Tag: Hoover Surname Study

The Hoover family has become a favorite research subject of mine, especially the Huber/Hoober/Hoovers of early Lancaster County. These pages include links to all the posts I’ve written as part of my personal Hoover surname study, including articles and transcriptions of deeds, wills, etc. I hope you find information on your Hoover, but if you don’t drop me a line. Maybe I can feature them in an upcoming post.

Part III: Georg Huber and Anna Maria Hooß

I examined records from Lancaster County for Hans Georg and Anna Maria and  records in Blankenloch for Georg and his three marriages. Yet, I don’t have proof regarding the identity of the immigrant. Was he the father or the son?

Internet data shows it as the father—the man who married Anna Maria Hooß. The Blankenloch ortssippenbuch states it was the son, but has no birth, marriage or death information for the father’s family after 1736.

Can the immigrant’s associations with others from Baden-Durlach tell us anything?

Hans Adam Ulrich

Hans Adam Ulrich was born in Büchig 22 February 1717, son of Hans Georg Ulrich and Anna Catharina Nagel.1 He married Juliana Seeger, daughter of Martin Seeger and Maria Barbara (___), on 7 September 1734.2 They emigrated from Büchig, arriving in Philadelphia on 12 October 1738 aboard the snow Fox.3 In Pennsylvania they were sponsors for Georg and Anna Maria Huber and the Hubers sponsored a number of their children, as well.

Adam Ulrich’s mother was a Nagel, just like Georg Sr.’s first wife, Anna Barbara. Anna Barbara (Nagel) Huber’s mother was an Ulrich. You’d think there would be a connection between families. With the available information, however, I was not able to find one.

However, Juliana (Seeger) Ulrich’s sister, Maria Barbara, married Anna Barbara (Nagel) Huber’s brother Hans Noa Nagel in 1722. So, there was a connection there. Adam Ulrich’s brother-in-law was also Hans Georg Huber Sr.’s brother-in-law for a time. Anna Barbara (Nagel) Huber died in December 1722, twelve years before Adam married Juliana, but Juliana likely knew her sister’s in-laws, especially Georg Jr. who was only eight years her junior.

Sebastian Näss

Sebastian Näss (or Neeß) was a shoemaker from Rußheim, Baden-Durlach. He was born about 1683 and first married sometime before 1706 as his first child Johann Michael was born on 15 March 1706.4 He had seven children with his first wife before her death in 1726. He married Catharina Barbara Brecht on 29 October 1726 and had two more children.5 She died 5 February 1730. I found no connections between Sebastian and Georg based on the available records in the ortissippenbuchs from Rußheim and Blankenloch.

Sebastian’s eldest son Michael emigrated in 17376 and Sebastian, aged 55, followed the next year on the Friendship.7 Sebastian served as a sponsor for two of Georg’s children and Georg sponsored Sebastian’s youngest son, Sebastian, in 1745.

Philipp Jacob Hooß

Anna Maria Hooß’s brother, Philipp, also emigrated in 1738, arriving with Hans Adam Ulrich on the snow Fox on 12 October.8 Philipp’s signature appears next to Adam’s on both lists B and C.

All three men—Georg Huber, Adam Ulrich and Philipp Hooß—had children baptized at Muddy Creek and the Warwick congregation. And yet, Philipp did not sponsor any of Georg and Anna Maria’s children, not even Georg’s first child born in Pennsylvania, Johann Philipp. While it’s hardly proof of anything, I do find it hard to believe that Philipp wouldn’t sponsor any of his sister’s children.

On the other hand, there is a record for “George Hover” from an Orphan’s Court on 7 March 1748/9 which states:9

“JACOB HOVER an Orphan child of George Hover, chooses Philip Hofe his Guardian and he is appointed accordingly and also Guardian over all the younger children of the said George.”

The microfilm copy was a typed, “exact copy of the original” that was created in 1932, likely because the original was damaged. In old script “ss” was often written as “fs.” The typist may not have known that and interpreted as best they could. The name “Philip Hofe” may have actually been “Philip Hoss” or “Philip Hoß.”10

The person appointed as guardian was most often a relative. If Philip was actually Philip Hooß, then this would indicate to me that the estate pertains to Georg Huber, the husband of Anna Maria Hooß. Jacob would have been the couple’s eldest son Johan Jacob Huber, born 4 March 1734 in Blankenloch. At 15 years of age, he would have been old enough to choose his own guardian.

The index to Lancaster County wills indicates that Georg Huber left a last will & testament. However, it was not recorded because it was written in German. Nor does the original still exist. This unfortunate circumstance complicates research into this family.

Conclusions

In the end I didn’t find any clues regarding my ancestor Michael Huber. But since it was a long-shot, I’m not terribly surprised. It ended up being an interesting exercise anyway. I started out thinking I knew who I was researching. I found new and conflicting information that made me question that certainty. And ended up not far from where I began.

Here’s what I think.

The 1737 manumission for Hans Georg Huber, schuster, belongs to the son. I think that most likely the family emigrated in the spring of 1738. They likely travelled with Adam Ulrich’s family and Anna Maria’s brother Philipp and his wife Eva—as well as others who were leaving the Baden-Durlach area for Pennsylvania.

Georg Sr. either became friendly with Sebastian Näss on board ship—assuming they travelled on the same ship—or after arrival in Pennsylvania. They arrived about the same time, were of the same age, from the same area of Germany, had each been married several times,11 and were members of the same congregations.

The family settled in Lancaster County—most likely in Cocalico Township—and Georg died there in early 1749. Anna Maria’s brother served as guardian for her minor children. Any of Georg’s children from his first marriage who travelled with them were of legal age by that time, possibly with families of their own.

That’s my working hypothesis anyway. It’s too bad there are no tax records for the period between his arrival and Georg’s death, nor any land records I could locate, and no will. Those could have been illuminating.

It would be interesting to look at the church records to see who the witnesses were at the children’s baptisms in Blankenloch. I wish that information had been included in the ortssippenbuchs.

