Browsing named entities in Medford Historical Society Papers, Volume 23.. You can also browse the collection for James Cutter or search for James Cutter in all documents.

Your search returned 3 results in 2 document sections:

Medford Historical Society Papers, Volume 23., More about the grist mill. (search)
ceived a deed of the land from Henry Dunster. In the year 1822, Moses Robbins, a descendant of Jonathan Dunster, deeded to Cyrus Cutter one acre of marsh land, bounded southwest on Mystic river, northeast on Deacon John Larkin, southeast on James Cutter, together with all the mill privileges if there be any belonging to the said parcel of land on the north side of the river. There is no mention of a building in the deed. James Cutter owned the other part of the acre and three-fourths of marJames Cutter owned the other part of the acre and three-fourths of marsh land that Joseph Prout sold to Jonathan Dunster. Mr. Brooks says, in writing of a mill a short distance below Wear bridge, the place is yet occupied. If we are to be guided by Moses Robbins' deed, there was not any building there in 1822, but the conveyance of mill rights shows that a mill stood there at one time. Mr. Brooks' statement that the place is yet occupied probably had reference to the remains recently discovered. In regard to the query about Mistick bridge, I answer that th
Medford Historical Society Papers, Volume 23., Editorial Comment. (search)
Notice the first of these two was meadow (i.e. marsh) land and at the end of the mill dam; the second, upland at the end of the old dam. Here are two distinct dams mentioned. The latter dam was almost opposite the angle of present Arlington street, and when constructed was across the stream. The former must have been a wing dam perhaps from the two islands then at that point in the river. That particular piece of medow land is shown on Plan of Smith Estate in 1870 as of ownership of Cutter, and for years later the marsh grass was annually cut there. Having made his enumeration and description of the three parcels, Prout mentioned the various appurtenances thereto belonging, and while specifying a dwelling house, did not mention any mill building on either side the river. Notice, at that time twelve years had elapsed since Medford petitioned the General Court, and fifty-four (or more) since Broughton built his mills, to which in his deed Prout referred not as mill, but as a mi