Case ID: serg-rawl_6/html/0210-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TilghmAn C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Motz against Bolard.
    
      Thursday, September 28
    The copy of a warrant, not under seal, sent by the surveyor general to the deputy surveyor of a district, with an order to execute the warrant, is evidence.
    In Error.
    •WRIT of error to Mercer county in an ejectment, in which Frederick B'olard, the defendant in error was plaintiff, and Christian Motz, defendant.
    On the trial of the cause, the defendant offered in evidence a copy of a warrant in the name of Thomas James, dated 21st April, 1794, on which a survey was made by Benjamin Stokely, the deputy surveyor, to whom it was directed by the surveyor general. It was entered by the deputy surveyor in his book, according to the directions of the act of assembly in such case provided, and the survey thereon returned to the surveyor general. To this evidence the counsel for the plaintiff objected, because it was not under the seal of the office from which it issued. The Court rejected the evidence, and the counsel fof the defendant excepted to their opinion.
    Baldwin, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Forward, contra.
   TilghmAn C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Warrants for land are issued from the office of the secretary of the Land Office, and directed to the surveyor general, under seal.—The practice of the surveyor general has been, to retain the warrant in his office, and send a copy of it, not under seal, to the deputy surveyor of the district in which the land lies, with an order to execute the warrant.—This copy is the authority by which the deputy acts, and is, to him, in the nature of an original, which he retains in his office. It is undoubtedly evidence, and as such, has always been considered by this Court, although a copy of the original warrant certified by the secretary of the Land Office, under seal, would.also be evidence, and is usually produced, as it is generally more convenient to obtain that, than to get the identical copy lodged in the office of the deputy survey- or, a copy of which would not be evidence.—It is the opinion of the Court, that the evidence ought to have been received, and therefore the judgment should be reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.