Part II: Georg Huber and Anna Maria Hooß

Yesterday I shared what I’ve learned about Hans Georg and Anna Maria (Hooß) Huber in baptismal records in Lancaster County and emigration records. Today I’ll cover what I learned about the pair from German records.

In Blankenloch

According to the Ortssippenbuch Blankenloch-Büchig und dem Studtensee, Georg Huber was a “fränkischer Artillerieschmied.”1 He  was the son of Thomas Huber of Balgheim and first married Anna Barbara Nagel, daughter of Georg Nagel and Anna Margaretha Ulrich, on 26 May 1711 in Blankenloch.2 Barbara was born 28 December 1684 in Blankenloch. They had children:

  1. Anna Margaretha (22 Nov 1711—26 Nov 1711)
  2. Hans Georg (8 Mar 1713—1 Feb 1714)
  3. Hans Adam (20 Aug 1715—)
  4. Georg Friedrich (4 Feb 1717—29 Dec 1773)
  5. Hans Georg (29 Dec 1718—)
  6. Catharina Barbara (25 Nov 1720—)
  7. Thomas (23 Dec 1722—17 Jul 1723)

According to the book, Hans Georg Huber, son of Hans Georg and Anna Barbara (Nagel) Huber, was the man who emigrated to America in 1738—Werner’s emigrant #4357.

Barbara died 20 December 1722 in Blankenloch and Georg married again on 28 June 1723 to Anna Barbara Boch, daughter of Antonius Boch.3 She was born in August 1676 in Blankenloch. She had been married previously to Isaac Heyl of Hagsfeld and had, it appears, one surviving child, Hans Wendel Heyl, born 8 March 1714.4 She died 10 January 1733 in Blankenloch.5

After Barbara’s death, Georg apparently married yet again, this time on 11 August 1733 to Anna Maria Hooß, daughter of Hans Jacob Hooß and Anna Maria Reinau.6 She was born 9 September 1710 in Blankenloch and she, too, had been married previously. She had been married to Hans Michael Hermann—a Soldat, “ein marggräflicher Musquetier.7 They had a son Hans Michel born 12 August 1731 and died 26 October 1731 in Blankenloch. Georg and Anna Maria apparently had two children in Blankenloch:

  1. Hans Jacob (4 Mar 1734—)
  2. Johann Friedrich (26 Jun 1736—)

Father or Son?

So, who was the Georg Huber who arrived in Pennsylvania by 1739? Was it the father born in Balgheim? Or the son born in Blankenloch? Which one married Anna Maria Hooß?

Werner’s entry for Hans Georg Huber provides little information. No age, no indication of whether or not he was traveling with a spouse or children, no occupation.8 The entry in the ortssippenbuch for Hans Georg Huber Jr. states “Bemerkung: Schuster, 1738 nach Amerika auswandert, Regesten Nr. 4357.”9 The son, it appears, was a shoemaker.

Although no birth date is provided for Hans Georg Huber Sr., his first wife was born in 1684 and his second in 1676. I think it’s highly likely that he was in the same age group, possibly born in the mid-1670s to early 1680s. This means he was significantly older than his third wife Anna Maria who was born in 1710.

So, can we tell if he was the man who married Anna Maria? Could it have been the son?

The records in the ortssippenbuch for Georg and his three wives list his occupation. In the first he was a schmied or Artillerieschmied—a blacksmith, one with knowledge of artillery. In the second he’s listed as a hufschmied or farrier. I would presume there’s more need for a farrier than an artillery smith in village life and the skillset is applicable.

The third record which includes Anna Maria also lists his occupation as hufschmied. This would seem to indicate that it was George Sr. who married Anna Maria, not George Jr. Given the practice of apprenticeship in Germany, switching occupations was not easily done, especially in just four years.

Furthermore, George was also a full citizen of Blankenloch at the time of this marriage. There are at least two ways I know to become a bürger. One was to be the child of a bürger and born in the village, the second was to purchase the status.10 The purchase price could be steep and it did not transfer from village to village.

So, for George, who was not born in Blankenloch, to be a bürger in 1733 speaks to both an acceptance by other Blankenloch residents and a certain level of financial success between 1723 and 1733. Would he have given that up in 1737 when, presumably he was in his mid-to-late 50s or early 60s? It’s not unheard of. My ancestor Christoph Hacker and his wife emigrated when they were in their 50s.

There are no death dates provided for George Sr., Anna Maria, and a number of his/their children in the Blankenloch ortssippenbuch. This would mean that there were no death records found for any of these family members in the town church books. In fact, the ortssippenbuch shows no records for this family group after 1736. Why not? If they didn’t leave for America in 1738, where did they go?

The only family member with further information was Georg Friedrich. He married 5 January 1753 and died 29 December 1773 in Gräben where he was a farmhand. Even he did not remain in Blankenloch. Furthermore, there is a note that he applied to emigrate to Denmark with his wife and five children in 1761, though he did not leave.11 None of the Huber families listed in Blankenloch in the early 1700s apparently stayed.

Based on this information, I believe Hans Georg Huber Sr. married Anna Maria Hooß. However, I still can’t tell who was the emigrant—father or son or both.

Check back tomorrow for more analysis. Maybe their ties to and relationships with others will help paint a clearer picture.

Part I: Georg Huber and Anna Maria Hooß

Recently, I’ve been looking into Hans George Huber and his wife Anna Maria Hooß. For no other reason than that he’s a Huber and his children share some of the same given names as my ancestor Michael Huber’s children. It’s a long shot, but I figured it was worth a little research. I like research.

Most of what I have is information I’ve pulled from around the internet. Since quite a bit of it is not sourced, I’ve been verifying information where possible. This couple was Lutheran and had a number of children baptized at Muddy Creek and Warwick in the 1740s:1

  1. Johann Philipp Huber was born 28 Dec 1740 and baptized 26 January 1741 at Muddy Creek. His sponsors were Adam Ulrich and his wife Julianna.
  2. Julianna Huber was born 8 May 1743 and baptized at Warwick on 14 May 1743. She was also sponsored Adam Ulrich and wife.
  3. Anna Maria Huber was born 3 October 1744 and baptized at Warwick on 4 November 1744, sponsored by Adam Ulrich and wife.
  4. Anna Margaretha Huber was born 20 March 1746 and baptized at Warwick on 23 March 1746. She was sponsored by Sebastian Näss and his wife.
  5. Johann Friederich Huber was born 9 January 1748 and baptized 17 January 1748 at Warwick, sponsored also by Sebastian Näss and his wife.

