San Mateo County Genealogical Society's Blog featuring society events, projects, meeting notes and other items of relevance to genealogists.
Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

SMCGS Databases: Abstract of Judgements

Abstract of Judgment is a copy or summary of a courts judgment. It is a document disclosing a monetary award issued by the court in favor of a person who won the lawsuit against a losing defendant. It includes the rate of interest to be paid on the judgment amount, court costs, and any specific orders for the losing defendant. An abstract of judgment is a public record and creates a lien on any real estate property owned by the defendant in the county in which the abstract of judgment is recorded. Issuance procedure and contents of abstract of judgment varies according to statutes. (USLegal.com)

This transcription of San Mateo Counties Index of Abstracts of Judgment appears to include  Judgments from Township courts in San Mateo County and a variety of courts in other counties.  It does not include Judgments made by the Superior Court of San Mateo County.   Most likely they are indexed in the Docket Books for the Superior Court.

Many of the earliest Judgments were not recorded into books, but rather filed.  Whether those filed record still exist is unknown, but it seems unlikely.  From 1856 until 1918 those Abstracts of Judgment that were recorded are found mainly in the Miscellaneous Books, with a few recorded in the Deed Books.  Starting in 1918 a separate set of Books called Transcript of Judgment was kept.  

Information in this transcription includes:
Fee Book Number, Page in Index, Debtor, Creditor, Judgment Notes, Judgment Amount, Costs, Date Recovered. Court of Recovery, When Filed, When Recorded, Record Set, Book, Page, Satisfaction Date, Notes.








Judgement Liens on Property in California - Nolo Press
Abstract of Judgement - Wikipedia


Wednesday, May 9, 2018

SMCGS Databases Online: Jury Lists


One of the privileges of being able to vote is also being able to serve on a jury.  Well, I suppose, some believe that is one of the disadvantages.  Whatever way your thinking leans, if you are looking for information on your ancestors, finding them on a jury list gives another peek into their lives.

The jury lists found in Drawer RC5B1-31 in the San Mateo County Record Repository are a combination of Certified Lists created by the Board of Supervisor at the request of various court judges and lists that were created to show that a summons to jury duty had been delivered. When both existed for the same court and time, double entries were eliminated from the index.  Unfortunately, there are many gaps in the lists which cover the years 1908-1932.  Some of the lists name the court and judge that requested the jurors, others do not.  Some lists give the address of the potential jurors, others do not.



As the index was created it was noted that in 1912 county courts took month of July off and in 1922 Woodside and Portloa were part of Redwood City R FD.

When women gained the right to vote, the juror lists swelled with women’s names.  On some lists including that for the Grand Jury in 1930 the majority of those on the lists were women. 

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

SMCGS Databases: Appeals From Justice Courts / Change of Venue



Record sets in the San Mateo Country Record Center range from hundreds of volumes to papers tucked into a single small drawer.  One of the small sets is Papers Concerning Appeals from Justice Courts and Change of Venue to San Mateo County Superior Court which is located in drawer 32 of cabinet RC5B1.

There are just 52 cases in the drawer, for many there are multiple documents. Cases range in date from 1882 to 1920. Among the cases we find the request to appoint a guardian for Soledad Sanchez as she is incompetent to handle her own affairs and the petitions of the neighbors of Mrs. Arnold who was living at 307 Knowles Street to declare her insane.

There are venue changes from as far away as Imperial County for a land sale.  Among the other venue changes include a bankruptcy in Napa and a misappropriation of monies case from San Francisco.

There is a variety of appeals from Justice Courts including the suit of H W Hickey against William Hatfield for lack of payment for labor.


Index to Drawer 32: Appeals from Justice Courts and Change of Venue to SMC Superior Court





Wednesday, August 10, 2016

NARA: Admiralty Case Files 1855-1863

By Martha Wallace and Cath Trindle


The Admiralty Case Files include appeals of decisions from both Northern and Southern California district courts. The original lawsuits involved ships with too many passengers, abandoned contracts, damaged goods, cargo not paid for, workers not paid, mistreatment of passengers, and Panama and Nicaragua crossings.  

