| Description |
: |
Alexander's parents were:
William Perdew, b. 1803 in Bedford County, PA. and d. Oct. 19, 1881 in San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, CA. &
Rebecca Kazier, b. Jun. 1806 in NJ. and d. Sep. 19, 1888 in San Bernardino County, CA.
*Note regarding Alexander Perdew's middle name:
For years, I believed, like most researchers of this branch of the family, that Alexander's middle name was 'Glenn' because that is the way he is listed on P.3 of the Genealogy of One Branch of The Hoskinson Family, compiled by Alice H. Wooldridge.
However, in...
Read More
|
Alexander's parents were:
William Perdew, b. 1803 in Bedford County, PA. and d. Oct. 19, 1881 in San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, CA. &
Rebecca Kazier, b. Jun. 1806 in NJ. and d. Sep. 19, 1888 in San Bernardino County, CA.
*Note regarding Alexander Perdew's middle name:
For years, I believed, like most researchers of this branch of the family, that Alexander's middle name was 'Glenn' because that is the way he is listed on P.3 of the Genealogy of One Branch of The Hoskinson Family, compiled by Alice H. Wooldridge.
However, in the 1868, 1880, 1886 and 1892 Great (Voters) Registers of San Bernardino County, CA., he is listed as Alexander Garrison Perdew.
These registers are the only official documents in which I have seen Alexander Perdew's middle name listed.
In the Aug. 28, 1850 U.S. census, 22 yr. old Alexander G. 'Berden' (Perdew), (occupation - none), b. abt. 1828 in OH., was living in West Point, Lee, IA. with his
47 yr. old father, Wm. 'Berden' (Perdew), a farmer, b. in PA.
44 yr. old mother, Rebecca 'Berden' (Perdew), b. in NJ.
24 yr. old sister, Ruth 'Berden' (Perdew), b. in OH.
17 yr. old sister, Martha A. 'Berden' (Perdew), b. in OH.
15 yr. old brother, Asberry L. 'Berden' (Perdew), b. in OH.
8 yr. old brother, G.F.R.B. 'Berden' (Perdew), b. in IA.
2 yr. old sister, Melvina C. 'Berden' (Perdew), b. in IA.
3 mth old sister, Matilda A. 'Berden' (Perdew), b. in IA.
Alexander Glenn/Garrison Perdew and Sarah Hoskinson were married abt. 1851 or 1852.
Sarah was b. Mar. 6, 1836 in Marietta, Washington Co., OH. and d. Mar. 6, 1914 in San Bernardino, San Bernardino Co., CA.
After their marriage, they lived for a time in Ohio and then moved to Sioux City, Iowa. In the July, 2, 1860 census, they were living in McKinney, Collin county, TX., as were his parents, William & Rebecca Perdew.
Shortly afterwards, in about March 1861, they began the wearisome trek to California by ox-team with a large group of immigrants, taking with with them three of their first four children. (A boy, William, had died in Iowa at the age of 10 months.) (*Note: The Civil War broke out on April 12, 1861 and there were rumblings of war before that - so is it conceivable they chose that moment in time to emigrate in order to avoid getting caught up in the war?)
They took the Overland Trail - Oregon Trail to the California Trail- from Missouri, and eventually following the Old Spanish Trail through the lower corner of Utah and Nevada, and then into California, around Sacramento.
Their daughter, Texanna 'Anna' Kibby Perdew was born on the trail, in Monterey, CA. on Nov. 20, 1861.
They then went south through the Cajon Pass to make their home in the San Bernardino Valley (Grapeland).
Their son, Joseph Perdew, (born Oct. 4, 1864) was the first of their children born in Grapeland, CA. where they settled.
Alexander and Sarah (Hoskinson) Perdew had 10 children:
1) Mary Helen (Perdew) Kennedy, b. 1853 in OH., d. Aug. 1, 1917 in San Bernardino, CA.
2) Rufus Putnam Perdew, b. Aug. 14, 1854 in Sioux City, IA., and d. Sep. 7, 1939 in Upland, San Bernardino Co., CA.
3) William, b. 1856 in IA., d. in IA. at the age of 10 mths.
4) George Franklin Perdew, b. Dec. 15, 1858 in Lee Co., IA., and d. Dec. 19, 1943 in San Bernardino, CA.
5) Texanna 'Anna' Kibby (Perdew) Livermore Barr Edwards Peterson Taylor, b. Nov. 20, 1861 in Monterey, CA., and d. Jan. 14, 1944 in San Diego, CA.
6) Joseph Edward 'Ed' Perdew, b. Oct. 4, 1864 in Grapeland, CA., and d. Feb. 27, 1951 in Alta Loma, CA.
7) Asbury Ferdinand 'Fred/Fade' Perdew, b. Nov. 11, 1867 in San Bernardino, CA., and d. Nov. 11, 1902 in Grapeland, CA.
8) Charlotte 'Lottie' Estella (Perdew) Henderson, b. July 17, 1869/70 in San Bernardino, CA., and d. May 17, 1922 in Randsburg, CA.
9) Ida May (Perdew) Carlson, b. Feb. 16, 1873 in Grapeland (Etiwanda), CA., and d. 1949 in Bakersfield, CA.
10) Lucy 'Lutie' Ophelia (Perdew) Hoffman, b. Oct. 12, 1874 (according to her San Bernardino County Birth record) in San Bernardino, CA., and d. 1919 in San Francisco, CA.
