Doe, Ex Demise of William Patterson, Plaintiff In Error v. Elisha Winn and Others, Defendants In Error

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation30 U.S. 233,5 Pet. 233,8 L.Ed. 108
Decision Date01 January 1831

30 U.S. 233
5 Pet. 233
8 L.Ed. 108
January Term, 1831

ERROR to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Georgia.

This was an action of ejectment brought to May term 1820, of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Georgia, to recover a tract of land containing seven thousand

Page 234

three hundred acres, lying in that part of the county of Gwinnett, which was formerly a portion of Franklin county.

On the trial at Milledgeville, at November term 1829, the plaintiff offered in evidence the copy of a grant or patent from the state of Georgia to Basil Jones, for the land in question, duly certified from the original record or register of grants in the secretary of state's office, and attested under the great seal of the state. To the admissibility of this evidence, the defendants by their counsel objected, on the ground that the said exemplification could not be received until the original grant or patent was proved to be lost or destroyed, or the non-production thereof otherwise legally explained or accounted for, according to a rule of the court. This objection the circuit court sustained, and rejected the evidence; to which decision the plaintiff excepted.

The plaintiff then offered: 1. A notice to the defendants requiring them to produce the original grant or patent for the land.

2. The affidavit of the lessor of the plaintiff, William Patterson, sworn to before Theodorick Bland, district judge of the United States for the district of Maryland, on the 9th of October 1821, deposing, in substance, that he had not in his possession, power, or custody, the said original grant, describing it; and that he knew not where it was; and that he had made diligent search for the same among his papers, and it could not be found.

3. The deposition of Andrew Fleming, stating at length the inquiries he had made for the papers of Thomas Smyth, Jun., by whom, as attorney in fact for Basil Jones, this land had been conveyed to William Patterson, and the information he had received of the destruction of these papers.

4. The deposition of Mrs Anna M. Smyth, stating the pursuits of her late husband, Thomas Smyth, and the facts and circumstances leading to the conclusion that his papers had been destroyed.

5. The plaintiff then called a witness who proved that he had compared the exemplification of the grant or patent aforesaid, with the register of grants in the office of the secretary of state of the state of Georgia, and the book or register of surveys, in the office of the surveyor general of the said state; and that

Page 235

the exemplification offered was a true copy from the said register of grants and plats in the said offices respectively.

He further proved, that he had made search for the original grant or patent, in the said offices; and that the same was not there to be found.

That he had made application to Mrs Ann Farrar, the relict of Basil Jones, the grantee, who has since intermarried with Francis Farrar, for the said original grant or patent, if among the papers of her late husband, Basil Jones; and was assured by the said Ann and Francis, that there were no such papers in their possession.

That the said witness had made application to Gresham Smyth, the reputed son of Thomas Smyth, Jun. for the said original grant, if in his possession; and received for answer that his father had died while he was yet young, and that he had no papers of his father's in his possession.

The said witness also proved that he had made diligent search among the papers of George Walker, now and long since deceased, who, it appeared, had once had some of the muniments of title of the lessor of the plaintiff in his possession, or been consulted as counsel; but the said original grant or patent could not there be found.

That the witness himself, assisted by the clerk of Richmond superior court, where the power of attorney from Basil Jones to Thomas Smyth, Jun. was recorded, searched diligently through all the papers in the office for the said original grant or patent, without success.

That the said witness, as agent of William Patterson, caused advertisements to be published for two months in two of the gazettes of the state of Georgia, for said grant or patent as lost, offering a reward for its production if required, which advertisements were exhibited to the court, and are inserted in the record, at full length. And the said witness further proved that no information whatever had been received in answer to the said advertisements, nor any discoveries made in relation to said original grant or patent.

He also proved that he had searched the executive office of Georgia for the said original grant, and had examined the list of grants or patents to which the great seal of the state had

Page 236

been refused to be annexed; but the said original grant to Basil Jones was not found noted upon the said list, as one of that description.

And thereupon the said counsel for the plaintiff moved the court to admit the said exemplification of the said patent or grant in evidence, the loss or destruction of the original having been sufficiently proved; which the said court refused: to which decision the plaintiff excepted.

The case was argued by Mr Wilde, for the plaintiff in error: no counsel appeared for the defendants.

Mr Wilde, for the plaintiff in error, contended:

1. That the exemplification of the patent or grant under the seal of the state was, by itself, admissible evidence.

2. That even were it not admissible alone, the proof made created a sufficient presumption of the loss or destruction of the original, to authorize the introduction of the copy.