Although there are only a few dozen cases, they provide a good read as they provide a glimpse into both the good and the bad of life at sea.


Daily Alta California, Volume 5, Number 342, 11 December 1854 (1)

Take the case of Hadji Hassan, Shack Badacrooden/Barrooden, Imangloo aka Mungloo, Thadanu, Shack Azum aka Mamed Dusden, Mumbaruck, Mootee aka Motse, Ameerow aka Amceron, Abdul Kurreen, Ishmael Enduph, Kadir, Edoo, Happian aka Aram Samy, Assenar, Cureen, and Omar Cullender aka Molydin vs. the ship Tartar with Edward A Mix, master, as claimant and Charles B Polhemus (2) and Edward Parker as sureties.  

What at first seemed to be a simple libel (3) for back pay turned out to be much more complicated.


Calcutta Document
Hong Kong document 
According to original documents included in the files, the libellants signed on as lascars (4) on the Tartar either in Calcutta about Oct 1855 or in Hong Kong in Mar of 1856. They agreed to serve for two years at various wages of of which 3 months were paid in advance.

In July of 1856 the Tartar docked in San Francisco.  On Jul 10,  Mix filed a suit claiming desertion by the lascars. On Jul 14 a libel was filed by the lascars for back pay and $1000 damages each.  On the 15th Polhemus and Parker filed a $500 bond as sureties in the case.

In the meantime, on July 12 Hadji Hassan was arrested and brought before the Police Court, charged with assault and battery and on being found guilty sent to county jail for 30 days.  Patrick McCormick and J J Joseph were among the police officers that went to fetch him from the Tartar to face the charges.
Desertion

In court documents dated Feb 1857, they stated that when they went on board the Tartar in Jul 1856, they were met by ironed (handcuffed) men begging to be taken ashore. The ships officers stated that the men were ironed because they wouldn't work.  In turn the men said they couldn't work because the food that they were given was insufficient and rotten.  They stated the forecastle made them sick with the smell of the food, and that they would work if they were given proper food.

They showed the police men their supply of stinking fish and rotten rice. They said the men looked shabby, unhealthy and unfit to work. The captain wanted all the men back in irons so that he could handle them.  J J Joseph attested that one of the "mates" (he wasn't sure if it was the 1st or 2nd) agreed with the men that they were not getting good food.

The case was decided and appealed.  It was unclear who won the original case, perhaps it was the ship, or perhaps the lascars were awarded more than they received after the final appeal. (5)    On 16 Mar 1857 the Decree of the District Court was "reversed" and libellants were to be paid back wages. 


Calculation of Wages Due Lascars, Mar 1857

The ship appealed the 16 Mar 1857 decision, claiming that Henry B. Janes was not entitled to be the Proctor for the lascars.  They provided statements from some of the men stating the same.  Part of the testimony was that the men had been paid their wages in New York.  Perhaps the Admiralty Court Judge decided that any payments in New York were intended to "pay off" the men for their statements, or possibly he felt that the treatment they had received entitled them to more, whatever the reason on  5 Sep 1857 the Admiralty Court Jude he decreed Janes did have the right to represent the men, and ordered that they be paid all amounts due.



Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
(1) "Tartar" was the name of more than one ship at the time, this sale is for the correct ship as the tonnage is the same.  Records for a "Tartar" bringing passengers to Australia about this time might be the same ship, the tonnage is close but not exact.  Searching for "Tartar" with master Mix brings up interesting results but no relevant records were found.
(2) Charles B. Polhemus emigrated to California from South America and founded the house of Also & Co. Commission Merchants in San Francisco.  Moving to the area that is now Central Park in San Mateo about 1858, he was one of the owners of the San Francisco to San Jose Railroad (later Southern Pacific). Biography  Photo Albums
(3)  Libel - In admiralty law - (verb) to bring a suit against someone; (noun) a plaintiff's written declaration.
(4) A Lascar was a sailor or militiaman from South Asia, the Arab world, and other territories situated to the east of the Cape of Good Hope, who were employed on European ships from the 16th century until the middle of the 20th century. (Wikipedia)
(5) This answer might be found in other district court case files. 


Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 


Admiralty Jurisdiction – Pacific Maritime Magazine


Index to Admiralty Case Files 1855-1863

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

NARA: Equity Case Files 1855-1863 continued

by Martha Wallace and Cath Trindle

Continuing on with the patent infringement cases in this record set, we find....

Clark Jacobs of Brooklyn, NY invented an improvement in rice hullers and received US Patent #9136 on 20 Jul 1852. Jacobs assigned the rights to John Vanderbilt, Jr. in 1854 and Vanderbilit in turn assigned the California rights to Abram Waite and William Ward Battles in 1856. They assigned a moiety to Henry Baker.

Waite, Battles and Baker brought suit against George A Dunn and Michael Garvey for using a machine without a license to do so in California.  Dunn and Garvey answered that they had bought the machine with the understanding that it was to be used in California, that in fact it was not a new invention so shouldn't have a patent and that they were not using the leather disc which was integral to the new patent.  The defendants' answer goes on explaining the difference between hulling and polishing rice. They did not prevail. On 1 Dec 1858 judgement was entered for the complainants.  The file includes original drawings.


Isaac Babbitt invented an improvement in making boxes for axles and gudgeons and US Patent 1252 in 1839.  It was amended in 1840 and extended a number of times. The last extension in 1853 put it under patent until 1860.  Edward T Steen and George V Swan paid $3000 for the rights in California and Oregon.  Paperwork shows A B Ely as a local assignee of the patent rights.

On 18 Oct 1856 they filed suit against E B Goddard, et al for making the boxes without a license. The defendant's answer stated that the design of the boxes they were making, if it was the same, was in wide use throughout the area and therefore the patent should not apply.

The case was dismissed due to lack of prosecution on 31 Jan 1860. The complainant was to pay $44.20 in costs.




It seems the patent office could take a while to issue a patent.  In the case of the Excelsior Crusher suit was brought by William Banham on 30 Aug 1859 against John Nye, JB Johnson, Ira P Rankin, and J Hanscom for making machines based on a design by William Banham for a new way to crush, pulverise and amalgamate gold from quartz.  Banham had filed a caveat with the patent office on 13 Jul 1857.  He did not receive US Patent 26555 until 27 Dec 1859.  Disposition of the case was not included in available documents.
Samuel F. Morse was first issued a patent for the telegraph in 1840.  In 1846 it was reissued as US Patent RE 79 and was good for 14 years through 1860.  In 1838 Morse sold 1/4 of his interest to Francis O J Smith, who in turn sold half (1/8 of the total) to Alfred Vail.  In 1859 the three men began a series of suits against California companies for infringing on their patent rights and refusing to pay a license fee or desist from using the lines.
Incomplete clipping found in file.
The Los Angles Herald dates
from 1880. It seems likely this is from the
New York Herald, however there were 928
Heralds in the 1859-60 time frame so....

Among the companies sues were the Alta California Telegraph Company which had laid line from San Francisco to Sacramento and the Northern California Telegraph Company whose lines ran from Sacramento through various cities (including Marysville) and villages to as far away as Yreka.

A complication occurred when Alfred Vail passed away and the suits were dismissed without prejudice.  In 1860 suits against the two companies were refiled this time with the interest of Vail having been distributed to George T Cobb and Theodore Little. An additional suit was filed against the Placerville and St Joseph Overland Telegraph Co. whose lines ran from Placerville to Carson City.

All three cases ended in injunctions being issued to cease and desist. 

