Duncan research files of
1860 Sagadahoc Co. ME Census
Bath Ward 2
Pg.140, #289-285, William C. DUNCAN 26 ME block maker $0-$0
Eleanor M. 21 ME
Sarah E. 1 ME
Ellen F. BIGGINS 15 IRE domestic
(MAD: 1850 Lincoln Co. ME census)
Pg.148, #350-353, George W. DUNCAN 50 ME block maker $13,100-$7600
Adeline S. 50 ME
Avis A. (f) 23 ME
Horatio A. (m) 18 ME clerk
Frank E. 10 ME
Catherine ?MANEAL? 21 IRE
Julia WATERMAN 60 MA
(MAD: 1850 Lincoln Co. ME census)
Pg.150, #365-368, Wm. S. DUNCAN 29 VA block maker $0-$0
Sarah J. 28 ME
Anna C. 3, Mary G. 1 ME
1870 Sagadahoc Co. ME Census
Ward 2, Bath
Pg.252, #80-78, DUNCAN, Horatio 28 ME cashr. of bank $5,000-$3,500
Georgia (f) 27 ME keeping house
Silas 4/12 MD b.Feby. at home
ELDRICH, Eudora (f) 40 ME domestic
Pg.256, #151-146, WATERMAN, Julia 72 ME (blank)
DUNCAN, Geo. 60 ME block mfg. $13,000-$12,000
Adeline 60 ME keeps house
Frank 20 ME clerk in store
ROAKE (ROUKE?), Lizzie 16 ME domestic
Pg.258, #185-179, DUNCAN, Wm. 35 ME block maker $0-$1000
Laura 27 ME keeps house
Sadie (f) 12 ME at home
Allan 10 ME
Pg.258, #186-180, DUNCAN, Wm. 39 VA (white) cabinet maker $0-$700
Sarah 38 ME keeps house
Annie 13 ME at home
Mary 11, Ida 6 ME at home
Eglina? (Eglira?) (f) 1 ME
(MAD: 1880 Essex Co. MA census)
Ward 6, City of Bath
Pg.305, #40-39, DUNCAN, Wm. H. 62 ME retired master mariner $0-$0
Abagail P. 52 ME keeping house
JOHNSON, Elizabeth 19 ME domestic
"Reports of cases in law and equity determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine" by Josiah D. Pulsifer; Maine Reports, Vol.65, pgs.469 to 477 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 2/2004)
WASHINGTON GILBERT, judge of probate, vs. GEORGE W. DUNCAN et als; Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Sagadahoc; 65 Me. 469; May 31, 1876, Decided.
DEBT on a bond conditioned for the faithful administration of the estate of Jonathan H. Crooker, of whom the plaintiffs in interest are the legal heirs. To the plea of performance there was a reply assigning breaches and a traverse thereto by the defendants which the plaintiff joined. After the evidence for the plaintiff was out, the presiding justice ordered a nonsuit, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
[opinion] BARROWS, J. This is an action upon a probate bond given by Duncan, and the other defendants as his sureties, to secure the faithful performance of his duties as administrator upon the estate of Jonathan H. Crooker.
It is commenced for the benefit of the estate under the express authority of the judge of probate. The bond is in the form required by the statute, (R. S., c. 64, Sec. 19,) and the defendants plead that Duncan has well and truly kept and performed all the covenants and conditions thereof; to which the plaintiff replies alleging waste and unfaithful administration in this, that he fraudulently and collusively allowed one Charles Crooker, to obtain a judgment against him as administrator for about $3500 upon a claim which he knew to be exorbitant, unjust and illegal, and then permitted the real estate of the deceased to be set off upon the execution issued on the same judgment, for about $2500, or one-half of its real value, -- that there were rights and credits to which the said Jonathan H. Crooker was entitled, as the said Duncan well knew, (to wit, a right to a life maintenance out of the estate of Hannah Crooker, under the provisions of her will of which the said Charles Crooker was executor,) which he did not make a true inventory of, nor use to offset the fraudulent and unjust claim of Charles Crooker, as he might and ought to have done, -- and that there were other rights and credits, growing out of the rents and profits of said Jonathan H. Crooker's estate, which were in arrears at the time of his death, of which no inventory was returned, that he suffered Charles Crooker to commit waste and trespass upon the estate of the deceased after a representation of insolvency, and that he never rendered any account of his administration.