George and Anna Maria also sponsored children of Adam Ulrich and Sebastian Näss, as follows:2

  1. Johan Georg Ulrich, son of Adam and Julianna, was born 6 November 1739 and baptized 16 December 1739 at Muddy Creek.
  2. Anna Maria Ulrich, daughter of Adam and Julianna, was born 10 February 1742 and baptized 28 March 1742 at Muddy Creek.
  3. Julianna Ulrich, daughter of Adam and Julianna, was born 2 April 1744 and baptized 8 April 1744 at Warwick.
  4. Sebastian Näss, son of Sebastian, was born 31 May 1745 and baptized 30 June 1745 at Warwick.

Usually when you see baptismal patterns like this, it suggests a familial relationship between the parents. At a minimum, given the years involved, it suggests that they may have been from the same area in Germany.

Emigration from Germany

I know from my Hacker family research that Sebastian emigrated in 17383 and was from Rußheim, a village in Baden-Durlach.4 He arrived on the Friendship on 20 September 1738. A little research into George and Adam shows that they were from Blankenloch and Büchig, two other villages in Baden-Durlach, just north of Karlsruhe.5

Both George and Adam received permission to leave Germany in October 1737. Adam can be found on the ship’s list for the snow Fox which arrived in Philadelphia on 12 October 1738.6 Werner indicates that, like Sebastian, George arrived on the Friendship. However, the ship’s list contains only “Jacob Hoover” and “Michael Hooverich” as possible matches for George and both men’s age is shown as 25.7

I’m a little perplexed on how to rationalize “George” as “Jacob.”  Take a look at the signature from the ship’s list.

Hans Jacob Huber from ship's list

On both list B and C, Hans Jacob signed with his mark (H).8 List A is not included for this ship in Volume II of Pennsylvania German Pioneers, but his name is given as “Jacob Hoover” on the captain’s list as well, according to the list in Volume I. Since he didn’t actually sign his own name, I suppose it’s possible that the clerk got it wrong, but you would think the captain would have had the correct name for his passenger. Right?

Suffice it to say, that I don’t know for sure exactly when George arrived. It’s extremely likely that he arrived in the fall of 1738 with a number of other emigrants from Baden-Durlach, especially given his later connections to Adam and Sebastian. However, the ships’ lists do not provide evidence of his arrival. He was absolutely here by 9 November 1739 when he and his wife sponsored Adam’s son Georg, but beyond that is not yet determined.

In Blankenloch

Since Adam and George were from Büchig and Blankenloch, I consulted the ortssippenbuch for information on their families.9 While it provided valuable information, I can’t say it cleared much up for me.

Check back tomorrow for the continuation.


Update (10/4)
hans george huber signature

Hans George Huber’s signature

I remembered I had the signatures of the original members of the Warwick congregation in 1743. Hans Georg Huber signed as a member and representative of his family. This makes it even more unlikely, in my opinion, that he was the “Hans Jacob Hoover” on the Friendship’s passenger lists.

A Beautiful Circle A DNA Circle Happy Dance

If you’ve been following along with my research through the years, you know that I’ve spent a significant amount of time researching the Hoover family. I’ve been determined to identify the ancestry of my 3x great grandfather Christian Hoover.

I had located information that led me to believe he was the son of Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover of Armstrong County and could trace the family back to an immigrant ancestor named Andreas Huber. Later I discovered that the connection I’d made between Philip’s grandfather George Huber and Andreas was incorrect. George was actually the son of the immigrant Michael Huber. But, while I could build a circumstantial case that Philip and Hannah were Christian’s parents, I didn’t have any direct evidence of the connection.

And then I took a DNA test.

DNA Circles

This spring I took a DNA test. I was mostly curious about what the results would be. I figured any proof I might get from DNA would come from Y-DNA tests on various male family members.

I found a lot of matches through Ancestry. Like 130 pages of DNA matches. It was totally overwhelming. Some of those matches shared their family tree, some didn’t. Some share ancestors, some share ancestral surnames, some I had no clue where we matched, and some I knew—even without a family tree—exactly who they were and how we were related. But while it’s all very interesting, I mostly haven’t learned anything new.

Then I made my family tree public so I could get DNA circles.

What are DNA circles?

According to Ancestry, they are “a great way to discover other members who are related to you through a common ancestor.” The Legal Genealogist has a great, simple explanation of DNA Circles. She does a great job of explaining what they mean—and what they don’t mean.

In order for a DNA circle to be created for you, several things need to happen. First, you have to have a public family tree. This applies to your DNA matches, too. If you have DNA matches through a common ancestor, but they either don’t have family trees at Ancestry or haven’t made their tree public… no DNA circle.

Two, you have to share a common ancestor in your public family trees and that common ancestor must be within six generations of you—a 4x great grandparent or closer. So, if you’re hoping to see a DNA circle for descendants of your 5x great grandfather, it’s not gonna happen. Furthermore, that common ancestor must be easily identifiable as being the same person. Significant differences in name, dates, etc. may nullify the connection—meaning no circle.

Three, you have to have a DNA match to at least two other people who also share the common ancestor within those same six generations in their public family tree. Oh, your relations—siblings and first cousins—all get lumped into a family group and count as a single person. So, those two other DNA matches must be at least second cousins.

So, after all those must haves in order to create a DNA circle, I actually have circles for Philip Hoover and Hannah Thomas among my matches! I can not tell you how happy that made me—you’ll just have to imagine the happy dance I did when they came up in my account.

Take a look at this diagram and I’ll explain how these matches work.

Philip Hoover DNA Circle

I have three DNA matches in this circle. AncestryDNA does not tell us whether or not we all share the same DNA segments. But each of us shares DNA with the other three matches.