11) Albert Perdew, b. 1878 in Grapeland (Etiwanda), CA., and d. 1883 in Grapeland (Etiwanda), CA.
The following paragraph is from the 2020 memoirs of Jim E. Lamb, great-grandson of Alexander Perdew: "My (maternal) great-grandfather, Alexander Glenn Perdew, brought his family to the San Bernardino area in 1860 or 1861, and settled in the now known area of Etiwanda. At that time, there was no Etiwanda, Fontana or Rialto. They named the area Grapeland, for all of the vineyards and fruit orchards. Alexander and brother, Greenbury, developed a then famous peach named Buckhorn peach. My grandfather, Rufus Putnam (Putt) Perdew, son of Alexander, and namesake of General Rufus Putnam, was six years old when the family migrated from Iowa to the area. The Perdews had originally left Ohio and moved to Iowa. When they decided to move to California, they left Sioux City, Iowa, by family wagons to Independence, MO., where they joined a larger wagon train. It took the group just over 9 months to get to Devore, in the Cajon Pass, CA. My great-grandmother, Sarah Mae (Hoskinson) Perdew, gave birth to daughter, Texanna Kibby Perdew, while on the trail. Something that's amazing to me is - back then, only very small children, unable to keep up, got to ride in the wagons! Everyone else had to walk alongside, as the wagons were heavily loaded with all the family belongings, and pulled along slowly by oxen. Thankful that Sarah May got to ride in the wagon for a few days after giving birth!"
In the Jul. 2, 1860 census, 31 yr. old Alexander G. 'Perdu' (Perdew), a writing teacher, b. abt. 1829 in OH. was living in Precinct 1, (Post office: McKinney), Collin Co., TX. with his
24 yr. old wife, Sarah (Hoskinson) 'Perdu' (Perdew), b. in OH.
8 yr. old daughter, Mary E. (Helen) Perdu (Perdew), b. in Oh.
5 yr. old son, Rufus P. (Putnam) 'Perdu' (Perdew), b. 1854 in (Sioux City, Woodbury Co.,) IA.
1 yr. old son, George F. (Franklin) 'Perdu' (Perdew), b. (Dec. 15, 1858) in Iowa
In the same 1860 census, Alexander's 57 yr. old father, W. Perdew, a baker and confectioner, b. abt. 1803 in Pa. also appeared, living in Precinct 1, Collin, Texas (Post Office: McKinney) with his
54 yr. old wife, Rebecca, b. abt. 1806 in NJ
34 yr. old daughter, Ruth Perdew, b. 1826 in Ohio
19 yr. old son, G.F.R.B. Perdew, b. abt. 1841 in Indian Territory, Oklahoma.
At one point on the trip, Alexander handed a rifle to his six year old son, Rufus Putnam ('Put'). He was placed in the back of the wagon and told to watch for Indians. As the story goes, 'Put' went to sleep and fell out of the wagon. Apparently, he was not missed until the family had traveled several miles. At that point, his father, Alex, rode back 'til he found him.
Upon arriving in California, another child, Texanna, was born in 1861 (Monterey, Monterey, CA.) She was to be the first of 7 children born to Alexander and Sarah in California.
According to the May 1863 U.S. IRS Tax Assessment List, Division 8, District 2 of the State of CA., A. G. Perdew whose residence was San Bernardino, owned a two horse carriage. His total amount of tax due was $2.
Excerpt from Light Over The Mountain, A History of the Rancho Cucamonga Area:
Records show that the first settlers came to Grapeland, San Bernardino, CA. in the 1860's. Alexander and Sarah Perdew were two of the original settlers of the area. The date of their arrival is not certain but records show that their son, Joseph, was born in Grapeland in 1864.
After settling in the Grapeland area, Alexander became involved in the grape industry. (Grapeland covered the area from what is now Highland Ave. to the foothills and between San Sevine Road and Riverside Ave.)
Not only was he a rancher, but a teacher as well. His subject was penmanship and it was he who built the first school in the Etiwanda area. the building was named, appropriately, the Perdew school.
Alexander and his brother, Greenberry Ferdinand (G.F.R.B.) built homes within hollering distance of each other. In 1892, the family was living on a small farm in Grapeland, where he raised corn, grapes and some nursery stock. His brother, Greenberry, raised peaches, which he planted in 1881 and by 1890, his net profit was $150 an acre, a figure so startling that the San Bernardino Board of Trade used the figures to promote the county. By 1886, there were more than a dozen families living in the community, with more immigrants arriving monthly. A 3 million gallon reservoir was constructed (Sierra Vista) with speculation of bringing water from Lytle Creek, but due to mismanagement of the water district officials and exchanging of unsold bonds for labor, the courts declared the entire project illegal. Without the required water, most of the farms in Grapeland faded away.
While living in the San Bernardino Valley, Sarah was to have six more children, including Joseph Edward who was born in Grapeland on October 4, 1864. Years later, Joseph would follow in his father's footsteps as a rancher. In 1890, Joseph married Nettie Jeannette Henderson. Their family consisted of 10 children. In the 1870 census, Alexander Perdew is listed as a farmer. He died on April 16, 1894.
There is a Sep. 23, 1868 entry in the CA. (Voter's) Register for San Bernardino, CA. for Alexander 'Garrison' Perdew, a farmer, b. in the U.S., and a resident of San Bernardino.