Upon these alleged breaches, the defendants in their rejoinder tender an issue to the country denying the fraudulent collusion with Charles Crooker in the matter of the judgment, or that the deceased had any such right under the will of Hannah Crooker in her estate, or that there were any rents or profits of his estate in arrears at the time of his death -- averring that the administrator did return a true inventory -- denying that Jonathan's estate was ever adjudged insolvent, or that the administrator suffered Charles Crooker to commit waste and trespass thereon, and averring that he did render an account of his administration.
In substance four breaches are alleged in the replication.
I. A breach of the condition to administer according to law all the goods, chattels, rights and credits of the deceased, committed in the alleged collusion with Charles Crooker, in respect to the procurement of a judgment by him against the estate on a groundless claim.
II. A breach of the condition to return a true inventory in the matter of rights and credits, as above specified.
III. A breach of the condition to render an account of his administration.
IV. Failure to account for thrice the amount of waste and trespass committed with his consent after representation of insolvency.
Very plainly, we think the plaintiff failed to establish the third alleged breach. It is conceded that Duncan has never been cited to account by the judge of probate. Upon the face of the inventory which he returned, and supposing it to be a true and perfect inventory, there was nothing in his hands to account for. That there cannot be a breach of this condition until the administrator has been cited to account by the judge of probate has long been considered settled law in this state.
Nor is the plaintiff more successful as to the fourth supposed breach. That condition applies only to cases where proceedings are had in the probate court upon the estate as an insolvent estate. The records show that this estate was not so dealt with. The paper from the files of the probate court, signed by Duncan, a copy of which is to be found near the bottom of page 36 of the report, does not seem to have been acted on, nor is there anything to show that it was ever presented to the probate judge for action. It is not in the usual form of a representation of insolvency, and the estate cannot be regarded as thereby "represented insolvent" within the meaning of that phrase as used in the sixth condition of the bond. Hence no waste or trespass committed by Charles Crooker, with the consent of the administrator, however clearly proved, is within the condition or amounts to a breach of it.
The paper was rightly held to be competent only as a statement of Duncan, and so far as it has a tendency to show, in connection with other proved facts, fraudulent collusion with Charles Crooker resulting in unfaithful administration and waste, provided the acts here alleged are to be regarded as a breach of either of the conditions of the administrator's bond. The case on this point is briefly as follows:
The deceased was the non compos son of Mrs. Hannah Crooker, with whom he lived till her death in 1858. She left property to the amount of $10,000 or $12,000 in value, and a will, the first item of which is: "It is my will, and I hereby direct my executors to provide out of my estate, maintenance for my son Jonathan H. Crooker, in all things necessary for his support in sickness or health during his natural life." After some other devises and provisions, the residue of her property, real or personal, is devised and bequeathed to her sons Charles and William D. Crooker, whom she makes joint executors. This will was admitted to probate at the July term of the probate court, 1858, at an adjournment of which, a petition for the appointment of a guardian to Jonathan H. Crooker was presented, upon which the regular proceedings seem to have been had, and Duncan, the present administrator, was appointed guardian in September following, and filed his bond and took out his letters of guardianship and warrant of appraisal, returned an inventory, filed an account of guardianship in December, 1867, and settled it in January, 1868, in which he charges himself with his ward's proportion of sums received of different parties for logs, pasturing and ice, to the amount of $236, and asks allowance, among other things, for $2345.24, paid Charles Crooker, for board, clothes, washing &c., for the ward, from March 13, 1858, to October 13, 1867, upon which item the probate judge seems to have allowed $1371.28. William D. Crooker took an appeal from the decree allowing this account which was pending at the time of his death; and after the death of Jonathan H., which occurred in May, 1870, and after the appointment of Duncan, as administrator, this appeal was dismissed from the docket of the appellate court. After his appointment as administrator, Duncan subscribed a paper addressed to the judge of probate representing that there was due to Charles Crooker from the estate of the deceased $2029, that there was no personal property, and that the real estate was insufficient to pay that claim.