The law of evidence in Georgia is the common law, except in so far as it is altered by acts of assembly. On this subject there is no act; nor is there any settled course of judicial decision. From the organization of the judicial department in that state there can be none. Seven distinct tribunals, each deciding for itself in the last resort, without any common umpire in case of disagreement, cannot be expected to exhibit an uniform interpretation of any code, however simple. With respect to rules of court, they are mere regulations for the convenient and orderly transaction of business. They can neither make law, nor repeal it. If the rule is in opposition to the law, it is a nullity of course. The common law doctrine is perfectly well settled. The constat or inspeximus of the king's letters patent, is as high evidence as the original itself. 1 Phillip's Evid. 410. Peake's Evid. 21. Page's case, 5 Coke. 1 Saunders, 189, in notes. 1 Hardres, 119. Roberts vs. Arthur, 2 Salk. 497. Hoe vs. Northrop, 1 Lord Raym. 154. 3 Salk. 154. 1 Dall. 2, 64. 2 Wash. Virg. Rep. 280, 281. 2 Mass. Rep. 358. 12 Vin. Ab. tit. Evidence, Constat [A. b. 125]. 12 Vin. Ab. tit. Evidence, Exemplification, 114 [A. b. 33]. sec. 1, 5, 8, 16, 17, 18.

In Georgia, the original warrant and survey are returned to

Page 237

the surveyor general's office; where they are filed, and the survey recorded. The acts of that state prescribe the form of grants. A record of them is ordered to be kept in the secretary of state's office, where the great seal is attached to them; and no grant is allowed to issue until it is recorded. No distinction exists in reason or authority between the patents of the state and patents of the king. They are of equal dignity and to be verified in the same manner. It will not be pretended, there is one rule of evidence for grants issued before the revolution, and a different rule for those emanating since.

The most distinguished counsel of that bar, one who was among the profoundest jurists of his country, the greatest ornament of his profession, and most eloquent man of his age, had been consulted, in his life time, on this subject. Before the action was brought, his opinion on the point in contest had been obtained. This is its purport.

'There can be no doubt that an exemplification or sworn copy of the registry of the grant is good evidence, even without proving the loss of the original. Vid. 12 Vin. Abr. 97, especially sec. 8, 39, and page 114, sec. 2, 5, 16, & c. The distinction always was between profert and evidence. When a grant was pleaded, profert must have been made of the original; and hence the statutes mentioned in Vin. Ab. supra, but the exemplification or sworn copy from the roll or registry was always evidence at the common law. The statute, however, were all passed before the colonization of Georgia. In that state the grant is enrolled, or a constat of it preserved, in some public office or offices, as in Maryland; and what question can it be whether the book itself or a copy from it is evidence; whether the original be producible or not?

'In Maryland, the office copy is constantly given in evidence, and always has been, although we have no act of assembly for that purpose, and it was never otherwise in England. The enrolment can answer no sensible purpose, if it does not answer this. The practice of enrolling grants, &c. can have no other object but to furnish sure constant evidence of the titles of the citizen to his lands, or rather of the source of his titles.' Opinion of William Pinkney, Esq.

Thus the matter stands upon authority. How is it on the

Page 238

score of reason? This is the transcript of a public record and imports absolute verity. That which remains in the office is the true original. The grant, which goes out into the hands of interested parties, may be subject to alteration for fraudulent purposes. From this the official record is secure. The emanation of the grant is a public and official act. In relation to any such act of the legislature or judicial department, the original document authenticating it, is not produced, but a copy. Nay, in relation to any other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Stroup v. Matthews, 4418
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 4, 1927
    ...v. Winn, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 380, 6 L.Ed. 500; United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 691, 8 L.Ed. 547; Doe v. Winn, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 233, 8 L.Ed. 108; Gibson v. Choteau, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 92, 30 L.Ed. 534; Eureka Co. v. Bailey Co., 11 Wall. (U. S.) 488, 20 L.Ed. 209; Curtner v. United State......
  • Ferguson v. State of Georgia, 44
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1961 of England in 1784, and '* * * the rules of evidence belonging to it * * * (were) in force there * * *.' Doe ex dem. Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 233, 241, 8 L.Ed. 108. Georgia therefore followed the incompetency rule for criminal defendants long before it was given statutory form by the A......
  • Smith v. Guckenheimer
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • February 7, 1900
    ...v. Rotchford, 12 Grat. 60, 65 Am. Dec. 240; [27 So. 908] State v. Posey, 17 La. Ann. 252, 87 Am. Dec. 525; Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 233, 8 L.Ed. 108; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430, 17 L.Ed. 319; Saylor v. Taylor, 23 C. C. A. 343, 77 F. 476; Pawley v. McGimpsey, 15 Tenn. 502. But we hav......
  • Washington 8212 Southern Nav Co v. Baltimore Philadelphia Steamboat Co, 108
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1924
    ...18, 29 Sup. Ct. 324, 53 L. Ed. 675. See, also, Mills v. Bank of the United States, 11 Wheat. 431, 439-440, 6 L. Ed. 512; Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 233, 243, 8 L. Ed. 108; The Steamer St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522, 530, 17 L. Ed. 180; Life Insurance Co. v. Francisco, 17 Wall. 672, 679, 21 L. Ed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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