Understanding statement found in a 1787 NC deed
FredandMaryFrances Powell
"------I am true, sole & lawful heir and owner fo the above
bargained premises. I am lawfully seized & possessed of the same as
my own proper right as a good, perfect & absolute estate of
inheritance. I have in myself good right & lawful authority to sell
said property------"
Does this phrase above quoted say that the man who sold the 200
acres was an heir of the man from whom he bought the land?
As recounted in the deed: "-----which was originally granted by
patent to William KNOWLES & by the decease of the said William
KNOWLES fell by heirship to his brother John KNOWLES and sold by the
said John KNOWLES to Cliftin BOWEN and from said BOWEN to Samuel
WEST".
The deed is on paper too large to scan but I can transcribe the
entire three pages if necessary to obtain help.
TIA
Mary Fran
FredandMaryFrances Powell <fredand...@gmail.com>
Huntersglenn
You don't mention the name of the man who is selling the land and
who had that statement in the deed. What is Samuel West? If so,
then all the statement means is that they're putting a lot of legal
jargon in the deed to show that he owned the land fairly and had the
right to sell it.
It does not imply that he was the heir of any of the man from whom
he bought the land. From what I've seen of North Carolina deeds,
there was a tendency to say the same thing several times, in
different ways (guess they were fond of covering all of the legal
bases).
Cathy
Huntersglenn <hunter...@cox.net>
Keith Nuttle
> "------I am true, sole& lawful heir and owner fo the above
> bargained premises. I am lawfully seized& possessed of the same as
> my own proper right as a good, perfect& absolute estate of
> inheritance. I have in myself good right& lawful authority to sell
> said property------"
>
> Does this phrase above quoted say that the man who sold the 200
> acres was an heir of the man from whom he bought the land?
>
> As recounted in the deed: "-----which was originally granted by
> KNOWLES fell by heirship to his brother John KNOWLES and sold by the
> said John KNOWLES to Cliftin BOWEN and from said BOWEN to Samuel
> WEST".
>
> The deed is on paper too large to scan but I can transcribe the
> entire three pages if necessary to obtain help.
>
I know nothing about the deed.
But if you have a camera, you can digitize the original using the
camera on a tripod.
If you have a steady enough hand you may be able to get a good copy
by a hand held photo of the document.
If you have strong natural light and be careful to avoid shadows on
the document, you can get a good copy for your records.
I have photographed several documents. While the hand held photos
are not perfect they are readable image of the document.
Using the tripod you can get scan perfect copies.
Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
singhals
> "------I am true, sole & lawful heir and owner fo the above
> bargained premises. I am lawfully seized & possessed of the same as
> my own proper right as a good, perfect & absolute estate of
> inheritance. I have in myself good right & lawful authority to sell
> said property------"
>
> Does this phrase above quoted say that the man who sold the 200
> acres was an heir of the man from whom he bought the land?
>
Do the deeds before this one and after this one have the same
language? If they /do/, then it's most likely boilerplate. If they
/don't/, look at a few more deeds each side for additional clues.
If this is the ONLY deed that year to include that language, then,
yes, I'd vote for there being a specific reason -- such as you
suggest.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Wes Groleau
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> But if you have a camera, you can digitize the original using the
> camera on a tripod.
May or may not be sufficient. Will it stay flat enough to remain in
focus? Can the tripod get the camera far enough away to shoot the
whole thing?
Long ago, in order to get decent images of some things, I had to put
them on a slant (to allow the camera to be some distance away), put
glass over them (to force all parts into the same focal plane), and
carefully arrange lighting (to ensure no reflections into the
camera.
--
Wes Groleau
ASCII stupd question, get a stupid ANSI
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
Keith Nuttle
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> > But if you have a camera, you can digitize the original using the
> > camera on a tripod.
>
> May or may not be sufficient. Will it stay flat enough to remain in
> focus? Can the tripod get the camera far enough away to shoot the
> whole thing?
