Hosted websites will become read-only beginning in early 2024. At that time, all logins will be disabled, but hosted sites will remain on RootsWeb as static content. Website owners wishing to maintain their sites must migrate to a different hosting provider before 2024 (More info)
Duncans in Lancaster Co. SC Land and Court Records


Duncan research files of
Mary Ann (Duncan) Dobson
the Genealogy Bug

Last revised March 6, 2004



Lancaster Co. SC Plat Books 1829-1882 (FHL film 24,074)
      Plat book 1829-1840 - no index
      Plat book 1841-1882 - no Duncan

Lancaster Co. SC Indexes to deeds 1787-1875; 1767-1937
   Direct Index 1767-1937 by WPA (FHL film 24,060)
      No Duncan grantor to 1849
   Direct Index 1787-1840 (FHL film 24,053)
      no Duncan
   Direct index 1841-1875 (FHL film 24,053)
      Q-62: 1849, John Duncan Sr. to John Bell Sr., deed
      R-251: 1856, George F. Duncan to James M. Ingram, deed
      S-316: 1862, William Duncan to C.L. Duncan, deed
      S-320: 1862, William Duncan to F.F. Duncan, deed
      T-37: 1867, Jno. F. Duncan to Davis & Huey, mtg.
      T-269: 1868, Geo. F. Duncan to Hasselton & Chafa, lien
      U-395: 1869, N.W., Ned & Daniel Dunkin (Dicken?) to A. Robertson & Co., lien
      U-409: 1869, G.F. Duncan to Dr. J.F. MacKey, lien
      U-425: 1869, Samuel Dunkin to Hasselton & Chafa, lien
      V-39: 1869, Robert Duncan to W.J. McIlwain, lien
      V-116: 1869, G.F. Duncan to Hasseltine & Chafee, lien
      V-208: 1869, N.W. Duncan et al to A. Robertson & Co., lien
      V-293: 1869, Danl. Duncan to A. Robertson & Co., lien
      V-394: 1869, H.H. Duncan assignee to J.R. Hunter, deed
      V-693: 1871, G.F. Duncan to Haselltine & Chafee, lien
      U-715: 1871, Phillip Duncan to W.J. McIlwain, lien
      W-31: 1871, H.H. Duncan to Lee Duncan et al, contract
      W-108: 1871?, Reuben Duncan to Twitty & Beaty, lien
      W-383 & 393: 1871?, Edward Duncan et al to C.F. Hinton, lien
      W-454: 1871, G.F. Duncan to W.B. Cauthen, deed
      X-153: 1871, Robert Duncan to Twitty & Beaty, lien
      X-365, 367: 1871, C.L. Duncan et al to Wm. M. Connor, mtg. & lien
      X-600: 1873, Thos. J. Duncan to Columbus L. Duncan, deed
      X-601: 1873, Thos. J. Duncan to Henry H. Duncan, deed
      XX-43: Edward Duncan et al to C.F. Hinsan, lien
   Cross-index 1767-1937, (1767-1840; 1840-1937) by WPA (FHL film 24,060)
      K-145: 1820, Sidney Gracey to John Duncan
      N-435: 1839, John Harris to William Duncan
      O-172: 1842, Charles J. Shannon to William Duncan
      R-487: 1858, Henry Hancock sheriff to William Duncan
      R-503: 1858, C.L. Duncan & other heirs of John Truesdell, agreement
      S-168: 1860, James M. Ingrem to George F. Duncan
      S-168: 1860, John T. Mackey to George F. Duncan
      S-169: 1860, James M. Shaver to George F. Duncan
      S-170: 1860, John M. Harper to George F. Duncan
      S-173: 1860, Duren Bailey to C.L. Duncan
      T-99: James M. Ingram et al to C.L. Duncan et al, deed
      V-778: H.H. Duncan et al mtg. to William Duncan estate

