Dora, The deed in question (RE: Rhoda Daniel HUDSON) was executed in Effingham County, GA in 1792 and the law in GA prior to 1867 was -- any property conveyed to the wife automatically became the property of the husband and only he could convey what had been her property to someone else. A lot of young ladies and widows had their fortunes or inheritance squandered by their husbands before the law was changed in 1867 to protect them. Thanks for the information on the ownership and conveyance of real property in NC but laws concerning real property vary from state to state and time frame to time frame, even in GA. What I stated was the law in GA concerning ownership and conveyance of real property prior to 1867. John R. Clarke Thomasville, GA ----- Original Message ----- From: <FTB1275@aol.com> To: <DANIEL-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:29 PM Subject: [DANIEL-L] NC Deeds > John, > > I am sure that laws regarding minors receiving property varies from state to > state. In North Carolina minors can receive property. Below is information > from North Carolina Real Estate Searches, by Lilona S. & Gregory W. Schiro, > published in 1982, p. 174. > > " A grantee need not be competent, since a minor or incompetent person can > receive and hold title to real estate as long as he has the capacity to receive > the title. For an individual, capacity usually means that he must have been > in existence at the time of the conveyance. For example, if a grantee were > dead at the time of the execution, no title would pass. However, if a grantee > had not yet been born but he was born within 280 days from the execution, he > would have been considered 'en esse' at the time of the conveyance and capable > of receiving title." > > There is a footnote after the last sentence. G.C.41-5; Mackie v. Mackie, 230 > N.C. 152, 52 S. E. 2nd 352 (1959) (construing the terms "in esse" in G.S. > 51-5 to be presumed to mean a 280-day period before birth. > > > Therefore, it would not be necessary for the children of Thomas Daniel > (Media; John; Rufus W.; Thomas, Jr; James; and Sabrina) would not have had to be 21 > years old at the time of the division of the Thomas Daniel property. > > Regards, > > Dora Pearce > > > ==== DANIEL Mailing List ==== > DO NOT FORGET: This is a Genealogical Mailing List and the posting of messages that do not relate to the DANIEL Family, its collateral families or those of a historical nature relating to genealogical research -- are not allowed on this list. > >