RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Dumfriesshire => Topic started by: PaperQueen on Sunday 18 June 17 00:06 BST (UK)
-
On a recent visit to the lovely Ewart Library in Dumfries, I was able to dig up three sasine entries for my 4x great grandfather, James Baxter. Now that I'm home, citing and transcribing all of this into Evernote, I need a little help deciphering a few details. In the attached example:
- Aug 3 1799 -- I assume this is the date the completed transaction was registered with the county
- July 5 1799 -- The date the transaction concluded...?
- July 22 1796 -- Okay...guessing this is either the date James and David Maxwell committed to the transaction -or- the day Mr. Maxwell originally took possession of said ground...?
Please correct me if I'm wrong (which may very well be the case).
My other question:
One little paragraph, so many queries. ;)
-
Hi, "Disp" is short for Disposition. You are basically right about the dates. The word "seized" means that he took possession on that date but the disposition wasn't completed until the 25th.
Remember, this is an abridgement and it is always worthwhile checking the original.
Best wishes
Ian A McClumpha
-
The language is what has me confused. My initial understanding was:
- "Seized" = took possession/began using the land, even though legal transfer wasn't yet complete
- "on Disposition" = legal transfer of legal ownership
Following that logic, the dates don't work in chronological order:
- July 22 1796 ... David Maxwell legal transferred ownership to James Baxter
- July 5 1799 ... James seized (began using) the land prior to owning it
Do I have "seized" and "on Disp." reversed in my mind? Seems they must be, logically (either that, or my understanding of "seized" is out of kilter).
-
Hi, It was fairy common for the registration to be enacted after the possession took place, sometimes years. Often it was registered just prior to being sold or transferred again, because it had to be to keep it legal. Deals were done on a handshake, legalities came later.
It pays to look at the full sasine because these anomalies might be explained.
Ian
-
Hi, It was fairy common for the registration to be enacted after the possession took place, sometimes years. Often it was registered just prior to being sold or transferred again, because it had to be to keep it legal. Deals were done on a handshake, legalities came later.
It pays to look at the full sasine because these anomalies might be explained.
Ian
I understand it was common for the handshake transfer to occur years before the legal transfer---that's the problem with this example. The legal transfer appears first (1796) followed by the handshake possession (three years later, 1799). Thus my question about whether or not my definitions are correct:
- Seized = handshake
- on Disp. = official/legal transfer
The original is on file in Edinburgh, which I've been told can only be viewed in person (i.e., is not available online). Unfortunately, I'm in the U.S., so.... Not an option. :::drats:::
-
"The original is on file in Edinburgh, which I've been told can only be viewed in person (i.e., is not available online). Unfortunately, I'm in the U.S., so.... Not an option. :::drats:::"
But you can get somebody to look for it, print it off and send it to you.
The last time I did one, (lots), this was the only way, and it worked very well - you get full colour A3 sheets on very good paper. Perhaps by now they have a scanning system, but I doubt it.
You could make a plea to see if anybody from Rootschat would be willing to do it for you, or I can give you the name and address of a very good researcher I used to do a lot for me. Doesn't work out too expensive.
If it's from 1799 it shouldn't be too difficult to decipher - some early ones are horrendous!
You can always post a bit on here to get you going.
Good luck.