Lancaster Co. SC Deeds
      Copied grantors through 1862; next deed 1869; quit
      K-145: 10 Dec. 1819, Sidney (X) Gracey of Lancaster Co. SC, planter, to John Duncan of same, $300, 100 acres, part of land laid out to Joseph Gracey conveyed to Sidney Gracy, plat dated 13 July 1809; wit. Armistead Hilliard, Andercin (X) Duncan. (MAD: no watercourse given) (FHL film 24,056)
      N-435: 6 April 1839, John Harris of Lancaster Dist. SC recd from William Duncan of Kershaw Dist., $50; Harris mortgages all his land to said William Dunking in order to secure payment, 400 acres where I now live adj. John Rude, Wiley Bell, Michael Johnson, Baswell Mobly, Reuben Bennett and James Rude, due 1 Jan. next; wit. J.P. Thompson, Thos. D. Collins. Mortgage satisfied 12 March 1843. (FHL film 24,057)
      O-172: 5 March 1842, Charles J. Shannon of town of Camden, Kershaw Dist., to William Duncan also of Kershaw Dist., for $4,500, 1511 acres resurveyed 2 Feb. 1842 by James D. McIlwaine, late the property of Jackey Piny? (Terry?), in Lancaster Dist. on both sides Camp Creek adj. on the S. by L?. Ingram, Thos. Addison and Isaac Caston's lands, NW ? West by Jas. W. Perry? and H. Joynor land, S. by Middleton Joyner & Geo. Cauthing land, and E. by Parkers, B?odhams and Douglass land according to Plat; wit. W? D. McDowell, J. Cooper. Reg. on oath of J. Cooper 30 March 1842, and H?.L?. Shannion wife of C.J. Shannon released dower, 13 March 1842.
            Plat shows neighbors Geo. Cauthins land, road to Jno. As??, Middleton Joyner land, Hiram Joiners lands, Isaac Caston & Mr. Vaughan land, road to Isaac Caston, Jas. W. Perry land, Thos. Addisons land, McDonalds Ferry Road or Cain Creek Road, Douglas lands, road to Wm. Castons, A. Beckhams land, Parker Douglas land, road to Camden, Geo. Cauthens land; incl. part of the Charles Mackey grant; Statement by surveyor, I have resurveyed & laid out to C.J. Shanner? a tract of land containing 1511 acres lying on both sides of Camp Creek bounded by lands of Midn. Jyner, Geo. Cauthen and others having such shape form & marks ... as the above plat represents, there being part of four grants inclosed in the above plat; Surveyed 2 Feb. 1842, /s/ James D. McIlwaine, Dpy. Surveyor. (FHL film 24,057; could not read all names on plat; James Fort comment 7/2003: Jackey Piny? / Terry? was Jackey Perry)
      Q-62: 20 Dec. 1849, John (+) Duncan Sr. to John Bell Sr., $40, 40 acres, grant to James Beckham on Cedar Creek, corner John Bell, Patterson's line, A.D. Hilliard, said J. Duncan's line. Wit. James D. McIlwain, Thomas G. Bell. (FHL film 24,058)
      R-251: 19 March 1856, George F. Duncan to James M. Ingram, $685, 68-1/2 acres on east side of main stage road from Camden to Lancaster Courthouse, 6 miles from latter place, adj. Mrs. Robinsons, George F. Duncan's line. Wit. Thos. M. Gore, A.J. Kibler. (FHL film 24,058)
      R-487: 5 April 1858, Sheriff Henry Hancock to William Duncan; by writ of firie facias from Court of Common Pleas 3 Jan. 1853 at suit of Francis Vaughan, sell lands and tenements of John J. Turner to levy $60 and interest and costs; sell his interest in 200 acres adj. James R. Trusdell, William Duncan, Isaac Caston & others, being his interest in real estate of Francis Vaughan decd, sold to William Duncan, the highest bidder, 5 April 1858 for $150; wit. J.D. Haile, J.A. Stewman (Stevenson?). (FHL film 24,058)
