Agreement between Jacob Waltz and Andrew Starar (8/8/1878) - what was it all about?

[Cubfan64]

In order to avoid steering a thread away from it's intended purpose, I decided to start a separate discussion surrounding the documented agreement formed between Jacob Waltz and Andrew Starar on August 8, 1878.

I'm no expert whatsoever in this area, so I'm not sure how much input I'll really have. I just wanted to get the ball rolling by posting my attempt at transcribing the document from the Maricopa County Recorder's Office website.

I left a few blanks where I just couldn't figure out for sure what the words were, so hopefully someone else can help fill in those blanks. In addition, if anyone finds what I'm sure are going to be some errors in the transcription, please help me make those corrections as well.

The original document can be found if you go to:

Maricopa County Recorder Elections Department

Open up the 1871-1946 search tab and enter 3 in the docket/book box and 322 in the page box, then hit search. About 2/3 of the way down the page, the document in question begins.

Here is my attempt to transcribe it. Prepare yourselves for a whole bunch of "party of this part and party of that part" legaleez!!! Perhaps a good place to start after this is for someone to put together a concise "average Joe" description of the agreement?

If this thread dies due to lack of interest or input, it is what it is. At least the document is here if anyone ever wants to go back and read it.

Book of Deeds – Book 3, page 322 (starting about 2/3 down the page)

This agreement made and entered into this eighth day of
August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun-
dred and seventy eight between Jacob Waltz of the county
of Maricopa and Territory of Arizona the party of the first
part and Andrew Starar of the same county and Territory
of the second part Witnesseth. That the said party of the first part
for and in consideration of the premises and covenants
of said party of the second part hereinafter made made
and promised to be done and performed by the said

Continued on top of page 323

party of the second part and the further consideration
of the sum of fifty dollars to him in hand paid
by the party of the second part the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged hath sold granted confirmed
remised and released to the said party of the second
part the following property real and personal towit;
all the right title and interest of the said party of
the first part in and to the north east quarter of
section sixteen (16) in in township one (1) north
of Range three (3) east of the Gila and salt River
meridian and of the district of lands subject to
sale at the Land office at Florence Arizona with all
the improvements and appurtenances thereunto belong –
ing or in any wise appertaining Also all the grain now
due and owing from the estate of Ferdinand Magde –
burg deceased be the same more or less also all the chick –
ens now on said Ranch or land above described and con –
veyed also two horses now owned by said party
of the first part and all other personal property of every
kind and description now owned by said party of the
first part whether legal equtable whether real personal
or mixed giving to the said party of the second part
full possession and property in all of the said estate
and property above described.

And for and in consideration of the said above de –
Scribed property and of the possession of the same
the said party of the second part agrees and promises
that during the full continuance of the natural life of
the said party of the first part and to the end thereof, he
the said party of the second part will furnish to the
said party of the first part all necessary food and
clothing required by the said party of the first part to –
gether and protection and all necessary medicines and
attendance when sick he the said party of the first part
having with the said party of the second part shall
himself live and shall take such care of him the said
party of the first part as shall be necessary and proper

Continued on top of page 324

in degree as one of the family of the said party of the
second part. The interest and full meaning of this
Agreement is that the said party of the first part shall
make over and convey all of his property of every
kind to the said party of the second part and that the
said party of the second part shall be the full owner of
the same without any recourse or return to the said
party of the first part and by these presents the said party
of the first part does make over transfer and convey to
said party of the second part all of said property and
in consideration thereof the said party of the second
part shall take care of feed clothe and protect the said
party of the first part in a good and proper manner
suitable to his ordinary style of life and this the
party of the second part by these presents agrees to do

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands
and seals both the party of the first and party of the
second part on the day and year in this agreement first
above written

Jacob Waltz (seal)
Andrew Starar (seal)

Territory of Arizona
County of Maricopa

On this eighth day of August A.D. 1878
before me John T Alsap a Notary Public in and for
said Maricopa County personally appeared Jacob Waltz
and Andrew Starar both personally known to me to be the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument
as parties thereto and they and each of them acknowledge –
ed to me that they executed the same freely and voluntar –
ily and for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set
my hand and affixed my official seal the
day and year in this certificate first above
written

John T Alsap
Notary Public

Continued on top of page 325

Filed for record at the request of Andrew Starar August
8[SUP]th[/SUP] A.D. 1878 at the hour of five oclock P.M.

W. F. McNulty
Recorder

* NOTE - In the left hand margin on page 322 is the following notation; Not a deed - but an agreement

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[chlsbrns]

It is a Deed Book but the document is not a Deed it's an Agreement.

 

[vor]

It is a Deed Book but the document is not a Deed it's an Agreement.

