← Back to Case Study Master Landing Page

Methodology: Three Generations, One Cottage

METHODOLOGY

Three Generations, One Cottage

How We Proved a Three-Generation Connection Using BCG Standards and Storyline Genealogy Techniques

Overview

This methodology document explains the research process, source discovery strategies, analytical techniques, and narrative framework used to prove that three men named Thomas Hamall maintained connection to 291 Lionel Road, Riverside, Illinois across 87 years (1911-1998).

Standards Followed:

Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG) Genealogical Proof Standard
Evidence Explained citation standards (Elizabeth Shown Mills)
National Genealogical Society Quarterly publication guidelines
Storyline Genealogy narrative integration framework

Phase 1

Initial Research & Client Interview

The Starting Point

Client:

Mary Hamall Morales, granddaughter of Thomas Eugene Hamall

Initial Information Provided:

Her father (Thomas Kenny Hamall) had told stories about a cottage in Illinois
Her father made "Saturday visits" there as a child with his own father
Memories of a dog they "had to leave behind" when moving to Miami
Her father's trip to Washington DC during seminary years - he called it "pivotal"
Her father traveled to the area years later to relive those memories
A handful of old photographs in an envelope marked "Riverside House"

Initial Interview Strategy

Core Questions Asked:

What did your father say about these visits? (Establish oral history baseline)
When did he say they occurred? (Create timeline framework)
Who else was involved? (Identify potential witnesses/sources)
Why did he travel to relive those memories? (Understand emotional motivation)
What happened to the property after his father died? (Track ownership chain)
Are there any documents, letters, or papers? (Assess available private sources)

                Critical Interview Technique: We asked the client to tell the story chronologically, then asked her to tell it again by person (Grandfather → Father → Client's father). This revealed gaps and contradictions that needed documentary resolution.
            

Defining the Research Question

Initial question: "Did Thomas Eugene Hamall own property in Riverside, Illinois?"

                Too narrow. Ownership is easy to prove with a deed. But that wouldn't explain why it mattered across three generations.
            

Revised question: "Can we prove three generations maintained connection to this property despite divorce, distance, and death?"

                Better. This question requires multiple source types, addresses gaps, and seeks meaning, not just facts.
            

Creating the Research Plan

Phase 1 Objectives:

Verify basic genealogy (births, deaths, marriages, relationships)
Locate property records for 291 Lionel Road (if address could be found)
Find census records showing addresses across three generations
Search for any legal records involving the family (cast a wide net)
Assess reliability of oral history through initial document correlation

Estimated Timeline

6-8 months

Budget Considerations

Multiple repository visits, legal record retrieval, professional photograph scanning

Phase 2

Foundational Research

Stage 1: Vital Records & Basic Genealogy

Sources Consulted:

Cook County, Illinois Birth Records (Thomas Eugene, Thomas Kenny)
Cook County, Illinois Marriage Records (Thomas Henry, Thomas Eugene)
Cook County, Illinois Death Records (Thomas Henry)
Miami-Dade County, Florida Death Records (Thomas Eugene, Thomas Kenny)
Social Security Death Index (verification)

Purpose: Establish identities, relationships, dates, and locations before pursuing complex property/legal research.

Key Discovery: Thomas Kenny's 1932 birth certificate showed parents living at 4869 N Ashland—Margaret's parents' address. This explained the recurring Ashland address in later records.

Research Note: Thomas Eugene appeared in the 1920 census as "Thomas Hepp" (stepfather's surname). This name variation required careful tracking through subsequent records to confirm identity continuity.

Stage 2: Census Research (1920-1950)

                Strategy: Work backward from known (1950) to unknown (1920), tracking Thomas Eugene through each decade while noting address changes.
            