At the October session of the probate court, 1870, he presented a petition alleging that the personal estate was not sufficient to pay the debts by $2500, and that an advantageous offer of $1550 was made for all the real estate, upon which petition notice was ordered returnable at the November term, 1870, at which term the petition was dismissed. At the August term of the supreme judicial court in this county, 1871, Charles Crooker brought his action against Duncan, as administrator, for bills for the maintenance of the deceased, from March, 1858, up to the time of his death, to the amount of $3699.47, less a credit of $236, which seems to consist of the same items for sums received for logs, pasturing and ice, with which Duncan charged himself as guardian in his guardianship account. Duncan allowed the action to be defaulted, and judgment was rendered for the amount claimed. He chose an appraiser at the making of the levy, and the real estate of the deceased was appraised at $2516, and set off in part satisfaction of the judgment thus obtained. There was testimony offered by the plaintiff to the effect that Duncan, as guardian, claimed to have control of property belonging to the Hannah Crooker estate for the benefit of his ward; that he received pay for pasturage upon it; that very large quantities of timber and wood were cut from it, after the death of Hannah and before the death of Jonathan; that Jonathan continued to live in his mother's house after her death, and that a family lived there who paid their rent by taking care of him. Among the more important and noticeable items in the bills, upon which Charles Crooker obtained his judgment against Duncan, as administrator, are numerous charges for cash paid to different persons for personal service, for wood, milk, rent and the fees paid to the appraisers of the property. It cannot be denied that there is much here, which unexplained tends strongly to prove the fraud and collusion between the administrator and Charles Crooker, which the plaintiff charges.
But the troublesome questions which arise here are -- if this fraudulent unjustifiable act on the part of the administrator is admitted or proved, what condition of his bond is thereby violated? And if it can be deemed within either of the conditions, what damage has resulted? Reversing the order of these questions, we remark in reference to the second; it is difficult to see how upon the plaintiff's theory of the facts, there could be anything more than nominal damages assessed.
The real estate which belonged to Jonathan H. Crooker, descended to his heirs-at-law at his death, liable only to be sold for the payment of his debts by license from the probate court, or to be taken upon an execution which is not only levied in due form, but is issued upon a valid judgment not tainted by fraud and collusion between the parties thereto.
A judgment thus tainted can be impeached in a collateral proceeding by any person not a party or privy thereto, whose interests are liable to be unfavorably affected thereby.
The heirs of a party deceased have only to maintain their possession, and the person who seeks to oust them as a levying creditor, if he has no better foundation than a judgment obtained by a fraudulent collusion with the administrator of the deceased, will fail. Or, if they elect to consider him a disseizor, the proof which they must produce in order to maintain the position which they claim should be decisive of this suit in their favor, would invalidate his judgment and levy and give them judgment for possession. How can they be said to have suffered any damage? The plaintiff's counsel claims that they may have damages assessed for the cloud cast upon their title. It is too shadowy a cause. Until it is ascertained by actual experiment what expense must be incurred in prosecuting or defending, there is no basis upon which the damages can be estimated.
But if this difficulty could be surmounted, there is another, which, upon both principle and authority, we deem fatal.
The only condition of the bond, which is said to be violated by mal-administration of this sort under the circumstances of the present case, is the one which provides that the principal shall "administer according to law all the goods and chattels, rights and credits of the deceased." But this obviously relates to the personalty only, and not to the real estate over which the administrator, except by consent of the heirs, has no authority or control, unless by virtue of a license from the probate judge to sell it for the payment of debts, upon the granting of which, he is required to furnish another bond differently conditioned.