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

NARA: Equity Files 1855-1863

By Martha Wallace and Cath Trindle

Cases in this record set include land claims and sales, mining claims, mortgages, felling trees, ferries and more, but we decided to focus on patents. The variety of patent infringement cases provided us with enough interesting material for a two part blog.....


On 9 Jul 1855 the case of Lewis Teese and Lewis Teese, Jr. vs. J. V. Hunt was entered in docket book 1, case #3.  The Teese's had invented an improved fork for use by gold diggers when removing rocks from sluice boxes.  They were granted US Patent #12453 on 27 Feb 1855 for a fork with 8 triangular shaped tines.  They claimed that Hunt was infringing on their patent by manufacturing a fork of the same type.

Hunt denied that the Teeses had invented the fork.  He claimed that miners had been using manure forks all along and had settled on 8 tine models usually with diamond tines long before this patent was issued.

The cause was discontinued on 2 Jun 1857... the reason was not noted in the judgement book.



Henry Jones of Bristol, Great Britain, invented an improvement in the preparation of flour.  His self-rising flour used alkalines, acids, sugar and salt rather than yeast for bread making.  He patented the process in Great Britain in 1845.  He assigned the rights to his process for use in United States to John Fowler of New York who patented it on 1 May 1849 (Patent #6418) in Jones' name in the United States. In a series of cases Fowler and then his assignee for the West Coast, Emery T Pease, sued businesses that they claimed were making flour using the patented process.

The two cases in the series were filed by John Fowler through representative Emery Pease against Austin Walrath, RB French and AA Newfelder. (17 Jan 1856 Docket Book #1 Case #9) and against Edward Figg (6 Feb 1856 Docket Book #1 case #10).  Figg in his answer to the suit claimed that there should be no patent as the process was in use long before the patent was filed. In both cases an injunction was issued to cease and desist from manufacturing the self-rising flour until the suit was resolved.


Both of the above suits were cancelled on 12 Apr 1856 by Emory Pease.  It seems that on 1 Dec 1855 Fowler had actually transferred the west coast rights to Pease, but the transfer was not recorded until 26 Mar 1856.

Pease, however, continued the suits in his own name. On 31 May 1856 he filed against W L Bromley.  An order of discontinuance was issued on 1 Dec 1856.

There are also two cases against manufacturers in Marysville. J Riley Jennings was sued on 18 Apr 1857 and it was noted that defendant yielded, compromised and settled. A suit against Francis Cunningham was filed on 5 Oct 1857.  Cunningham denied that he was manufacturing flour and the suit was discontinued on 24 May 1858 without prejudice.

Note: Both the Figg and Jennings suits can also be found in the Private Common Law Case Files.  The index there shows that Jenning paid $5000 in damages.


US Patent RE71
In 1828, William Woodworth invented a machine for planing, tonguing, grooving, and cutting into mouldings or plank boards and reducing them to equal width and thickness and facing and dressing brick and cutting moulding on metallic mineral or other substances, and received a patent for the machine.

After he died, his administrator assigned the patent (extended) to James G Wilson through 1849. In Nov 1849 Wilson sold the license to Thomas J Wells for $12,000 for another seven years (to 1856) to be used only in Oregon Territory and some parts of California. Falconer paid $7200 and Purdy paid $2400 to Wells for shares. The defendants were operating in Puget Sound, Washington Territory, which was part of Oregon Territory when the license was issued. 

One  assignee of the patent, James G Wilson made over $2M on royalties.  He tried to get another extension through 1870. A public ruckus ensured and the request failed. This was one of the reasons that amendments to the US patent law were passed in 1861 creating a patent term of 17 years with NO extensions.

On 24 Jul 1856 Wells, Falconer and Purdy filed a suit against Andrew J Pope, William C. Talbot, Josiah Killer and Charles Foster who were operating in Puget Sound, Washington Territory (part of Oregon Territory when the license was issued.) and apparently using a planing machine without a license.