It properly conveys real property so would be the "deed" and filed in the real property records of the county.

 

[chlsbrns]

It properly conveys real property so would be the "deed" and filed in the real property records of the county.

It clearly states "Not a Deed but an agreement"

 

[Cubfan64]

I don't know who or when the line "Not a deed but an agreement" was penned in the side column of the document. Supposedly there are several documents that have been removed from the official records over the years, so there's nothing to say a notation like the one on the side wasn't made at a different time than the original document was penned.

That said, it does indeed clearly state "This agreement..." in the opening line.

I have no idea what exactly that means legally - anyone out there with a law background that could enlighten us? Does it mean the same today as it did in 1878? Since it was put forth in a legal document, it appears it would be binding in some way correct?

 

[Cubfan64]

Garry, I took the liberty of copying one of your posts from the other thread because I wanted to answer your questions...

Paul,

I certainly can sympathize with your difficulties in working with the deed record.

As I said previously it’s not a simple black and white story and I can get in over my head in a hurry. Larry may be gritting his teeth already. “But”

I assume this discussion was triggered by the SMJ article that was posted by “Goldmine”.

We see the following entry in regard to the Waltz and Andrew Starrar agreement: August 8, 1878. Book 3 pages 222, 223, and 224 of the Maricopa County Recorders Book of Deeds, records Jacob Waltz and his neighbor, Andrew Starrar as entering into an agreement whereby Andrew Starrar promises to take care of Waltz and see to his needs should Waltz become incapacitated and unable to care for himself. In return, should the time ever come, Waltz promises to relinquish to Starrar, all of his worldly possessions plus the sum of $50.

It appears to me that the author is suggesting that the agreement only goes into effect should the time ever come that Waltz became incapacitated. Did you find the word incapacitated anywhere in the deed record or something similar to support this angle? We can wait until you transcribe the document.

BTW it sounds like the author also has Waltz paying Andrew Starrar $50. Is that the way you interpret the document?

Paul, you wrote: If indeed that's the case that Waltz was no longer responsible for paying taxes on his land, it appears that Andrew Starar was responsible for NOT paying the taxes in 1886 and causing the land to be sold.

I want to make a couple of points that are taken from my understanding on the history of the Waltz land. I didn’t dig out the sources and I’m shooting from the hip but we are probably getting ahead of ourselves when we say that Andrew Starrar was responsible for the taxes on the land in 1886. I believe Andrew died in 1883 or 1884 and we now introduce his brother Jacob Starrar into the story.

Also it is my understanding that the land was not disposed of by the Starrars as a single 160 acre parcel. I believe the land was sold off piecemeal over a number of years.

A great supplement to the Starrar/Waltz agreement is the Magdeberg Will. I think someone mentioned Jabob’s horses that appear in the agreement. Waltz appears to have only had these animals in passing and they were part of the estate of Magdeberg which was passed on to Andrew Starrar by Waltz. It also talks about Magdeberg’s barley crop which also became Starrar's property.

Another entry in the SMJ article may also be misleading some people. The author wrote: May 1878. Jacob Waltz is recorded in the 1878 Maricopa County Tax Rolls as having personal property valued at $250 property described as 160 acres of land. Waltz is recorded as making a payment of $7.12

There is a difference in tax on personal property (a horse) and tax on real estate (plot of land). I don’t remember having seen the document that is being referred to but it makes no sense to me that the personal property of Waltz is described as 160 acres of land.

Maybe someone can post an image of the actual document since it seems to be the seed for much of the preceding discussion.

Enough already,

Garry

In reference to your 2 questions I highlighted in blue above...

1) If I can make it through all the "party of the 1st part/2nd part" talk and lingo, the gist of the agreement implies to me that as of August 8th, 1878, Jacob Waltz was conveying all of his earthly property over to Andrew Starar, and in return Andrew Starar promises to take care of all his daily needs for the rest of his life.

2) I am missing a couple words after the "fifty dollars to..." line, but based on the "paid by the party of the second part..." I have to conclude at this point that it was Andrew Starar who paid Jacob Waltz the $50. I admit I had not noticed that before.

 

[vor]

Not an attorney but the covenants for future services are part of the consideration for the transfer of property. You can call a deed whatever you want but with a granting clause, legal description and consideration it is a conveyance, subject to the future covenants. As no further documents would be needed to convey, I would consider it a deed (conditional until JW death).

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

CUBBER: an agreement is an agreement, even more so in the 1800's since you could also find yourself shot as well as being in court in a violation.

Don Jose de La Maqncha

 

[rvreclus]

I think this is a legal instrument which is a vehicle for the transfer of real property. Call it an agreement if you wish, however it appears the intention of the document is to transfer property between two parties.
rvreclus

 

[chlsbrns]

Part of the reason for recording is to have a true copy of the document. Not altered from the original. Its noted and recorded as an agreement.

If the popular story that Thomas cared for waltz is true or that Andrew died before waltz is true then Andrew didn't live up to the agreement..

I can't imagine that someone with a rich source of gold would make such an agreement but a broke book publisher might.

 

[lgadbois]

A deed is a proof of ownership.

 

[Cubfan64]

Part of the reason for recording is to have a true copy of the document. Not altered from the original. Its noted and recorded as an agreement.

If the popular story that Thomas cared for waltz is true or that Andrew died before waltz is true then Andrew didn't live up to the agreement..

I can't imagine that someone with a rich source of gold would make such an agreement but a broke book publisher might.

Please either provide the source for your claim of Waltz being a book publisher, or start your own thread to carry on that discussion. A source isn't just a cut/paste image, it includes the date of the publication, publisher and whatever other information is needed for anyone else to easily investigate it on their own.

Thanks

 

[roadrunner]

The way I look at it is an agreement for Starr to take care of Waltz, and give him everything he owns, or has been given. Including his neighbors that was given to him.


Starr paid the $50 dollars to Waltz as a monetary gesture for the property and to take care of him till his death.
So,for the payment, (which to me means Waltz was broke), the $50, and the property, means a deed would still have to be transferred after Waltz death. To Starr.
But it states in the agreement, that Waltz was already giving everything to Starr.
So maybe there where no deeds back then. As such. Just a county recording, not like we have deeds or titles now a days.

Also, I have a copy of a page where the person took Waltz, as being the 1st party, and Starr as being the 2nd party, put those names in the places where the first party, second party are and it comes out putting a better meaning to this document.
I will try and scan,( I tried to photo it and it did not work great) and post it.
Or any of you can do the same.
Here is an example.


This agreement made and entered into this eighth day of
August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun-
dred and seventy eight between Jacob Waltz of the county
of Maricopa and Territory of Arizona the party of the first
part (Here is the first party) and Andrew Starar of the same county and Territory
of the second part (Here is the second party).Witnesseth. That Jacob Waltz
for and in consideration of the premises and covenants
of Andrew Starr hereinafter made
and promised to be done and performed by

Continued on top of page 323

Andrew Starr and the further consideration
of the sum of fifty dollars to Jacob Waltz paid
by Andrew Starr the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged hath sold granted confirmed
remised and released to Andrew Starr
the following property real (4 letters here) and personal (-------) word property maybe.
all the right title and interest of Jacob Waltz .

See how it sounds now.

 

[Cubfan64]

For those who have access to it, Thomas Glover covered much of the Starar/Waltz relationship in his book "The Lost Dutchman Mine of Jacob Waltz - Part 1: The Golden Dream."

See pages 125 - 136.

There is A LOT of information to look over - many facts, some theories, some educated guesses...

 

[Cubfan64]

Roadrunner - take a look at this and see if it's what you were suggesting. It does make it easier to read and understand.

This agreement made and entered into this eighth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy eight between Jacob Waltz of the county of Maricopa and Territory of Arizona and Andrew Starar of the same county and Territory Witnesseth.

That Waltz for and in consideration of the premises and covenants of Andrew hereinafter made and promised to be done and performed by Andrew and the further consideration of the sum of fifty dollars to him in hand paid by Andrew the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged hath sold granted confirmed remised and released to Andrew the following property real and personal towit; all the right title and interest of Waltz in and to the north east quarter of section sixteen (16) in township one (1) north of Range three (3) east of the Gila and salt River meridian and of the district of lands subject to sale at the Land office at Florence Arizona with all the improvements and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining Also all the grain now due and owing from the estate of Ferdinand Magdeburg deceased be the same more or less also all the chickens now on said Ranch or land above described and conveyed also two horses now owned by Waltz and all other personal property of every kind and description now owned by Waltz whether legal equtable whether real personal or mixed giving to Andrew full possession and property in all of the said estate and property above described.

And for and in consideration of the said above described property and of the possession of the same Andrew agrees and promises that during the full continuance of the natural life of
Waltz and to the end thereof he (Andrew) will furnish to Waltz all necessary food and
clothing required by Waltz together and protection and all necessary medicines and
attendance when sick he (Waltz) having with Andrew shall himself live and shall take such care of him (Waltz) as shall be necessary and proper in degree as one of the family of Andrew.

The interest and full meaning of this Agreement is that Waltz shall make over and convey all of his property of every kind to Andrew and that Andrew shall be the full owner of the same without any recourse or return to Waltz and by these presents Waltz does make over transfer and convey to Andrew all of said property and in consideration thereof Andrew shall take care of feed clothe and protect Waltz in a good and proper mannersuitable to his ordinary style of life and this Andrew by these presents agrees to do.