In practice the amount of the administration bond required is in ordinary cases fixed at double the supposed value of the goods and chattels, rights and credits which are to go into the hands of the administrator; and from any malfeasance, seriously prejudicing the rights of the heirs in the real estate, the bond would often prove, as here, an inadequate protection on account of the relatively small value of the personalty. The language of the condition cannot by any reasonable construction be made to apply to such misbehavior of the administrator as is here alleged.
It does not follow that there is no remedy. Any such mal-administration may be checked by a petition for removal, and, if it results in loss, by suit in law or equity against the parties to the conspiracy to defraud; but the sureties upon the administration bond can be held only according to their covenants.
The probate court is the proper forum for the investigation of these charges of misbehavior, and the probate judge not only has the power, but it is his duty, to remove the offender when the charge is established.
But the books show repeated instances where the administration bond has been directly or indirectly held to furnish no remedy for the improper conduct of the administrator with reference to real estate.
In the latter case the precise argument which is urged here, (that the statute declares that unreasonable delay to raise money out of the estate for the payment of debts and consequent subjection of the estate to be taken in execution shall be deemed waste and unfaithful administration,) was considered; and it was held that the bond did not cover such neglect.
If the actual subjection of the real estate to be taken upon an execution issued on a valid judgment, and thereby in the view of the law wasted, is not a breach of the condition referred to, still less is the futile collusion with intent to defraud by suffering it to be taken by a levy which cannot stand when proof of the collusion is exhibited.
But we think there was testimony tending to show a breach of the condition to return a true inventory of the rights and credits of the deceased, upon which it was the right of the plaintiff to have the jury pass. Looking at the evidence as to the time when Duncan took the guardianship of the deceased, and as to his acts and declarations while he was officiating in that capacity, it would be difficult not to believe that he knew of the clear right to a maintenance out of the estate of Hannah Crooker which the deceased had under her will, which ought to have been made available; and if the testimony as to the dealings with the estate of Hannah Crooker and that which Jonathan appears to have inherited from his father, is to be credited, then it would seem probable that there were considerable sums due the estate of Jonathan for waste, trespass, rents and profits accruing in his life time.
That a failure to render a true inventory of such matters is a breach of one of the conditions of the bond, and that the return of an untrue and incomplete inventory will not save it, and that no citation before the probate court is essential to the maintenance of a suit of this description, commenced by special authority from the judge of probate for the benefit of the estate, are points which have all been settled in Potter, J., v. Titcomb, 10 Me. 53, and Groton, J., v. Tallman, 27 Me. 68.
For this cause, the plaintiff's exceptions must be sustained, the nonsuit taken off and a new trial granted, at which this matter may be more fully investigated.
But it should not be forgotten that by far the most convenient and complete remedy is afforded, even in cases of a breach of this condition, by a resort in the first place to the probate court where such specific decree may be had as will do justice to all parties; for non-compliance with which, a suit on the bond in the common law court may be maintained if found necessary, and the damages much more satisfactorily ascertained and assessed.
The wise caution contained in Redfield on Wills, part second, c. 3, Sections 2, 7, p. 83, is obviously pertinent.
Nonsuit set aside.
Case to stand for trial.
APPLETON, C. J., WALTON, DANFORTH, VIRGIN and PETERS, JJ., concurred.
"Reports of cases in law and equity determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine" by David R. Hastings; Maine Reports, Vol.69, pgs.148 to 151 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 2/2004)
WILLIAM B. TAYLOR, administrator de bonis non, vs. ARTHUR SEWALL; Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Sagadahoc; 69 Me. 148; February 6, 1879, Decided.
