Case ID: h-mch_3/html/0103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      (Chase, Ch. J.)", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    SEPTEMBER TERM, 1792.
    (EASTERN SHORE.)
    Thomas Smith’s Lessee against James Steele.
    EJECTMENT for a tract of land called Smith Field, lying in Dorchester county.
    By the bills of exceptions it appears s
    1. The plaintiff, to make title to the land for which this ejectment was brought, produced the patent granted to Charles Hutchins, on the 30th May, 1683. And also offered to read in evidence the copy of a deed conveying the said land to William Smith, bearing date the 20th of April, 1688, and offered to prove that William Smith, mentioned in the said deed, entered and possessed the said land mentioned in the deed, in virtue of the deed, anc^ that the land had been in possession under the deed from the date thereof till the trial.
    The defendant’s counsel objected that the deed was not indented; but the court (Chase, Ch. J.) allowed the said deed to be read in evidence, the plaintiff not proving to the court that the said deed was not indented; and the court being also of opinion, if the deed was not»indented, that such defect was cured by the act of 1715, c. 47. The defendant excepted to this opinion.
    2. The plaintiff having offered in evidence the said patent, and the office copy of the said deed from Charles Hutchins to William Smith, the counsel for the defendant, objected to the office copy being given in evidence to the jury, inasmuch as it did not appear to have been recorded within the time limited by the act of assembly passed in the year 1674, c. 2.
    3. The defendant’s counsel having objected to the reading the office copy of the before-mentioned deed, because it did not appear that the deed was recorded according to law; the plaintiff gave in evidence to the jury, that the said William Smith, mentioned in the said deed, entered and possessed the land mentioned in the deed, and the land was possessed under the said deed, from the date thereof till this time, and prayed the court to direct the jury, that if they believed the evidence, that they might and ought to presume that the deed was recorded within the time limited by law, notwithstanding the defendant gave in evidence to the jury, that the defendant, and those under whom he claimed, always claimed and possessed the land for which the defendant took defence. The court (Chase, Ch„ J.) was of that .opinion. The defendant excepted,
   The Court

(Chase, Ch. J.)

was of opinion that the office copy should be read in evidence to the jury, leaving them to determine the fact, whether the said deed was recorded within the time limited by law or not. The defendant excepted.

The defendant appealed to the court of appeals, where the appeal was dismissed, by reason of the appellant’s siot appearing, at November term, t 794.

Martin, (Attorney-General,) for the appellee?