Case Name: Thomas Richards v. James M'Donald
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1812-11
Citations: 3 Brev. 247
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Richards v. James M’Donald.
Judges: Colcock, Brevard, and Bay, Js. concurred;
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
NOV., 1812.
Thomas Richards v. James M’Donald.
A variance between the name of the grantee and grantor, not a sufficient ground for a nonsuit.
Trespass to try title. The grant was to John Loumber; and the plaintiff claimed under a conveyance írom John Lumbus, or Lumbers. The presiding judge being of opinion that there was no ^er‘vat‘on of .title, nonsuited the plaintiff. Motion to reverse tbsf nonsuit.
Dairs, for the motion. JBowib, contra.

Opinion:
Nott, J.
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.
Colcock, Brevard, and Bay, Js. concurred;