Three of us are descendants of my 2x great grandfather Samuel Thomas Hoover and his wife Victoria Walker. Our great grandfathers were brothers. We are third cousins. The fourth person is a descendant of one of Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover’s daughters. She is one generation closer to the couple, than the other three, so she is a 3x great granddaughter, while we are 4x great grandchildren.

The other two people in the circle do not share DNA with me or the other two descendants of Samuel and Victoria (Walker) Hoover. They only share DNA with the female descendant of Philip and Hannah.

Based on my research, Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover had the following children:

  1. Christian Hoover (c1821-1 Oct 1887)
  2. Mary Ann Hoover (22 Nov 1825-?)
  3. John Thomas Hoover (4 Nov 1827-?)
  4. Margaret Hoover (c1831-?)
  5. Barbara Hoover (c1833-?)
  6. William Hoover (c1835-?)
  7. Jacob Hoover (8 Feb 1836-14 Sep 1909)
  8. Ralston Hoover (c1839-13 Jun 1862)
  9. Sarah Hoover (1 Jul 1842-8 Aug 1906)
  10. Samuel M. Hoover (c1845-?)

According to our family trees, the six persons in this DNA circle are descended through three of Philip and Hannah’s children: Christian (aka Christopher), Margaret, and Sarah. Christian’s descendants share matching DNA with Sarah’s descendant, but not Margaret’s descendants. Sarah and Margaret’s descendants also share DNA.

So does this prove that our Christian was the son of Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover? Well…

I believe it does prove a biological connection between Christian and this family. It’s possible that he could be their eldest son. It’s also possible that Philip is his uncle or his cousin. The research I’ve done into this family provides enough circumstantial evidence to say the Christian is likely the son of Philip and Hannah, not a nephew. But I still have unknowns in prior generations, including two of Philip’s uncles. Without knowing exactly how our DNA matches, I can’t say anything for sure.

But, you know, I’ll take it. It’s one more data point that backs up my supposition that my 3x great grandfather was the son of Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover. And I’ll keep looking for more. Until I find evidence proving otherwise, I’m going with it.

Ruth Olive Hocker (22 Aug 1920—12 Feb 2016)

Ruth Olive (Hoover) Hocker passed away Friday morning, the 12th of February, at her home in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Born on 22 August 1920 in Lescontes Mills, Girard Township, Clearfield, County, she was one of the twelve children—seven sons and five daughters—of Clyde Leroy and Nora Melinda (Houdeshell) Hoover.

Hoover House, Pine Glen

Hoover House, Pine Glen

When she was just a child, her family moved from Lescontes Mills where her father had been working as a lumberman, to Pine Glen, Centre County where her father was born. She grew-up there near her paternal grandparents and many other family members.

Ruth Hocker taking a photo

Ruth taking a photo

The house they lived in1—while sizable enough for a family of 12 children—did not have electricity or running water. There was a well for water and an outhouse. Still is for that matter. When they needed water for cooking or washing, one of the children was sent either to the creek across the road or out back to the well. 2

When I asked about her favorite summer pastimes, she recalled that with chores there wasn’t a lot of free time. They baked their own bread, raised their own food—both animal and vegetable, harvested and preserved the food from the garden in the fall, and washed their clothes—and with 12 kids there was a lot of it—by hand. The girls worked in the house and gardens while the boys worked the farm and farm animals, hunted, and cut firewood.

When there was time, she liked to go on wood hikes with her father, picnics, reading books from the library her mother ran from their front room, and splashing in the creek. The boys, she remembered, sometimes played baseball.

At the age of 18 she moved to Harrisburg where she worked as a domestic for the Bogar family to earn money to go to college. That was where she met her future husband William H. Hocker.  He accompanied his father to do some carpentry work at the Bogar house.

1941 Bill and Ruth's wedding photo

1941 Wedding photo

William and Kate—as she was known to close friends and family—were married 24 September 1921 at Olivet Presbyterian Church in Harrisburg. Bill’s sister Anna Louise and Ruth’s brother Don served as their attendants. The couple resided in Harrisburg, living in a home that had been owned by the Hocker family since the 1890s.

While Ruth worked outside the home at a flower shop after her children were grown, she was happiest tending to her home, family and friends. She enjoyed baking, sewing, and discovered a love of reading at a young age when her mother operated the Pine Glen library from their home.

Bill and Ruth Hocker in the kitchen at home

At home in the kitchen

She is survived by her children: Richard Hocker, William III Hocker, Virginia Davis, and JoAnn Hocker, four grandchildren, and two great grandchildren. Also surviving her are her sister Norma Jean (Hoover) Hoover, brother Marvin “Bud” Hoover, and various nieces, nephews and their children.

She was preceded in death by her parents and nine siblings, including: Harold L. Hoover, W. Russell Hoover, Helen F. Yingling, Sarah I. “Betz” Plubell, Willard C. “Boots” Hoover, Clyde L. Hoover, Donald V. Hoover, Gladys H. “Peg” Hoover, and Robert P. “Bob” Hoover.

She will be buried beside her husband at Paxtang Cemetery, in Paxtang, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

Using the Census to Fill In Family Details The Ancestry of Abraham Huber (1847-1910)

In my last post regarding Abraham Huber, I learned that he was the son of John Huber from John and Christian’s last will and testaments. Based on those documents, I was able to create a simple outline of the family. Now I want to flesh that out a bit with information from census records.

We know that John and Christian lived in Providence Township. John died in 1862, his widow in 1890. Christian died in 1881. Based on this information I’m going to start with the 1880 census for Providence Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

1880 Census

Abraham Huber 1880 Census

Abraham’s household is located on the first page of the Providence Township records.1 His household includes:

  • Abraham Huber, age 31
  • Christian Huber, his uncle, age 79
  • Margaret Huber, his mother, age 70
  • Susan Huber, his sister, age 45
  • Catharine Huber, his sister-in-law, age 29
  • Emma Huber, his niece, age 11
  • Tobias Huber, his nephew, age 9
  • Susan Huber, his niece, age 6
  • John Sheridan, a servant

The next household is also a Huber family, headed by John Huber, aged 76, and his wife Elizabeth, aged 70. This may be the “little” John Huber mentioned in the 1892 deed.