Also listed on the same page are three 1866 entries for:
31 yr. old Ashbury Perdew, a merchant, living in San Bernardino;
63 yr. old William Perdew, a farmer, living in San Bernardino; and
24 yr. old Greenbury Ferdinand R. B. Perdew, a merchant, living in San Bernardino.
The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, CA.), P. 2, Col. 5
Fri., Dec. 24, 1869
SOMETHING STRANGE BUT TRUE- The San Bernardino Guardian says:
We are informed by Mr. Wm. Perdew, that there is on his son's A.G. Perdew, place in this county, a sweet potato vine covered with blossoms, between a pink and blue color, and resembling somewhat that of the morning flory, but a very different flower. This is we think the first instance on record of a sweet potato vine bearing bloom. Can any one explain, or account for it? and has any one ever heard of such a thing before? Mr. Perdew is an old farmer, and has cultivated the sweet potato all his life, but this is the first instance of the kind that has come under his knowledge.
In the Jul. 19, 1870 U.S. census, 40 yr. old Alexander Perdew, a farmer, b. abt. 1830 in OH., was living in San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA. with his
33 yr. old wife, Sarah Perdew, b. in OH.
18 yr. old daughter, Mary (Helen) Perdew, b. in OH.
16 yr. old son, Rufus (Putnam) Perdew, b. in IA.
11 yr. old son, (George) Franklin Perdew, b. in IA.
9 yr. old daughter, (Texanna) Anna Kibby Perdew, b. in CA.
7 yr. old son, (Joseph) Edward Perdew, b. in CA.
3 yr. old son, (Ashbury) Ferdinand Perdew, b. in CA.
11 mth. old daughter, Charlotte ('Lottie' Estella) Perdew, b. in CA.
A. G. Perdew is listed again in the San Bernardino County (Tax) Assessment books as follows:
Improvements (on land) - $50
2 horses, @ $20 each - $40
1 small wagon and harness - $30
7 shoates (young pigs, newly weaned) - $7
house, furniture, dog - $20
Total: $147
- 1 land tax, 1 poll tax and militia - minus $50
New total: $86
*Note: the mention of militia above may mean that Alexander served in the California militia.
A. G. Perdew is listed again in the San Bernardino County (Tax) Assessment books as follows for 1870:
Improvements on public land - $30
Personal property - land, 2 horses, 1 wagon, furniture, 1 dog - $95
Total: $125
Taxes owed were $3.37, Paid on Aug. 22, 1870
Feb. 8, 1873 - Alexander Perdew, Alex Brazelton and Ballard Wall were authorized by Henry Hancock to stop trespassing of the Muscupiabe Rancho.
Feb. 8, 1877 - On Sunday night, Mr. A. G. Perdew, who lives on Lytle Creek, heard a commotion outside his house, followed by a heavy thud on the rood. He found a large mountain lion had taken his position there, from whence he sprang into one of the trees that surround the house. Mr. Perdew shot him, then finished him off with an ax. The hide from muzzle to tip of tail measured 6'8".
There is a February 21, 1880 entry on line 1732 of the Great (Voters) Register of San Bernardino for 49 yr. old Alexander 'Garrison' Perdew, a farmer, born in OH., and living in Martin's.
Also listed for 1880 are: 21 yr. old George Franklin Perdew, a barber, b. in IA. and living in San Bernardino; 77 yr. old William Perdew, a farmer, b. in PA., and living in San Bernardino; and 26 yr. old Rufus Putnam Perdew, a farmer, born in IA. and living in Martin's.
In the Jul. 14, 1880 U. S. census, 50 yr. old A. G.(Alexander Glenn) Perdew, a farmer, b. abt. 1830 in NY., was living in Martins, San Bernardino, CA. with his
45 yr. old wife, 'Della' (Sarah) Perdew, b. in NY.
18 yr. old son, (Joseph) Edward Perdew, a laborer, b. in CA.
15 yr. old son, (Asbury Ferdinand) Fred Perdew, at school, b. in CA.
11 yr. old daughter, Charlotte 'Lottie Perdew', at school, b. in CA.
7 yr. old daughter (Ida) May Perdew, b. in CA.
5 yr. old daughter, (Lucie Ophelia) Luti Perdew, b. in CA.
3 yr. old son, Albert Perdew, b. in CA.
Both Alexander's & Della/Sarah's parents were 'b. in NY.'
Living next door were Alex & Sarah's 25 yr. old son, Rufus Putnam Perdew and his 18 yr. old wife, "Teresa/Tercia"(?).
San Diego Union (San Diego, CA.), P. 4, Wed., Feb. 2, 1881
The San Bernardino Times, amongst a lot of interesting items, states that Mr. Alex Perdew has planted 12,000 peach seeds. He is a large fruit grower.
Press and Horticulturist (Riverside, CA.), P. 3, Sat., Feb. 5, 1881
Alex. Perdew of Lytle Creek, proposes to plant an eighty acre orchard this season - mostly peach.
Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA.), P. 3, Col. 1
Tue., Apr. 3, 1883
Item from: San Bernardino Bits
From Alex. Perdew and Will Fulton, who live at the mouth of Lytle creek, we learn that at least seven inches of rain has fallen there during the present storm. They say this is no exaggeration, but an actual, demonstrable fact.
Press and Horticulturist (Riverside, CA.), P. 1, Tues., Jun. 16, 1885
There is now to the credit of the building funds of the following districts:
Summit …………………… $2,000
Perdew……………………. $1,000
Redlands ………………… $1,000
Riley………………………... $4,000
And other districts are preparing to build. The Mission district has voted bonds for $2,000 and the bonds are advertised for sale. The Hermosa district is about to vote upon the question of issuing bonds to build.
According to the Mar. 9, 1886 Great (Voters) Register of San Bernardino County, 55 yr. old Alexander 'Garrison' Perdew, a farmer, b. in OH., was living in Martin's. Directly under his entry are four other Perdews: 21 yr. old Ferdinand Perdew, a laborer, b. in CA.; 27 yr. old George Franklin Perdew, a painter, b. in IA. and living in San Bernardino; 44 yr. old Greenberry F. R. B. Perdew, a horticulturist, b. in IA. and living in Martin's; 22 yr. old Joseph Edwin Perdew, a farmer, b. in CA., and living in Martin's; and 32 yr. old Rufus Putnam Perdew, a farmer, b. in IA., and living in Martin's.
The Daily Courier (San Bernardino, CA.), P. 5, Jan. 19, 1888
There are twenty pupils attending school in the Perdew district. Miss Annie Anderson is the teacher, and the young lady is doing good work.
The Daily Courier (San Bernardino, CA.), P. 5, Fri., Feb. 24. 1888
Following are names of pupils on the roll of honor of Perdew district for the month ending February 17th: Bertie Perdew, average standing for the month, 82 ½; Walter Perdew, 80 5-6; Maggie Perdew, 82 4-5; Fielding Perdew, 80 5-6 (all 4 are G.F.R.B. Perdew's children).
Annie L. Anderson, Teacher.
The Daily Courier (San Bernardino, CA.), P. 2, Sat., Oct. 20, 1888
Perdew Voting Precinct – Alex Perdew, inspector; E.T. Myers, Alex Henderson, judges. Polling place, school house.
The Daily Courier (San Bernardino, CA.), P. 1, Tues., Feb. 26, 1889
Roll of Honor
Following is the Roll of Honor for the Perdew district school for the month ending February 22d:
Number enrolled 29. Herbert Perdew, Lizzie Porter, Robert Henderson, Laura Mundell, George Barnum, Maggie Perdew, Fred Scott, Josie Delor, William Barnum, Maud Hazard, Walter Perdew.
Rose E. Stoermer, Teacher
1889 - San Bernardino City and County Directory - Alexander was listed as a horticulturist.
The Daily Courier (San Bernardino, CA.), P. 3, Col. 2
Wed., Sep. 18, 1889
Item from: SHORT MENTION
Put Perdew, who came into the city yesterday, reports that the great fire on the western plains did far more damage than was at first supposed. The dwelling house of Mr. Aleck Perdew and all his outhouses were licked up by the insatiable flames, despite the utmost efforts of the family and neighbors to stay the advance of the fire. From nine to fifteen dwelling houses are reported burned, among them the Perdew and Sansevain houses. Other valuable property has also been destroyed. The estimate of loss in houses, fences, hay, farming utensils, etc., varies from $10,000 to $20,000.
Jun. 2, 1890 - Signers of the petition to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors asked to have the territory now comprised within the boundaries of the Grapeland Irrigation District organized into an irrigation district, included: A. G. Perdew, J. E. Perdew, Nettie Perdew and G. F . R. B. Perdew.
Jul. 27, 1890 - A.G. Perdew was elected Director of the Fourth Division of the District, elected.
Feb. 19, 1891 - The Board of Directors of the Grapeland Irrigation District included A.G. Perdew. They were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against James F. Harmon in regard to the sale of Bonds by the irrigation district. Plaintiffs won.
The San Bernardino Daily Courier (San Bernardino, CA.), P. 1, Col. 7
Tue., Dec. 8, 1891
Excerpts from: Grapeland News
Knowing that you solicit news items from different sections of the county, a few notes from our enterprising community will probably not be out of place.
We are at present being visited by a disagreeably cold north wind, and from our elevated position can see clouds of dust rolling in various parts of the county that are unfortunate enough to have sandy soil.
Only about half an inch of rain fell here during the recent rainstorm, hardly enough to start the plows of the grain sowers.
The jackrabbits are being exterminated at a lively rate in and around Grapeland since the law was passed placing a bounty on their scalps. There have been about 300 scalps taken in this vicinity and jackrabbits are becoming exceedingly scarce, much to the satisfaction of the fruit and raisin growers.
Mr. Will Henderson has a curiosity in his orchard in the form of an apple tree. It is laden with beautiful blooms, ripe apples and apples of all stages of growth from a marble up. Near this apple tree stands a peach tree in full bloom and from which the last of its crop of peaches was but recently picked.
Mr. A. G. Perdew had a tomato vine in his garden for four years and it bore heavy each year. These are sufficient proofs of our tropical climate.
Mr. G. F. R. B. Perdew is putting a four barbed-wire fence around his eighty-acre tract. A thirty-inch wire netting will be placed around the bottom to make it rabbit proof.
The Los Angeles Herald (Los Angeles, CA.), P. 3, Col. 1-3
Sat., Mar. 26, 1892
Excerpt from: GRAPELAND
Fertile Soil, Pure Water and Perfect Climate
The Home of the Orange, Lemon and Grape
To keep pace with the wonderful development now going on in Southern California is no easy matter, but the HERALD, in accordance with its custom of keeping its readers informed as to the march of improvements, had one of its representatives visit Grapeland, one of our newer irrigation districts, and the results of his observations are as follows:
The Grapeland irrigation district comprises 11,000 acres of as fine citrus land as can be found in the world, and is situated just to the west of the Cajon pass and about seven miles northwest of San Bernardino and Colton. It is bounded on the east and south by the lands of the Semi Tropic Land and Water company and on the west by the lands of beautiful Etiwanda, while to the north tower the lofty granite mountains of the Sierra Madre range. With a magnificently fertile soil, a climate of absolute perfection and a warm, sunny exposure, here all manner of citrus and deciduous fruits, vines and nut-bearing trees flourish to perfection, and damage from frosts or pests is unknown. The elevation of Grapeland is from 1400 to 1700 feet above sea level, the land having a gentle slope from the mountains of about 75 feet to the mile, and while this slope is hardly perceptible to the eye, it renders every acre easy of irrigation, and affords an unsurpassed view of the surrounding country.
On this sunny southern slope are grown oranges, lemons, raisins, olives, peaches, prunes and other fruits that challenge comparison with any other section, and the dry, rare air, in which the humidity is hardly perceptible, renders the drying of grapes and other fruits a natural process. Owing to the climatic advantages enjoyed here, the raisin grape matures earlier than in less favored places in the lower valley, there being, therefore, less liability to danger from unseasonable rains.
Graceland is not a production or relic of the late boom. Here no town lots were staked out, and the speculator did not roam over its fertile acres. As early as the sixties, the Perdew brothers, Hawker and others settled at the base of the mountains, attracted by the perfect climate, the fruitful soil and the pure mountain water, and here they raised fruit and vegetables for sale to the miner and immigrant, the only possible market at that time. Until the advent of the Southern Pacific railroad, the country was comparatively a solitude, as was the whole section between Old Cucamonga and San Bernardino. Along the line where today are the wonderful settlements of Pomona, Ontario, Cucamonga, Etiwanda, Grapeland, Rialto, Redlands and others, with their thousands of inhabitants, the solitude was only broken by the overland mail stage and the freight team conveying goods to Arizona along the old base line road.
About five years ago, the section embraced in Grapeland commenced to attract attention, and the lands within the present district were secured largely by actual settlers who have gone steadily on improving their lands, and showing the capabilities of the soil. Most of the settlers owned water interests in Lyle Creek, the magnificent mountain stream that flows to the east of Grapeland, but as the area of cultivation increased, it was found that more water was needed, and the Grapeland Irrigation district was formed as the best means of securing an ample supply, and the following officers were elected:
President, J. D. Ousterhout; secretary, E. T. Myers; directors, J. D. Ousterhout, W. D. Nevin, J. L. Adams, A. G. Perdew, E. T. Meyers; treasurer, J. A. Scott; collector, A. G. Pier; assessor, E. E. Scott.
The organization of the district has been confirmed by the coasts as having fully complied with all the requirements of the law, thus making their bonds an investment of absolute safety.
The directors have since purchased 320 acres bordering on both sides of Lyle creek, and propose to run a tunnel to tap the underground flow of the creek, the district engineer being fully confident that a supply ample for the needs of the entire district, or one inch to each ten acres, will be obtained from this source.
Two days were spent at Grapeland, amid the tasty homes, surrounded by shade trees, orchards, and vineyards, of Messrs. Myers, Mattern, Scott, Gebhardt, Adams, Perdews, Stimpson, Hazard, Pier, McComb, Ousterhout and others, all showing what energy and industry, directed by intelligence, will accomplish in a short space of time.
*At the bottom of Column 2, is the following paragraph: The old Perdew orchards and vineyards are producing the finest kind of crops, and among the newer vineyards, the last crop of Mr. Myers was a fine one from three and four-year-old vines.
Press and Horticulturist (Riverside, CA.), P. 3, Sat., May 14, 1892
The Grapeland school district has been formed out of portions of Etiwanda and Perdew districts.
According to the Aug. 10, 1892 Great (Voters) Register for San Bernardino County, CA., 63 yr. old Alexander 'Garrison' Perdew, Registration No. 1120, a farmer, born in OH., was a resident of Grapeland, CA. He was described as 5'8" tall, with a light complexion, blue eyes and gray hair.
On the four lines directly underneath his name were:
25 yr. old Asbury Ferdinand Perdew, Grapeland; 34 yr. old George Franklin Perdew, San Bernardino; 50 yr. old Greenberry F. R. B. Perdew, Grapeland; 28 yr. old Joseph Edwin Perdew, Grapeland.
*This page contains almost all of the middle names of everyone on the page, if they had one. This registrar appears to have been very thorough!
The Weekly Courier (San Bernardino, CA.),
Sat., Dec. 24, 1892, P. 3, Col. 1
There will be a change of teachers at Perdew school after the holidays. The present teacher leaves the school for the position of partner for life, the other member being a young city attorney.
The Daily Courier (San Bernardino, CA.), P. 3, Wed., Apr. 18, 1894
A. G. Perdew, an old and respected citizen of this county and a resident of Grapeland, who died on Sunday, was buried in this city Tuesday at 2 p.m. The funeral had a large attendance.
Although the above newspaper article states that Alexander Perdew died on Sunday (April 15, 1894), the San Bernardino County Deaths Book #5, P. 322, states that A. G. Perdew died April 16, 1894.
P.3 of the Genealogy of One Branch of The Hoskinson Family, compiled by Alice H. Wooldridge, (born Sep. 24, 1897 and died Dec. 26, 1972, who at the time lived in Myrtle Point, OR.), also states that Alexander Glenn Perdew died April 16, 1894.
Alexander died at age 64 according to Pioneer Cemetery records. Mortuary: Barton & C.
Death Record: Book 3, P. 158
Cause of death: intestinal nephritis
Intestinal nephritis is a kidney disorder in which the spaces between the kidney tubules become inflamed which can, in turn, lead to kidney failure.
According to San Bernardino Probate records, Book 20, P. 124 & 125 - A. G. Perdew died on or about Apr. 16, 1894.
There were two San Bernardino Death records for A. G. Perdew, age 64, laborer, b. in OH. One states that he died of uremia, the other states his cause of death as nephritis, both kidney diseases. His last place of residence was Grapeland, S. B., CA.
*Note regarding Alexander's daughter, Lucy 'Lutie' Ophelia Perdew:
Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA.), P. 9, Col. 5
Wed., Nov. 28, 1894
Item from: SAN BERNARDINO BREVITIES
A marriage license was granted today to Emil Steiner, aged 22 years, a native of Texas and resident of Etiwanda, and Lutie O. Perdew, aged 20 years, a native of California and a resident of Yucaipa.
About 8 yrs. after Alexander died, and after their son, Ashbury Ferdinand 'Fade', died of a gunshot wound on November 11, 1902, Sarah Perdew moved to San Bernardino and raised Fade's six children. She died March 6, 1914.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
IN BANK
[Filed July 26, 1884]
LYTLE CREEK WATER COMPANY,
VS
A.G. PERDEW, G.F.R.B. PERDEW, R.P. PERDEW AND JOHN HACKNEY } No. 9,244
The Court rendered the following decision:
"First – That at various times since about the year 1854, a large number of persons owning and occupying separate tracts of land consisting of farms on the Rancho of San Bernardino and other farms immediately to the north and west of said rancho, and residence lots and gardens, orchards and vineyards in the town of San Bernardino, diverted and appropriated the waters of Lytle Creek by means of water ditches and dams, and conducted such waters upon their said lands for irrigating the same and for household and domestic uses thereon.
Such appropriations were usually made by persons owning and occupying lands in the same vicinity or neighborhood, acting in concert for their common benefit in appropriating a portion of the waters of the creek into a main ditch to be conducted to their neighborhood and thence through distributing ditches to their respective and individual tracts of land.
Second – That within almost two years after 1854 and before the end of the year 1856, by means of several such appropriations mentioned in finding one, all of the waters of said Lytle Creek had been so diverted and appropriated and have ever since been appropriated and used for irrigation and household and domestic uses upon the lands aforesaid and other lands occupied and cultivated by defendants, as hereinafter stated.
Third - That such waters so appropriated and used were used by the various persons who appropriated the same and those claiming to be their successors, by turns separately and consecutively, each upon his separate land for a certain length of time, measured by hours and minutes, under the regulations of the Board of Water Commissioners of this county and the overseers of ditches prescribing how often and the length of time each should be entitled to use the same, varying in time according to the extent of interest each held in the waters so appropriated, except however, that one George Lord, one of the first appropriators has always to the present time, used said water upon his farm of about forty acres, whenever his needs required it at any time under a claim of right so to do.
Such separate interests in the water were held by the individuals separately, and sold, transferred or abandoned by them respectively at their will.
Fourth – That in June 1867, the defendant A.G. Perdew, settled upon and has ever since resided upon and cultivated a tract of Government land near said Lytle Creek, and within the flow of the same, but lying above the aforesaid lands of original appropriators mentioned in finding one and about the time of his said settlement thereon he diverted and appropriated from said Lytle Creek, a stream of water through a ditch constructed by him for the purpose of irrigating his said land, and for household and domestic uses thereon, and he has ever since conducted, appropriated and used such stream of water upon his said land to irrigate the same and crops thereon, and for household and domestic purposes.
Fifth – That the plaintiff was at the commencement of this action the owner through mesne conveyances (an intermediate conveyance; one occupying an intermediate position in a chain of title between the first grantee and the present holder) and transfers of certain interests in or a portion of the waters of said Lytle Creek, appropriated as aforesaid prior to the time that said defendant, A.G. Perdew made his appropriations aforesaid in 1867, as mentioned in finding four, equal in amount to the use of all the waters of said creek, one hundred and twenty-four hours and nineteen minutes out of each and every three hundred and seventy-two hours, and since the commencement of this action and before filing the supplemental complaint herein, the plaintiff has acquired and now owns through mesne conveyances an additional interest in or portion of said waters conveyed to it directly by one E. H. Morse, appropriated as aforesaid prior to the aforesaid appropriation of said defendant, A.G. Perdew, equal in amount to the use of all the waters of said creek, eight hours out of each three hundred and seventy-two hours, making in all an amount equal to the use of all the waters of the creek, one hundred and thirty-two hours and nineteen minutes in each three hundred and seventy-two hours, or in other words, in the same proportion to the constant flow of the whole stream as the period of one hundred and thirty-two hours and nineteen minutes is to three hundred and seventy-two hours. But the said appropriation and use by defendant, A.G. Perdew, is prior in time to any other right or interest of the plaintiff.
