Duncan research files of
1840 Hudson Co. NJ Census
Pg.191 George Duncan 1000,(11) - 0000,1 Jersey City
1850 Hudson Co. NJ Census
Pg.283, #140-182, Rebecca J. KEVAN 35 NY
Andrew A. 10 NY
Margaret McGRA (sic) 19 IRE
Thomas DUNCAN 39 SCT merchant
Pg.310, #65-105, John LAW & family
John DUNCKIN 22 SCT steel maker
Pg.367, #576-978, George DUNCAN 31 SCT potter $6700
Mary 29 SCT
George 10, John 8 NJ
Mary 3, Elizabeth 1 NJ
Robert DUNCAN 28 SCT potter
Cornelius (m) 17 SCT potter
Pg.416, #329-545, Oliver DUNCAN 24 CAN lithographer
Jane 17 NJ; married in year
(MAD: ? 1860 Kings Co. NY census, Brooklyn W-6 Dist.9 age 31)
1860 Hudson Co. NJ Census
Pg.551, #494-608, Timothy McDERMOTT 35 IRE laborer $0-$0
Ann 30 IRE
Mary 2 NY
James DUNCAN 29 IRE laborer
Patrick MURPHY 19 IRE laborer
Hoboken Ward 3
Pg.496, #138-199, William DUNCAN 35 NY market dealer $0-$0
Phebe 31 NY
Caroline 6 NY
Jersey Ward 2
Pg.978, #709-1014, George DUNCAN 40 SCT manufacturer $1000-$810
Mary 40 SCT "grocery"
George 20 NJ clerk
John 17 NJ apren. F. Poltery
Mary 14, Elizabeth 10 NJ
Robert 8, Margaret 6 NJ
Cornelius (m) 3 NJ
Maria HORNING 22 IRE servant
Pg.983, #726-1048, Mike DUNCAN 28 IRE laborer $0-$0
Bridget 25 IRE
Ann 3, Mary 2, Bridget 7/12 NJ
James COX 35 IRE laborer
Kate 35 IRE
Pg.1070, #1071-1748, Henrietta DUNCAN 27 NY dress maker $0-$0
Geo. H. 13 NY (MAD: ages as given)
Jersey Ward 3
Pg.17-18, #65-150, Gennett DUNCAN (f) 40 SCT (blank)
George 19 SCT printer $0-$0
Azussa (f) 17 SCT seamstress
John 15 SCT wood carver
Benjamin 9, Catharine 7 NJ
Jersey Ward 4
Pg.309, #61-111, Christopher DUNKIN 33 IRE laborer $0-$0
Hannah 23 IRE
James 3, Christopher 1 NJ
(MAD: 1870 Norfolk Co. MA census)
Pg.373, #345-603, Ellison E. DUNCAN 43 NY engineer $4500-$300
Mary M. 42 NY
Amanda 16, William S. 13 NJ
Ellison 11, Carrie 4 NJ
Elmira 1 NJ
Mary CASH 29 IRE servant
(MAD: see Wayne Co. NY; not found 1850; 1870 Wayne Co. MI census)
Pg.376, #368-628, James DUNCAN 45 IRE tailor $0-$500
Jane 30 IRE
Keony? E. (m) 16 NY clerk
Fanny 13 NY
Thomas E. 10, Alvin J. (m) 9 NY
Pg.383, #414-678, Lewis D. ABBOTT 41 CT confectioner $0-$150
Sarah A. 34 CT
& family & others, including
Lewis DUNCAN (m) 21 NJ clerk $0-$0
(MAD: see ? 1850 Orange Co. NY census)
Pg.397, #508-784, Jonas DUNCAN 32 ENG blacksmith $0-$0
Fanny 40 ENG
Elizabeth 16 ENG seamstress
Mary 14 ENG
William 6, Fanny 2 NJ
Edwin 6/12 NJ
Pg.636, #961-1314, Jules DUNCAN 36 FRance baker $700-$0
Lelie? (f) 36 FRance
1870 Hudson Co. NJ Census
Pg.281, #86-110, DUNKIN, Andrew 32 IRE laborer $0-$0, parents of foreign birth
Alice 40 IRE keeping house, parents of foreign birth
John 12, Rose 7 NJ, parents of foreign birth
(MAD: indexed Ardrew Dunkin)
Pg.299, #300-#360, DUNKIN, William 35 BREMEN carpenter $0-$0, parents of foreign birth
Mary 30 IRE keeping house, parents of foreign birth
Baletia (m) 1 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Pg.385, #229-343, DUNCAN, John 36 IRE shoe maker $0-$100, parents of foreign birth
Eliza 35 IRE wife, parents of foreign birth
George 14, Catherine 12 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Eliza 8, Mary 2 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Pg.414, #532-756, DANKIN, Mary 38 IRE widow $0-$100, parents of foreign birth
William 19 IRE cutter edge tool, parents of foreign birth
Hoboken, Ward 2
Pg.87, #177-311, BROUER?, John 30 NY hardware wh. $0-$5000, parents of foreign birth
Sarah 26 NJ keep house, parents of foreign birth
William 3 NY
Silas 4/12 NJ b.Feb.
DUNCAN, Anne 15 NY domestic, parents of foreign birth
BURKETT, Amelia 74 NY BLACK domestic
JOYCE, Winfred (m) 26 IRE domestic, parents of foreign birth
Hoboken, Ward 3
Pg.176, #604-1141, DUNCAN, Geose? (m) 30 SCT printer $0-$200, parents of foreign birth
Ellen 25 FRA keeps house, parents of foreign birth
(MAD: indexed George? and Gust)
Hoboken, Ward 4
Pg.200, #41-80, DUNCAN, Catherine (f) 33 MO "Missouri" keeping house $4500-$700
William 16 IL app. to printer?
James 13 MO office boy
Charles 10 MO at school
Jersey City, Ward 3
Pg.186, #254-479, DUNCAN, Cornelius 36 SCT expressman $10,000-$1,100, parents of foreign birth
Janette 31 NJ keeping house, parents of foreign birth
George P. 14, James 12 NJ, mother of foreign birth
Cornelius 9, Stephen 5 NJ, mother of foreign birth
Jacob 3 NJ, mother of foreign birth
Robert 3/12 NJ b.March, mother of foreign birth
DEVINE, Bridget 22 IRE servant, parents of foreign birth
Pg.212, #536-918, DUNCAN, George 54 SCT potter $15,000-$1,100, parents of foreign birth
Mary 50 SCT keeping house, parents of foreign birth
George S. 30 NJ crockery merchant $0-$100, parents of foreign birth
John A. 28 NJ grocer, parents of foreign birth
Mary E. 22 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Elizabeth E. 20 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Robert P. 19 NJ office clerk, parents of foreign birth
Margaret 16 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Cornelius (m) 12 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Pg.213-214, #552-935, PARMLY, Whalock? (m) 53 VT clergyman $9000-$500
Catharine 52 SCT keeping house, parents of foreign birth
Duncan D. (m) 21 MA clerk in office, mother of foreign birth
PARMLY, Elizabeth M. 18 NJ
Whellock R. (m) 17 NJ
Christine? D. (f) 13 NJ
LEWERS, Sarah 25 IRE servant, parents of foreign birth
Pg.215, indexed Louisa Duncan, actually Louisa DURSKE, not copied
Jersey City, Ward 4
Pg.261, #202-343, DUNCAN, James 48 IRE church sexton $0-$900, parents of foreign birth
Fanny 22 NY school teacher, parents of foreign birth
Thomas 19, Oliver 17 NY, parents of foreign birth
Pg.292, #532-869, DUNCAN, John 25 SCT (blank) $0-$0, parents of foreign birth
Benjamin 19 ENG, parents of foreign birth
Kate 17 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Jersey City, Ward 5
Pg.404-405, #661-37, DUNCAN, Henrietta 34 NY keeps house $0-$100
DUNCAN, George 19 NY clerk in store
Jersey City, Ward 8
Pg.178, #284-498?, (hospital) "sick, old" - includes
DUNCAN, Jane 32 VT
Pg.181, #225-502?, Children's friend society of Jersey City; includes
DUNCAN, Nellie (f) 7 NJ, parents of foreign birth
DUNCAN, Willie (m) 11 NJ, father of foreign birth
Jersey City, Ward 9
Pg.205, #197-302, DUNCAN, Patrick 42 IRE laborer $0-$0, parents of foreign birth
Bridget 40 IRE, parents of foreign birth
Martin 15 IRE laborer, parents of foreign birth
Lizzie 10, Thom. (m) 8 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Pg.240, #560-840, DUNKIN, Lebin 70 MD (blank) $4,500-$0
Mathilde 40 MD
Helene (f) 28 MD teacher
Lula (f) 14 NY
Campbell (m) 21 MD
(MAD: 1860 New York City, NY census, Ward 16 Dist.1)
Jersey City, Ward 11
Pg.331, #380-619, DUNCAN, August (m) 39 BRUNswick upholsterer? $12,000-$300, parents of foreign birth
Sophia 27 PRUSSia keeping house, parents of foreign birth
Warner (m) 17 NY barber appr., parents of foreign birth
Josephine (f) 15 NY, parents of foreign birth
Marley (f) 13 NY, parents of foreign birth
Sophia 12 NJ, parents of foreign birth
Jersey City, Ward 13
Pg.472, #172-174, DUNKIN, Levin 33 MD salesman in signs? $0-$10,000
Kate 23 NY keep house
Levin 1 NJ
GRAHAM, Maggie? 14 ENG child nurse, parents of foreign birth
"Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of Chancery, the Prerogative Court and on appeal in the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey" by Charles Ewing Green, Vol.I; New Jersey Equity Reports, Vol.16, pgs.240 to 243 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 2/2004)
DANIEL SMITH vs. GEORGE DUNCAN; Court of Chancery of New Jersey; 16 N.J. Eq. 240; May, 1863, Decided.
[opinion] On final hearing. THE CHANCELLOR. The bill is filed by the defendant in an execution at law, to set aside a sheriff's sale of real estate, made under the execution. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that the complainant's interests were prejudiced by the sale. The property was struck off for $25, and was sold immediately afterwards for $1500.
But there are insuperable difficulties in the way of the complainant's title to relief.
1. There is no evidence of fraud or unfairness in the conduct of the sale. It was duly advertised, in compliance with the requirements of the statute. The complainant, moreover, had actual notice of the time and place of sale. The sheriff testifies that he gave him personal notice of the time and place at which the property was originally advertised for sale. He did not then attend, and the sale was adjourned. He was notified of the time and place to which the sale was adjourned, and failing to attend, the property was then struck off. There is no evidence that the complainant was prevented from attending the sale by accident or mistake. Nor is the allegation of surprise sustained by the evidence. The allegation of the bill is, that the complainant relied upon a third party to attend the sale on his behalf, and that the person so relied upon was absent from the state at the time of the sale. But the evidence does not show that his absence was a surprise to the complainant, or that he was not fully aware that he was not present at the time of the adjournment. The person, upon whom the complainant professes to have relied, was not called as a witness and the fair presumption is that there was no good ground for relying upon his attendance. The evidence presents a case of inexcusable negligence and inattention to his interests, on the part of the complainant. Against such gross laches, it is not the province of a court of equity to relieve.
2. Relief is sought, not against the purchaser at the sheriff's sale, but against his alienee. The defendant claims to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. The evidence shows that he paid the full amount of the purchase money. One thousand dollars was paid before he received actual notice of the complainant's claim. He is sought to be charged with constructive notice of the circumstances of the sale, which form the basis of the complainant's claim to relief. Admitting that the circumstances of the sheriff's sale were such as to entitle the complainant to relief as against the purchaser under him, the evidence is not sufficient to destroy the defendant's claim to the character of a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice of the complainant's equity. His equity is at least equal to that of the complainant, and he has the legal title. Under such circumstances, equity will not interfere, either for discovery or relief.
The attorney of the plaintiff became the purchaser at the sheriff's sale. Under the circumstances of the case he would, in accordance with a familiar principle of equity, have been regarded as a trustee for the benefit of his client.
But the plaintiff in execution is not seeking redress, nor is it perceived how this principle can be invoked in favor of the defendant. He has no claim for equitable relief against the plaintiff in execution. Nor does the case fall within the principle adopted and applied in Stockton v. Ford, 52 U.S. 232, 11 HOW 232 at 247, 13 L. Ed. 676.
The fact that a part of the purchase money was paid after notice of the complainant's equity, cannot operate to render the conveyance to the defendant fraudulent. Its utmost effect would be, in case the sale was set aside, to deprive the plaintiff of an equitable claim to a return of that portion of the purchase money.
The bill is dismissed, without costs.
"Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of Chancery, the Prerogative Court and on appeal in the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New Jersey" by Peter D. Vroom, Vol.II; New Jersey Law Reports, Vol.31, pgs.325 to 330 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 2/2004)
GEORGE DUNCAN v. DANIEL SMITH and NANCY His Wife; Supreme Court of New Jersey; 31 N.J.L. 325; November, 1865, Decided.
In ejectment. On motion for new trial.
This was an action of ejectment. The premises in dispute were originally owned by the defendant, Daniel Smith, who, while he was the owner thereof, together with his wife, Nancy, executed two mortgages thereon to Oliver S. Strong and Daniel Henderson. Subsequently a judgment was obtained against Daniel Smith, and the said premises were sold thereunder to one Jelliffe, who conveyed the same to George Duncan, the plaintiff. After the sale, Smith still continued in possession of the property. In this posture of affairs, a water tax falling due and being unpaid, the premises were sold by the municipal authorities, by virtue of power in the city charter, to Nancy Smith, one of the defendants, for the term of ten thousand years. By the provisions of the charter aforesaid, the owner is privileged to redeem within two years after the sale, by returning to the purchaser the amount paid by him, with fifteen per cent. interest thereon. A mortgagee has a similar term for redemption, and, in addition, is entitled to six months' notice of the sale. Duncan neglected to redeem as owner within the time limited, but afterwards, with the intention of redeeming as mortgagee, he paid the amount due on the mortgages above mentioned, which were thereupon delivered to him. A few days after this, these same mortgages were formally assigned over by the mortgagee to the son of the plaintiff, at the request of the plaintiff. Having thus acquired the interest of the mortgagee, as he supposed, he deposited with the city treasurer, for the benefit of the purchaser at the tax sale, the amount paid by such purchaser and fifteen per cent. thereon. This payment, both as to amount and the person to whom it was made, was strictly in accordance with the charter of the city. Upon these facts the judge, at the trial, instructed the jury, in substance, that the payment of the money on the mortgage did not destroy the estate created thereby, and that Duncan became vested with an interest thereunder, which entitled him to redeem the premises in the manner above mentioned.
The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the motion here is for a new trial.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
BEASLEY, CHIEF JUSTICE. The decision of the present motion turns upon the point whether the plaintiff, being the owner in fee of the premises in dispute, by paying to the mortgagee the amount due on the mortgages held by him, acquired such an interest that he had the right to redeem such premises from the purchaser at the tax sale. His privilege to reclaim the property, as the absolute owner, had expired from lapse of time, and the proceedings taken by him to divest the title of the defendants, can only be sustained for the reason that he represented the mortgagee, within the fair meaning of the municipal charter.
The counsel of the defendants insists that, by the mere force of the payment by the plaintiff to the mortgagee of the money due on the bonds, the estate which had been created by the mortgages became extinguished. The argument was, that it was merged in the fee, both estates having become resident in the same person. If this be so, it is obvious that both the intention of the plaintiff in paying the money, and the justice of the case are defeated. It is clear that the plaintiff, when he dealt with the mortgagee, did not intend the estate existing by virtue of the mortgages to be absorbed in the fee which he held. His object was to buy the position and rights of the mortgagee. If he has not succeeded in doing this, he will derive no benefit whatever from the large amount of money paid by him, the effect of such payment being merely to remove the two encumbrances from the premises in question, in which the defendants have a term of ten thousand years. Under these circumstances, it is evident the plaintiff was at least within the equity of the provision giving to a mortgagee the privilege of redemption, and if he is to be deprived of that privilege, it must be purely from the effect of the technical doctrine of merger as a matter of dry law.
But the application to the facts of this case of the principle of merger, in its utmost rigor, does not, as I think, lead to the result claimed for the defendants. That unity of ownership of two estates in the same land which occasions merger does not, of necessity, destroy either of such estates; its effect often is, to blend or combine them together. "The true idea of merger," says Chief Justice Ewing, in Den v. Vanness, 5 Halst. 106, "consists in a thorough coalescence, an indissoluble union of the merging estates; each still retaining its rights and advantages, or, perhaps, more properly speaking, each imparting to the whole its peculiar attributes." And in Woodhull v. Ried, 1 Harr. 128, this court, giving practical effect to the above theory, maintained that, upon common law rules, the acquisition of the equity of redemption by the mortgagee did not prevent him, on the ground of merger, from setting up the mortgage estate against a widow's suit for dower. If, then, the estate under the mortgage, after its merger with the fee, so far subsists as to enable the party holding it to set it up in a court of law as a defence, it seems difficult to perceive why, under similar conditions, it may not be said so to subsist as to enable its owner to redeem as mortgagee, by force of the regulation above mentioned, contained in the charter of Jersey City. Indeed, a denial of such right can be supported only on the erroneous assumption, that the payment of the debt due on the mortgage is, under all possible circumstances, an extinguishment of the estate created by it. When the debt is paid by the mortgagor, this, unquestionably, is the usual result; but when such payment, as in the case now before this court, is made, not by the mortgagor but by the purchaser of the equity of redemption, it by no means follows, as a necessary consequence, that the interest created originally under the mortgage is destroyed. In many cases, on the contrary, such interest is considered, both at law and in equity, as vesting and continuing alive in the holder of the fee. And this distinction naturally arises from the peculiar situation of such owner of the encumbered property, with regard to the mortgage debt which constitutes a lien upon it. If the money secured on the estate is not due from him who pays the mortgage debt, the consequence is that such person, by paying off the encumbrance, places himself in the attitude, not of a debtor who extinguishes a liability by payment, but rather of a person who, by advancing the money, takes up the obligation of another. And this is the legal aspect of the transaction. As there is nothing in the nature of the business, nor in morals, which will, in such a state of affairs, prevent any one from becoming the assignee of the interest of the mortgagee, and as it can make no difference to the parties interested in the property whether such interest is acquired by a stranger or the owner of the fee, the law does not prohibit the latter from receiving such interest and holding it, as a separate estate, in the same manner and to the same extent as a person entirely unconnected with the land could do. The general rule upon this subject is, that whenever the money due upon a mortgage is paid, it will operate, in law, either as a discharge or an assignment, as will best subserve the purposes of justice and the just intent of the party. The question, therefore, whether the mortgage estate is destroyed or preserved by payment, resolves itself, for the most part, into an inquiry as to the intention of the party in paying the money -- for the law will effectuate that intention. This undoubtedly is the rule of law, well established by numerous decisions, both in this state and elsewhere. Accordingly it was held, in Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 1 Gr. Ch. R. 356, that when the purchaser of the equity of redemption took an assignment of a mortgage given by the owner of the premises prior to his marriage, the widow was entitled to dower in the property only subject to such mortgage. To the same effect is the case of Russell v. Austen, 1 Paige 192; and the same general principle was maintained and acted upon in Van Wagenen v. Brown, 2 Dutcher 204; Thompson v. Boyd, 1 Zab. 58; S. C., 2 Id. 543; Chiswell v. Morris, 1 McCarter 102; Eldridge v. Eldridge, Id. 195. And, indeed, so little is the technical doctrine of merger favored in law, that it has been repeatedly decided, and the rule may be considered to be now completely settled, that the estates meeting in the person will not merge unless it appears that such was the intention of such person, expressly declared or manifestly to be implied from such merger being to his advantage. 1 Washb. R. P. 564.
The application of the above rule of law to the facts of this case, obviously establishes the right of the plaintiff, as representative of the mortgagee, to redeem the premises in dispute from the effect of the tax sale. It was his intention, clearly proved on the trial, to use the interest he derived from the mortgagee for this purpose. The estate thus acquired, therefore, did not merge with the fee vested in him, as the law, by force of the principle above stated, to prevent his intention from being defeated, will keep the estates distinct.
But it was further insisted, that the redemption of the land by the mortgagee was for himself alone, and that it did not redound to the benefit of the owner of the fee. This construction is plainly inconsistent with the design of the legislature, and with the express regulations on this subject of the charter of the city. In the clause giving the right to the "owner, mortgagee, occupant, or person interested" in the land, the right of redemption, there is no restriction with regard to the effect of such act. Each person of the classes indicated, is to pay the same amount on exercising the privilege, and in each case the result is the same -- that is, the land is redeemed. It is an error to suppose that it is only the interest of the person making the payment which is thus freed from the effect of the tax sale. See Charter of Jersey City, Pamph. L. 1851, p. 411, Sec. 40. It will be found, also, that the subsequent parts of the same section are clearly indicative of the same intention, for the next to the last clause directs the clerk of the city, in all cases of redemption, to cancel the declarations of sale given by the city to the purchaser. If it had been the design that the redemption by the mortgagee should have no other effect but to preserve his own rights, we cannot suppose that the law would have directed, in such event, the destruction of the entire muniment of the title of the purchaser. I think it free from all reasonable doubt, that the redemption made in this case operated as a complete discharge of the premises in dispute, from the effect of the sale made by the authority of the city.
The result is, the verdict was right, and the present rule should be discharged.
Pension Index Card File, alphabetical; of the Veterans Administrative Contact and Administration Services, Admin. Operations Services, 1861-1934; Duff to A-J Duncan (negative FHL film 540,888, some cards very faint); Joseph Duncan to Dunn (positive FHL film 540,889, some cards very dark)
Cataloged under Civil War, 1861-1865, pensions, indexes; does not say if Confederate or Federal, but probably Federal. Negative film, some cards much too faint or dark to read, some cards blurred or faded, particularly the service unit and the dates of application. Most of the very faint or dark cards were in a slightly different format, with space for years enlisted and discharged which were sometimes filled in. Many of these were for service in later years, although one or two were for service ca 1866.
Name of soldier, alias, name of dependent widow or minor, service (military unit or units), date of filing, class (invalid or widow or minor or other), Application #, Certificate #, state from which filed (sometimes blank), attorney (sometimes blank, MAD: did not usually copy), remarks. Sometimes the "Invalid" or "Widow" class had an "s" added to it before the application #; occasionally the area for the service information included a circled "S". The minor's name was frequently that of the guardian rather than the minor.
The military unit was frequently the Company Letter, the Regiment Number, sometimes US Vet Vol Inf. (US Veteran Volunteer Infantry), L.A. (Light Artillery), H.A. (Heavy Artillery), US C Inf (US Colored? Infantry), Cav. (Cavalry), Mil. Guards, V.R.C. (?Volunteer Reserve Corps?), etc. Sometimes there were several service units given.
Cards appear to be arranged by the last name, first name, middle initial if any, and state (including "US") of service.
Duncan, William, widow Duncan, Ella; F 9 NY Inf.; 1890 Sept. 22, Invalid Appl. #1005189, Cert. #734916, NY; 1896 July 22, Widow Appl. #637747, Cert. #442794, NJ. (MAD: 1880 3rd Ward, Dist. 2, Hoboken, Hudson Co. NJ, age 37 NY)
"History of Masonry in North America from 1730 to 1800 : together with a history of the several lodges F.&A.M. of Hudson County, N.J." compiled by Henry Whittemore; pub. New York, Autotype Printing and Publishing Co., 94 Reatle Street, 1888; pub. 2003 (Google Books 8/25/2009)
History of Masonry in Hudson County. COPESTONE LODGE No.147 (pg.280)
Pg.283-284: WILLIAM DUNCAN, P.M. The patience, perseverance and tenacity of purpose which has made Bro. Duncan successful in his business as well as his social and benevolent undertakings, is an element that entered largely into the materials of which Copestone Lodge was constructed, and Bro. Duncan has contributed his full share to the construction and mainatenance of the Lodge. He was made a "Mason in due form" in Duncarn Lodge No. 400, of Burnt Island, in 1869; he took his dimit about 1871, and was the first member who affiliated with Mosde Lodge No.133, of Newark, after its erection, and served one term as S.D. After this Lodge surrendered its charter he became a "member at large" until the organization of Copestone Lodge, of which he was one of the active charter members, and was elected the first J.W. He served as S.W. in 1883, and as W.M. in 1884. He governed the Lodge with firmness and kindness, and during his administration fully maintained its reputation for the excellency of its work.
Bro. Duncan was born in Edinburg, Scotland, March 26, 1844. He was early in life apprenticed to a machinist, and became in time a skillful and trustworthy workman. In 1870 he concluded to try his fortune in the new world, and in 1883 he commenced the manufacture of calico printing machinery and a general jobbing business under the firm name of Sinclair & Co., at Newark. His partner withdrew at the end of the year, and he has since conducted the business on his own account. He became a resident of Harrison in 1876?, where he is highly respected as a neighbor and a citizen.
"New York Herald" New York, NY, Thursday, May 2, 1872 (transcription by and from Kathy Cawley 2/2004)
MARRIAGES AND DEATHS - MARRIED.
DUNCAN-CHRISTIE. --- At Yorkville. on Wednesday, April 24, at the residence of the bride's parents, the Rev. McL. Quackenbush, John A. Duncan, of Jersey City [Hudson Co. NJ], to Emma L., only daughter of Benjamin Christie, Esq.
Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in New Jersey
Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page