[APG Public List] Question about a marriage bond

[Patti Hobbs]

And just to head off this comment:  I realize that the bond may have been
abstracted incorrectly.  Patti

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Patti Hobbs <plhgenealogy at gmail.com> wrote:

> No, I'm not sure of anything with the bond that Mag has asked about.  I
> only know that in the bond abstract book that the patron at the library
> showed me, it was very obvious that this one particular bond was much, much
> higher than all the others abstracted in that same time period.
>
> Patti
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Michael Hait <michael.hait at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Are you sure that this bond is higher than the average for that county
>> in that state in that year?  Bond amounts changed relatively often.
>>
>>
>> Michael Hait
>> michael.hait at hotmail.com
>> http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com
>>
>>  *From:* Patti Hobbs <plhgenealogy at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:04 PM
>> *To:* apgpubliclist at apgen.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [APG Public List] Question about a marriage bond
>>
>> I'm sorry. I guess I zeroed in on what I wanted to know.  She also did ask
>> the question about why it would be required. I don't have that particular
>> question, so I zoned out on it.  I only want to know why a bond for a
>> particular couple would be so much higher than that of the others in that
>> time period.
>>
>> Patti
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Patti Hobbs <plhgenealogy at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, you both have addressed the purpose of the marriage bond, but I did
>>> not think that was the question.  What is the significance of a large bond
>>> being required when all (at least many) are much, much less.
>>>
>>> Patti
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Kathy Gunter Sullivan <
>>> sully1 at carolina.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A marriage bond is simply a pledge that there is no legal impediment to
>>>> the couple's marriage (impediments would be underage, already married, so
>>>> forth). The official issuing (writing and witnessing) the bond charges a
>>>> fee, but the amount of the bond (the penalty) is not payable unless some
>>>> irregularity is later discovered (underage, already married, so forth). The
>>>> bondsman (Joseph S. Taylor in this instance) is simply standing as security
>>>> that if the marriage is later determined to be irregular and, therefore the
>>>> penalty ($1,000) becomes payable, he (Joseph) will pay the penalty if Samuel
>>>> Taylor does not. Advise your friend to read all the language of the marriage
>>>> bond.
>>>>
>>>> Kathy Gunter Sullivan
>>>>
>>>> MFP wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A friend has a question about a marriage bond (posted below). I know
>>>> nothing about marriage bonds and am turning to this list for help. I will
>>>> send .pdf copy of the bond if needed.
>>>>
>>>>  TIA
>>>>
>>>>  Mag
>>>>
>>>>  Is there any significance to the amount on this marriage bond???  It
>>>> seems very unusual.  Samuel and Joseph were brothers.  Why do they have to
>>>> pay the state $1000 for a marriage bond?  Other marriage bonds that I copied
>>>> did not have this extra information attached.
>>>>
>>>>  "Samuel Taylor enters into bond with Joseph S. Taylor to the state of
>>>> NC for the sum of $1000.  Joseph S. Taylor made an application for marriage
>>>> to Jemima Walters.  The marriage was performed on 30 July, 1856 by Noah
>>>> Mercer, J.P."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3174 - Release Date: 10/03/10 06:34:00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20101003/d82c6d53/attachment.htm>