USA > Maine > Maine Public Lands 1781-1795 : claims, trespassers, and sales > Part 17
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22
Sometimes people experienced difficulty in taking or keeping possession of land they thought was theirs -- others had a title to it or thought they had a good reason to have it.
One knotty problem developed as a result of the discovery that the proprietors of Bakerstown had laid out for themselves far more land than they were entitled to. In 1787 this excess was sold to John
and in 1739 the General Court passed Bridgham and a number of others, 172
a resolve granting a quitclaim deed to the purchasers upon payment of a 173
given price. As these people attempted to take possession of the land they ran into difficulty; the Bakerstown proprietors brought court action against them. Bridgham was told by a lawyer that the State should make an entry on the land to strengthen his claim. Accordingly he asked 174 the State to take whatever action was necessary. Subsequently, the State passed three resolves, each at a different time, empowering the grantees to prosecute their claim.
First, they gave Bridgham and a man named Glover authority to act as agents of the State in entering on the land and laying claim to it in
172. Petition of Bridgham to General Court, Nov. 13, 1788, with Mass. Resolve, Jan. 15, 1739, Chap. 28.
173. Mass. Resolve, Jan. 15, 1789, Chap. 28.
174. Petition of Bridgham to General Court, June 9, 1790, with Mass. Resolve, June 19, 1790, Chap. 46.
275
175
any way the law might allow. In making these people State agents the resolve specified that their acts should be at their own risk and expense, and that nothing in the act was to be interpreted as a stato- ment by the State guaranteeing the land to these people -- the sale was only a quitclaim proposition.
In conformance with this 1790 resolve they entered on the land only to have people holding under the Bakerstown Proprietors bring suit against them. It now appeared that the grantees had no legal standing in their disputes because the State had taken no steps to get a judg- ment against the Ba kerstown proprietors. Therefore, a resolve was passed giving Bridgham and Amos Dwinal power to commence any court 176
action necessary to procure this land.
This action reached the Supreme Judicial Court, and the judges stated that although Bakerstown proprietors might have taken more land than was due them, the State had no right of entry or power to grant lands until it had initiated and won a suit against the proprietors. A short while later another resolve was passed in answer to a petition of Bridgham and Glover which complained that they were encountering legal difficulties because the State had not previously obtained a judgment against the alleged offenders and asked that this
175. Mass. Resolve, June 19, 1790, Chap. 46.
176. Petition of Bridgham et al., Sept. 15, 1790, with Mass. Resolve, March 10, 1791, Chap. 139; Mass. Resolve, March 10, 1791, Chap. 139.
276
177
step be taken. This resolve directed the Attorney General at the request and expense of Bridgham, Glover and Associates to
" ... file and prosecute an information in the name of the common- wealth against the proprietors of said Bakerstown, or against any person or persons claiming under ther or any of them or under said grant and confirmation, agreeable to the directions of an act, entitled, 'An act directing the manner in which inquests of office shall be taken to re-vest real estate in the commonwealth, or to entitle the commonwealth thereto. '"
This was to apply to all land not rightfully included in the bounds of the grant.
178 It stipulated that the names in full, the abodes and the "addition" of Bridgham, Glover and such others as the court should direct, should be written on the back of each information before the defendant was asked to plead his case. If judgment was found in favor of the defendant he would then be entitled to receive his costs from those whose name was on the information. It also stated that the reason given by the Attorney General for cause of forfeiture should ba the following -- " ... the breach of that condition mentioned in said confirmation, contained in these words, viz., 'Provided, that the same does not exceed the quantity of seven and a half miles square, exclusive of eight thousand six hundred acres, allowing for ponds, ' and none other ... " The land that Bridgham, Glover and others could receive as a result of these actions was limited to that contained in the measurements given in the January 1789 Resolve granting them the
177. Petition of Bridgham and Glover, signed by William Widgery in behalf of petitioners, with Mass. Resolve, March 5, 1792, Chap. 127.
178. Mass. Resolve, March 5, 1792, Chap. 127.
277
land. In 1795 matters stood at this point.
In other cases the presence of settlers already on the land when it was sold required action that had not been taken at the time of the sale.
