
    John Doe, ex dem. of Andrew J. Averit and another, plaintiffs in error, vs. Richard Roe, casual ejector, and James Alleam, tenant in possession, defendants in error.
    CJncter a grant to the orphans of A., who had but a single orphan, that orphan, will take.
    Ejectment, in Floyd Superior Court. Nonsuit, by Judge Hammond, August, 1857.
    Plaintiff proved that the defendant was in possession at the commencement of the suit. He then read to the jury, a grant from the State to Benjamin Averit’s orphans, of Lester’s District, Pulaski county, for the lot of land sued for, dated 23d February, 1850. He then proposed to read the answers of a witness, Thomas Pope, taken by commission, to prove that Andrew J. Averit, one of the lessors, was the orphan and only orphan of Benjamin Averit; that witness gave in a draw for him in the Cherokee Land Lottery; that he resided in Lester’s District, Pulaski county.
    Counsel for defendant objected to the reading of the depositions on the ground that the grant was to Benjamin Aver-it’s orphans, which must be two or more, and the answers proved that there was but one, and therefore, contradicted the grant.
    The Court sustained the objection, rejected the testimony, and non-suited plaintiff. And counsel for plaintiff excepted.
    Mitchell, and Akin, for plaintiff in error.
    Alexander, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

The grant was to “ Benj. Averit’s orphans.” If Benjamin Averit had but one orphan, was this a grant to that orphan ?

We think it was.]

In Hollifield vs. Still 17 Ga. 280, the word “heir” had to be considered as equivalent to the word heirs. And see 2 Vern. 325; Richards & Bergarenny, Cro. Eliz 413; 1 Burr 38; 5 Com. Dig., “Parols” (A. 9.)

Now, it is easier to say, that the word, heirs, shall have the meaning of the word heir, than it is to say, that the word heir, shall have the meaning of the word heirs, for the plural includes the singular, but the singular does not include the plural.

Can there be a doubt, that under a gift to the children of A.,” he having but a single child, that that child would take; or, that under a bequest of "all my horses,” a single horse would pass. There can be as little doubt that under a gift “ to orphans” a single orphan will take.

This being so, the evidence that was rejected, could not have varied the grant. Therefore, there was error in its rejection.

Judgment reversed  