1870 Census

Margaret Huber 1870 Census

The family is also located near the beginning of the records for Providence in 1870. In this record, Margaret is listed as the head of household.2 The family includes:

  • Margaret Huber, age 60
  • Christian Huber, age 42, Farm manager
  • Tobias Huber, age 38, Farm laborer
  • Susan Huber, age 35
  • Abraham Huber, age 24, Farm laborer
  • Mary Rineer, age 32
  • Fanny Rineer, age 10
  • Mariah Rineer, age 8
  • Margaretha McFalls, age 20
  • Christian Huber Sr., age 71, Retired

Christian and Tobias Huber—John’s executors—are listed with the family. They both died in 1876, and so are not included in the 1880 census. John’s daughter Mary is included with her two daughters this time, while daughter-in-law Catharine Huber and her daughter Emma are not listed. So, it’s likely that Catharine’s husband is still alive.

And indeed, their household was found two pages later:

  • John Huber, age 30, Farm laborer
  • Catherine S. Huber, age 19
  • Emma R. Huber, age 1

Once again, John and Elizabeth Huber’s family is listed directly after this Huber family.

1860 Census

John Huber 1860 Census

The 1860 census provides our first glimpse of John Huber in these records.3 His household is included on page nine of the Providence records. It includes:

  • John Huber, age 71, Farmer
  • Margaret Huber, age 52
  • Christian Huber, age 33, Farm hand
  • Tobias Huber, age 28, Farm hand
  • Susan Huber, age 26
  • John Huber, age 20, Farm hand
  • Abraham Huber, age 13

Daughter Ann Huber is listed in the next household, headed by her husband James McFalls.

  • James McFalls, age 34, Laborer
  • Ann McFalls, age 32
  • John McFalls, age 8
  • William McFalls, age 3

I could not locate Christian Huber Sr. in the 1860 census. However, John and Elizabeth Huber’s household, as expected, is nearby, three households down from John and Margaret Huber’s family.

1850 Census

John Huber 1850 Census

Providence Township was established in 1853, taken from Martic Township. So, John and family are located in the 1850 census for Martic.4 The family is number 164 and includes:

  • John Huber, age 60, Farmer
  • Margaret Huber, age 41
  • Christian Huber, age 20
  • Anny Huber, age 22
  • Tobias Huber, age 21
  • Susanna Huber, age 17
  • Mary Huber, age 13
  • John Huber, age 11
  • Abraham Huber, age 3
  • Daniel Huber, age 1
  • James McFalls, age 24, Laborer
  • Christian Huber, age 49, Laborer

This census includes all the family seen in the other census records, plus Daniel, age 1. His absence from the 1860 census, leads me to believe that he died prior to 1 Jun 1860. Note James McFalls living in the household. He married Anna Huber sometime in the next year to two years.

Furthermore, the wide age gap between John and his wife Margaret and between sons John Huber and Abraham Huber makes me think that Margaret might not be John’s first wife. She’s old enough to be Christian’s mother, but the gap between children either relates to a previous marriage and death of the spouse or a number of children who died young. We’ll need to see what the previous census shows for more clarity.

Again, as in previous census entries, the John and Elizabeth Huber family is located within three household of John and Margaret’s. Also on this page, however, are two other Huber households: Jacob and Anny Huber and Abraham and Mary Huber.

1840 Census

John Huber 1840 Census

In the 1840 census, John’s household includes:5

  • John Huber, 40-50 (b. 1790-1800)
  • Male, 30-40 (b. 1800-1810) [brother Christian?]
  • Male, 10-15 (b. 1825-1830) [son Christian?]
  • Male, 5-10 (b. 1830-1835) [son Tobias?]
  • Male, <5 (b. 1836-1840) [son John?]
  • Female, 70-80 (b. 1760-1770) [Mother?]
  • Female, 10-15 (b. 1825-1830) [Annie?]
  • Female, 5-10 (b. 1830-1835) [Susanna?]
  • Female, < 5 (b. 1836-1840) [Mary?]

If John was married to Margaret, there should be a woman, aged about 31 (26-44), in the household. The fact that there isn’t strengthens my feeling that Margaret was John’s second wife and that Abraham and Daniel were children of this union. If so, John’s first wife died sometime between January (John’s birth) and August 1840 (census).

As in previously viewed census records, John’s brother Christian was living in his household. It also appears that John’s mother, aunt, or other senior female may have been living with him in 1840, too.

1830 Census

John Huber Sr. 1830 Census

In 1830, John was living adjacent to Peter Huber in Martic Township. His household was composed of:6

  • John Huber Sr., 30-40 (b. 1790-1800)
  • Male, 30-40 (b. 1790-1800) [brother Christian?]
  • Male, <5 (b. 1826-1830) [son Christian?]
  • Female, 60-70 (b. 1760-1770) [Mother?]
  • Female, 20-30 (b. 1800-1810) [1st wife?]
  • Female, <5 (b. 1826-1830) [Annie?]

Since his children are under 5 years of age, he likely married sometime around or just prior to 1825. He was probably living at home in 1820. Both his brother Christian and the senior female were living with John in 1830, too. If the female is his mother, his father likely died prior to this census.

Conclusions

Based on the information in the census records, we can flesh out John’s family some. Here’s what it looks like with the new information.