>
> Long ago, in order to get decent images of some things, I had to put
> them on a slant (to allow the camera to be some distance away), put
> glass over them (to force all parts into the same focal plane), and
> carefully arrange lighting (to ensure no reflections into the
> camera.
>
All valid points.
I have an olympus C-740 I can get back far enough to get the whole
document most of the time with a hand held. If I have to get closer
the C-740 has a close up setting.
As for the tripod, I have an old Vivitar tripod that I bought many
years ago to use with my chemical camera. I remove the post section
and turn it over. The camera can then be moved up and down to get a
better image of the document.
Holding down a delicate document can sometime be challenging.
However it you can get far enough from the document you can use the
telephoto and close up setting to remove the depth of field issues.
Keith Nuttle <keith_...@sbcglobal.net>
JDL...@yahoo.com
A huge percentage of Colonial North Carolina (approx 7/8ths +/-) was
owned by Lords Propietors who did not strictly speaking sell you
land. In fact it was arguably closer to a NYC rent controlled
property (Well thats my story and I'm sticking to it :)) In any case
in those districts you did not get a deed if you got your land
before the Revolution. You got a "grant" and after the War there
was a lot of confusion and even ::gasp:: hanky panky about who owned
what. Stir in the issue of Tories and alledged neer-do-wells of such
ilk and you can understand the wording of the deed.
"JDL...@Yahoo.com" <JDL...@Yahoo.com>
FredandMaryFrances Powell
> You don't mention the name of the man who is selling the land and
> who had that statement in the deed. What is Samuel West? If so,
> then all the statement means is that they're putting a lot of legal
> jargon in the deed to show that he owned the land fairly and had the
> right to sell it.
>
Clifton BOWEN had sold the land to Samuel WEST. It was Samuel WEST
who sold the land to Elias JAMES.
Regret lack of clarity
Thanks for the reply.
FredandMaryFrances Powell
> Do the deeds before this one and after this one have the same
> language? If they /do/, then it's most likely boilerplate. If
> they /don't/, look at a few more deeds each side for additional
> clues. If this is the ONLY deed that year to include that language,
> then, yes, I'd vote for there being a specific reason -- such as
> you suggest.
>
Cheryl, thank you. I am going to NC next month so will check out
the "before and after pages". That had never occurred to me----to
check the language of some other deeds of the time and place.
I appreciate your time and guidance.
FredandMaryFrances Powell
> But if you have a camera, you can digitize the original using the
> camera on a tripod.
>
Keith, my daughter has everything you have described, and I consider
it worthwhile to give it a try. I would like to have a manageable
copy of the deed.
thanks for your time in writing to me.
Huntersglenn
> A huge percentage of Colonial North Carolina (approx 7/8ths +/-) was
> owned by Lords Propietors who did not strictly speaking sell you
> land. In fact it was arguably closer to a NYC rent controlled
> property (Well thats my story and I'm sticking to it :)) In any case
> in those districts you did not get a deed if you got your land
> before the Revolution. You got a "grant" and after the War there
> was a lot of confusion and even ::gasp:: hanky panky about who owned
> what. Stir in the issue of Tories and alledged neer-do-wells of such
> ilk and you can understand the wording of the deed.
>
> "JDL...@Yahoo.com" <JDL...@Yahoo.com>
Regardless of how the land was first obtained, once it was owned,
the owner could then turn around and sell it to another. In that
case, it would then be a deed, and there were plenty of deeds in
North Carolina prior to the Revolutionary War.
Cathy
Huntersglenn <hunter...@cox.net>
JDL...@yahoo.com
You missed the point here. A great many of these grants were still
held by the original grantee when the war started. If a challenge
was made to ownership there was nothing much in the way of records
that a holder could use to support his claim if the land had never
been transferred before. Obviously this would be a real problem in
the case of absentee ownership.
Second.Granville for one collected rents after the grant was made.
That is not a clear sale.
"JDL...@Yahoo.com" <JDL...@Yahoo.com>