PETITION FOR REVIEW, brought by the petitioner, William B. Taylor of said Bath, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Jonathan H. Crooker, late of said Bath, deceased, setting out that George W. Duncan was duly appointed and took upon himself the office and trust of administrator of the estate of said deceased on the first Monday of August, 1870, and continued in said office until the first Tuesday of February, 1877, when he resigned his said trust, and his resignation was accepted by the judge of probate for said county, and the petitioner was on that day appointed by said judge of probate, and duly qualified in his stead.
That, at the August term of said supreme judicial court, 1871, and on the 17th day of the term, being the second day of September, 1871, Charles Crooker of said Bath, then living, but since deceased, and upon whose estate administration had been committed to Arthur Sewall of said Bath, recovered a judgment against the goods and estate of said Jonathan H. Crooker in the hands and possession of said George W. Duncan as administrator, as aforesaid, for the sum of three thousand four hundred and ninety-six dollars and two cents, debt or damage, together with the costs of suit, and that said judgment was obtained for an unjust and illegal claim and for interest on said unjust and illegal claim, by reason of said Duncan not appearing and answering to the suit of said Charles Crooker, on said illegal claim, and suffering himself to be defaulted therein.
That said Duncan was made to believe, by the representations of said Charles Crooker, and by his accounts previously exhibited by said Charles to him, that the claim of said Crooker was much less then the claim set out in his writ in said action, and that the same did not exceed the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, and that said Charles did not claim any interest in his said action; and said Duncan was therefore misled and mistaken as to the amount claimed by said Charles in his writ in said action, in which he allowed himself to be defaulted as aforesaid.
And that said Duncan colluded with said Charles Crooker to allow himself to be defaulted in said action, and by reason of said collusion, said Charles fraudulently obtained said judgment.
That, by reason of the mistake and fraud aforesaid, justice has not been done, and that a further hearing in said action would be just and equitable.
Wherefore, he prays that, after due notice to said Sewall, as administrator of said Charles Crooker, a review in said case may be granted.
Upon the hearing of said petition, the defendant moved that the same be dismissed, because the court had no authority to grant a review between the parties named in said petition, for the causes therein assigned.
Which said motion was overruled by the presiding justice, who held, as matter of law, that the court had authority to grant a review between the said parties for the causes named in said petition, and so granted a review as prayed for.
To the overruling of which motion, and to the ruling in matter of law, the defendant excepted.
[opinion] DANFORTH, J. This is a petition by an administrator de bonis non, asking a review of a judgment obtained, as he alleges, through fraud and collusion, against his predecessor.
In Elwell v. Sylvester 27 Me. 536, it was held that a review can be granted only upon petition of a party to the judgment, or some one representing his interest. In this case the petitioner is neither; certainly not a party. Nor does he represent the interests of the party, but may be in a position antagonistic. True, he is the successor of the former administrator, but derives no right to the property to be administered upon from or through him, but takes it directly from the decedent. He is "appointed to administer upon that portion of the estate of a deceased person not before administered upon." He may even maintain an action against his predecessor, as his title dates from the death of the testator or intestate.
There can therefore be no privity between them, nor can the one in any sense be said to represent the other.
This principle of the common law seems to be conceded in the argument, but it is contended that it has been changed by the provisions found in R. S., c. 87, Sections 4, 5, 6.
If this statute is to have the effect claimed for it; if by it the administrator de bonis non is, as regards the judgment, made a privy with his predecessor, the result must be that on the principal cause alleged for a review, that of collusion, the petition must fail. The party himself could hardly take advantage of his own wrong, and his privies would be equally bound with him.
But such is not the effect of the statute. The remedies there provided, after judgment obtained, are scire facias, an action of debt and a writ of error. Neither of these changes the title to the property involved. The administrator de bonis non still claims under the decedent, takes his title and not that of his own predecessor. In neither of these remedies can the original judgment, or execution issued thereon, be satisfied by a levy upon the property in the hands of the new administrator. It can only be the foundation for a new process, under which, for the reason that the present petitioner is not a party or privy, he may set up the alleged fraud and collusion as a defense. If judgment is obtained under a proceeding in debt, or scire facias, then to such the new administrator becomes a party, but only when the original judgment becomes merged in the new one.