Children of Unknown Huber:

  1. John Huber, born about 1790 and died 11 Dec 1862, married first Unknown by 1825, married second Margaret (___) by 1847. Margaret (___) Huber died in 1890.
    1. Christian Huber was born about 1827 and died in 1876; never married
    2. Ann Huber was born about 1828; married James McFalls
      1. John McFalls, born about 1851/2
      2. William McFalls was born about 1856/7
    3. Tobias Huber was born about 1830 and died in 1876; never married
    4. Susanna Huber was born 1834 and died after 1892; never married
    5. Mary Huber was born about 1837; married John Rineer
      1. Fannie Rineer was born about 1860
      2. Mariah Rineer was born about 1862
    6. John Huber was born about 1840 and died 1876; married Catharine (___)
      1. Emma Huber was born about 1869
      2. Tobias Huber was born about 1871
      3. Susan Huber was born about 1874
    7. Abraham Huber was born about 1847 and died after 1892.
    8. Daniel Huber was born about 1849 and died before 1860.
  2. Christian Huber was born about 1800 and died in 1881; never married

From the Deed to the Wills The Ancestry of Abraham Huber (1847-1910)

In my last post, we learned that John and Christian Huber were tenants in common on a tract of land, containing about 55 acres. Abraham Huber purchased it from the Lancaster County Orphans Court in 1892.1 After reviewing the deed that provided this information, I have three questions I want to answer:

  1. What are “tenants in common?”
  2. Why, if they both died testate, was it the Orphans Court that sold the tract to Abraham?
  3. What was Abraham’s relationship to the two men, if any?

Tenants in Common

As tenants in common, John and Christian Huber each owned a portion of the 55 acres. Those portions were not necessarily equal. Additionally, “tenants in common”—as opposed to “joint tenants”—did not have the right of survivorship. After one tenant’s death, the rights to their portion remained with their estate instead of reverting to the other “tenant.”

Thus, the disposition of the tract would have been determined by John and Christian’s last wills and testaments.

Orphans Court

So, if John and Christian had the right to bequeath their land as they saw fit, and both men left wills, why was it the Orphans Court that sold the land?

John Huber died 11 Dec 1862. His last will and testament was proven 20 December 1862.2 He left his “equal undivided one half of the tract of land” he held with his “brother Christian Huber” to his wife during her lifetime. After her death, he directed his executors to sell the land and pay his children their shares, after paying out his specific bequests.

Christian Huber died 8 September 1881.3 His will was proven the 19th of September. He left his share to his nephew Abraham and niece Susan, children of his brother John, along with bequests to his grand nieces, and children of nephew John. He gave Abraham 2/3 of his real estate and Susan 1/3. He instructed that none of his land could be sold until after the death of John’s widow Margaret.

Margaret died 4 February 1890.4 By that time, Christian Huber5 and Tobias Huber,6 John’s sons and executors of his will, were deceased. Abraham was named administrator of her estate.7 As per the directions in his father’s will, Abraham put the land up for sale on 21 November 1891.8 Previously, on 5 October, Abraham had been granted by the court the right to bid on the land. His bid of $3,030 was the highest. I presume that as administrator of the estate, he couldn’t write a deed to himself, thus the Orphans Court deeded the property to him.

What Was Abraham’s Relationship to John & Christian?

Both John and Christian’s wills name Abraham as John’s son. John’s will names his other children as: Christian, Tobias, John, Susanna, Ann married to James McFalls, and Mary married to John Rineer. Christian’s will also identifies Margaret McFalls, Fannie Rineer, and Mariah Rineer as his great nieces. He also leaves a bequest to nephew John’s children, but does not provide their names.

So based on three documents—a deed and two wills—we can outline the family like this:

Children of Unknown Huber:

  1. John Huber (children listed in order from will)
    1. Christian Huber
    2. Tobias Huber
    3. John Huber
      1. Children
    4. Abraham Huber
    5. Susanna Huber
    6. Ann Huber married James McFalls
      1. Margareta McFalls
    7. Mary Huber married John Rineer
      1. Fannie Rineer
      2. Mariah Rineer
  2. Christian Huber

Starting with a Deed The Ancestry of Abraham Huber (1847-1910)

When you think of deeds you probably think of land transactions, right? So-and-so sold someone land in this place on that date. And why not? That’s what deeds are supposed to record.

But there have been many times when I’ve been surprised by just what else deeds record. Deeds come in different flavors.1 Sometimes, in order to adequately record the details of the transaction, they contain valuable information about the family involved in the purchase or sale.

Lancaster Co Deed D14:276

J.N.S. Hill C.O.C. to Abraham Huber (D14:276)

Take this deed, for instance.2 Straight off the bat we know that this deed is a deed of settlement. How do we know that? The party of the first part—the “person” selling the land—is a clerk of the Orphans Court for Lancaster County.

Despite the name, the Orphans Court dealt with more than just appointing guardians for “orphans.” In Pennsylvania it dealt with the details of settling an estate—both intestate and testate, recording the administration account, the appointment of guardians, the division of real estate amongst the heirs if it was not spelled out in the last will & testament (of there was one), petitions by heirs for specific pieces of land from the estate, and more.

In this deed, the Orphans Court is selling land to Abraham Huber from the estate of John and Christian Huber, tenants in common of a tract of land in Providence Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. It states that both men died with wills (testate) and identifies specifically where Christian Huber’s was recorded. This provides me with clues to two additional documents, potentially pertaining to Abraham Huber’s ancestry.

Furthermore, the metes and bounds identify the owners of neighboring properties. They are named as John Huber of Pequea Township, little John Huber, John Reinhart, and Benjamin Herr. The fact that one of the neighboring properties lies in Pequea Township provides a general location for the tract—on the border between Pequea and Providence townships. This not only helps me locate the land, but, in this case, most likely points to Abraham’s ancestry.

Check back to see what I can learn from John & Christian Huber’s wills.

Same Name, Same Place, Same Person? Using Deeds to Distinguish Between Two Men of the Same Name and Location

In a previous post, I wrote about the problem of determining how many Henry Hoovers there were in Martic Township. I listed the land warrants and patents and subsequent deed transfers for several parcels of land. But I didn’t go into any detail on what these documents actually said. So, in this post, I plan to go into more detail on how I used deeds to distinguish between multiple men of the same name who lived in the same area at the same time.

Note: I’ve used Hoover as the primary spelling of the surname through this post. The spellings–Huber, Hoober, Huver, Hoover, and Hover–were all used interchangeably throughout documents from the 18th century. Specific spellings directly from a document are shown here in quotes.