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals both Waltz and Andrew on the day and year in this agreement first above written

Jacob Waltz (seal)
Andrew Starar (seal)

Territory of Arizona
County of Maricopa

On this eighth day of August A.D. 1878 before me John T Alsap a Notary Public in and for
said Maricopa County personally appeared Jacob Waltz and Andrew Starar both personally known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument as parties thereto and they and each of them acknowledged to me that they executed the same freely and voluntarily and for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written

John T Alsap
Notary Public

Filed for record at the request of Andrew Starar August 8th A.D. 1878 at the hour of five oclock P.M.

W. F. McNulty
Recorder

*NOTE - In the left hand margin on page 322 is the following notation; Not a deed - but an agreement

 

[roadrunner]

Yes, that is exactly what I was suggesting. I have the book, Fools Gold by Robert Sikorsky, and on page 43 this is exactly what some one has done.
It is way easier to understand and read.
Under the page it says it was re worded (just the first party second party stuff)to help people under stand better. The author wrote the excerpt at the bottom.I don't know if he did it,or some one else did.

 

[Oroblanco]

This agreement amounts to what we call today a CONTRACT FOR DEED with the valuable services to be rendered, in return for the property, along with a sum of cash. It is conditional as most contracts for deed are.

Thanks Cubfan for the thread, and Garry and everyone for the input; it may be minuteia, but is interesting!
Oroblanco

PS - perhaps the question of whom was the owner of the property, as we struggle with hit, was also not clear to Waltz and Starrar, which could explain how the taxes went unpaid. If Waltz believed Starrar was responsible, while Starrar thought it was Waltz's, this could explain it.

 

[chlsbrns]

This agreement amounts to what we call today a CONTRACT FOR DEED with the valuable services to be rendered, in return for the property, along with a sum of cash. It is conditional as most contracts for deed are.

Thanks Cubfan for the thread, and Garry and everyone for the input; it may be minuteia, but is interesting!
Oroblanco

PS - perhaps the question of whom was the owner of the property, as we struggle with hit, was also not clear to Waltz and Starrar, which could explain how the taxes went unpaid. If Waltz believed Starrar was responsible, while Starrar thought it was Waltz's, this could explain it.

It is not a contract for deed.

Contract for Deed Lawyers | LegalMatch Law Library

http://www.hocmn.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Contract-for-DEED.pdf

It's an agreement that makes it painfully clear that Waltz was destitute.

Why else would someone give up everything for $50 and a promise? Maybe he was insane!

Who knows when we or anyone will die? Who can promise to care for someone when the caretaker could drop dead an hour later?

Someone else posted in another thread that Andrew died. Was he killed by Waltz?

Is this Waltz even the Waltz in the numerous ldm stories? Is it the Waltz that was a book publisher? Are they one in the same? Some other Waltz?

 

[Cubfan64]

Indeed Oro - it IS minuteia, but I agree that it's interesting and in my mind at least it has at least a little bearing on whether Waltz could have had a rich source of gold ore or not. It won't prove anything one way or another, but it's just another piece of a much larger puzzle that's fun to try to put together.

Despite the fact that I disagree with chlsbrns on most everything, this agreement with Starar is a "bugaboo" to me too in that it just doesn't jive with the actions of a man who had a rich source of gold.

I don't have time today to delve into things, so perhaps someone else who has read the pages in Thomas Glover's book that I pointed out above can generate a synopsis of what his theory is as to why Waltz would have entered into this agreement. It's an interesting theory, and it has many side tracks and angles, but I'm not sure I'm a "buyer" of it.

The only real theories I can come up with revolve around the idea that Waltz was a true miser and/or perhaps was a lonely man who realized at this point of his life that $$ can't buy happiness or health. The stickler in my mind to all of this is why not give Andrew Starar the gold (or at least a portion of it) so that he could more easily and better take care of Waltz?

I'm glad some folks are interested in the story - I do think it's an interesting one and while it provides no information whatsoever to help locate Waltz's gold source, it helps paint a picture of the man, and for those of us who enjoy the historical aspect of the legend it keeps us occupied .

 

[chlsbrns]

The stickler in my mind to all of this is why not give Andrew Starar the gold (or at least a portion of it) so that he could more easily and better take care of Waltz?

If Waltz had any gold and didn't hand it over to Starar Waltz would have violated the agreement.

The agreement also gives a general area of his property. It's not near 16th as has been written numerous times. Its in the area of:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=gila...77487,-112.304177&fspn=0.012418,0.030899&z=16

Surely anyone with gold would have cached it on their property. Is there gold buried near the area above? Probably!