Such a situation arose on the Penobscot River in one of the first townships that the Committee sold. Soon after the sale it dis- covered that there were already living there a large number of people, who, of course, also wanted the town. As soon as their agents notified them of developments taking place they notified the government of their 179 position. Knapp and his associates, the purchasers, agreed with the Committee to divide the town between the two parties, an arrangement which did much more than provide one hundred acres for each person settled there. This offer was forwarded to the settlers and the Commit- tee wrote to ask them their intentions on at least one occasion after- wards. Apparently the only answer these people gave was a letter 180
finding fault with the purchase made by Knapp. Since they made no move to agree to the offer, a deed was drawn up with all land going to the Knapp Company. 181 After this the settlers did agree to the pro-
179. David Perham to William Williamson, Nov. 20, 1820, in Maine Historical Magazine, I, 17-18. Perham wrote that these people had petitioned for the land, but this is not certain.
180. Eastern Lands, Deeds, I, April 22, 1785, p. 57, May 25, 1785, p. 57, May 27, 1785, p. 57.
181. Memo of joint committee appointed to study petition of Fowler et al. with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 179.
278
posed division saying through their agents, however, that "Notwith- standing what is above written we are content to give for the said lands such sum or sums in consolidated notes of this government as the - 182 General Court shall direct." Since the first deed had not been recorded it was taken back and a new one drawn up embodying the pro- 133 visions of the agreement. This agreement included provisions giving the Knapp Company convenient river landings with access thereto and the privilege of fishing in common with the settlers. In order to set definite limits to this action, it was stated that only those people should be considered settlers whom the Land Committee considered eligible. Furthermore, this Committee was to have the power to apportion the land to such individuals in such portions as it thought 184 equitable.
One lot in this township was assigned to a group and was their 185 only access to the river. However, it was possessed by an original settler who was not a part of the other group. He refused to move despite numerous attempts to get him to do so. The final decision left
182. Addendum on agreement signed by Fowler and Brewer between Knapp et al. and Fowler et al., March 22, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 179.
183. Agreement between Knapp et al. and Fowler et al, March 22, 1786, with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 179; Perham to Williamson, Nov. 20, 1320, in Maine Historical Magazine,I, 17-18.
184. Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1786, Chap. 179.
185. Petition of Whiting for proprietors of tract in Orrington to General Court with Mass. Resolve, Feb. 26, 1791, Chap. 76.
279 180
him on the lot and gave the purchasers an allowance for their loss. The State was vested with the title of the land which the Committee was empowered to sell to the settler for such valuable consideration as it deemed proper. The Committee in its report to the General Court had recommended that the settler be quieted as had other settlers on State land. 187
Another problem developed on the Androscoggin River because the wording of a grant was not clear. A small tract was sold to a certain 188 group by the General Court but these people were told by one of their neighbor, a leader of the Pejepscot Company, that it really was confirmed to his company by the grant in question. Furthermore, said he, a strict interpretation of the wording of the grant would give them much less than they had thought. These grantees, of course, were not happy and asked 189 for an alteration that would give more explicit bounds.
At times people claimed that action taken by the General Court after the land was granted took advantages away from the grantees that they had received by virtue of the grant.
John Allan was a prominent figure in the far eastern region. A native of Nova Scotia, he had joined the American cause during the
186. Mass. Resolve, Feb. 26, 1791, Chap. 78.
187. Recommendation of Committee with ibid.
188. Mass. Resolve, Feb. 16, 1789, Chap. 109 (Committee forbidden to sell land here by Mass. Resolve, March 8, 1787, Chap. 118).
