Ayres v. Stewart

Citation1 Tenn. 221
PartiesAYRES v. STEWART.
Decision Date30 September 1806
CourtTennessee Circuit Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Trespass quare clausum fregit; plea, liberum tenementum.--For the plaintiff was shown a grant issued by the State of North Carolina to Alexander Outlaw, for 400 acres of land, upon a warrant from John Armstrong's office. Number of grant 759; a deed from Outlaw to the plaintiff, from the same land dated July 15, 1800. The dedendant's counsel produced a certificate from William White, secretary of North Carolina, stating that the highest number of grants for lands in East Tennessee, upon John Armstrong's warrants, was lower than the number of that under which the plaintiff claims; that he had searched and could not find any such grant as that of the plaintiff's registered in the secretary's office. Upon an Adair's warrant a grant had issued No. 759, but not to Alexander Outlaw. From this certificate it was urged that the grant was void if it had been issued by the State of North Carolina. It was further objected to the validity of the grant that it is certified on the back to have been registered by W. Williams, private secretary of North Carolina, and also countersigned by him, though a deputy. The law expressly says it shall be done by the secretary himself.

Overton, J., sitting alone.

It certainly would have been most regular for the secretary himself to have countersigned the grant, but on that account it can not be invalid. It would seem that the registration of the grant in the secretary's office is not essential to its existence. The owner must show that he had done all the law required of him. It was the business of the secretary to register before delivering to the owner. 1777, c. 1, section 11.a1

This grant was delivered to Outlaw, its owner, certified upon the back to have been registered, and it is now to be declared invalid, in the hands of a third person, because it can not be found on record in the secretary's office of North Carolina? It is known to every one, that, during the time of the late secretary of North Carolina, great irregularities prevailed in that office, and the recording of the grant there might have been omitted. The true question here, is, did the State of North Carolina execute the grant? It is obvious they did, for the Court can judicially know the seal of that State.

The objection that the grant is certified to have been recorded by the private secretary can not prevail, it being the usual form.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT