Case ID: tenn_1/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "White, j. Overton, J. Campbell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RICHARDS LESSEE vs. HICKS AND CAMPBELL.
    Ejectment. For the plaintiff was produced a grant from the state of Virginia.
    If a grant from Virginia, be offered in evidence in our courts under the act of 1803. ch. 58. s. 2. it must be shewn to be conformable to the laws of Virginia
    Whiteside objected to the reading of this grant
    Williams for Plaintiff
    relied on the act of 1803. c. 58. s. 2. which declared that certain grants from the state of Virginia, should be as good and valid as if issued by North Carolina.
    Whiteside, e contra.
    The court must be satisfied that this is a good grant, according to the laws of Virginia. The circumstance of its having been registered in this state does not render it valid unless it were originally so. The evidence of this grant should be certified agreeably to the act of congress, otherwise it cannot be received in evidence.
   White, j.

The first act of Congress, respecting the authentication of papers from other states has provided for two classes of cases. 1st. The judicial proceedings of courts. 2d. The manner of authenticating the acts of the legislatures. The paper produced purports to be a grant of land, but we do not know that the laws of Virginia, have been complied with. The second section of our act of 1803, will not operate in favour of the grant, unless it be good by the laws of Virginia. We are not bound to notice the laws of another state as we are our own. We are not presumed to know the laws of other countries. They must be shewn when required. The grants of North-Carolina, are our own by adoption, and we are bound to know whether they have all legal requisites, but not so respecting those of Virginia, or any other state.

Overton, J.

Let this case be considered independent of the act of Congress, and the question will be whether the grant can be received in evidence. This case does not relate to the act of Congress, but upon the general law of evidence,which requires the seal of the state. This grant purports to be under the lesser seal of the state which ex vi termini, imports higher evidence; and therefore cannot be received. If this be a record of another state, it must either be certified by the seal of the state, or agreeably to the act of congress; neither of which is the case here.

Campbell, J.

concurred.

Non suit, which was afterwards set aside.