It is true that, under a writ of error, the original judgment is not merged in a new one, but is either affirmed or reversed. If affirmed, it stands as before, and if unsatisfied, these same remedies are open to the plaintiff; if reversed, he must resort to such legal remedies as are prescribed for recovering his original claim.
Thus, while under these remedies supplied by the statute the administrator de bonis non may be brought into privity with the claim established by the original judgment, yet it is not with the judgment itself, but another in which that is merged after due process of law.
It is a very significant fact as bearing upon this question that, in this enumeration of remedies provided for the administrator de bonis non, that of a petition for, or a writ of review is not mentioned. As the statute is in derogation of the common law, and cannot be extended beyond the meaning derived from a fair construction of its terms, this would seem to be conclusive. This appears to be in accordance with the principle established in Paine v. McIntire, 32 Me. 131. When that decision was made the statute provided for all the remedies now authorized except that of debt, and it was there held that debt would not lie; although the result must be substantially the same in scire facias and debt, yet, as the latter was not specifically mentioned, the remedy must be under the former only. Much less can we, by construction, extend the statute so as to cover review, a remedy so entirely different in its procedure and results from any authorized by its terms.
APPLETON, C. J., VIRGIN, PETERS and LIBBEY, JJ., concurred.
"History of Bath and environs, Sagadahoc County, Maine, 1607-1894" by Parker McCobb Reed; pub. Portland, Me.: Lakeside Press, printers, 1894, 556 pgs. (LH7889; HeritageQuest 5/2007 & 7/2007; FHL book 974.185/B2 H2r)
Pg.8: Corrections: Page 383, Samuel Eaton Duncan should be Samuel Duncan.
Pg.64: Field and Staff Officers of Eastern Department, Discharged Dec. 1, 1781. Surgeon, Samuel Duncan.
Pg.383: DR. SAMUEL EATON DUNCAN lived in the house now owned by one of his descendants, Chapin Weston, near the Harding Station of the Maine Central Railroad. The doctor came from Topsham and bought the farm on which this house stands, in 1772, and died there, June 30, 1782, at 39 years of age. His practice extended to Bath. Doctor Duncan is ancestor of all those who are residents of Bath of that name. He had the reputation of possessing great skill in his profession. He was born in 1743 and married a daughter of Benjamin Donnell, Sr. In 1718 he was living in the house situated on High street, south of South street. (MAD: Correction on pg.8, Samuel Eaton Duncan should be Samuel Duncan)
Pg.423-424: SAMUEL DUNCAN, physician, was a descendant of the old Duncan family of Scotland, several families of whom emigrated to this country and settled in Massachusetts in the early part of the eighteenth century. In about 1775 Samuel moved to this section of the state, purchased a farm in what is now called "Harding," on the New Meadows River, and erected thereon a large, two-story house, which is still standing, in a good state of repair, and until recently occupied by the family of Chapin Weston. Doctor Duncan had an extensive practice and had been called "Old Doctor Duncan" for some years, although he was but thirty-nine years of age at the time of his death, which occurred June 30, 1784. He kept his hair clipped and wore a white wig, as was the custom, which, no doubt, contributed to his venerable appearance. He was buried in the old cemetery, near Witch Spring, in West Bath. His family consisted of one son and two daughters: Samuel Eaton, Hannah, Lydia.
Pg.424: HORATIO A. DUNCAN, a descendant of Dr. Samuel Duncan, was educated in the public schools and graduated from the high school in 1856. In January, 1865, he was elected cashier of the Marine National Bank, newly incorporated, which position he still retains. He has served in both branches of the City Government, and was for two years president of the Board of Aldermen. He was also for years connected with the fire department, being at one time on the board of engineers; is now a member of the school board and its vice-chairman; has also passed through the chairs of the several Masonic organizations. He married, in 1867, Georgie G. Mayhew, daughter of Nathan Mayhew, merchant, of Bath, by whom he had six children, three of whom are now living: Silas H., engaged in clothing manufacturing; Arthur B., watch-maker and engraver; Grace, recently graduated from Bath High School. His first wife died and Mr. Duncan, in 1878, married Mrs. Augusta M. Hyde, by whom he has one child, Georgie, who was born in 1881. William C. Duncan, brother of H.A. Duncan, has been assistant postmaster at Bath from 1889 to 1894.
