![\"landlist\"](\"http:\/\/lh5.ggpht.com\/_udfzp1vLXt0\/TFjo6r5uGpI\/AAAAAAAAFnM\/fhK7CKFkOP8\/landlist%5B4%5D.jpg?imgmax=800\" "\\"landlist\\"")
<\/p>\nAs you probably know, I have been busy collecting and transcribing deeds for my Oakland County, Michigan families.\u00a0 While I\u2019ve recorded each transaction in my database, it\u2019s hard to visualize what occurred with each parcel, when and between what parties.\u00a0 Over the last few days I\u2019ve been brainstorming about how I could make it easier to track all the transactions for a particular parcel.\u00a0 Today, I\u2019ve been working on compiling the transactions in a Word document and thought I\u2019d share with you why and how I did it, as well as the things I found as a result.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
While I don\u2019t like having the same data in many places or across several types of media and\/or formats, I thought it was important to pull out the land transactions to better analyze them together.\u00a0 So I created a Word document for each of the two main families I am working on.\u00a0 Within that document are tables for each parcel of land.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I used the following columns:<\/p>\n
The parcel tables are arranged by Township, then Range, then Section so I can easily find a particular parcel.\u00a0 Each transaction is listed in date order, from oldest to newest.\u00a0 Most of the transactions followed the typical pattern you would expect; it came into possession and later left their possession.\u00a0 But by putting these land transactions together in this manner, I was able to see a variety of issues.<\/p>\n
For example, there are a few parcels where the only transaction is the sale.\u00a0 Keep in mind I have started with the first volume of deeds, as well as the federal land grants, so I should have the purchase transaction (or so you would think).\u00a0 Also note, that as far as I can tell, the land did not enter their possession through inheritance.\u00a0 In these cases, I created a footnote pointing out that I have no idea how the person came into possession of the land they subsequently sold.\u00a0 After I entered all the transactions for all of the family land, I took a closer look.\u00a0 In two cases where the initial possession is unknown, I do actually have an index entry indicating a purchase of some kind with an approximate date.\u00a0 Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I was unable to located these two deeds.\u00a0 I went back to the Word document and amended the footnote to include the possible purchase transaction.<\/p>\n
Another reason this was helpful was to see how the a larger parcel of land became divided.\u00a0 Since I record the parcel as that of the original purchase transaction, I subsequently add the sale transactions that took place dividing the land.\u00a0 See example below.<\/p>\n
![\"example1\"](\"http:\/\/lh5.ggpht.com\/_udfzp1vLXt0\/TFjo7HaMuaI\/AAAAAAAAFnQ\/w44PJrECnIE\/example1%5B13%5D.jpg?imgmax=800\" "\\"example1\\"")
<\/p>\n
In this case, Robert originally purchased 80 acres in 1823.\u00a0 But in 1827 he sold off 40 acres, which I can easily see in this table. I also noted in the \u201cStill in Family?\u201d column that some of the land is still in the family (after this particular transaction took place).\u00a0 (Note:\u00a0 I do not have any further transactions for this piece of land; I\u2019m only up through volume 10 with a \u201cwhole heck of a lot\u201d of volumes still to go.)<\/p>\n
This process also led me to question some things.\u00a0 For example, Robert S Parks purchased 80 acres of land, described as T3N R10E, Section 26, E 1\/2 of SW<\/span> 1\/4.\u00a0 In another transaction, two days later, he sold 80 acres of land described as T3N R10E, Section 26, E 1\/2 of SE<\/span> 1\/4.\u00a0 After carefully reviewing the deeds again (and then again), I am pretty certain that it was not a transcription or interpretation error.\u00a0 While it is possible that he bought one parcel of land and sold another, I have no purchase for the second one, so I am left to wonder if it was the same piece of land and that someone recording it made an error.\u00a0 More research needs to be done to determine if this is a correct theory and if so, which quarter-section is the correct one.<\/p>\n Another set of questionable transactions relates to land my fifth-great-grandfather, Aaron Webster, purchased from the government in 1821, namely T2N R11E, Section 5, SE 1\/4.\u00a0 Just before his death in 1823, he was selling off his land in Troy Township because he decided to build a saw and grist mill in neighboring Pontiac Township.\u00a0 In May of 1823, before his death, he apparently sold this parcel of land to James Thorington for $2,000.\u00a0 But, in March 1824, after his death, this SAME piece of land is sold (by the administrators of his estate) AGAIN this time to Nathaniel Millard.\u00a0 No idea what\u2019s going on with this one!<\/p>\n