Ms. Marietta: Ignore the recording dates for the moment: Smith conveys by deed to Brown in Oct., 1801. Brown then conveys back by deed, and though supposedly the new deed was signed on the same Oct. day, it was NOT witnessed - hence could not be "delivered" back under the law (as was required, then and now) until after witnessed in Jan., 1802 - some 3 months later. So it was that since by that date recording was necessary to prevent Smith from selling it to another party, Brown "owned" the land for that 3 months. Then some legal activity took place about which you have not told us - likely an agreement or threatened litigation or a father raising h---. I suggest one of 3 answers: Smith was a minor, transferred the land to Brown; Brown knew about that minority, as witnessed by the undelivered deed back the same day, and said, "Hey Smith, though you are not of age, I do want the land when you turn 21"; in January 1802, some other factor came into play, like discovery of the purported sale that, while not illegal, was voidable by Smith when he came of age, and so Brown recorded the Oct . reconveyance deed; 3 years later, by reason of SOME relationship, the parties again entered into a similar deal, with 160.00 being some portion of the new purchase price. I would bet that they were kin, neighbors or friends, and that the old reconveyance was simply to be "legal" and above reproach in all their dealings. The 2nd possibility is that all knew Smith was underage; Brown said, "That's OK, I want the land and a voidable deed is better than none, and such will tie you down to our deal; came Jan., somebody (a parent? a wife? a court?) said "No way, boys, this can't be done this way"; then Smith promised Brown the land when he turned 21 and lived up to his word when that birthday came. The men thought that for some reason, Smith could legally xfer the land at the age of 18; Brown said, "Just in case you can't legally sign it, I will sign a deed back right now and when we know the answer, I will record the deed back:; Come Jan., it was determined that the deed was invalid, tyhe reconveyance was witnessed and recorded, and they made a tentative hand-shake deal for when the boy turned 21. I would like to know HOW - through what legal device - the boy "owned" the land in the 1st place. The deed "annexed" to the new deal or to some acknowledged document was the old voidable deed, and someone wanted the whole deal explained for the sake of the slight cloud on the title caused by the old recordings of deeds to and from a minor. Am I guessing; SURE! :) Paul