Richards v. M'Donald
This text of 5 S.C.L. 247 (Richards v. M'Donald) 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 nonsuit-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 meant for the same. Many of the original grants 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 ori--ginal name was “ Conrad,” but was spelled “ Kunrod,” and “ Coon-rad and now is most usually written and spelled Gunrod. Tn 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 nonsuit be set aside.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 S.C.L. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-mdonald-sc-1812.