189. Elisha Sylvester to Committee for himself et al., June 9, 1789, Eastern Lands, Box 10.
280
190
Revolution and had subsequently become active in Indian affairs. In 1788 he was granted a township for three hundred pounds with the stipulation that a certain few people be granted land therein and that a tract not exceeding six thousand acres be set aside for those already settled in the town. The last group was to pay a proportion of the cost charged equal to their proportion of the six thousand acres. 191
A while later, without Allan's knowledge, the General Court passed a resolve granting the settlers in the township one hundred acres each -- the resolve stated that these settlers had asked that the General Court 192
confirm to them the lands they were to receive. Allan was credited with sixty pounds on his payment. When he heard of this he wrote that this arrangement took a portion of the six thousand acres but did not get for that amount the proportionate share of the sum to be paid. Now it would be impossible to raise that latter amount and he would be 193
deprived of the benefits that were intended for him. The General Court received this petition and judged that Allan had a just complaint. It therefore granted him the town exclusive of the previous tracts that had been set aside in the former resolves and removed the requirement
190. See Frederic Kidder, Military Operations in Eastern Maine and Nova Scotia During the Revolution, (Albany, 1867).
191. Mass. Resolve, March 27, 1788, Chap. 84. 192. Mass. Resolve, Jan. 30, 1790, Chap. 90.
193. Allan to General Court, June 18, 1792, with Mass. Resolve, June 27, 1792, Chap. 53.
281
194
that he pay the three hundred pounds.
Another case which grew out of the haphazardness of handling land affairs that existed to some degree before the Revolution was that of five hundred acres belonging to Timothy Cutler. Cutler had bought it from another man who had received it by a province grant but had apparently never had the plot he chose confirmed. Consequently, it was sold by the York County Sales Committee, even though he, Cutler, had told them it was his. Informed of the situation by his petition the General Court directed a committee of three men to ascertain the value of his holdings. After this had been done he was to be allowed to choose land equal in value to its estimate in some other of the State's 195 The Land Committee was then to give him his deed. unappropriated lands.
There were other instances in which people felt that the Commit- tee or the General Court did not do what it had agreed to do.
There is on record one case of a dispute developing between a buyer and the Committee over the price that had been agreed upon. William Widgery, the buyer involved, wrote that he was very sorry that such a situation had arisen and that he would either receive back the money he had paid with interest and terminate the transaction or receive a deed for the amount paid in. If the money was returned he 194. Mass. Resolve, June 27, 1792, Chap. 53.
195. Mass. Resolve, Nov. 20, 1787, Chap. 91, and petition of Timothy Cutler to General Court with it.
282
would allow the Committee a commission in the same manner as though 196 the land had been sold.
One man who bought some riparian acres on the Androscoggin
River became greatly disturbed when he began to suspect that an island off shore from his land which he thought was included in his purchase was being sold to someone else. lie composed a crisp letter setting forth his sentiments. 197
Little did he think, he wrote, that when the Committee had got him to the river they would say he should not drink. If necessary, he said, he would rather buy the island again than lose his labor spent on it.
John Glover, who was a prominent figure in the Bakerstown matter, also became involved in a similar situation with the Raymond- town proprietors. That is, he was convinced that they had more than they were entitled to. According to him he obtained the permission of the Committee to sell this land and get a profit therefrom. Then he apparently convinced the proprietors that this was so and they gave up their surplus without any dispute. However, he complained when he began to think the Committee was selling this strip without giving any 198 consideration to him or his expenses.
196. Widgery's proposal, undated, Eastern Lands, Box 1.
197. Lunt to Wells, Jan. 10, 1791, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
198. Glover to Jarvis, Dec. 21, 1791, Eastern Lands, Box 17; Glover to Committee, Jan. 9, 1792, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
283
A disagreement developed in the transactions with Jackson and Flint regarding the third million acres -- a difference of opinion 199
ragarding the due date of the first payment. The Committee beld that it was one year after the signing of the contract (in other words April 18, 1793) and Jackson said it was not until sixty days after he was notified that the survey had been made. Jackson stated that the Commit- tee had not demanded payment on the first contract until sixty days after the survey and some of the Committee members replied, he said, that they had been called fools for doing that, and they did not intend to do it again. In 1795, however, the Committee mentioned only $5000 earnest money 200
as having been received on this contract. Some of the Committee also felt, it was reported, that if payments were not made on time for various deeds lodged in escrow, those particular deeds would be for- feited. One member pointed out, so it was said, that the cover of the escrow had written on it that the within deed should be delivered to William Bingham on or before a certain date upon his producing a paid and cancelled bond. That wording indicated that the holder of the escrow had no authority to give up the deed after that date.
Surveyors made mistakes, as has been mentioned, and these had to be rectified.
