I'd love to have an opinion (or some direction about where to go next) about a 1786 deed recorded in Richmond Co., NC between two parties who lived in South Carolina. Here is a link to the first page: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G98Q-Q7FT. Alternatively, here is a link to the film: https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007517675. The images are 37 and 38. I'm most interested in the unusual (in my experience) language at the bottom of page 60 and top of page 61 and how to interpret it. The tract was patented to John Graham (although the date of the patent indicated in the deed is incorrect per the images at NC Land Grants!) Here is a transcription of the language that follows the legal land description:
"Reference being thereunto had may more fully appear with the appurtenances Situate Lying and being aforesaid with Their & Every of Their Rights Members [?] and appurtenances whatsoever and the Reversions and the Reversions Remainder and Remainders of all and the Said Lands Tenements Hereditaments and Premises hereby Granted or Intended to be granted and of Every Part and Parcell thereof and all Rents Issue Servises and Profits Them or any of them or any Part or Parcel of Them or any of These Insident [?] belonging or appertaining and also all and Every the Estate and estates Rights Titles Claims Interested [?] Demands whatsoever of him the Said Wm Pearce . . . [etc.]"
It feels like two things are going on here. The first is that perhaps the grantor (or the grantor's lawyer) had not received the news that North Carolina had abandoned the Rule of Primogeniture, which it had done in 1784 (still leaving daughters out in the cold if there were male heirs). Maybe the language is to ensure that his son (or sons) could not jump in and claim the land, or even John Graham's son(s), for that matter (no record of the exchange of land between Wm. Pearce and John Graham is extant). But, it is hard to know what these folks would have known or not known about their "neighbors" to the north.
The second thing that might be going on is that perhaps there are tenants on the land? None of the surrounding deeds (or earlier/later deeds that I've read -- but I'm only a small ways in on reading the deed books) mention tenements or "Rents Issue Servises and Profits." In that light, the grantor perhaps wanted to make absolutely sure that the tenants or their heirs could not make a claim on the land.
For what it's worth, "Sumrall" (or Summeral) did not pay taxes on the earliest list still extant (1790), but Moses Summeral did (and paid a poll, which suggests he was in the county -- he also attested to the deed in court in April 1787). I have also looked for Summeral at North Carolina Land Grants (and there are grants to a Thomas Sumeral/Summeral in the same vicinity, but it might not be the same person, of course.)
Any thoughts about how to interpret this? Or, thoughts about what direction to go in to get assistance in interpretation?
I've looked at the applicable laws for inheritance, and I think that trying to determine who might be a tenant on the land in this situation could be a fool's errand. The extant tax lists are not all that complete, despite the law requiring that all real property be taxed. For example, the widow of John Pearce did not pay any tax on her dower lands in 1790, or in 1793 on the land grant she received in 1791. The male heir to the majority of John's real property had not reached his majority.
Thank you in advance.