Richards v. McDonald
This text of 6 S.C.L. 114 (Richards v. McDonald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
I agree with my brother Colcock,. that the non-suit ought to be set aside: whether it was meant for the same name, or not, was a question of fact for the jury; and the variance between the name in the grant, and the name in the deed is so small, I think it ought to be presumed, they were [115]*115meant for the same. Many of the original in this state? were made to Germans ; who were like this grantee, so ignorant, that they could neither read nor write. Few persons among them, knew how to spell their own’ names; they often therefore, varied with every conveyance. I could not enumerate the instances which have come within my own observation; I recollect one, in which, I believe the original name was u Conrad” hut was spelled u Kunrod” and “ Coonrodand now is most usually written and spelled Gunrod. In many instances scarcely a resemblance of the original name is now found among their descendants. It would be extremely hard, that a man should lose his land, because the surveyor-general, or a conveyancer, did not know how to spell his name, and he was too ignorant to inform him. Let the non-suit be set aside,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 S.C.L. 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-mcdonald-sc-1812.