Erwin v. English

• Decision Date: 29 February 1892
• Citation: 23 A. 753,61 Conn. 502
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ERWIN v. ENGLISH.

23 A. 753

61 Conn. 502

ERWIN

v. ENGLISH.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 29, 1892.

Appeal from district court of Waterbury; Borabach, Judge.

Action by John Erwin, as administrator of Cephelia P. Larkin, deceased, against lames E. English, to obtain possession of certain premises, together with rents and profits. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

G. E. Terry, for appellant.

J. O'Neill and R. E. Hall, for appellee.

SEYMOUR, J. This is a complaint to obtain possession of the premises therein described, together with rents and profits. It was originally brought March 25, 1885, by John Erwin and Mary Erwin, husband and wife. Subsequently Cephelia P Larkin appeared, and by leave of the court was made a party plaintiff. She afterwards died, her death was suggested on the record, and said John Erwin entered, as her administrator, to prosecute as her administrator. At the term of the court when the case was tried, John Erwin. In his individual capacity, and his wife, Mary, were dropped as plaintiffs; and the case, with John Erwin, administrator of the estate of Cephelia P. Larkin, deceased, as plaintiff, against James English, was tried. The defendant, in his answer to the complaint, alleges that he has the title to the described premises by deed, and also a title by prescription. He further alleges that the right of action stated in the complaint did not accrue within 15 years next before the commencement of said suit. The plaintiffs replied that the plaintiff Cephelia P. Larkin on the 20th of November, 1800, was, and ever since has been, a married woman, the wife of Patrick H. Larkin, who died December 31, 1882; that the possession of the defendant of the said land did not commence, nor did the possession of his predecessors in the title commence, until after the marriage of the said Cephelia P. Larkin; that the possession of the defendant's grantor of said land commenced with the license and permission of Patrick H. Larkin, the husband at that time of the said Cephelia P. Larkin; and the plaintiffs denied the allegation that the right of action did not accrue within 15 years next before the commencement of the suit. The defendant denied all the allegations of the plaintiffs' reply, except that Patrick H. Larkin died December 31, 1882, which was admitted. Upon the trial, judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.

The finding states that, to prove that Cephelia Larkin was married November 20, 1860, the plaintiff offered a certificate of marriage, in connection with the declaration, and a written statement of the said Cephelia that said document was her certificate of marriage with the said Patrick Larkin. The following is a copy of the certificate, viz.: "No. 177. The state of Ohio, Crawford county. I certify that I this day solemnized the marriage of Patrick Larkin with C. P. Bartlett. Witness my hand this 20th day of November, A. D. 1860. Brierport, Ohio. L. B. Emby, M. of Gospel." To the introduction of this evidence the defendant objected, on the ground that (1) it did not appear upon the face of the certificate who the authority was signing the same; (2) it does not appear upon the face of the certificate that the signer of the same held any office which authorized him to perform such ceremony.

The court overruled the objections, and admitted the evidence, the defendant excepting, and one of the defendant's reasons for appeal is founded upon the admission of the certificate. Marriage certificates are treated in this state as original documents, and need not, therefore, be authenticated as copies. This one is not subject to the objection suggested by Judge Beardsley in Erwin v. English, 57 Conn. 564, 19 Atl. Rep. 238, to a certificate in that case, that it does not appear from the certificate itself that the authority who signed it performed the marriage ceremony. The real objection is that the words "M. of Gospel," after the name of L. B. Emby, who signs the certificate, and therein certifies that he solemnized the marriage, are not admissible evidence that it was signed by a minister of the gospel. As already appears, the declarations and written statement of Cephelia P., who hart died before the trial, offered in connection with the certificate, and not objected to, were that said document was her certificate of marriage with Patrick Larkin. We cannot hold, as matter of law, that the court erred in admitting the certificate as evidence. There is no law against using abbreviations, though their use is to be deplored in formal documents. The only practical rule we can suggest for such a case as this is that if the abbreviation be one in common use, or such that it can naturally be understood, the court has a right to understand it, and to treat the abbreviated title as if it had been written in full. Parol testimony has been held to be admissible to explain the meaning of ambiguous abbreviations. The characters "N. P." and "J.P." have been held to sufficiently indicate, respectively, "notary public" and "justice of the peace," and that their use does not vitiate a jurat. Other instances might be mentioned. As the case is presented to us, the court below was justified in admitting the certificate.

For the purpose of proving that the marriage between Patrick Larkin and Cephelia P. Bartlett was illegal and void, the defendant offered the deposition of James Craig, in connection with evidence that the Mary O'Neill therein named was living at the time of the marriage between said Patrick and Cephelia. That deposition is...