Pg.359: CHARLES DAVENPORT ... was born in Bath, May 9, 1809, and married, November 6, 1836, Catharine Trevett Duncan, an estimable woman, who was born February 24, 1814. They have had five children. ...
"The Mechanic Falls register, 1904" (Androscoggin Co. ME) by H.E. Mitchell; pub. Kent's Hill, Me.: H.E. Mitchell Pub. Co., 1904, 92 pgs. (LH10651; HeritageQuest 5/2007)
Pg.90: Military and Naval Orphan Asylum, Bath - Incorporated February 23, 1866, opened November 19, 1866 ... H.A. Duncan, Bath, Treasurer and Trustee. (MAD: Bath, Sagadahoc Co. ME)
"History of Brunswick, Topsham and Harpswell, Maine : including the ancient territory known as Pejepscot" by George Augustus Wheeler; pub. Boston: A. Mudge & Son, printers, 1878, c1877, 982 pgs. (LH8798; HeritageQuest 5/2007; FHL book 974.191 H2w 1989 v.1&2 and film 1,033,867 item 3)
Pg.728-729: DUNCAN, DOCTOR SAMUEL. Doctor Duncan, or Dunkan, as he himself spelled the word, was settled for a short time as a physician in Bath, on High Street. He next lived in Topsham for a little while, and moved to Brunswick in 1770, and practised his profession there until his death. He lived in the old Gideon Hinkley house, now owned by Chapin Weston, near Harding's Station. The north room of this house he used as his office, in one corner of which stood a skeleton which was the terror of all the children of the neighborhood as well as of many of the older persons. He was said to be very skilful in his profession, and had quite an extensive practice in West Bath and in Harpswell as well as in Brunswick. He received pay in 1770 from the town of Harpswell for attendance on some of the poor of that town. He was a representative to the General Court in 1781. He died in 1784, in the prime of life, and was buried in the old burying-ground in West Bath. (MAD: Brunswick and Harpswell, Cumberland Co.; Topsham, Sagadahoc Co.)
"The town register, Islesboro [Waldo Co.], Castine, Penobscot, Brooksville [Hancock Co.], 1906" (Waldo & Hancock Co. ME) by H.E. Mitchell; pub. Brunswick, Me.: H.E. Mitchell Co., 1906, 247 pgs. (LH10630; HeritageQuest 5/2007)
Pg.80-81: National Banks in Maine: Bath. Marine Nat'l. bank, president H.A. Duncan, cashier S.H. Duncan. (MAD: Bath, Sagadahoc Co. ME)
"The history of Milford" (Hillsborough Co. NH) by George A. Ramsdell; pub. Concord, N.H.: Rumford Press, 1901, 1118 pgs. (LH9326, HeritageQuest images 5/2007; FHL book 974.28/M2 H2r v.1&2 and film 908,961 items 4-5 and 928,093 item 1)
Pg.755: Frank P. Hood, son of Jeremiah, 2d, and Harriet E. (Elkins) Hood, born in Billerica, Mass., Nov. 4, 1844, came to Milford with his father in 1851, and is a mechanic. Married April 9, 1869, Julia R., daughter of Daniel E. and Sophronia (Burt) Carroll, born in Croydon, Aug. 20, 1848. Children, born in Milford: (1) Frank Randall, b. Oct. 7, 1870, has had his name changed to Warren; is a physician res. in Worcester, Mass.; m. June 16, 1897, Grace, dau. of Horatio A. Duncan of Bath, Me. (2) George Leon, ... (MAD: Bath, Sagadahoc Co. ME)
"Past and present of Bureau County, Illinois" by George B. Harrington; pub. Chicago: Pioneer Pub. Co., 1906, 961 pgs. (LH4510, HeritageQuest images 4/2007; FHL 977.3372 H2gh and film 934,971 item 3)
Pg.435-436: C.B. DORR, section 34, Indiantown township, born September 14, 1861, ... George E. Dorr, father of our subject, New York, to this county, died in 1890 ... [had] married in New York Sarah A. Harrison ... died in 1900. C.B. Dorr married Miss Luella M. Duncan, a daughter of D.H. Duncan, of Tiskilwa, and they have three children: Bertha M., 10 years of age; Marion A., 6 years; and George H., 2 years. ... Congregational church at Providence ...
