This Albemarle County, Virginia, deed appears to have had a “correction” written in the deed book after the deed was transcribed and before the microfilming was done. It would be less consequential if it were not the name of the grantor. The “correction” appears to have been written in a different hand by a different writing utensil.
My transcription of this document should indicate that:
“…Between [illegible word with the word “Peter” written over it in an apparently different handwriting] Rucker (Son…”
5 Responses
I believe the illegible word is the name Solomon. That is where the name Peter was superimposed.
Actually, I believe the illegible word may be “Peterson.” I have my own story of added information in a birth record for my half-sister. She appeared in the index in the”W” portion of the book. Both parents were recorded with the correct names and surnames (we share the same father). However, my half-sister’s surname had been scratched out and “Smith” written above it. I didn’t know my father and knew even less about my half-sister, but I always had a question of why her name had been changed to “Smith.” Years later, I found a first-cousin through Ancestry.com and several years into our correspondence I mentioned the birth index to her. She said that when my half-sister’s mother remarried, her new husband adopted my half-sister. His surname was Smith. Mystery solved!
Sherry, I think you are correct about the original name in the illustration. I came to the same conclusion before reading your comment. Also, it would make sense that the added “Peter” would be a clarification consistent with the original, Peter being a shortened form of Peterson. In the early 19th century, I have seen numerous examples of the Mother’s surname being used as the given name of a male child: one example from my own ancestors is a given name of Jones.
I think it is Peterson, however, the writing does appear to be someone else. The formation of letters is not the same, even a different era. The letters are more modern.
I’m really inclined to think the copyist wrote “between” twice and someone later, realizing the error, wrote in Peter.