Hedden v. Overton

• Decision Date: 11 October 1816
• Citation: Hedden v. Overton, 7 Ky. 406 (Ky. Ct. App. 1816)
• Parties: Hedden v. Overton.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

7 Ky. 406

Hedden v. Overton.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 11, 1816

In ejectment a copy of a grant taken from the records in Virginia and deposited in the register's office in Ky according to the provisions of the statute, is evidence.

It is not necessary in making out a copy of a patent that the seal should be copied; nor is it necessary that the register's indorsement that the grantee is entitled to the land be copied.

A patent commenced in the name of Edmund Randolph, Governor and signed by Patrick Henry, Governor, is not thereby vitiated.

OPINION

BOYLE Chief Justice.

THIS was an ejectment, on the trial of which several objections were taken on the part of the defendant to a copy of the patent produced by the plaintiff in order to prove his title to the land in controversy: but the objections were overruled, and a verdict and judgment having been rendered for the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed to this Court.

The assignment of error brings into view the objections taken to the copy of the patent produced by the plaintiff, and questions the propriety of the verdict and judgment on the ground of uncertainty. We will first consider the objections taken to the plaintiff's title paper.

1. " It is objected that it was but a copy from the book in the register's office of this State, which book was itself but a copy from the record book of patents belonging to the register's office of the Commonwealth of Virginia."

The general rule of evidence is certainly opposed to the admission of a copy of a copy in evidence, as it is also to the admission of a copy where the original is in the power of the party. The latter case is, however, as far as relates to records or papers belonging to the register's office clearly made an exception to the general rule, by the act of assembly (1 Litt. 407), which provides that " all copies of the records and other papers of the said office, duly attested by said register, shall be as good evidence as the originals would be." Whether a copy from the book of copies, taken from the register's office of Virginia, comes within the letter of this provision, is to be sure more problematical. It would seem indeed as these copies were procured under the authority of the legislature, and directed by law to be kept in the register's office, that they should be treated either as records or papers belonging to the office; and in either case a copy from them would come literally within the provision just recited. But be this as it may, there can be no doubt that such a copy is embraced by the reason and spirit of the provision. The great and primary object of the legislature of this State in procuring copies of patents from Virginia, must have been to facilitate the production of the evidences of title to lands which had been granted in the bounds of this State while a part of Virginia. But as these copies, like the other papers and records of the register's office, are to be...