Pg.815-816: CAPTAIN F.C. DUNCAN, manager of the Princeton gas plant, although one of the more recent acquisitions to the citizenship of Princeton, is so well known in business circles in Illinois as to have become already a representative resident of this place. He is a native of Bath, Maine, born March 23, 1847. His parents were Captain Charles C. and Hannah (Tibbetts) Duncan, who were likewise natives of Maine. In early life Captain Charles Duncan began following the sea and was a shipmaster. He took his family on various European and Mediterranean voyages until he established himself in New York city as a ship broker and ship owner in 1854. He also had a branch office in England, and carried on that business until 1867. ... Returning to this country, he resided in Brooklyn, New York, until he removed to Northfield, Massachusetts, in 1885, and became interested in school work there, in which he continued up to the time of his death, which occurred in Northfield in 1898. His wife passed away in New York city in 1869.
Captain Duncan of this review largely acquired his education in the schools of Bath, Maine, and attended the Polytechnic schools of Brooklyn, New York, and he also continued his studies in England to some extent. ... In 1863 he came to the United States from England, and after receiving a special order from Gideon Welles, then secretary of the navy, to have his age waived, ... he obtained an acting appointment and went on board the United States ship Brooklyn as an officer of the United States navy ... At the close of the war he returned to the merchant service and sailed as chief officer until he obtained command in 1871. (list of his ships) In 1898 at San Francisco, and for a year thereafter remained a resident of that city. ... On nearly all of these voyages he was accompanied by his family, and his two youngest sons were born on board that ship.
In 1899 Captain Duncan located at Galesburg, Illinois, where he became assistant secretary and treasure of the gas and electric light company ... When George F. Duncan of the McKinley syndicate purchased the Princeton gas works of H.S. Captron, he asked his brother to take charge of the new purchase, and he removed his family to Princeton on the 12th of May. This is his present business connection. The gas plant had its inception in 1874 and became an established fact in 1875. ...
Captain Duncan was married in New York city to Miss Kate Belcher, a native of Brooklyn, New York. Her parents were Samuel E. and Elizabeth (Foshay) Belcher, the former for thirty-four years president of the Jefferson Fire Insurance Company of New York city ... he made his home there until recent years, and now lives with his daughter in Bridgeport, Connecticut, at the age of 82 years. His wife passed away in New York city in 1902. Unto Captain and Mrs. Duncan have been born five children: Alice, at home; Otis Belcher, who is connected with the Western Electric Company in Chicago; Kate, at home; Fred Belcher, a student in Knox College, and Charles Clifford, at home. Captain Duncan is a republican, ... both he and his wife took letters to Central Congregational church at Galesburg, Illinois, from Plymouth church of Brooklyn, New York, ... in which both their fathers were deacons. The family now reside on South Pleasant street in Princeton, ... (MAD: Bath, Sagadahoc Co. ME; Brooklyn, Kings Co. NY; Northfield, Franklin Co. MA)
Source records for Samuel Duncan of Bath, Maine, born 1745, died 30 June 1784, wife Hannah Donnell, and their descendants, have been posted in 2003 by Jon A. Duncan on the Duncan message board at Ancestry.com:
Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in Maine
Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page