Case Name: Eliza and Jake Clark v. Robert O'Margey
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1807-04
Citations: 2 Brev. 134
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eliza and Jake Clark v. Robert O’Margey.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1807.
Eliza and Jake Clark v. Robert O’Margey.
An original grant of land, assigned thus, “I do for my heirs, &c., sell, alien, &c., assign over, and confirm forever, unto A. B. all my right,’ title, interest, and claim, and possession, of the tvithin deed, of three hundred and nine acres of land, in consideration of ¿6100,” &c., is not a sufficient conveyance of the land.
Trespass to try titles to land, in Abbeville district, before Wilds, J. The plaintiffs produced an original grant of the land in dispute to John Young, on which the following words were endorsed : “ I, the subscriber, do hereby for myself, my heirs, executors, adminis. trators, and assigns, sell, alien, remise, assign over, and confirm forever, unto Dr. Thomas Clark, of Long Cane, all my right,-title, in. terest, claim, and possession of the within deed of 309 acres of land, in consideration of £100 to me in hand paid, by said Thomas. As witness my hand and seal, this 13th day of September, 1788, John Young, (l. s.) Witness, present, Robert Little, Mary Young.” The plaintiffs claimed the land under, and by virtue of, the aforesaid endorsement. The defendants objected that the said endorsement was insufficient to convey any right or title to the land, which objection was supported by the presiding judge, and the plaintiffs were nonsuited.
The motion in this court was for a new trial, in support of which Bowie cited the auditor’s act, P. L. 132, sect. 28.
Lesley, E contra,
cited 2 Bl. Com. 311,107.

Opinion:
25th April, 1807.
Brevard, J.,
delivered the opinion of the whole court, (all the judges present,) as follows : The question to be determined is, whether this indorsement, or assignment, of the patent, or original grant of the land in question, be sufficient to pass any estate therein? Or, in other words, whether it can, upon any principle of legal construction, be considered equivalent to any of the le gal conveyances hitherto in use for effectuating'the transfer of real estates 1 The indorsement in question does not even import a bargain and sale of the land. It imports only an assignment of the grant. An original grant cannot be assigned, or set over; nor can land pass, or be transferred, by any such assignment of the patent or original grant. It seems to have been a practice, which prevail, ed formerly in this country from ignorance, to indorse original grants in the way this has been done, in order to transfer the estate from the grantee to the indorsee or assignee of the grant; and the Le» gislature of the State has thought proper to pass laws to confirm such defective transfers. These laws, however, are all of them retrospective, and do not extend to the present case. The court is of opinion the decision of the District Court was correct, and that the nonsuit was properly ordered.
New trial refused.