US, New York—Statewide Index to Land Records, Grantors, 1630–1959 [Part B]
I am indexing US, New York—Statewide Index to Land Records, Grantors, 1630–1959 [Part B][MQ7H-5NX] in the date column and the book column there are dots, I am not sure if this is to be understood as a ditto ( " " ) or if I should mark the entry as blank. What should I do here. I did include the batch number if anyone wants to take a look.
Answers
-
I would not consider those dots to be ditto marks. If they would be ditto marks the difference between the date column and the recorded column, in some cases, would be up to 150 + years different which seems unlikely. With out any help in the instructions, if I were doing the indexing, I would blank them out. Some researcher looking thru the records for a name could see the info and decide what to do with it.
3 -
I agree with Dave. These printed pages were transcribed from old, hand-written materials. Those dots probably represent unreadable portions of the originals.
1 -
I too am indexing the state wide New York land records. In the Grantor column there is the name to be indexed such as Jane Doe followed by a phrase, "Admrx of John Doe, Deceased." I have not been including the deceased person's name as I thought it would be very difficult for him to be a grantor. Am I doing this correctly?
0 -
I would index both names. It’s his estate that is actually doing the “granting.” But indexing is about capturing names, and both are mentioned, so I’d capture both. I saw nothing in the instructions contrary to taking this approach. That’s my opinion.
1 -
LesterChristieAnn1 You are not supposed to index the name of the administrator or attorney. I looked that up and found it, I think if you click on the purple question mark it says it in that.
0 -
My bad. I didn't follow my own frequently given advice and read the field help. I was in a hurry. You are correct. So, therefore, index John Doe and omit the Administratrix Jane Doe - unless she is separately listed as a wife - and then follow instructions pertaining to indexing named wives.
1 -
I'm sorry I am stepping in rather late, but Teri Jardine, I think you misread the directions. It explicitly says you ARE to index the name, you don't index the words, attorney or administrator, etc. just as John stated originally. Unfortunately, I don't have a batch so I can't give one as an example and I have already gone on to another couple of batches to work on. If anyone else has a batch to give as an example, then maybe we can check this one before we go any further.
0 -
Teri Jardine, I apologize to you. You are correct. I downloaded another batch just to see the instructions. It was not the same as the one I saw earlier, but each batch is different and you should always check and never assume. We all know what happens and it has just happened to me. Again, I apologize to you. I thought you had misread the directions, but you did not.
0 -
When it says that a 2nd name is an assignee of the grantor, do we index both names?
0 -
yes
0 -
Since the field help says "When applicable, index the deceased indicated in the "Grantor" column. Do not index the deceased's executor, trustee, attorney, and so forth", I don't think you should index assignees. Heirs, executors, administrators, successors, legal representatives, and assigns are pretty much the same or "so forth"
0 -
I am also working on these documents and the comments have been interesting and very helpful. In my batch, at the top of the record, in bold is typed, Assignee and there are ditto marks all down the page. I think that all the grantors are assignees. There are few deaths listed. The way the instructions read. if there is a death listed in that column, you don't include the second name. The grantee instructions say to include each grantee separately. If you see it differently, please let me know.
0
