The Little Nine Partners Patent: (Places)
TOC next
Link to sales page
L9PHS


Places

of Little Nine Partners


2008

§1 The Little Nine Partners Patent

"Where was it? Who were they?"
by
R. A. Davis


 Contents:

The Patent

The patent comprised the towns of Milan and Pine Plains, the north half of North East, and the small portions of Clinton and Stanford not covered by the Great Nine Partners Patent. It was bounded as follows:

Beginning at the North Bounds of the Lands And then lately purchased by said Richard Sackett in Dutchess county, and runs thence South Easterly by his north bounds to Wimposing thence by the mountains southerly to the south east corner of the said Sackett's Land and thence Easterly to the colony Line of Connecticut and thence Northerly by the said colony line and Wiantenuck River to the south bounds of lands purchased by John Sprague &c. at Owissetanuck thence westerly by the said purchase as it runs to the south-west corner thereof thence to the Mannor of Livingston and by the south bounds thereof unto the lands purchased and patented to Coll. Peter Schuyler over against Magdelons Island and so by the said purchase and patent To the patent of Coll. Beekman for Land Lying over against Clyne Esopus Fly and thence by the said Land to the said south east corner and thence to the place where it begun.
The tract was confirmed by Queen Anne to the below named patentees 25 Sept 1708; and in 1734, the Colonial Assembly passed a law authorizing its partition. A deed for three hundred acres of this tract, given 20 Oct 1740 by Richard Sackett, Richard Sackett jr., and John Sackett to Johann Tise Smith, recites that some native Indians of said county [Dutchess] and there residing lay claim to some part of the above demised and granted premises. This reference doubtless to the Shekomeko Indians.1

The patentees

The Little Nine Partners Patent was granted 10 April 1706 to eight men. George Clarke subsequently became the ninth partner by buying a share from each of the original patentees.2

Samuel Broughton

Sampson Broughthon was the son of Sampson Shelton Broughton, who was appointed Attorney General of New York in 1700 under Bellomont, successor to James Graham. When he deceased in 1705 his son, the pattentee, was appointed his successor 18 June 1705, but Governor Cornbury refused to install him, alleging that he was not qualified.

Rip Van Dam

Rip Van Dam was of Dutch lineage, his ancestor emigrating to America as early as 1653. He was bred a sailor, it is said, and about 1690 was interested pecuniarily in a ship yard on the North River, in the rear of the Trinity Church yard. Some of his vessels, under some pretext, were seized and condemned by Governor Nanfan, which caused Van Dam to be his enemy, and he threw his influence and effort into the Anti-Leisler party. On the arrival of Governor Cornbury, Van Dam being then a merchant, was sworn a member of the Council in 1702, by orders from England and continued an active member until the death of Governor John Montgomery in 1731.

He was then acting Governor until William Cosby arrived in September 1732. Shortly after, Van Dam became disaffected and lodged a complain of maladministration against Cosby, with 36 particulars. This was refuted by other members of the Council. In 1735 Cosby died after an illness of fifteen weeks, during which time, he (Cosby) suspended Van Dam from the Council.

On Cosby's death, Van Dam tried again to assume the position of acting Governor, as eldest councillor, but was rebuffed by George Clark on the basis of his recent suspension.

After living to a very advanced age, Rip Van Dam died in the city of New York on 10 June 1749. In early life he had married Sarah Van Der Speigle and had five3 children.(more)

Thomas Wenham

Roger Mompesson

The Chief-Justice of New York during the latter part of Lord Cornbury's administration was Roger Mompesson. He came to New York in 1703 as Judge of Admiralty. His English record was good, including a term in Parliament, and some time as Recorder of Southampton. Wilham Penn testified to Mompesson as "well grounded in the law and an honest and sober gentleman." In 1704, upon the death of Chief-Justice John Bridges, Mompesson became Chief-Justice, and for a while also acted as Chief-Justice of Pennsylvania and of the Jerseys. Mompesson was the most capable jurist of his time in New York, and was the first to bring into the province the English forms of procedure. O'Callaghan declares that Mompesson "did more than any other man to mould the judicial system of both New York and New Jersey." He resigned from the Pennsylvania office in about 1706, the Quaker Assembly having persisted in refusing to grant him a salary, complaining that he was "too well-affected to Penn," and also "that he drank too much." In 1709 Mompesson, fearing removal from office, resigned the Chief-Justiceship of New Jersey, but he held the Chief-Justiceship of New York until his death in 1715.

History of New York State 1523-1927
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/elecbook/sullivan/pg5.htm

Peter Fauconier

Augustine Graham

Augustine Graham was the son of James Graham, the Atorney General, and in the ancestral line of the Grahams of Pine Plains. He died in 1718. Some of our local histories put his son James as a Patentee in the Little Nine Partners. This is an error: he was not a patentee.

Richard Sackett

Robert Lurting

George Clarke

George Clarke [1768-1835] became the last of the nine partners by purchasing shares from the others. He was at this time secretary of the Province of New York, and probably from prudence did not appear on the Patent as a patentee.