One Henry Hoover

The research that I’ve seen online and in published materials says that there was one Henry Hoover who owned land on Pequea and Beaver creeks at the junction of present-day West Lampeter, Pequea, Providence and Strasburg townships. He married Katherine Good, daughter of Jacob Good, and died in 1757. Richard Warren Davis has apparently identified him as a son of Jacob & Barbara (__) Huber of Conestoga Township.1

Hoover land patents in Conestoga/Martic Township area

Hoover land patents in Conestoga/Martic Township area

In 1733, Michael Shank sold his rights to 250 acres at the junction of Pequea and Beaver creeks to Jacob Good and Henry Hoover. Jacob took 106 acres to the south and Henry took 144 acres to the north.2 These tracts are labelled B2 and B3 on the map. Both were warranted in 1717 to Shank and patented 15 April 1740—along with tract B4 which was originally surveyed to Jacob Good3—to “Henry Hoober.” Also in the year 1733, Henry Hoover warranted 160 acres in Martic Township (B1).4 He never surveyed land for this warrant.5

Jacob Good bequeathed a tract surveyed to him, containing about 180 acres, and all improvements to his son-in-law “Henry Hover” in his last will and testament, written 12 September 1739.6 Henry was named sole executor and required to provide for Jacob’s widow Barbara and to allow her to live in the “dwelling house.” Letters testamentary were issued to “Henry Houer” 22 January 1741/2. An inventory was filed for the estate in 1741/2.7

Henry Hoover warranted an additional 171 acres in Martic Township on 13 November 1744 and had it surveyed on 20 December 1744 (B5).8 This plus the land mentioned previously brings the total acreage owned by Henry Hoover in Martic Township to 489 acres.

“Henry Huver” left a will, dated 27 August 1757 and proven on 29 December 1757.9 In it, he left to “John Huber the Half of my Real & Personal Estate of Lands Money & Goods to him forever & ye other half unto my Daughter Elizabeth Bayers she to have ye same divided between the aforesaid John Huber her Brother; & ye said Elizabeth Bayers Equally & Impartially.” He named his “loving Friends Martin Bear & Henry Huber Executors.” [Emphasis mine.] Letters testamentary were granted to his two executors on 29 December 1757. An inventory was filed on the estate of “Henry Hoover” a weaver of Martic Township in 1758.10

John and Elizabeth (Hoover) Boyers sold their 1/2 share of Henry Hoober’s land to her brother John on 8 February 1758.11 The deed specifies this land in metes and bounds that match tract B2 on the map, containing 144 acres. “John Huber” wrote his last will and testament on 9 January 1793 and it was proven on 3 April 1799.12 He directed that all his estate–both real and personal–should be sold to the highest bidder. On 14 May 1799, his executors “Henry Huber,” his son, and “John Huber,” a friend, sold 144 acres to Henry Bowman.13

So, if the land inherited by John Hoover and Elizabeth (Hoover) Boyers totaled 144 acres, what happened to all the other lands warranted or patented to “Henry Hoober?”

Two Henry Hoovers

We know there were two Henry Hoovers of legal age by 1757–as “Henry Huver” named his friend Henry Huber as one of his executors in the will he wrote in August of 1757.14 His neighbor “Jacob Huber” (A1 & A2 on map) also named his friend “Henry Hoover” as one of his executors in his will, written 29 July 1759.15 The question is whether or not there were two men of that name, of legal age, by 1740 when the multiple tracts were patented. The answer, I believe, can be found by examining later deed records.

Martic Township Hoover property

Martic Township Hoover property

On 6 June 1767, Henry and Katharine Hoover sold several tracts of land to John Hoover and Jacob Hoover. They sold two tracts to their son John Hoover—80 acres from the tract of 106 acres (B3, map #2) patented to Henry Hoover in 174016 and 64 acres (B5, map #2) from the parcel of 171 acres warranted to Henry Hoover in 1744.17 They sold the residue from these two tracts—137 acres (B4, map #2)—to Jacob Hoover.18

But if Henry died in 1757, how did he and his wife sell land in 1767? The deeds to John Hoover were typed, indicating that a copy had been made from the earlier handwritten record, likely sometime in the 20th century. Could the typist have read 1757 as 1767? Certainly, it’s possible.

However, the land the couple sold to Jacob was sold by his executors on 25 August 1790. The deed was recorded 7 October 1819 and appears to be the handwritten record of the recorder.19 It, too, indicates that Henry and his wife sold the land to Jacob on 6 June 1767. This date was most likely copied from Jacob’s unrecorded deed of his purchase of the land from Henry and Katharine Hoover.

Furthermore, the 171-acre tract warranted to Henry Hoover 13 November 1744 was patented to the warrantee, i.e. Henry, on 14 April 1761.20 Since “Henry” died in 1757, this land could not have belonged to the same man.

Additionally, the John Hoover who inherited land in Henry Hoover’s 1757 will died in 1799, leaving a will directing that his land be sold. His will named his widow Ann and eight children: “Henry, Mary, Jacob, John, Christian, David, Anne & Christina.”21

The John Hoover, who purchased land from Henry and Katharine Hoover in 1767, died intestate prior to 21 April 1810.22 This John left a widow named Mary and nine children: “Mary the wife of Peter Huber aforesaid, Barbara Huber, John Huber, Christina Huber, Esther Huber, Abraham Huber, Ann Huber, Susanna Huber, and Elizabeth Huber.”23

As you can see, there were two men named John Hoover, both sons of men named Henry Hoover who lived in Martic Township on adjoining properties. Could one man have two sons with the same name? Yes, but usually not two living sons.

Furthermore, even though three of the pieces of land under discussion were patented on 15 April 1740 to “Henry Hoober,” only one of them could have been owned by the Henry who died in 1757. Therefore, there must have been two Henry Hoovers–one who split Michael Shank’s land with Jacob Good and died in 1757, and Jacob’s son-in-law, who patented his lands, selling them to his sons in 1767.

Is there any other evidence to support this conclusion? Yes.

Tax records provide some additional information. There were two Henry Hoovers listed in Martic Township tax records for 175124 and 1757.25 A Henry Hoover also appears in tax records for 1758 and 1759.26 Also, Jacob Hover, “Henry’s son,” is listed in Martic Township tax records in 176927 and 177028, though Henry is not. And as far as I can tell from the records, the Henry who died in 1757 did not have a son named Jacob.