Sixth – That such appropriation by the defendant A.G. Perdew, was not made with the consent of the plaintiff or any of its grantors or predecessors in interest through whom it derives its aforesaid interest in said waters which it now owns as aforesaid, and said defendant did not appropriate and has not used said water with intent to deprive any prior appropriator of any of said waters or the successors in interest of any of such prior appropriators, of any of the said waters which had been previously appropriated, and his use said waters and right to use the same has bet. Several times, to-wit: more frequently than once in five years since his appropriation thereof, interrupted and disputed by others of the said original appropriators and their successors in interest.
Seventh – That in the year 1879, the defendants, A.G. Perdew, G.F.R.B. Perdew, and R.P. Perdew, constructed in what is known as South Fork Cañon, but designated in the answer as Dry Cañon and in Grapevine Cañon, flumes for the purpose of carrying water and which did carry water flowing in said South Fork Cañon, to the amount of about fifty-eight inches under a four-inch pressure, and in said Grapevine Cañon to the amount of about ten inches under a four-inch pressure and conducted such water through said flume into the main streams of Lytle Creek aforesaid, above where any of the water is diverted from said creek as aforesaid. The lands upon which said flumes are constructed, and upon which the streams in said cañons were flowing, are unsurveyed public lands of the United States and unoccupied except by such flumes.
Eighth – That all the waters in said two cañons, and all of that which was conducted through said flumes into the main streams of Lytle Creek as aforesaid, have before said fluming by defendants, always naturally flowed into the said main streams of Lytle Creek, and constituted tributaries of the same, and the quantity of water in said Lytle Creek has not in any manner been increased by reason of the fluming of the waters from said cañon by defendants as aforesaid.
Ninth – That in addition to the aforesaid appropriation by A.G. Perdew in 1867, as stated in finding four, and ever since the construction of the aforesaid flumes by defendants, as stated in finding seven, the said defendants have diverted from said Lytle Creek, and used upon their respective farms, as alleged in their answer, an amount of water equal to that flowing through their said flumes into the main streams of Lytle Creek as aforesaid, and if not restrained will continue to do so.
Tenth – That the amount of water or water interest owned by the plaintiff at the commencement of this action, as set forth in finding five was composed of several separate interests which it had acquired at different times from the various owners thereof, previously held and owned by them in severalty, as stated in finding three, and the plaintiff has never in any manner been allotted any particular time or times during which it should use the aforesaid portion or quantity of the waters belonging to it.
Eleventh – That the said Lytle Creek water ditches, lands and premises mentioned in the foregoing findings are all situated in the county of San Bernardino, State of California.
As conclusions of law, the Court decides:
That the defendants A.G. Perdew, G.F.R.B. Perdew and R. P. Perdew are not, nor are any of them, entitled to divert or take out of Lytle Creek any water as the equivalent of the water conducted it to the main streams of said creek through the flumes constructed by them in the South Fork Cañon designated in their answer as 'Dry Cañon', and in Grapevine Cañon, and that they be perpetually enjoined from diverting or taking out any water from said creek as such equivalent or by virtue of conducting the aforesaid waters from or through the said canons or either of them into the said creek. Also, that the defendants G.F.R.B. Perdew and R.P. Perdew have no right, title or interest in or to the waters of said Lytle Creek, or the use thereof, and they and each of them, the said G.F.R.B. and R.P. Perdew be perpetually enjoined from diverting, obstructing or in any manner interfering with the waters of said Lytle Creek or any part thereof, or the regular and constant flow of the same by virtue of any right, title or interest heretofore acquired or held by them or either of them.
Also, that plaintiff is the owner of an interest in or portion of the waters of said Lytle Creek, equal in amount or quantity to the use of all the waters of said creek, one hundred and thirty-two hours and nineteen minutes out of each and every three hundred and seventy-two hours, that is to say, in the same proportion to the constant flow of the whole stream as the period of one hundred and thirty-two hours and nineteen minutes is to three hundred and seventy-two hours.
Also, that plaintiff recover from said defendants, A.G. Perdew, G. F. R. B. Perdew and R. P. Perdew, its costs of this action necessarily expended or incurred. That judgment be entered accordingly.
A decree passed accordingly.
The Court, as will be perceived from the foregoing, granted the relief desired against G. F. R. B. Perdew and R. P. Perdew, and granted it partly against A. G. Perdew. The action was dismissed as to Hackney.
The appeal by plaintiff brings up that part of the decree which relates to A.G. Perdew; and we see no reason why on the findings of fact it is not entitled to an injunction against him as well as the other defendants. The entire waters of Lytle Creek had been appropriated prior to any appropriation by A. G. Perdew. Under these prior appropriations, the plaintiff held. The defendant just mentioned was a trespasser using the waters of the creek without any right whatsoever. Why a lawful appropriator should not be entitled to an injunction against a trespasser, we cannot perceive. It is said that the waters are appropriated severally by those who did not appropriate them. Concede this to be so, and we do not perceive that it makes any difference. If they are tenants in common of the water, such tenants and each of them are tenants, seized 'per my and not per tout' (by the half and hot by the whole), and entitled t the possession of the whole. This must be so, because no one of them can certainly state which part of them is his own.
