McLaughlin v. Randall

• Decision Date: 30 January 1877
• Citation: 66 Me. 226
• Parties: CHARLES MCLAUGHLIN v. BENJAMIN RANDALL. 1875.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

66 Me. 226

CHARLES MCLAUGHLIN v. BENJAMIN RANDALL.

1875.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

January 30, 1877

ON REPORT.

WRIT OF ENTRY.

Plea, general issue, with a brief statement alleging adverse possession for over twenty years in the tenants and claim for betterments.

The demandant put into the case a deed of quitclaim from Columbus Cooper to Patrick McLaughlin admitted, for the purpose of the trial, to embrace a part of the demanded premises.

The demandant offered in evidence, an instrument, not under seal signed by Patrick McLaughlin, the genuineness of the signature to which, for the purpose of the trial, was admitted. The tenant objected to the admission of this instrument as evidence of title, because it had no seal, nothing but a scroll in place of a seal. The presiding justice ruled the instrument insufficient to convey the legal title for want of a seal and excluded it.

Whereupon the case was withdrawn from the jury and reported to the full court, with the agreement, that, if in their opinion the instrument was sufficient to convey the legal title to the land, a new trial should be granted, otherwise, a nonsuit to be entered.

A. McNichol, for the plaintiff, submitted without argument.

J. Granger & G. F. Granger, for the defendant.

PETERS J.

Two questions may be regarded as presented here. First: Can land in this state be conveyed by a written instrument without a seal. Second: Has a " scroll" the effect of a seal.

There can be no doubt that land in this state cannot be conveyed by an instrument without a seal. By the common law, the earliest and the latest, a seal is regarded as an essential part of a deed. And such has been the common law of Massachusetts and Maine, ever since, and for a long period antedating, their existence as states.

In this state a scroll or scrawl is not a seal, nor does it have the effect of a seal. The old common law seal, in the time of Lord Coke, was wax, with an impression thereon. But the strictest requirement became relaxed by departures from it from time to time, until it was long ago held, that a seal by a wafer or other tenacions substance capable of being impressed, whether in fact impressed or not, was a sufficient seal. The annexing of a piece of paper by wafer or wax, or gum, or any adhesive substance, is now everywhere regarded as equivalent to the impression formerly required, and makes a valid seal. But in late decisions in Massachusetts and Maine there has been a relaxation of the requirement beyond that. In Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 Allen 381, it was held that the impression of a seal of a corporation stamped upon and into the substance of the paper upon which the instrument is written which...