The file does not give a disposition of the cause.  Perhaps it went away when the patent expired at the end of 1856.


Wednesday, June 1, 2016

NARA: Private Common Law Case Files 1855-1863

Plat of Rancho de las Pulgas - on Calisphere
Martha Wallace & Cath Trindle

This blog presents the first of the indexes to US Northern District Court files held at NARA in San Bruno.

Index to Private Common Law Case Files 1855-1863.  

While most of the US Northern District Court Records have the US government as the complaining party the Private Common Case Law files are an exception.  They provide a glimpse of actions between individuals in the area covered by the court.

The following is an overview of just one case (#56 - Dec 1860)  between residents in San Mateo County.


The defendants, Greer et al.,  were living on land that belonged to Maria de la Soledad Ortega Argüello and Jose Ramon Argüello.  They, Greer et al., claimed that the land was part of Rancho Cañada de Raymundo that had belonged to John Coppinger and now to his heirs.  John Greer, who married Coppinger's wife, Maria Luisa Soto, was his executor.

The decision went to the Argüellos because they had a survey that described the exact metes and bounds of their property, while the map for Rancho Cañada de Raymundo was vague and had not been surveyed.  Ejectment of Greer et al was ordered with some costs awarded to those being ejected.

Some of the documents found in the file include:



  • A copy of original Mexican Land Grant 1835.  This document notes that the land was originally occupied by Jose Dario Argüello by 1800 and that his Spanish grant had been affirmed by the Mexican government to his son Don Luis Argüello in 1835. 
  • A copy of US confirmation of Patent 1853 to Maria Soledad Ortega de Argüello and Jose Ramon Argüello                             
  • A copy of the Official Survey Map
    1835 Land Grant
  • Newsclipping of case circa Dec 1860 paper unknown.  A full article about the Supreme Court decision can be found in the  Sacramento Bee 19 Dec 1864 vol 28 #4288
  • Papers that state John Coppinger became a Mexican citizen and married Maria.  As noted above, Maria was Maria Soto the daughter of Ignacio Soto.  John and Maria had only one child Manuella who married Antonio Miramontes. 
  • A list of  jurors and a list of those that didn't show up 
Also included was a two inch thick pile of documents debating WHO WAS A CITIZEN OF WHERE as the defendants disputed the jurisdiction of the court in the case.  Simon Mezes, agent for the Argüellos, claimed Spanish citizenship and the Arguellos claimed Mexican citizenship. They claimed the defendants were US citizens. The defendants in turn claimed that Mezes and the Arguellos were citizens of California and that they WERE NOT.  It wasn't a fight they were likely to win as California by this time was a US State.


Cañada de Raymundo
Once the Supreme Court made its decision most of the defendants left their lands, but not all. Lawrence O'Neill was not eager to go. Marshall William Rabe tried to serve the eviction notice but O'Neill was not there.  He left a message that O'Neill should show up in Redwood City and yield possession of the land.  That didn't happen and Rabe went back again.  There was one mention of the fact that O'Neill might have been trying to lease the land from the Argüellos.  As the file ends, that had not been resolved. On 29 Jun 1860 Lawrence Oneil (sic), farmer,  was living in Woodside, twp 3.  He is 30 years old, born in Ireland and has personal property worth $2000 but no real estate.(1)  In 1870, having aged only 5 years, he is living with the Michael Byrnes family in Belmont.(2)

This case did not start in 1860, in fact the US Northern Court decision was the result of an appeal of an 1858 decision of the US Circuit Court.(3)  But that was also not the beginning.  We need to look back nearly twenty years for the first decision in the dispute. In 1841  Francisco Guerrero of Rancho Corral de Tierra, and Alcade of Yerba Buena, was brought in to settle a dispute over the boundaries of the two Ranchos. He found for the Argüellos, but that did not stop Coppinger from selling pieces of the disputed land over the next few years.