      R-503: Agreement & Terms of Settlement, John B. Stover?, Rebecca Stover?, Jas. R. Hunter, S.L. Hunter, C.L. Duncan, N.E. Duncan & others; that Thomas Cauthen by ?? April 1825 gave to his dau. Matilda? West then the wife of Joseph West, a negro woman named Jensey "(see deed)" & whereas Joseph West afterwards died about (blank) intestate leaving as his distributees & heirs at law the said ??? West his widow & an infant daughter Louisa West now the wife of James R. Hunter, the said West died in Kershaw Dist. & admin. of his estate was granted to said Matilda West & from all that appears or is believed & ascertained, the said negro Jinsey & increase was kept & retained by said Matilda West as her own separate estate under the deed of gift & did not enter into or was taken into the admin. of said West neither accounted for in the Settlement of Estate of said West with James? R. Hunter & wife Louisa, who were entitled to the two-thirds of said negro Jenney & increase & value thereof, all the admin. papers of said West having been destroyed and lost from the ordinary office of Kershaw Dist. & whereas John Trusdell & the said Matilda West afterwards about (blank) intermarried, the said Matilda at the intermarriage being in possession of said negro Jenney & her increase, and the said John Trusdell by virtue of his marital rights took possession of said negro Jenney & increase & retained & kept possession thereof until his death which occurred on 2 Feb. 1858, having died intestate & it was then ascertained by Hunter & wife that said negro Jenney & her increase had not been accounted for as the estate of Joseph West (decd) and whereas said negro Jenney has since the deed from Thos. Cauthern had the following issue & increase, viz, Phill, Charity, Jack, Mose, Sarah, Peter, Essix, Ellen, Lenina?, and the said Charity (child of Jenney) has had the following children, Jane, Mary, Mariah, Milley & Amanda; & Sarah (another child of Jenney) has had a child named Martha, all of which said negroes were in the possession of said John Trusedell at his death except Jenney the original & stirps who had died & Ellen given & advanced by said Truesdell to his daughter Nainsie? wife of C.L. Duncan and Lavinia advanced by said Truesdell to his dau. Mary wife of Wm. Stover, and whereas John Truesdell died intestate leaving as his distributees & heirs at law his widow Matilda formerly Matilda West and the following children, viz, Rebecca wife of John Stover by a former marriage, Narissee wife of C.L. Duncan, Mary wife of William Stover, James Truesdell, John Truesdell, Nancy Truesdell & Drussilla Truesdell, the last named four being under age; and whereas James R. Hunter & wife Louisa have agreed to compromise and arrange the partition and division of said negroes by the said Hunter & wife taking the 1/7 of the 2/3 of the value of all said negroes & increase at the death of John Truesdell, and hire of said negroes increase? thern that is H?? & wife Louisa to take & hold absolutely the 1/7 of the 2/3 of said negroes & value at death of John Truesdell, negroes names as follows: Phill, Charity, Jack, Mose, Sarah, Peter, Essex, Jane, Mary, Mariah, Milly, Amanda, Martha & Ellen & Lou? (the two last given off as aforesaid) & increase since if any and also the 1/7 of 2/3 of hire of said negroes since death of Jno. Truesdell & said Hunter & wife Louisa upon taking the 1/7 of the 2/3 afsd agree to relinquish, release, etc. to Matilda Truesdell widow & to Nanisie? Duncan wife of C.L. Duncan, Mary wife of Wm. Stover, James Truesdell, John Truesdell, Nancy Truesdell & Drussilla Truesdell, children of said John Truesdell by his wife Matilda, agreeable to act of legislature for distribution of estates of intestates, all their right as heir at law of Joseph West to said negroes & increase after said Hunter & wife have received 1/7 of 2/3 aforesaid, of said Matilda & her six children aforesaid; and in order to protect Lewis M. Cauthen admin. of John Trusedell & also promote & further compromise & agreement John Stover & wife Rebecca, the said Rebecca a daughter by a former marriage, who if said negroes was the property of John Truesdell would be entitled to the 1/7 of the 2/3 of said negroes & also of estate of John Truesdell, the said John Stover & wife Rebecca agree that James R. Hunter & wife Louisa shall take 1/7 of 2/3 which they the said John Stover & Rebecca are entitled to or would be entitled to in said negroes & increase, that is, Hunter & wife to take & John Stover & wife Rebecca to take no part or share of said negroes Phill, Charity, Jack, Mose, Sarah, Peter, Essex, Ellen, Lavinia, Jane, Mary, Mariah, Milly, Amanda, & Martha & increase; John Stover & wife Rebecca give up all claim to said negroes in favor of Hunter & wife, and they release to Hunter & wife their 1/7 of 2/3; John C. Stover, Rebecca Stover, James Hunter, Louisa Hunter, Matilda Truesdell widow, C.L. Duncan & wife Nassie?, Wm. Stover & wife Mary, James Truesdell, John Truesdell, Nancy Truesdell, ?? Truesdell the last four not of age, and James M. Cauthen admin. of John Truesdell decd; /s/ John C. Stover, Rebecca Stover, J.R. Hunter, S.L. Hunter, C.L. Duncan, N.E. Duncan, W?.J. Stover, P.Q. Stover, M.M. Truesdell (X), J.T. Truesdell, John C. Truesdell, Nancy Truesdell, E.D. Truesdell (X), L.M. Cauthen. 23 May 1858; wit. John M?. Ingram. (FHL film 24,058)
      S-168 (1): 10 March 1856, James M. Ingram of Kershaw Co. SC to George F. Duncan, $1,690, 169 acres in cross of 3-Notch Road and main Stage Road from Camden to Lancaster Courthouse, 6 miles from latter place, adj. Reuben Bailey's line, former Eli C. Bishop now James M. Ingram, Turkey Quarter Creek, J. Graham's land, George F. Duncan's land; wit. John N. Ingram, L.H. Bennett. (FHL film 24,059)
      S-168 (2): 19 March 1856, John T. Mackey to George F. Duncan, both Lancaster Co. SC, $1,690, 290 acres on E.side of road from Camden to Lancaster Courthouse, about 6 miles from latter; wit. Thos. M. Gore, A.J. Kibler. (FHL film 24,059)
      S-169: 27 Feb. 1857, James M. Shaver to George F. Duncan, both Lancaster Dist. SC, $192, 24 acres running from the stage road along said Duncan's line; wit. Benjamin D. Shaver, J.E. Bailey; release by Grace Shaver. (FHL film 24,059)
      S-170: 14 May 1860, John M. Harper to George F. Duncan, $5, 1 acre on S.side 3-Notch Road on the dry bank on S.side, adj. Hugh Manes? corner, George F. Duncan's line; wit. J.F. Mackey, J.R. Lynn. (FHL film 24,059)
      S-173: 3 Nov. 1860, Duren Bailey to C.L. Duncan, both Lancaster Dist., $1,400, 146-1/2 acres on Turkey Quarter Creek adj. James M. Ingram, Reubin Bailey, being land given said Duren Bailey and James E. Bailey by our father John Bailey Sr.; wit. Wm. J. Stover, W.R. Duren. (FHL film 24,059)
      S-316: 16 Jan. 1862, William (X) Duncan for love to son C.L. Duncan, 200 acres where he now lives, comprising S.E. corner of The Parker & Harter? tracts, adj. Anderson Bowers, James M. Ingram & myself; C.L. Duncan to account for $8 an acre when William's estate at final distribution; William to keep life estate in land. Wit. W.G. Cauthen, J.C. Cauthen. (FHL film 24,059)
      S-320: 16 Jan. 1862, William (X) Duncan for love to son H.H. Duncan, 100 acres out of Crosstin? tract, adj. Mrs. Vaugh & James R. Trusdale; to account at $12 an acre at final distribution. (no life estate retained) Wit. W.G. Cauthen, J.C. Cauthen. (FHL film 24,059)
      (MAD: Deed Books T and later not on microfilm in FHC catalog, 3/1996; cannot check locality of sons of William Duncan.)

Return to the Lancaster Co. SC Research File


Lancaster Co. SC Court records
      Equity Court Docket A, 1838-58 - no index (FHL film 24,079)
      Equity Court Minutes A, 1822-34 - no index (FHL film 24,076)
      Equity Court Minutes B, 1834-41 - no index (FHL film 24,076)
      Equity Court Records: Guardian records, loose papers 1837-71 - no Duncan (FHL film 24,070)
      Commissioners equity reports A, 1840-49 - no Duncan (FHL film 24,071)
      Equity on estate 1841-67 - loose papers in book, no order (FHL film 24,072)
      Equity receipt book 1834-43 - no index (did not check Equity sales book 1834-43 or Com. equity 1843-59; FHL film 24,072)
      Equity Court Minutes 1830-1869 - no Duncan (FHL film 24,073)
      Loose guardian papers 1821-70 - no index, no order, did not go through page by page (FHL film 24,061)

"Reports of cases determined in the Constitutional Court of South Carolina" by Henry Junius Nott and David James M'Cord, Counsellors at Law, Vol.II, Containing Decisions from May Term, 1819, to November Term, 1820, inclusive; second edition; ("Nott & McCord") Vol.2, pgs.153 to 156 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 1/2004)
      WILLIAM DUNCAN, et ux., v. JOSHUA BELL, et al.; Constitutional Court of South Carolina, Columbia; 2 Nott & McCord 153; November, 1819.
      (MAD: Headnotes not included here)
      This was a summary process, on a promissory note, given to plaintiff's wife, as administratrix of James Coit, for a horse bought at the sale of the estate of the said James Coit, made pursuant to an order of the Court of Ordinary. The cause was tried at Lancaster, Spring term, 1819, before Mr. Justice GANTT.
      The defence was, that the horse was unsound at the time of the sale, of which unsoundness he died shortly after.
      It is unnecessary to detail the evidence on the part of the defendant. It is sufficient to state that it went to shew the unsoundness of the horse at the time of the sale. But it was not pretended that the plaintiffs had any knowledge of the fact, or that there was any misrepresentation or deceit practiced by them.
      When the evidence was closed on the part of the defendant, the plaintiffs contended, that in a sale under an order of the Court of Ordinary, by an administratrix, there was no implied warranty of the article sold.
      That on an implied warranty, there could be no recovery or defence without an offer to return the property, or evidence to shew that such return was impracticable.
      These positions being overruled by the Court, the plaintiff called Allston Coit to rebut the evidence given on the part of the defendant, with regard to the soundness of the horse. He was sworn on his voire dire, and said he had sold the horse to the plaintiffs' intestate, in May preceding the January when he was sold by the plaintiffs to defendant. He was asked, whether he would not be liable if the horse was unsound when he sold him? He said he supposed he might be. He was then objected to as incompetent; and the objection was sustained by the court, and a decree given for the defendant.
      This was a motion to set aside that decree, and to grant a new trial, on the grounds above mentioned, and also on the ground, that the testimony of Allston Coit ought to have been admitted.
      The opinion of the Court was delivered by Jr. Justice NOTT.
      The doctrine of implied warranties has so long prevailed in this State, and has been so well illustrated by a series of uniform decisions, ever since the revolution, that no one thinks it now a subject of litigation. And it is not a question now submitted to us, whether a warranty of soundness of property may be inferred from soundness of price, but whether that rule of law is applicable to executors and administrators, and others acting in a representative capacity.
      I formerly entertained an opinion that it did not apply to cases of that description. I still doubt whether, on any ground of public policy, or the principles of the common law, it can now be maintained. But there have been so many decisions in which it has been held to apply as well to persons acting in a representative character, as to those acting in their own right, that I feel bound to yield to their authority. I take it, however, that this distinction is still to be observed; that executors or administrators are not to be considered as personally responsible except in cases of misrepresentation or deceit; and therefore would not be liable where the money had been paid over, or the estate fully administered. The foundation of the action does not appear to me in such case to depend so much on any supposed undertaking on the part of the seller, that the property is sound, as on the moral obligation which ever person is under to given an equivalent for what he receives. If, therefore, a seller receive the full price of an article, apparently valuable, which is intrinsically defective and worthless, the law imposes a duty, and thereby implies a promise, that he will refund the money; because he has received that which equo et bono he ought not to retain. So where the money has not been paid, the defendant is absolved from his contract on the ground that the consideration has failed. It is in the latter case in particular, that this remedy is allowed against executors and administrators, while the money is, as it were, in transitu, and before it has been paid away in the course of administration.
      The second ground appears to be bottomed on a misapprehension of the decisions of this court. The mistake has arisen from confounding the action of assumpsit on a special promise or undertaking, with a general indebitatus assumpsit, for money had and received. It was held in the case of Weston v. Downs, Douglass, 23, and in Fowler and Williams, and Byers and Bostwyck, in this court, 1 Const. Rep. 75, that as long as the contract remained open or not rescinded by the return of the property or otherwise, an action for money had and received, would not lie. But it never has been held in this court that a special assumpsit on the implied warranty might not be maintained, even though the contract had not been rescinded. The objection in all the cases has gone to the form of the declaration, and not to the action. This distinction, therefore, cannot exist, where the unsoundness or want of consideration is set up by way of defence.
      But on the last ground, I think a new trial ought to be granted. The witness does not appear to have had any immediate interest in the event of the suit; neither could the judgment in this case be given in evidence for or against him, in any future action. If the title of the horse had been in question, his interest would have been manifest, because the defendant might have had recourse to him in case a decree had been against them. But it did not follow, that because the horse was sick in January, he must have been so the spring preceding. The objection might perhaps have gone to his credibility; but that was a question for the jury, and not for the court.
      The motion must, therefore, be granted.
      Justices COLCOCK, JOHNSON, and RICHARDSON, concurred.
      BLANDING, for the motion.
      WILLIAMS, contra.