199. Jackson to Bingham, March 23, 1793, William Bingham's Vaine Lands, ed. Allis, pp. 258-259; Bingham to Jackson, April 2, 1793, William Bingham's Maine Lands, pp. 263-264; Jackson to Bingham, April 14, 1793, William Bingham's Maine Lands, p. 270.
200. Report of Committee, June 16, 1795, Table 23, p. 34, Eastern Lands, Box 49.
284
By what was apparently a mistake in one plan, two men each had lots that should have been the other's. In this instance an agreement was apparently reached between the two persons involved and a switch was made with the provision that an impartial observer should determine the value of the two lots. In case there was a difference in value suitable 201
payment was to be made.
Sometimes they made mistakes in locating the lines. A problem arose when it appeared that Titcomb had intruded on a neighboring town when running Tyngstown's boundaries. The Tyngstown proprietors reported 202
their plight to the General Court and asked for aid. Another sur- veyor was appointed to study the matter; if their lines did overlap someone else's he was to lay out an amount equivalent to the loss some- 203 where else on Tyngstown's border. The deficiency was confirmed and 204
an addition was made and granted by resolve of March 1793. In 1786 there was a suggestion that the lines of Butterfield had been extended into a neighboring town in error. To settle the situation it was agreed that a surveyor should go there and see whether such a mistake had actually been made. John Lewis was authorized to do this job upon
201. Jarvis to Jonathan Eddy, [Nov. 1], 1788, Eastern Iands, Box 17; undated manuscript on dispute between Eddy and Oliver regarding lots 15 and 16, Eastern Lands, Box 13.
202. Ebeneezer Bancroft to Committee, Jan. 17, 1790, Eastern Lands, Box 52; Petition of Tyngstown Proprietors to General Court, Jan. 19, 1792, with Mass. Resolve, Jan. 28, 1792, Chap. 38.
203. Mass. Resolve, Jan. 28, 1792, Chap. 38.
204. Mass. Resolve, March 28, 1793, Chap. 195.
285
205
application to him by the proprietors.
People who were to receive their title from the State's grantees sometimes wrote to the state officials complaining that they were having difficulty in getting these titles. A problem like this occurred on Deer Isle. A minister named Powers had been promised one hundred acres by the town but he could not get a final deed because of the unsettled land status there. Therefore, he wrote to the General Court asking it to either give him a deed or tell him some other way to come into posses- 206 sion of the tract. The next March the island inhabitants were directed by General Court resolve to show cause why Powers should not be given a 207
lot. When grants of the land taken away from Bakerstown were made to Bridgham, Glover, and others, some people on the land involved wrote that they had no hope of holding it under Glover and asked Wells for 208
help. The settlers in many of the towns east of the Penobscot and on Deer Isle also were unable to get full .possession of their land as quickly as they desired.
The practice of making grants with a number of individuals as proprietors in common in each also led to some difficulty. No one
205. Memo on proposals regarding Butterfield, [notation on outside says "June 1786"], Eastern Lands, Box 10; Committee to John Lewis, June 27, 1786, Eastern Lands, Box 17.
206. Petition of Peter Powers to General Court, Sept. 5, 1791, Eastern Lands, Box 14.
207. Mass. Resolve, March 7, 1792, Chap. 144a.
208. Moses Merrill to Wells, April 11, 1789, Eastern Lands, Box 15.
286
person, no matter how punctual he was in meeting his payments and other requirements, was able to get a clear title to his land until all had paid. This particular problem beset the folks in Vinalhaven who complained also that failure of some to pay was keeping them from the benefits of "proper town orders." Some were anxious to bring things to a final conclusion and even paid more than their share of the common debt to do it; others did not pay anything and declared there was no law that could make them. Those in the former group drew 209
up a petition soliciting the aid of the General Court, and a resolve was passed directing the Attorney General to prosecute the delinquent individuals in any legal way necessary if they did not pay stated sums by a certain time. When the total sum was paid the General Court would grant a deed. 210
The General Court had granted one half of Mount Desert Island to John Bernard and the other half to the De Gregoires. However, no dividing line was established at the time of the grants. Subsequently this was done at the De Gregoire's request. Soon thereafter the General Court appointed two men to superintend the Maine holdings of this French family. 211
On occasion people asked that changes be made in their contracts after they had been agreed upon.
