Transcribing…
Traci has sent several scans of deeds I am interested in which involve the sale of Elizabeth Pitman’s property in 1761/2. The earlier sale was to Arthur Pitman and the deed copy is just unreadable and she is attempting to get better copies from the original…
In the meantime, I’m focused on this deed from Arthur Pitman to Joseph Pitman in 1762. No one to my knowledge has figured out a connection between any of these other Pitmans to Elizabeth Pitman… hence my interest.
There is some peculiar legal terms being used that I have not ran across and am VERY curious if they relate to any sort of “inheritance” on the part of Arthur?
Note the term “hereditament”…. what are the other words in that same line of thought?
North Carolina
This Indenture made the twentyeth Day of September In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Sixty two Between Arthur Pitman of Edgecombe County in the said Province of the One Part Planter and Joseph Pitman of the County & Province aforesaid Planter of the other Part Now this Indenture Witnesseth that the said Arthur Pittman for a valuable consideration of the sum of Twenty Pound Proclamation money of North Carolina to me in hand paid by the said Joseph Pittman before the Execution of the __? Whereof the said Arthur Pittman Doth hereby acknowledge & himself Herewith fully Satisfyed & Contented and Paid Himself and every part and Parcell thereof do Exonerate do Acquit and discharge him the said Joseph Pittman his Heirs Exors Admr and every of them for Ever by these Presents Have Given Granted Bargaind Sold Aliend Conveyed and Confirmed And by these Presents Have Given Granted Bargaind Sold Alien and Conveyed and Confirmed and by these Presents Do freely fully and absolutely Give grant bargain Sell Alien Convey and Confirm unto him the said Joseph Pittman his Heirs & Assigns for Ever One Certain Messuage and Tract of Land Situated lying on the North Side of Tar River in the aforesaid County and province beginning at a red Oak and a white Oak along Elizth Pittmans Line in her Deed and a Price Line ___? East to a Pine thence East 220 P. to the Line that John Fountain and Robert Coleman run to a Pine 220 P. to the corner? to the first Station contg? One hundred Acres be the Same more or less together with all ___ ____ Hereditaments and ______ _______ & commodities to the said belonging or in anywize Appertaining to him the said Joseph Pittman his Admin? Extr? heirs Asigns To have and to hold the said Hundred Acres of Land be the Same more or less for Ever to his and their only proper Use Benefit and behalf for Ever And I the said Arthur Pittman for me my Heirs Extors _onds Do Covenant Promise? and Present? to & with the said Joseph Pittman his Heirs & ____? that before the Ensealing hereof I am the true and Lawfull Owner of the above bargained Premises and hereby ___ Dispose of the Same in my name in Right and a good Perfect and absolute Estate of Inheritance as I have myself? Good R?ight and full Power and Lawfull Authority to Grant Bargain Sell Convey Confirm the said Bargained Premises in manner as above said and that the said Joseph Pittman his Heirs & Asigns shall & may from time to time & at all times for Ever hereafter by Virtue of these Presents Lawfully & Peaceably and Quietly have hold Use Occupy Possess & Enjoy the said Devised & bargained Premises with the Apperts thereto belonging Free and Clear freely and Clearly Acquited Exonerated & Discharged of and from all & all manner of former Grants Bargains Sales Leases Mortges Isills? Intails Iaintors? Dowrys Joynters Extors Encumberances and trouble wtsoever And I the said of all & Singular the said Granted Premises afosd & Lawfull Claims of any enquirer of Power wtsoever In Witness whereunto I have attach? my hand and fixed my Seal the Day & Year above Written
Arthur Pittman Synd Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of us
Wm (his mark) Anderson Handover (his mark) Hatcher John Fountaine
Edgecombe County September Inferior Court 1762
The Within Deed from Arthur Pittman to Joseph
Pittman was Proved to be his Act & Deed of the said Arthur
by the Oath of Wm Anderson a Wits thereto And Admitted
to Record
—————————————————–
hereditament n. any kind of property which can be inherited. This is old-fashioned language still found in some wills and deeds.
Anything that can be passed by an individual to heirs.
There are two types of hereditaments: corporeal and incorporeal.
A corporeal hereditament is a permanent tangible object that can be seen and handled and is confined to the land. Materials, such as coal, timber, stone, or a house are common examples of this type of hereditament.
An incorporeal hereditament is an intangible right, which is not visible but is derived from real or Personal Property. An Easement is a classic example of this type of hereditament, since it is the right of one individual to use another’s property and can be inherited.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Andersons of Colonial N. Carolina 
I wouldn’t get too excited about it – that’s just normal, “boiler plate” legal terminology found in many deeds. It doesn’t have anything to do with the circumstances of the individuals.
LikeLike
traci thompson
February 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm
May be… but that’s a ten dollar word if I’ve ever seen one. My tange still gets toungled just trying to pronounce it. Surely there is a clue in there….. Grrrr
LikeLike
anderson1951
February 24, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Here’s a bit more, which I should have said in the first place…
From Raymond A. Winslow Jr., “Land Records,” in Helen F.M. Leary, editor, North Carolina Research: Genealogy and Local History, 2nd edition (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Genealogical Society, 1996), chapter 13, p.214:
“The grantor was often said to convey his interest in ‘all lands, tenements, and hereditaments.’ Tenements included all buildings and improvements; hereditaments were all things that could be passed by inheritance (e.g., a long-term lease on the land.)”
In other words, the use of “hereditaments” pertained to the passing of the right to leave the property to heirs from the grantor to the grantee, the people mentioned in this particular deed, and was not a reference to any previous inheritance.
Although, you know, reference is sometimes made in deeds to inheritance, usually with wording like “…that he inherited through his father’s will…” etc. But alas, we can’t get so lucky with this one.
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
February 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Your point is taken… but I think this begs a question. The initial 2 sales of Elizabeth’s property to Joseph and Arthur are fairly simple and contain none of this “legalese”… perhaps it is nothing of importance but it just seems odd to me. Did Joseph have concerns about inheritance complications or was this just a nerdy clerk that loved to scribble? Or more likely it may have dealt with any dowery issues if Arthur was married… bet that’s it.
I added a Page for the other 2 land sales… “Elizabeth Pitman Land 1761/2″… I won’t bother to transcribe because the abstracts pretty much tell the tale.
And these deeds confirm your position that this is the Joseph d.1787 (when combined with the later Abner deeds). Where do you stand on the question if this is the son of Robert Pitman?
LikeLike
anderson1951
February 25, 2012 at 6:46 am
I’ve noticed that deed legalese seems to vary from time period to time period, although I am not knowledgeable of the details on reasons behind the changes, etc.
Let me talk about Joseph on one of the Joseph pages, as that might fit better…trying to help you keep your pages organized here. 🙂
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
February 25, 2012 at 9:17 am