NJHUNTER-L Archives

Archiver > NJHUNTER > 2000-01 > 0947030584


From: "FamHistory" <>
Subject: Re: [NJHUNTER] Marriage Bonds
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:03:04 -0500


I don't know if this will help you or not but the following is a copy of a
posting I made to alt.genealogy awhile ago about what turned out to be a
marriage bond and one of the replies that helped to explain them.
Judy

For background here's my orginal message posted early last year
(alt.gegealogy):
I just received a copy of the 1857 Newport, Campbell Co., KY marriage
license for my 2nd Great Grandparents. The only problem or surprise is the
reference to a new name. I hope someone on this newsgroup can help explain
what the relationships might be.

The license from the Campbell County Marriage Book reads "That we Charles
Grote and George Beck are held and firmly bound, unto the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, in the just and full sum of One Hundred Dollars, current money, to
the payment of which, well and truly to be made. We bind ourselves, our
heirs, etc., jointly and severally, by these presents, sealed and dated this
26th day of January 1857. The conditon of the above obligation is such
that, whereas there is a Marriage shortly intented to be solemnized between
the above bound Charles Grote and Elizabeth Swartz. Now, should there be no
legal cause to obstruct the same, then the above obligation to be void, else
to remain in full force and virtue." The document is then witnessed and
signed by both Charles Grote and George Beck. Below their signitures is
hand written the following "Charles Grote made oath that he is of lawfull
age S???? and age proven to her(?) lawfull by oath of George Beck all live
in this county" and once again the signature of the witness. The marriage
books have two or three of these preprinted licenses on each page -- only
the names, date and referenced oaths are hand written.

My questions;
1)Does this mean that George Beck is the legal guardian or stepfather to
Elizabeth Swartz? If not, what would his relationship to the couple be?
and,
2) I can't believe it would have cost a $100, in 1857!!, to get a marriage
license so should I assume this was paid by Charles Grote to George Beck to
tie/bind the agreement between the two of them to join the families?

Response from another researcher:
What you have is not a marriage license, but a marriage bond. The $100 was
not paid to anyone - it was the amount pledged by the groom and bondsman and
would only be forfeited, as the bond says, if there is a legal reason why
the marriage could not take place. (The usual impediments were (1) either or
both already married, (2) either or both not of legal age (usually 21, at
least for males), or (3) the two were too closely related to marry under the
laws of the jurisdiction.

The marriage bond is not a promise or contract to marry or "tie" the
families together. The sole purpose was to assure that the marriage would be
a legal one. Marriage bonds replaced the traditional banns, where public
announcements of the forthcoming marriage were made. This allowed those who
knew the couple to intervene if there was a legal impediment; as the
frontier expanded, not all persons were known in the community and thus the
bond replaced the banns as a way of assuring legality.

While the bondsman (the person who, in effect, "backs up" or guarantees the
pledge of the groom, usually was a relative of either the groom or the
bride, this is not always so nor is it necessary. Beck may have been
related, but the instrument you quote does not show this. It appears he
vouched for the age of the bride, saying she was of legal age. If she had
been under age, then it would have been necessary for either of her parents
or her guardian to give his or her consent to the marriage (and usually the
relationship would be stated).

If either the groom or the bride previously had a guardian, there likely
would be a guardianship bond in the county records.

In other words, the bond tells nothing about Beck's relationship to either
the bride or the groom; he might be related, but this cannot be shown from
the document you posted (and quoted below).

I am not positive about this, but I think Kentucky law of the time required
that the marriage take place in the county of the bride - which is why there
is a reference to the current residence within the county of the bride,
groom and bondsman.

It is possible there is also a "return" of this marriage filed in the
county. The "return" was made by the person who officiated at the wedding
(M.G.=Minister of God; JP=Justice of Peace). Sometimes there is additional
info in this record (such as "at the home of the bride's father, Sam Doe.")

The marriage license replaced the mariage bond at varying times in the
various states, usually in the late 1800s. The license usually requires more
information than the bond, such as parents, date and place of birth,
occupation, etc., of both the bride and groom.

Hope this helps
----- Original Message -----
From: Darwina Michael <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 5:34 PM
Subject: [NJHUNTER] Marriage Bonds


> I think there was a question about Marriage Bonds earlier and I may have
> missed an answer in the rush of the holidays.
>
> I have a marriage bond with JOSEPH SMITH and JOB (could be Lyons or
> Sayer) both of County of Hunterdon "do stand justly indebted" etc....
> Joseph Smith hath obtained Licence of Marriage for himself of the one
> Party, and for Mary Bonham of the other Party; ........Date Nov 4 1769.
>
> What is the signifigance of the Job (Lyon or Sayer or ?) ?? What is the
> purpose of such a bond?????
>
> Grateful for any guidance in interpreting this record.
>
> Best wishes,
> Darwina Michael
>
>
> ==== NJHUNTER Mailing List ====
> Visit the Hunterdon County GenWeb page at:
> http://members.aol.com/njysprez/index.htm
>

This thread: