van SCHAICK, Anthony, of the Island of Cahoes, Albany Co. Wife Christina, da. Anna, who has second son Anthony van Schaick.

Cahoes or van Schaick, Haver and Platte Plate Islands, personal property.

Executors the wife and son-in-law John G. van Schaick.

Witnesses John van Vleck, of Charlotte Prect., Dutchess Co., blacksmith, Samuel van Vleck and Abraham van Vleck.

Seal

Will dated August 18, 1781. Probated April 3, 1782. Printed in Calendar of Wills, #1914. Will abstract not yet found!

Transformed from an online resource by SB

In 1828, a legal action produced the following narrative containing property and demographic information. [Paragraphing and some other adjustments added]:

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at the Saratoga circuit in May, 1828, before the Hon. Nathan Williams, one of the circuit judges.

Anthony Van Schaick, by his last will and testament bearing date 17th August, 1781. Devised all his real estate to his Wife Christina for life, with remainder to his daughter Anna, the wife of John G. Van Schaick, in fee.

On the 28th February, 1784, Christina Van Schaick, John G. Van Schaick and Anna his wife, demised lots Nos. 71 and 99 in the Halfmoon or Var. Schaick’s patent to the defendant for the term of sixty-seven years, reserv ing an annual rent of’ £9. The defendant entered into possession of the premises, and remained in possession at the commencement of this suit in May, 1827. Christina Van Schaick died about seventeen years before the trial, and Anna Van Schaick about eleven years before the trial, leaving her husband John G. Van Schaick living. A few days previous to the commencement of this suit, one of the heirs of Anna Van Schaick demanded of the defendant payment of the rent due upon the lease executed to him. The defendant admitted that he held such lease, but refused to pay any rent stating that he had warranty deeds from Mr. Ludlow and others for the land This suit was then commenced for the recovery of the demised premises The lessors of the plaintiff were John G. Van Schaick and the children of his marriage with Anna Van Schaick. On this evidence the plaintiff rested On the part of the defendant, it was shown that difliculties having arisen as to the boundaries of the Halfmoon patent and the patent of Kayaderosseras, which adjoined it, an agreement was entered into by the [634] proprietors of those patents on 21st November, 1792, to apply to the legislature of the state for the appointment of commissioners to determine the boundary lines between those patents, which agreement was signed, amongst others, by Christina Van Schaick, and the petition was presented. On the 31st January, 1793, a similar agreement was entered into between the proprietors of the patents of Halfmoon, Kayaderosseras and Shannondhoi or Clifton Park; this, however, was not signed by Christina Van Schaiok, nor by any other under whom the lessors of the plaintiff claimed. On 11th March, 1793, an act was passed by the legislature appointing commissioners in pursuance of the prayer of the petitioners. On the 25th February, 1794, a, majority of the commissioners made and filed their determination in the premises, establishing the boundary lines as designated on a map of the ayaderosseras patent subscribed by three commissioners of the names of Yates, Glen and Palmer, and by a surveyor of the name of Webb. The defendant then proved that the premises in question laid within the Kayaderosseras patent according to the lines thus established, and produced in evi dence four deeds of distinct portions of the premises 1n question from sundry . . .