on the deed records, there were two Henry Hoovers–let’s call them A and B. Henry Hoover (A) split Michael Shank’s tract with Jacob Good in 1733. Henry (A) took tract B2. Tract B1 was part of land warranted to Henry (A), but never surveyed or patented. Henry (A) died in 1757, leaving all his estate to his son John and daughter Elizabeth. His wife was not mentioned in the will, indicating that she was already deceased, nor were any other children mentioned.

Henry Hoover (A) and his unknown wife had children:

  1. John Hoover, born before 1737, probably died in March 1799, but definitely before 3 April 1799. John and his wife Ann had children (listed in the order from John’s will):
    1. Henry Hoover, born before 9 January 1772
    2. Mary Hoover
    3. Jacob Hoover, born 1756-1774
    4. John Hoover, born before 1780
    5. Christian Hoover, born before 9 January 1772
    6. David Hoover, born before 1771, died sometime after 1803 in Upper Canada
    7. Ann Hoover, born 16 January 1768, died 25 March 1780, married Abraham Gochenour
    8. Christina Hoover, born before 1778, unmarried as of 1801
  2. Elizabeth Hoover, born before 1737, died circa 1809 in York County, married John Boyer/Byer/Beyer

In his 1739 will, Jacob Good left his land to his son-in-law, Henry Hoover (B). This Henry took tracts B3 and B4, patenting them in 1740 (before his father-in-law died, possibly at Jacob’s direction) and warranted tract B5 in 1744. Henry was married to Katharine Good. He and his wife sold the majority of his land to his sons John and Jacob in 1767 and Henry does not appear in the records for Martic Township after that.

Henry and Katharine (Good) Hoover had children:

  1. Jacob Hoover, born before 1736, died between 13 March and 9 June 1788, married Barbara (___). Barbara Hoover likely died in 1810 when an inventory was produced in Martic township. An administration account was filed in 1813 by John and Martin Huber. Jacob and Barbara had children:
    1. Henry Hoover, born circa 1764
    2. Jacob Hoover, born circa 1766
    3. Barbara Hoover, born circa 1768
    4. Christian Hoover, born circa 1771-1774
    5. John Hoover, born circa 1771-1774
    6. Martin Hoover, born circa 1774, possibly married Maria Eshleman in 1799
  2. John Hoover, born before 1746 and died intestate before 21 April 1810 when his land was partitioned by the Orphans Court. He married Mary (___). She died prior to 4 December 1826. John and Mary had children:
    1. John Hoover, died between 17 November 1815–25 July 1818, unmarried and without children
    2. Mary Hoover, born circa 1766-1774, died after 4 December 1827, married Peter Huber, son of John and Barbara (___) Huber of Martic and Conestoga Townships
    3. Christina Hoover, born circa 1780, died before 3 March 1875, unmarried
    4. Barbara Hoover, born circa 1780-1790, died before 16 June 1841, unmarried
    5. Esther Hoover, born circa 1780-1790, died before 15 March 1832, unmarried
    6. Abraham Hoover, born circa 1785, died 1864, married Mary Huber, daughter of Abraham and Anna (Huber?) Huber
    7. Ann Hoover, born circa 1775-1794, died before 1 January 1828, unmarried
    8. Susanna Hoover, born 30 May 1789, died 16 July 1874, unmarried
    9. Elizabeth Hoover, born circa 1791-1794, died after 27 March 1875, married Henry Krug/Krieg before 4 December 1826
  3. Daughter (possibly Barbara) Hoover, married Jacob Hoover (possibly the son of Jacob and Anna Huber)

Identifying the specific land parcels and tracing them through multiple types of records for subsequent generations was crucial in determining that there were two men named Henry Hoover living on adjoining properties on Beaver Creek. The name and location alone were simply not enough information.

Have you run into this problem? What records did you find useful in distinguishing between two people of the same name and in the same location?