Genealogy & Family History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for expert genealogists and people interested in genealogy or family history. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

While reviewing the digital image of a record from the collection, "Georgia, Property Tax Digests, 1793-1893," I found this phrase several times on the page: "Do agt for" followed by a person name.

I'm not even sure that I'm transcribing it right, so I'm including a picture which shows 2 occurrences.enter image description here

I suspect there may be an abbreviation involved. I suspect that understanding this entry may give a hint to the relationship between the names involved.

According to, these records represent the "tax digest books for 135 Georgia counties from 1793 - 1893." For those with access, you can see the entire page here

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

A search pertaining to the acronym agt yielded this fantastic snippet from Hope this helps.: }


Agents, sometimes abbreviated Agt, represented the person who owed the tax. Women property holders often had men represent them on tax lists. The agent might be a family member, or he might represent a group who had sent one person to pay their taxes rather than all of them making the trip.

share|improve this answer

I suspect "Do" represents "Ditto." See Wikipedia, "Ditto Mark," for the passage, "The abbreviation do. is also used."

I suspect also that "agt" represents "agent." See for "agt-agent."

I have not worked with the Georgia records before, but the names in the first column appear as obligors (to the tax) or payors. In this case, William Da __ sey appears obligated or to have paid taxes on his own account, but he also appears obligated or to have paid taxes as the agent for account of Sarah Da __ sey.

share|improve this answer
I was going to suggest the same thing; could agt be agent? – Gene Golovchinsky Dec 7 '12 at 19:16
My apologies. I meant to give the context but got distracted. I have added the context as well as a link to the source on – woman among men Dec 7 '12 at 19:20
@womanamongmen All okay. I took the liberty of inserting a few more comments into the question. If this would not have been your intent, you can "edit" my edit and roll it back. – GeneJ Dec 7 '12 at 19:25
The edits are appropriate. We'll all write better posts if we read better posts. – woman among men Dec 7 '12 at 19:26
@womanamongmen It's a really good question; thanks for sharing. – GeneJ Dec 7 '12 at 19:32

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.