George Clarke was an Englishman, studied law in England, was appointed Secretary of the Province of New York, came to America and was sworn into that office 30 July 1703, when Cornbury was Governor. He married Anne Hyde, an heiress of the elder branch of the House of Hyde in the county of Palatine of Chester, by which marriage he bacame a relative of Lord Cornbury and of the Royal House of Stuart.

Of all the patentees or proprietors of the Little Nine Partners Patent, the Clark interest was the only one still in family name in 1897, when Huntting wrote his History.

The Gore

gore2 (gr, gōr) n.
  1. A triangular or tapering piece of cloth forming a part of something, as in a skirt or sail.
  2. A small triangular piece of land.
The Free Dictionary: http://www.tfd.com/gore

picture - click to enlarge
Dutchess patents, after the map on the front boards of MacCracken's Old Dutchess Forever!
Between 1734 and 1743 several surveys were made of the border between the two Nine Partners patents, each with different result. As you might imagine, this led to a number of border disputes.

The surveys all started in about the same place, though there were difficulties in determining the precise point, which was to be the headwaters of the Fish Creek, which was in a swamp. The line was to be due east of that point to the west line of the Oblong. Doubtless due to inaccuracies in their instruments, the four lines intersected the Oblong at different points:

  • Brown's line intersects 120 rods and 83 links4 north of Clinton's.
  • Edsall's line is 200 rods and 83 links north of Brown.
  • Judge TerBos (Bush) is 168 rods and 30 links north of Edsall.
The difference between Clinton and Bush was over a mile and a half. The wedge formed between the lines of Jacobus TerBos (Judge Bush) and Robert Edsall came to be known as The Gore, and was divided into four lots after survey by Judge Bush in 1740. The north line of the Gore (i.e. Bush) is the present boundary between Pine Plains and Stanford, and is referred to in the 1823 act dividing Northeast, Pine Plains and Amenia. Far from the intended due east line, or 90, it is inclined 10 to the northeast at 80.

The owners of the four lots of the Gore were in the end -- except in the east lot -- squeezed out and their claims appropriated by the adjacent owners in the two patents. The Gore was, in reality, a scheme of land-grabbers.

Principle source: Huntting's 1897 History of Little Nine Partners.

The Problem of the Boundary

There is a discrepancy between what is shown on various maps as the boundary between the Little Nine Partners and the Great Nine Partners patents. This line is shown as an east-west line, but inclined by some 10 to the northeast. The discrepancy is in the descriptions, which say that this line should be true east. The various elements bearing on this question are outlined below.

  1. The maps shown on the boards of MacCracken's book Old Dutchess Forever! (New York: Hastings House. 1956) (see image at right) show the boundary as coincident with the present boundaries of the towns of Clinton and Stanford -- i.e. at about 80E.
  2. MacCracken, op cit, on page 51, describing the northern boundary of the Great Nine Partners:
    ... and Northerly by the aforesaid Fish Creek [Crum Elbow] as far as it goes and from the head of said creek by a parallel line to the south bounds east and west reaching the aforesaid Division Line [between the province of New York and the Colony of Connecticut].
    The south boundary (of Great Nine Partners) was then southerly by an east and west line to the Division Line.
    This covered the eastern portion of Hyde Park, the greater part of Clinton and Stanford, all of Pleasant Valley, Washington, and Amenia and the south part of Northeast, except for the Oblong portion, then in Connecticut. [emphasis mine]

    The MacCracken map includeS all of Clinton and Stanford, not part.

  3. Huntting, History of Little Nine Partners, etc., 1897, p. 20:
    The grant to the Great Nine Partners Patent of 1697 had in its description for the south bounds, an east and west Line to the Division Line between the province of New York and the Colony of Connecticut, which was then undefined. This east and west line was very nearly the present south boundaries of Hyde Park, Pleasant Valley, Washington and that part of Amenia west of the Oblong. The north line commenced at the head of Fish Creek and ran east by a parallel line to the South bounds Reaching the aforesaid Division Line. The head of Fish Creek [Crum Elbow] is Cold Spring -- Spring Lake -- about four miles east of Rhinebeck village. [emphasis mine]
    Showing that the south boundary was not coincident with the lines of the present towns, and that the north boundary was parallel with the south bound. The Great Nine Partners north boundary was coincident with the Little Nine Partners south bound.

Notes:

(Click the << symbols to return to the text — or use your browser's BACK button.)
  1. << James H. Smith, History of Dutchess County, New York, Syracuse: D. Mason & Co. 1882
  2. << Isaac Huntting, History of Little Nine Partners and Pine Plains, Amenia, NY: 1897
  3. << Per Huntting. Other sources say more children, (more)
  4. << This was no doubt using the so-called Gunter's chain of 66 feet, or 4 rods, or 100 links. Each link was then 7.92 inches.


  TOC
Table of Contents
next Cemeteries and Burial Grounds
© Copyright 2007, 2014 All Rights Reserved
The Little Nine Partners Historical Society
P.O. Box 243
Pine Plains, NY 12567
USA
Fri Jul 11 2014 at 11:12:49am
File: /Places/Patent.htm
Electronic contacts:

Secretary: littleninepartners@gmail.com
Webmaster: L9PHS.webmaster@verizon.net
Home page: www.L9PHS.org


Free Web space provided by RootsWeb logo logo
visitors
([an error occurred while processing this directive])