1950 U.S. Census:

Thomas Eugene Hamall, living in Miami-Dade County, Florida
With mother Emma
Establishes post-divorce, post-Illinois location

1940 U.S. Census (April enumeration):

Thomas Eugene, Margaret, and Thomas Kenny (age 7)
Address: 33 N Menard Avenue, Chicago
Critical finding: Last census showing intact family

1930 U.S. Census:

Thomas Eugene Hamall (restored surname, not "Hepp")
Address: 4506 N McVicker Avenue
Living with mother Emma
Establishes pre-marriage address

1920 U.S. Census:

"Thomas Hepp" (stepfather's surname)
Living with mother Emma Hepp
Explains name variation; mother remarried after divorcing Thomas Henry

Research Challenge: No 1930 census entry found for Thomas Henry at 291 Lionel Road. This gap initially suggested he might not have lived there continuously. Later resolved by 1918 WWI draft card and Supreme Court case records proving residence.

Stage 3: Property Records Research

Cook County Recorder of Deeds Search:

Searched property records for 291 Lionel Road, Riverside, Illinois
Searched grantor/grantee indexes for all three Thomas Hamalls
Timeframe: 1900-1950

                Challenge: Property records from 1911-1920 were incomplete due to courthouse fire and record loss. This gap is what made the Supreme Court case so valuable—it contained validated property information that would otherwise be lost.
            

Findings:

No deed transfer found between Thomas Henry and Thomas Eugene
Suggests property passed through inheritance/probate (informal family transfer)
Post-1941 ownership chain unclear without further deed research

Research Note: The absence of a recorded deed transfer is not proof of no transfer—informal family property transfers were common in this era, especially for low-value properties.

Phase 3

The Breakthrough — Legal Records

Discovering Hamall v. Petru

Search Strategy:

Illinois Supreme Court case database (1900-1940)
Search terms: "Hamall" AND "property" OR "homestead"
Secondary search: "Hamall" AND "Riverside"

Initial Find: Case citation Hamall v. Petru, 331 Ill. 465, 163 N.E. 314 (Ill. 1928)

Document Retrieval:

Illinois State Archives, Springfield: Complete Supreme Court file
Law library database: Published opinion and subsequent citations

What the Supreme Court Case Revealed

From the 1928 Opinion:

Thomas Henry Hamall purchased 291 Lionel Road on February 20, 1911 for $300 to build a home for himself and his mother Kate Hamall
Property described as "a one-room cottage, twenty-four by twenty-four feet"
Borrowed $400 from mother Kate Hamall to make purchase
Established as homestead under Illinois law
Ex-wife Emma Hamall sued in 1924 for $2,500 back child support, seeking to seize property
Thomas Henry fought the case through circuit court to Supreme Court
Won in 1928: Property protected as homestead; value cap frozen at establishment date

Genealogical Gold:

This single case provided:

Exact purchase date and price (otherwise lost in record gaps)
Property description (verifies it's the correct cottage)
Thomas Henry's motivation (fighting for 4 years to protect it)
Family relationships (ex-wife Emma, son Thomas Eugene)
Financial details (Kate Hamall loaned money—connecting four generations)
Legal precedent (case still cited today, establishing historical significance)

Research Technique: When primary property records are missing, search for legal disputes. Court cases often contain detailed property information because judges require proof of ownership, value, and dates.

Legal Research Analysis

Case Law Citation Trail:

Searched Shepard's Citations for subsequent cases citing Hamall v. Petru
Found 12 Illinois cases between 1930-2020 citing the precedent
Established that Thomas Henry's case created lasting legal impact

Homestead Law Research:

Reviewed Illinois homestead statutes (1900-1940)
Confirmed Thomas Henry's cottage qualified for protection
Explained why Emma couldn't seize it despite $2,500 judgment

                Historical Context: The 1920s saw many ex-wives suing for back child support as divorce became more common. Thomas Henry's case established that homesteads were protected even from these claims—precedent that protected many families.
            

Phase 4

Military Records & The Smoking Gun

Draft Registration Cards

Why Search Draft Cards:

Self-reported information (high reliability for residence claims)
Created at specific dates (better than decade-wide census)
Include current address at time of registration
Often include corrections/updates visible on cards

WWI Draft Registration (1917-1918):

Thomas Henry Hamall, registration date 1918
Address: 291 Lionel Road, Riverside, Illinois
Proves: Continuous residence from 1911 purchase through at least 1918

WWII Draft Registration (1940-1947):

Thomas Eugene Hamall, registration date October 16, 1940

Critical visible correction:

Original address crossed out: 4869 N Ashland
Typed over: 291 Lionel Road, Riverside, Illinois
Emergency contact: Margaret Catherine Hamall, 4869 N Ashland

The Smoking Gun

This correction proves everything:

Thomas Eugene was living at the cottage in October 1940
He corrected his address from in-laws' home to his father's cottage
This is six months after the April 1940 census showed him at 33 N Menard
Explains the move between census and military registration
Proves father-son connection to the property in same year
Margaret still listed at separate address (Ashland) suggests marital tension

Research Techniques Summary

What Made This Case Study Successful

1. Oral History as Roadmap

Started with client's father's memories, extracted factual claims, verified every claim independently. Result: 100% corroboration.

2. Legal Records Mining

Supreme Court case provided details lost in record gaps. Court opinions contain validated property information.

3. Photographic Analysis

Treated photos as primary evidence, not illustration. Used forensic techniques to prove connections despite separate frames—analyzing lighting, shadows, architectural details, and shared elements (like the dog). Photos proved presence and connection, not just appearance.

4. Document Correlation

Created timeline matrix showing three generations simultaneously. Used narrow date ranges. Documents "talk to each other."

5. Conflict Resolution

Acknowledged gaps and limitations. Explained conflicts rather than ignoring them. Distinguished between "unresolved" and "unresolvable."

6. Narrative Integration

Legal conclusions came first (BCG compliance). Human story added meaning without sacrificing rigor. "What happened" and "what it meant" both documented.

Reproducible Methodology

How to Apply This Process to Other Cases

1 Define Human Question
Not just "who owned what" but "why did it matter?"

2 Extract Oral History Claims
Separate facts from feelings. Identify verifiable elements. Create research roadmap.

3 Start with Legal Records
Court cases often contain property details. Divorce records explain family separation. Probate records show property transfer.

4 Add Government Records
Census for timeline and addresses. Draft cards for specific dates. Vital records for relationships.

5 Mine Private Sources
Photographs as primary evidence. Contemporary letters, diaries. Family documents with dates.

6 Correlate Everything
Timeline matrix showing all people simultaneously. Look for narrow windows when sources overlap. Let documents confirm each other.

7 Resolve Conflicts
Name variations (remarriage, adoption). Address conflicts (economic patterns). Date discrepancies (recording delays).

8 Write Three Layers
Legal (what we proved). Genealogical (what happened). Human (what it meant).

Lessons Learned

What Worked Exceptionally Well

Starting with oral history: Client's father's memories provided research roadmap
October 1940 draft card: Visible correction was smoking gun
Supreme Court case: Filled gaps in missing property records
Photograph preservation: Client's father saved evidence that proved his memories
100% corroboration: Every oral history claim verified independently

Challenges Encountered

Record gaps: 1911-1920 property records incomplete
Name variations: Thomas Eugene as "Hepp" required careful tracking
Post-1941 ownership: Property chain unclear after Miami move
Address confusion: Multiple addresses required chronological sorting

If Starting Over, We Would:

Search legal records earlier: Supreme Court case should have been first search, not mid-project discovery
Create timeline matrix sooner: Visual correlation helped identify gaps
Interview client more deeply: More questions about father's memories and his journey to relive them would have focused research
Photograph analysis first: Photos proved oral history—should have been early priority

This methodology demonstrates that genealogical research can satisfy BCG professional standards while telling deeply human stories. The key is treating narrative and rigor as partners, not opponents.

Traditional genealogy tells you what happened. Storyline Genealogy tells you what it meant—and proves both with equal rigor.