|
Can a deed for property in (US) county X be recorded in county Y
in the 1850s? TIA...
|
| |
| |
Can a deed for property in (US) county X be recorded in county Y
in the 1850s? TIA...
Yes.
|
| |
| |
z wrote:
Can a deed for property in (US) county X be recorded in county Y
in the 1850s? TIA...
Possibly. You need to learn the histories of the two counties. My
gggrandfather moved to Texas in 1846 and bought land in one county, died
in another county, and is buried in a third county--all in the same
geographic location. First, the county line between counties 1 and 2
was moved, whih placed his fixed location in a new county. Then, county
3 was formed from part of county 2 and guess what--that new county
included his original location, along with his burial location. Perhaps
you can find some information on one or both of the of the counties
involved.
Allen Tyler
|
| |
| |
"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message news:<UFS6c.40721$dS1.36944@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
Can a deed for property in (US) county X be recorded in county Y
in the 1850s? TIA...
If you go back THAT far, there is a good chance that County X was part
of County Y in the 1850s.
|
| |
| |
z wrote:
Can a deed for property in (US) county X be recorded in county Y
in the 1850s? TIA...
Yes, under most circumstances and regardless of whether X later split
out of Y. I've found deeds from half-way across the country recorded as
part of estate settlements.
Cheryl
|
| |
| |
Yes, thanks. In my case, one of the counties is San Francisco
and the other county is not physically situated near San Francisco,
but the grantor and grantee both lived in San Francisco at the time.
The deed is not showing up in the index in the other county, so
I am guessing that it was recorded in San Francisco County only
at the time.
I can't find San Francisco grantor-grantee records online
for the period between 1853 and 1865, so it may be that
I am simply out of luck for proving my conjecture...
-z
z wrote:
Yes, under most circumstances and regardless of whether X later split
out of Y. I've found deeds from half-way across the country recorded as
part of estate settlements.
Cheryl
|
| |
| |
Well, different states had different rules about when/if a deed could be
recorded. Not every transfer was entitled to a deed. You may have to
read the actual deeds for the time period, +/- 6 months, to be sure it's
not in there.
The deed I mentioned ended up in the deed book I was reading to settle
an estate in the midwest; the midwest-state's law required it, and the
Eastern state's county clerk so noted. (g)
Cheryl
z wrote:
Yes, thanks. In my case, one of the counties is San Francisco
and the other county is not physically situated near San Francisco,
but the grantor and grantee both lived in San Francisco at the time.
The deed is not showing up in the index in the other county, so
I am guessing that it was recorded in San Francisco County only
at the time.
I can't find San Francisco grantor-grantee records online
for the period between 1853 and 1865, so it may be that
I am simply out of luck for proving my conjecture...
-z
|
| |
| |
Well, different states had different rules about when/if a deed could be
recorded. Not every transfer was entitled to a deed.
In my case, it's for half-interest of a property which included
a summer home for a San Francisco businessman. Some of his
customers were unable to pay their bills, and as a result, he
lost money in futures commodities and (apparently) had to sell
half interest of his summer home to a creditor who also lived
in San Francisco. So my conjecture is that they just did not bother
traveling to the county where the summer home actually was,
and just recorded the deed in San Francisco instead, perhaps
expecting the transaction to be short-lived.
You may have to
read the actual deeds for the time period, +/- 6 months, to be sure it's
not in there.
Are you writing that I should not trust the grantor-grantee indices?
Do you have a notion of how accurate they are, generally speaking?
The deed I mentioned ended up in the deed book I was reading to settle
an estate in the midwest; the midwest-state's law required it, and the
Eastern state's county clerk so noted. (g)
I've seen mortgages replicated in similar fashion when counties split
before the life of the mortgage expired...
Cheryl
....
-z
|
| |
| |
"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote
Are you writing that I should not trust the grantor-grantee indices?
Do you have a notion of how accurate they are, generally speaking?
Regardless of how Cheryl might answer this, the answer is,
you absolutely should not trust the grantor/grantee indices.
|
| |
| |
z wrote:
In my case, it's for half-interest of a property which included
a summer home for a San Francisco businessman. Some of his
customers were unable to pay their bills, and as a result, he
lost money in futures commodities and (apparently) had to sell
half interest of his summer home to a creditor who also lived
in San Francisco. So my conjecture is that they just did not bother
traveling to the county where the summer home actually was,
and just recorded the deed in San Francisco instead, perhaps
expecting the transaction to be short-lived.
Are you writing that I should not trust the grantor-grantee indices?
Do you have a notion of how accurate they are, generally speaking?
I've seen mortgages replicated in similar fashion when counties split
before the life of the mortgage expired...
Trusting a grantor-grantee index -- if the name is in the index, it's in
the deed book. The reverse is not always true -- Remember, the index
was (generally) created at the time of the event; if the clerk was
interrupted before he finished the index entries, a name gets omitted;
the name of a party of grantors or grantees gets indexed under the first
name on the doc + "et al." If the name you're hunting was 3rd on the
list, he's not indexed. Because of those built-in variables, an
estimate of the reliability of the index is past my abilities. (g)
Cheryl
|
| |
| |
z wrote:
Can a deed for property in (US) county X be recorded in county Y
in the 1850s? TIA...
The county is technically an extension of the state.
So it should make no difference in which county the deed is registered.
As the deed becomes a "state" record.
In the 1850's, when travel was on horseback, it may have taken a day or two
to travel to the county courthouse.
But less than a few hours away is another county courthouse and the deed is
recorded there.
Or maybe a nearby city in an adjoining county had an outlet for the deeds to
be registered in.
A fairly common practice in those days.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:26:26 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.000>
wrote:
The county is technically an extension of the state.
So it should make no difference in which county the deed is registered.
As the deed becomes a "state" record.
You really are a dangerous idiot.
The purpose of land records is to be able to establish the title to
real property, and each county maintains a separate index. A deed to
land in county X that is recorded in county Y is totally useless,
because it can never be found.
To establish title, a deed must be recorded in the right county, so a
deed recorded in the wrong county does not really even exist both as
practical matter and as a matter of law.
*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).
|
| |
| |
In a family I have researched the father died about 1802 in Dinwiddie
County, Virginia. His widow and children moved to Robertson County, TN. When
the youngest child came of age a deed to some of the father's land was
registered in 1820 in Robertson County since that is where all of his heirs
lived. All the heirs are on record as having signed it in Robertson County.
I would guess that the deed was also registered in Dinwiddie County, but
those records were destroyed during the Civil War. I have seen cases where
wills were registered in more than one courthouse if the deceased owned
property in more counties/states than one.
|
| |
| |
It can, but such recording is meaningless. To be effective, it must be
recorded in the count where the land is, otherwise it would be impossible to
research and prove title to property.
--
Joe Weber
Bedford, Indiana
Can a deed for property in (US) county X be recorded in county Y
in the 1850s? TIA...
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:26:26 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.000>
wrote:
You really are a dangerous idiot.
Especially when he's behind the wheel of a truck. You should read some of
his comments in news:misc.transport.trucking sometime. He was recently
turned down for a job due to his ignorance and dangerous behavior in the
driver's seat.
The purpose of land records is to be able to establish the title to
real property, and each county maintains a separate index. A deed to
land in county X that is recorded in county Y is totally useless,
because it can never be found.
To establish title, a deed must be recorded in the right county, so a
deed recorded in the wrong county does not really even exist both as
practical matter and as a matter of law.
*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).
|
| |
| |
|
