About batch M3JJ-1Q4
Best Answers
-
No, you make a separate entry for each. I can not open the batch but there would normally be an entry for each name.
1 -
There are no directions to indicate what to do in this situation, but I would say you would need to index each person on their own entry form. So I see Geo M Durfee and Caroline Durfee are grantees and Alex W Durfee as Grantor. I would do an entry form for Geo M Durfee and Alex, then another entry form for Caroline Durfee and Alex. So this one record should have 2 entries.
0 -
And to make things even more fun if there are two people listed as grantees and two as grantors you would have four entries.
1
Answers
-
Among others, this long conversation from last December at the link below at the bottom addresses this exact issue. Yes you make a separate entry for each Grantor-Grantee pair , but watch for company or gov’t organizations. They get a blank in the name field, and a Grantor-Grantee pair both of that type don’t get indexed at all. So 2x2 could = 3, per these citations right below from the What To Remember section of the instructions - as @annewandering may be suggesting.
Please, Family Search, consider giving major projects or project types their own pages with FAQs so that answers to questions these can more easily found. This has been suggested several times over the years.
- Do not index the grantee or grantor if a company, government organization, or other such groups were listed. Index only the names of individuals granting or receiving the land from the company or organization. Do not index phrases or abbreviations included with the name, such as "By the Treasury (By Treas)," "et ux," or "et al."
- When a company or government organization was listed as the grantor or grantee, mark the respective field blank and index any other information on the line. If both the grantee and grantor were companies or government officials, skip the entry, and index the next entry with names of individuals.
From a December, 2021 conversation on this.
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/416786#Comment_416786
0