Skinner v. Fulton
| Decision Date | 31 January 1866 |
| Citation | 1866 WL 4424,39 Ill. 484 |
| Parties | ONIAS C. SKINNERv.JOHN B. H. FULTON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Hancock county.
This was an action of ejectment commenced in the court below by John B. H. Fulton against Onias C. Skinner, to recover the north-east quarter of section twenty-six, in township four, north of range seven west, situate in Hancock county.
The plaintiff gave in evidence the patent for the land from the United States to John Stephens, bearing date May 28, 1818. He then offered in evidence a deed from John Stephens to Robert Fulton, dated December 1, 1818. The defendant insisted that the grantee's name in this deed was written “Fultoz,” and not ““Fulton,” and the original deed was produced in this court for inspection. Objection was also taken to the authentication of the deed. It purports to have been as subscribing witnesses. Attached to the deed were the following certificates:
I, Robert Gates Hite, clerk of the said County Court of Jefferson, do hereby certify that at a court held for the said county, the 26th day of April, 1819, the foregoing deed was acknowledged by John Stephens, party thereto, and ordered to be certified to the territory of Illinois.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the public seal of my office this 28th day of September, 1819, and in the forty-fourth year of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
+---------------------------------+
¦[L. S.]¦ROBERT G. HITE, Clerk. ”¦
+---------------------------------+
“VIRGINIA, JEFFERSON COUNTY, To wit:
I, Richard Bagler, presiding magistrate of the said county of Jefferson, do hereby certify that Robert Gates Hite hath been duly elected and qualified clerk of the court of the said county of Jefferson, and that the foregoing attestation is in due form.
[L. S.]
I, Thomas A. Moore, clerk of the County Court of said county, hereby certify that it appears from the records of said court that Robert G. Hite, who appears to have given the above certificate under the seal of the said court, was at the date thereof, viz.: the 28th day of September, A.D. 1819, clerk of the said court, and that all his official acts as such are entitled to full faith and credit.
Given under my hand and the seal of the said court, this 21st day of July, A.D. 1853.
+-------------------------------+
¦[L. S.]¦T. A. MOORE, Clerk. ” ¦
+-------------------------------+
“I, Braxton Davenport, presiding justice of the County Court of Jefferson county, in Virginia, hereby certify that Thomas A. Moore, who has given the above certificate under the seal of said court, is clerk of said court, duly elected and qualified, and that full faith and credit are due to all his official acts as such. Given under my hand this 21st day of July, A. D. 1853.
I, Thomas A. Moore, clerk of the County Court of the said county of Jefferson, in the State of Virginia (which said court is a court of record under the laws of Virginia), do hereby certify that the deed to which this certificate is attached, being a deed of conveyance, executed by John Stephens, of Jefferson county, Virginia, bearing date the first day of December, 1818, and conveying the north-east one-quarter section twenty-six, township four north, in range seven west, in the tract appropriated by acts of congress for military bounties, to one Robert Fultoz, and which said deed was acknowledged by the said John Stephens before Robert Gates Hite, clerk of the County Court of said county of Jefferson, first on the 26th day of April, 1819, and afterward again on the 24th day of April, 1820, on both occasions in open court, as appears by the certificate and indorsements of the said Robert Gates Hite thereon, who was clerk of said court at both of said last mentioned dates, is executed, acknowledged and certified in conformity with the laws of the State of Virginia, as they existed and were in force on the first day of December, 1818, the date of said deed, and on the 26th day of April, 1819, and on the 24th day of April, 1820, the time of such acknowledgments, and that said deed, under the laws of the State of Virginia, if it had conveyed lands in said State, would be entitled to be read in evidence in all courts of said State, without any further or different proof of the execution.
Given under my hand and a scroll, instead of the seal of the said court, at my office in Charlestown, in said county, this 12th day of February, 1864, the said court having no seal.
+---------------------------------+
¦[L. S.]¦THOS. A. MOORE, Clerk. ”¦
+---------------------------------+
(Stamp attached, 5 cents.)
This day personally appeared before the undersigned, clerk of the County Court of said Boone county, which court is a court of record under the laws of Kentucky, having a seal, Lee M. Fulton and James F. King, two competent and credible witnesses, to me personally known, who, being by me severally sworn according to law, did each depose and say, that they personally knew the hand writing of John Stephens, the grantor, and James Fulton, one of the subscribing witnesses to the annexed deed, and that they well knew the signatures of each of them, having frequently seen them and each of them write, and from having seen writings recognized by them as in their handwriting; and that they each believe the names of such grantor and subscribing witness to the deed aforesaid were thereto subscribed by the said John Stephens, the grantor, and the said James F. King, the subscribing witness, respectively, and that the said John Stephens, the grantor, and the said James Fulton and Robert Y. Jack, two of the subscribing witnesses to such deed, are dead, and that the other subscribing witness, John Carlisle, when last heard from, went to Kanawha, in the State of Virginia, which was in the year 1822, which to me affords sufficient evidence of the due execution of said deed.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County Court at my office in Burlington, in said county of Boone, in the State of Kentucky, April 21st, 1864.
+-------------------------------+
¦[L. S.]¦LEWIS W. WEBB, Clerk, ¦
+-------+-----------------------¦
¦ ¦By EDW'D WEBB, D. C. ”¦
+-------------------------------+
(Stamp attached, 5 cents.)
The deed was recorded July 27, 1854. The defendant objected to the same being read in evidence for want of sufficient proof of its execution, and because the certificate of conformity of date, 12th February, 1864, was insufficient, and not under the seal of any court. The only seal thereto is as follows: “[L. S.]” But the court received the deed in evidence, and the defendant excepted.
The plaintiff then offered in evidence a deed for the premises in controversy, from John P. Brown and Mary Elizabeth, his wife, to the plaintiff, dated 29th July, 1859.
Testimony was introduced to show that Mary Elizabeth Brown was the sister of the plaintiff, and the daughter and one of the heirs at law of Robert Fulton.
The defendant read in evidence a deed for the premises from John Stephens to Harrison Dills, dated October 4, 1852, and recorded 23d November, 1852, and a deed from Dills to the defendant, dated August 28, 1855.
The defendant also proved the execution of, and offered in evidence, the following tax deed:
“ The Clerk of the County Commissioners' Court of Hancock county, in the State of Illinois, to all who shall see these presents, greeting:
Know ye, that whereas the clerk did, on the 8th day of March, A. D. 1837, at the court-house, in the town of Carthage, in said county of Hancock, in conformity with all the requisitions of the several acts in such cases made and provided, and particularly an act entitled ‘An act concerning the public revenue,’ approved 27th February, 1833, expose to public sale a certain tract of land, being the north-east quarter of section twenty-six (26), in township four (4) north, in range seven (7) west of the fourth principal meridian, for the sum of one dollar and twenty cents, being the amount of road tax for the year 1836, chargeable on said tract of land; and, whereas, at the time and place aforesaid, Benjamin Clark offered to pay the aforesaid sum of money for 160 acres, which was the least quantity bid for; and the said Clark having paid the said sum of one dollar and twenty cents into the hands of the said clerk, I have granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents, as clerk of the County Commissioners' Court of the county aforesaid, do grant, bargain and sell, the whole of the north-east quarter of section twenty-six of township four north, in range seven, west of the fourth principal meridian, to Benjamin Clark. To have and to hold said tract of land to the said Clark and his heirs forever. Subject, however, to all the rights of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gorham v. Settegast
...3 Wash. on Real Property (3d Ed.) § 38; Abbots' Trial Ev. § 24; 3 Elliott on Ev. §§ 2188, 2189; Anson v. Stein, 6 Iowa, 150; Skinner v. Fulton, 39 Ill. 484; Sprigg v. Moale, 28 Md. 497, 92 Am. Dec. 698; Shriver v. State, 65 Md. 278, 4 Atl. 679. The evidence tends to show that Eli Noland, to......
-
Kellogg v. Southwestern Lumber Co. of New Jersey
... ... W. 815. Appellants would support their construction of this judgment by Stark v. Carroll, 66 Tex. 393, 1 S. W. 188, and Solomon v. Skinner, 82 Tex. 345, 18 S. W. 698. These cases are not in point on the facts of this case. Thus, Stark v. Carroll was a partition suit. There had previously ... 3 Wash. on Real Property (3d Ed.) § 38; Abbott's Trial Ev. § 24; 3 Elliott on Ev. §§ 2188, 2189; Anson v. Stein, 6 Iowa, 150; Skinner v. Fulton, 39 Ill. 484; Sprigg v. Moale, 28 Md. 497, 92 Am. Dec. 698; Shriver v. State, 65 Md. 278, 4 A. 679." ... There is no merit in ... ...
-
Maynor v. Tyler Land & Timber Company
... ... Stein, 6 Iowa 150; Emerson v. White, 29 N.H ... 482; Payne v. Payne, 29 Vt. 172; 4 Ency. of Ev. 577; ... Merrill v. Otis, 12 N.H. 466; Skinner v ... Fulton, 39 Ill. 484. It has been well said that ... "plaintiffs must remove every possibility of title in ... another before they can ... ...
-
Steddum v. Kirby Lumber Co.
...equal or close degree of consanguinity who are entitled to share with him in such property (citing Anson v. Stein, 6 Iowa, 150; Skinner v. Fulton, 39 Ill. 484; Morrill v. Otis, 12 N. H. 466; Sheehan's Estate, 139 Pa. 168, 20 Atl. 1003). The rule is that the heir at law, when suing as a plai......