"South Carolina Reports" Vol.4, 1873, or "Reports of Cases Heard and Determined by the Supreme Court of South Carolina" Volume IV, from November 20, 1872 to November 14, 1873 Inclusive, by J.S.G. Richardson, State Reporter, Annotated Edition, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, 1916; Vol.4, pgs.76 to 85 (CA State Law Library, Sacramento, "4 So. Carolina L.R. 76-85"; from reference in "SC Marriages 1735-1885 Implied in SC Law Reports" Vol.2, by Barbara Langdon)
      DUNCAN vs. HARPER; Supreme Court of South Carolina, Columbia; 4 S.C. 76; January 3, 1873, Decided.
      Heard November term 1872. Bequest of $1,000 to testator's daughter, E., "and her bodily issue, and not to be subject to the debts of my daughter E.'s present or any future husband." When the will was made, E. had been dead over 12 months, leaving several children then living, and this was known to the testator; Held, That by the term "bodily issue" the testator meant children; and that by "and" he meant "or," and consequently, that the children of E. were entitled to the legacy by direct gift to them.
      Before Thomas, J., at Lancaster, April term 1871. Bill in Equity by H.H. Duncan and C.L. Duncan, plaintiffs, against Margaret H. Harper and others, defendants, for construction of the will and settlement of the estate of William Duncan, deceased. The plaintiff's were executors of the will, and Margaret H. Harper and other defendants are children of Eliza Jane Williams, a daughter of testator, who pre-deceased him. The will was executed and dated on the 18th of January 1862 and the testator died in April of the same year. The disposing clauses of the will are as follows:
      (MAD's extract) 2nd, I give my son William G. Duncan $753, to my son George F. Duncan $668, to my son John G. Duncan $2220, to my son Columbus L. Duncan $95, to my son Thomas J. Duncan $1132, to my son James Duncan $1689, to my son Samuel A. Duncan $1137, to my daughter Sarah S. Gibson $500, to my daughter Eliza Jane Williams $1,000; this $1000 to my dau. Eliza Jane Williams together with the negro girl Emily which I have given her I give to her and her bodily issue and not subject to the debts of my dau. Eliza Jane Williams' present or any future husband. Third, after above and paying debts, balance be equally divided between my sons William G. Duncan, H.H. Duncan, George F. Duncan, John G. Duncan, Columbus L. Duncan, Thomas J. Duncan, James Duncan and Samuel A. Duncan. 4th, what I have given my son Samuel A. Duncan is to go to my son James Duncan in trust for him, that if Samuel A. dies without child or children, that it be equally divided between my sons William G. Duncan, H.H. Duncan, George F. Duncan, John G. Duncan, Columbus L. Duncan, Thomas J. Duncan, and James Duncan. Fifth, I have taken into consideration the land I deeded my sons H.H. Duncan and Columbus L. Duncan on 16 Jan. 1862.
      Eliza Jane Williams, dau. of testator, was dead when the will was executed; she died in AL over 12 months before that time, leaving 7 children then alive, this was known to testator when the will was drawn. The testator could not read nor write but had a strong mind and good memory; the children of Eliza Jane Williams were parties defendant to the suit. The court held the children were entitled to the legacy. The plaintiff's appealed.
      Testimony that if Mrs. Williams had been alive at the death of testator, there was no doubt she would have received the $1,000, but she was dead and the legacy lapsed and the money passed under the residuary clause of the will. Testimony that the law provided that if a child should die in the life-time of the father or mother, leaving issue, any legacy given in the will of the father or mother should go to such issue unless the deceased child was equally partitioned with the children of the father or mother when living. The Act of Assembly of 1712 provides that intestate's estate should be distributed 1/3 to the widow and the residue in equal proportion among the children, and such persons as legally represent such children, in case any of the said children be then dead, unless the child has been advanced. ... Act of 1789 secures to the issue of the child of the testator the bounty which was intended for the parent. ... (many more early cases cited)
      Jan. 3, 1873, the opinion of the Court was delivered by Moses, C.J., ... the person named as legatee was not only dead at the date of the execution of the will, but the testator long before had knowledge of the fact. ... construction of the words to the effect that the legacy should go to her children. Decree is affirmed, motion dismissed.

Return to the Lancaster Co. SC Research File


Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in South Carolina

Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page