Neither did the case stop in 1860.  Greer et al. appealed the US Northern District Court decision to the Supreme court.  The decision of the Supreme court for the Argüellos was reported in the Sacramento Bee article in 1864.

-----------------------
(1) 1860 U.S. census, population schedule. NARA microfilm publication M653, Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration,  Roll 65 p 79 Township 3, San Mateo, California 
(2) 1870 U.S. census, population schedules. NARA microfilm publication M593 Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, Roll 87 p. 372B, Township 3, San Mateo California
(3)  Daily Alta California, Volume 10, Number 302, 3 November 1858 

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

NARA: Federal Court Records - 2

An overview of records located at NARA San Bruno - Part 2

By Martha Wallace

1)     Original Jurisdiction of the Courts – what kinds of cases did they hear?

a)  Original Jurisdiction of Circuit Court
Federal circuit courts were established to serve as trial courts for federal criminal cases, patent & copyright cases, revenue causes, suits between citizens of different states, between citizens and aliens, and civil suits initiated by the US. They had appellate jurisdiction over large admiralty cases and appeals from the district courts.

b)  Original Jurisdiction of District Courts
District courts were established as trial courts for issues arising in the district involving admiralty and maritime cases, minor civil and criminal cases, and cases at common law. A clerk, a district attorney, and a marshal were appointed to assist the judge.

2)     What you will find in the files?

a)   Soot – In a time when the best indoor lighting was provided by gaslights, the soot from the burning gas covered everything. You will find it in the nooks, crannies and folds of the documents. Wash your hands often! Handwritten documents – the handwriting of the clerks, the defendants, the lawyers, and the judge is a delight to read – or decipher! If you can’t figure something out, look at other documents in the file to find the same letters, words, or names, and hope that will help you make a determination.  


b)  Case files containing bonds, information, libel of information, complaints, costs (of clerks, witnesses, informants, marshals, more), notice of trial, affidavits, petitions, orders, claims, monitions, reports of appraisers, answers of claimants/defendants, praecipe, dismissal, subpoenas, venire, demurrers, customs officers, tax collectors (Collector of Internal Revenue), informants, decrees, venditioni exponas, complaints, stipulations, notes of testimony (written by Judge Ogden Hoffman), condemnation & forfeitures, sureties, duties (See http://thelawdictionary.org for more).



c)   Docket book – This large book has entries for each case showing the dates that actions were taken, a summary of proceedings, including a brief abstract of motions and orders, a record of the fees collected, and a statement of the disposition of the case. This can be cross-checked with the case files to learn more about the chronology of the case.



d)   What’s in the index/spread sheet/database columns 



  • Box number – the files are stored in numbered acid-free document boxes.


  • Docket Book – the number of the docket book; the page in the docket book if available.


  • Case # - the cases were numbered sequentially.


  • Plaintiffs – who filed the suit, usually the United States.


  • Defendants – who or what was being taken to court – in many cases it’s a list of items confiscated by Internal Revenue or Customs.


  • Witnesses and other parties – names mentioned in the case files such as witnesses, claimants, bondsmen, investigators.


  • Date of Offense


  • Date Filed


  • Location – cities and counties in northern California, with occasional southern California and other west coast locations.


  • Subject – Type of case (information, libel, complaint) and nature of the offense.


  • Attorneys – the US District Attorney and defendant’s attorney (if noted).


  • Disposition – who won – or was the case dismissed?

  • 3)   What you will not find


    a)  Transcripts – Word for word transcripts were not a part of court documents at this time. The best document to learn the reason for the case is the complaint/information of the original filing. If there are judge’s notes or notes of testimony, you will learn a little more. If the case was reported in the newspapers, you will find more specific details there.

    b)  Not found – In some instances the document file was not found in the box, but there is an entry in the docket book. The information entered in the database is what could be gleaned from the docket entries.

    4)   How to request the files   If you find that an ancestor was involved in one of the cases, contact NARA to visit and see the whole file.  NARA Contact Page