They hold by unity of possession, though their titles be distinct. If this unity is destroyed, their tenancy no longer exists.
A person without title, and wrongfully in the possession, cannot gainsay the right of each of the tenants in common to0 the possession of the whole. As between tenants in common and a trespasser, each tenant in common is better entitled to the possession than a wrong doer. He can maintain an action against a trespasser and recover possession f the whole estate held in common. This being so, it follows that he can take steps to protect the whole. It would be an anomaly in the law if such tenant could recover the whole property from a wrongdoer and could not alone intervene to protect it from nuisances and trespasses which can be redressed by the preventive process of injunction.
Whether joint appropriators holding the estate as joint tenants in common, the same is the result. Each can recover the whole or take the necessary steps to protect the whole against the acts of a wrongdoer.
It is found that the interest of plaintiff in the waters of Lytle Creek derived from some of the first appropriators, is equal to the use of all the waters of the creek one hundred and twenty-two hours and nineteen minutes in three hundred and seventy-two hours; that these waters so appropriated and used by the first appropriators were used by the persons so appropriating the same and their successors by terms separately and consecutively, each upon his own land for a certain length of time, under te regulations of Water Commissioners and the overseers of ditches, prescribing how often and the length of time each person should be entitled to their use, varying in time, according to the extent of interest each held in the waters so appropriated, with one exception which need not be further mentioned, that such separate interests in the waters were held by the individuals separately, and sold, transferred or abandoned by them each at his own will; that the amount of water interests owned by plaintiff was composed of several interests which it had acquired at different times from the various owners thereof, previously held and owned by them in severalty as stated in finding three, but the plaintiff has never in any manner been allotted any particular time or times during which it should use the portion or quantity of the water belonging to it. The finding is singular in this: It would seem from the preceding findings that such allotment had been made to the parties under whom plaintiff derives title. This being so, why does it not take the places and times of its grantors?
But if this time or times had not been fixed or allotted to plaintiff, how does that concern defendant A. G. Perdew? He is a trespasser on the rights of plaintiff and each and all of his co-tenants. Perdew is using the waters Without rights and claims to use them at all times, against all others. No limit as to time of use is found as to him. It would be strange if one tenant in common could not enjoin a threatened injury. What has he to do with the circumstance that the time or times when plaintiff is entitled to use these waters, has not, as between him and his co-appropriators, been fixed in any way? This arrangement as to the periods of user concerns only the co-tenants, is made for their convenience and benefit, to avoid disputes between them, and for carrying out in an orderly manner their employment of those waters. The fact that Perdew is trespassing on the rights of plaintiff is sufficient to entitle it to relief.
It is urged that insomuch as it does not appear that A. G. Perdew is using the water during the period the plaintiff is entitled to use it, that he is inflicting no injury on its rights. How can this be said? He is claiming to use the water at all times, and will no doubt use it unless restrained by an order or decree of the Court.
Suppose the time of the plaintiff's use was fixed and A. G. Perdew used water up to within a minute of the time that plaintiff was entitled to use it. According to this contention, Perdew would be violating the right of the plaintiff. But can it be said that he is not then injuring plaintiff? Observe, this defendant is using it when another or others of the appropriators have a right to use it and may be using it. Can it then be said that he is not taking out more water than the appropriators, entitled to use it, are allowed to take out? And is he not then diminishing the water which would come to the plaintiff?
We cannot allow any force to this argument. The contention we think is untenable.
The co-tenants are entitled to use all the waters and when an outsider diverts any from them or any one of them, he is injuring all and each one of them. He may be doing more injury to the one entitled to use it at the time he is diverting it, but he is at all times when diverting, guilty of a trespass on the rights of each and every one of them, and each of them has a right to have the preventive power of a court of justice to put a stop to his illegal acts.
It is urged that all the co-tenants must be before the Court, and all their rights adjudicated, before plaintiff is entitled to relief. Why, we cannot see. There was no dispute as to the rights of the co-tenants. Plaintiff makes no complaint as to them or any of them. The rights of each are set forth in the findings, and plaintiff makes no complaint as to the findings or decree in this regard.
The decree, if in favor of plaintiff, affects no rights of his co-owners. It cannot be pleaded against them or any of them. It is only where the Court cannot determine the controversy between the parties before it, without prejudicing the rights of any of the co-owners, or of any other person that other parties must be brought in. When the contest can be settled without affecting the rights of others there is no ground or reason for bringing in other parties.
In our judgment the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of the Court enjoining A.G. Perdew from the diversion of any of the waters of Lytle Creek under the appropriation of 1867, as set forth in finding IV, or any other diversion or obstruction of such waters subsequent to the inception of the interest owned by plaintiff and declared in the findings.
The judgment is reversed as to A.G. Perdew and the cause remanded with directions to the Court below to enter a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against A.G. Perdew as follows: That A.G. Perdew be perpetually enjoined from diverting, obstructing or in any manner interfering with the waters of said Lytle Creek or any part thereof or the regular or constant flow of the same by virtue of any right, title or interest claimed or held by him under any appropriation or claim of such waters made by him any time subsequent to the appropriation of plaintiff or of those from whom it derives title under prior to June, 1867. The court below is further directed to execute the decree by mandatory or prohibitory injunction, as may be found necessary. In other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Thornton, J.
We concur: Sharstein, J., Myrick, J., Ross, J. |
