Loose Probate Files from section 10.31 of 2007 Edition

By Anonymous on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 19:38

Forums

It might be just me, but these two first reference notes seem inconsistent.

1. Norwich, Connecticut, Norwich Probate District, file 10590, Hannah A. and Henry Thomas; Probate Court Norwich.

2. Clay County, Missouri, William Tapp probate file CF-15-42, Box 58 Old Series, Probate Division; Clay County Archives and Historical Society Library, Liberty.

In note 2--why is Probate Division before the semi-colon? It seems like it should be before.

I would also contemplate making note 2 something like this:

Clay County, Missouri, Probate Division, Box 58 Old Series, probate file CF-15-42, William Tapp ; Clay County Archives and Historical Society Library, Liberty.

Any thoughts?

Michael

 

Submitted byhhendersonon Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:28

I agree, assuming that it is indeed the probate division of Clay County, and not of the archives and historical society library.

Submitted byEEon Sat, 03/31/2012 - 15:32

 

EE 10.31 presents three different sets of conditions under which “loose papers” might be cited:

1.     The Norwich, Connecticut, example is one in which the records remain in original custody.  “Norwich Probate District” is the official title of the judicial district that created the record. In standard form for local governmental records, the jurisdictional creator is identified, then the specific record is identified, together with the office/agency where the records are held and the town in which that office/agency is located.

2.     The Clay County, Missouri, example is one in which the records have been moved from the county office that created them and are now off-site in an archive. Clay County has no office or judicial district called “Probate Division.” Following the conventional fashion for materials held by an archive, this citation cites the jurisdictional creator (Clay County) and the file (William Tapp probate file CF-15-42), then indicates that it is held in a specific box (58), which is part of a specific series (Old Series), which is part of a specific record group (Probate Division), which is held by the repository (Clay County Archives and Historical Library), etc.  [Note also that the official title of the repository, as given in 10.31, does not include the word “Society.”]

3.     The Ross County, Ohio, example, is one in which the collection of loose papers is still retained by the original office, but the specific file can no longer be found and an existing photocopy is cited. Thus, it is cited as it was at the time the file was photocopied—after which the loss is noted and the current owner of the photocopy is identified.

Submitted bynewonashon Fri, 12/06/2013 - 13:08

Some thoughts and questions.

A. To me, the "jurisdictional creator" would include the name of the court.  So, I would prefer something like:

1. Norwich, Connecticut, Probate Court, Norwich Probate District, file 10590, Hannah A. and Henry Thomas; [Probate Court Norwich].

2. Clay County, Missouri, name of creating court, William Tapp probate file CF-15-42, Box 58 Old Series, Probate Division; Clay County Archives and Historical Society Library, Liberty.

My additions are in bold.  The square brackets in the first example indicate my thought to eliminate the words inside the brackets from the reference note if it is reasonable to assume that the lack of a repository name implies that the records are still in the possession of the jurisdictional creator, i.e., the reverse of your reference note where the lack of the name of a court at the beginning of the reference note implies the same thing.

Is your example a traditional approach or is it more of a "this word" or "that word"/personal preference thing?

B. I now see that the QuickCheck Model on page 373 of EE (2007) is very similar to what I was thinking:

Escambia County, Florida, Circuit Court File 2638-CA-01, L. C. Hubbell v. Peter de Alba, for "Reply of Loring C. Hubbell and Emilie, His Wife," 1 June 1831; Circuit Clerk's Office, Pensacola.

although my personal preference would have it instead say:  "Circuit Court, file 2638-CA-01 ..."

So, now I'm confused about the differences between EE 10.31 and the QuickCheck Model.

Submitted byEEon Sat, 12/07/2013 - 12:02

newonash,

The Escambia County example in the QC model at p. 373, is the same situation and same pattern as the Norwich, Connecticut, example that Michael queried at the start of this thread: A situation in which the original file is still in the custody of the office where it originated.

Your examples 1 and 2 inject another field into the "creator" column. In addition to the ID of the jurisdiction (county & state; or city & state), you're adding the the ID of a specific office or division. From EE's perspective, this triggers at least 3 issues:

  • Software developers have to add an additional field;
  • That additional field duplicates the information that's given in subsequent fields;
  • That additional information may or may not be correct today and, therefore, could be misleading. Offices change names across time. A name we would insert here, based on current knowledge, may not be the office's name at the time when the record was created--or vice-versa. 

EE would not consider this a "personal preference" matter, given that the alteration would affect the structure of the templates that software developers create. The structure that EE suggests is one that has been tested to work with many types of records, in many types of offices, in many jurisdictions.