209. Petition of some of Vinalhaven inhabitants to General Court, Oct. 20, 1790, with Mass. Resolve, June 17, 1791, Chap. 67.
210. Mass. Resolve, June 17, 1791, Chap. 67.
211. Maine Historical Magazine, II, 81.
287
In some instances purchasers claimed the land was not worth what they had agreed to pay for it and asked for a reduction in the price. In the case of some land bought by Joseph Frye and others the Committee took the customers' word about the matter and considered lowering the payment and postponing the time of payment, as was requested. 212 However, there was some objection on Phillips' part to setting back the date when interest should start becoming due. He also suggested that more migh be asked of them in settlement duties and in road building because a change was being made in their favor.
Deer Isle posed a particularly thorny problem. This was partly a problem of quieting people who had settled before 1784. But it was more than that. It was also a matter of transferring the whole island plus adjoining Sheep Island into private lands, a process which took several steps. At one point a reduction in price was asked for and received. To start with the General Court passed a resolve granting one hundred acres to each pre-1784 settler as a recompense for his settlement activities with the stipulation that they pay one hundred 213 twenty pounds in specie for surveying and other expenses. The re-
mainder of the island was sold to large numbers of people for a set sum. Time went on and the money was not paid. In 1788 George Tyler wrote to the General Court asking that an allowance be made in such
212. Wells to Phillips, Jan. 2, 1793, Eastern Lands, Box 18; Phil- lips to Jarvis, Jan. 8, 1793, Eastern Lands, Box 18.
213. Mass. Resolve, March 22, 1786, Chap. 162.
288
214
measure as information he forwarded would warrant. This information included a letter from Peters, the man who had surveyed the island prior to the making of the first resolve. After he had come back to the island at the invitation of some of the inhabitants and taken a second look he wrote that the land was not as good as he had first reported it to be, and that he might have been mistaken about the number of settlers on the 215 island, as he had gotten his information from one man. As a result the General Court passed a new resolve. This said that the large number of grantees in the previous resolve had made it "inconvenient" to carry out the provisions contained in it and it was therefore granting the land to George and Joseph Tyler at an altered price with the provision that 216 they grant one hundred acres each to all eligible settlers.
This arrangement did not produce any money either, however, and after three years the General Court again took action following some discussion among the lawmakers. At one point a resolve was drawn up that would have given the Tylers a little more time to prove that they had laid out the land for the settlers and that they were willing and able to pay the required sums. 217 In the end, however, the resolve
214. Petition of Tyler to General Court, March 4, 1788 with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1788, Chap. 69.
215. Certificate of Peters, June 15, 1787 with Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1788. Chap. 69.
216. Mass. Resolve, March 24, 1788, Chap. 69. 217. Mass. House Document 3548 (this is undated but certainly goes here).
289
that was passed made no reference to the Tylers but gave the land into 218 the hands of the Committee to be sold as any other land. A provision was added that settlers entitled to one hundred acres who had actually had their plot laid out for them and who had complied with the necessary requirements should have it confirmed to them. The passed resolve had a written notation on it stating that the matter was being recommitted for an alteration in title and time to give Tyler a chance to give security, and if he could not, to allow the settlers to take the land, they giving security. An unlabelled and unsigned scrap still present in the archives resolves that the resolve of March 7 regarding Deer Isle 219
is hereby declared repealed. But the authoritative tone of the piece is out of line with its true importance and the said legislation rezained in force.
This resolve, however, brought forth no harmony. Rather it stirred up several letters from the various sides. The Tylers wrote that they were coming to town to discuss the matter and that if they were not given the disposal of the lands, it would be a serious blow to them as they had contracted to sell to several young men who were not entitled to land as settlers. 220
On the other hand, there were several islanders who had a strong distaste for the way that the
218. Mass. Resolve, March 7, 1791, Chap. 113.
219. Paper with Mass. House Document 3543.
220. Tylers to Jarvis, May 12, 1791, Eastern Lands, Box 14.
290
Tylers had been operating -- and still were, so one man said. These folks claimed the Tylers were taking land that already belong to various people 221
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.