Conclusions

Based on the deed records, there were two Henry Hoovers–let’s call them A and B. Henry Hoover (A) split Michael Shank’s tract with Jacob Good in 1733. Henry (A) took tract B2. Tract B1 was part of land warranted to Henry (A), but never surveyed or patented. Henry (A) died in 1757, leaving all his estate to his son John and daughter Elizabeth. His wife was not mentioned in the will, indicating that she was already deceased, nor were any other children mentioned.

Henry Hoover (A) and his unknown wife had children:

  1. John Hoover, born before 1737, probably died in March 1799, but definitely before 3 April 1799. John and his wife Ann had children (listed in the order from John’s will):
    1. Henry Hoover, born before 9 January 1772
    2. Mary Hoover
    3. Jacob Hoover, born 1756-1774
    4. John Hoover, born before 1780
    5. Christian Hoover, born before 9 January 1772
    6. David Hoover, born before 1771, died sometime after 1803 in Upper Canada
    7. Ann Hoover, born 16 January 1768, died 25 March 1780, married Abraham Gochenour
    8. Christina Hoover, born before 1778, unmarried as of 1801
  2. Elizabeth Hoover, born before 1737, died circa 1809 in York County, married John Boyer/Byer/Beyer

In his 1739 will, Jacob Good left his land to his son-in-law, Henry Hoover (B). This Henry took tracts B3 and B4, patenting them in 1740 (before his father-in-law died, possibly at Jacob’s direction) and warranted tract B5 in 1744. Henry was married to Katharine Good. He and his wife sold the majority of his land to his sons John and Jacob in 1767 and Henry does not appear in the records for Martic Township after that.

Henry and Katharine (Good) Hoover had children:

  1. Jacob Hoover, born before 1736, died between 13 March and 9 June 1788, married Barbara (___). Barbara Hoover likely died in 1810 when an inventory was produced in Martic township. An administration account was filed in 1813 by John and Martin Huber. Jacob and Barbara had children:
    1. Henry Hoover, born circa 1764
    2. Jacob Hoover, born circa 1766
    3. Barbara Hoover, born circa 1768
    4. Christian Hoover, born circa 1771-1774
    5. John Hoover, born circa 1771-1774
    6. Martin Hoover, born circa 1774, possibly married Maria Eshleman in 1799
  2. John Hoover, born before 1746 and died intestate before 21 April 1810 when his land was partitioned by the Orphans Court. He married Mary (___). She died prior to 4 December 1826. John and Mary had children:
    1. John Hoover, died between 17 November 1815–25 July 1818, unmarried and without children
    2. Mary Hoover, born circa 1766-1774, died after 4 December 1827, married Peter Huber, son of John and Barbara (___) Huber of Martic and Conestoga Townships
    3. Christina Hoover, born circa 1780, died before 3 March 1875, unmarried
    4. Barbara Hoover, born circa 1780-1790, died before 16 June 1841, unmarried
    5. Esther Hoover, born circa 1780-1790, died before 15 March 1832, unmarried
    6. Abraham Hoover, born circa 1785, died 1864, married Mary Huber, daughter of Abraham and Anna (Huber?) Huber
    7. Ann Hoover, born circa 1775-1794, died before 1 January 1828, unmarried
    8. Susanna Hoover, born 30 May 1789, died 16 July 1874, unmarried
    9. Elizabeth Hoover, born circa 1791-1794, died after 27 March 1875, married Henry Krug/Krieg before 4 December 1826
  3. Daughter (possibly Barbara) Hoover, married Jacob Hoover (possibly the son of Jacob and Anna Huber)

Identifying the specific land parcels and tracing them through multiple types of records for subsequent generations was crucial in determining that there were two men named Henry Hoover living on adjoining properties on Beaver Creek. The name and location alone were simply not enough information.

Have you run into this problem? What records did you find useful in distinguishing between two people of the same name and in the same location?

52 Ancestors: A Walk Down Memory Lane

When I went to Pennsylvania several weeks ago for my great-aunt, Betty Jean (Hocker) Wingeard’s memorial service, I had the good fortune to find my Grandmother on a talkative day. So, I took advantage of her good mood, asking questions and prompting her reminiscences of her childhood.

Hoover house at Pine Glen

Hoover house at Pine Glen

My grandmother grew up in the mountains of central Pennsylvania, up in Centre County. The family was living in Lescontes Mills in Girard Township, Clearfield County, where her father Clyde supported the family farming and working as a lumberman, when she was born. They moved to Pine Glen, Burnside Township in Centre County before she was 10 years-old.1

Clyde Leroy Hoover Sr. was born and raised in Pine Glen. So, with the move, the family returned to his childhood home. If you crossed the road and followed a path back through the woods, you’d eventually come out at the home of Samuel and Victoria (Walker) Hoover, Clyde’s parents.

The house they lived in2—while sizable enough for a family of 12 children—did not have electricity or running water. There was a well for water and an outhouse. Still is for that matter. When they needed water for cooking or washing, one of the children was sent either to the creek across the road or out back to the well. 3

When I asked about her favorite summer pastimes, she recalled that with chores there wasn’t a lot of free time. They baked their own bread, raised their own food—both animal and vegetable, harvested and preserved the food from the garden in the fall, and washed their clothes—and with 12 kids there was a lot of it—by hand. The girls worked in the house and gardens while the boys worked the farm and farm animals, hunted, and cut firewood.

But when there was time, she especially liked wood hikes (with her father, I believe), picnics, reading books from the library her mother ran from their front room, and splashing in the creek. The boys, she remembered, sometimes played baseball.

As she was talking, I realized the her childhood wasn’t so different than that of her parents and grand-parents and so on, even though she was raised in the 20th century. Even though I think of my grandmother as a “modern woman,” she gave me a close-up view of the lives of our ancestors, merely by taking a walk with me down memory lane.


This post is part of an ongoing, blogging challenge entitled 52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks, created by Amy Crow of No Story Too Small. Participants must write about one ancestor every week. This is my twelfth 52 Ancestors post and part of week fifteen.