Case ID: scl_13/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Richardson\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hugh Young vs. John Stockdale.
    Where a deed was 26 years old, and offered in evidence, it was held sufficient to prove the hand-writing of the grantor and one of the subscribing' witnesses; all the parties being dead, and the other subscribing witness, a young man, when he signed, and his writing unformed*
    Fail-field district, tried before Mr. Justice Colcocle, November Term, 1822.
    Trespass to try Titles.
    THE plaintiff claimed under a grant to George Evans in December, 1771, for 3000 acres, and offered evidence to show that Evans had conveyed to John Rutledge. He then produced a deed from Charles Rutledge to the plaintiff, dated 1st June, 1799, for 700 acres, and proved that he was one of the heirs of John Rutledge.
    
    The defendant offered in evidence a deed from John Rutledge to Edward Rutledge, dated 6th May, 1794, mortgaging the lands he bought from Evans, the grantee, and giving the said Edward, his heirs, &c. a power to sell and convey. This deed was witnessed by Keating L. Simons and John Dunlap.
    
    Judge Colcocle who presided, proved the hand writing of John Rutledge, the grantor, and of Keating L. Simons, one of the subscribing witnesses, and that both the subscribing witnesses were dead. He could not prove the hand writing of Dunlap, but stated that Dunlap must have been a very young man when he witnesséd the deed, under age as he believed, and his hand unformed ; that he studied law in Mr. Edward Rutledge’s office, and that his hand writing improved very much afterwards, lie had no doubt that Dunlap had witnessed the deed, but ho could not prove the hand writing. His honor rejected the deed, because Dunlap’s hand writing was not proved.
    Mr. John Rutledge left eight children, and the jury found for the plaintiff one eighth of the land sued for without locating it; but no damages.
    The defendant appealed and moved for a new trial.
    
      1st Because the deed from John Rutledge to Edward. Rutledge was sufficiently proved, and ought to have been received in evidence.
    2d. Because the verdict is void for uncertainty.
    
      Clark, for the motion.
    
      Reareson fy De Saussure, contra.
   Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the court :

The deed offered in .evidence was old; and the grantor Rutledge, and the witnesses all dead.

Under these circumstances, the hand writ; g of Rutledge and of one witness was well proved; and that of the other witness proved to have changed after he grew up to manhood ; and though the witness would not swear to it, he could not but believe it to be Dunlap’s hand writing.

The law does not require in any case all the testimony which can be adduced, hut that whatever is adduced shall be the best the nature of the case affords, (See 1 East, 450. 2 Bay, 142. 6 Binney, 45. 1 Camp. 45, fyc.) as where there are several witnesses to a deed, it is enough that one be sworn to the execution of it.

In the case before us, not only was Dunlap dead, and his hand writing greatly changed, but the deed 26 years old, which rendered it very difficult of more certain proof. Four years more, and it would have been proved from its age alone. It was then evidently a case admitting of secondary evidence, and better proof of the hand writing of the parties than that which was adduced, could scarcely be expected at this day.

The motion is therefere granted.

Justices Huger, Nott, Gantt and Johnson, concurred.