Case ID: tenn_1/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Overton, j.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CRAIG’S LESSEE vs. VANCE.
    A certificate of probate as well as of Registration is necessary to authorise the leading a copy of a Deed.
    
      
      Ejectment. Rhea for the defendant moved to read a copy of a deed from John Musgrove to Moses Musgrove, upon the certificate of registry, The officer certified, that the deed stood registered in the registers book, and signed his name below the certificate; a memorandum was made of the date of registration, and that it was proved in court but this memorandum was not certified by the register.
    Overton, j. This copy cannot be read.
    A certificate of the probate is material. The counsel further stated that two grants had issued to Buller upon the same warrant, and that the second grant did not cover this land.
   Overton, j.

sitting alone. The reception of oral proof to destroy the validity of a grant, ought to be strictly guarded particularly at law. If two grants have issued, the first must have conveyed the right of the state to the land included within the lines expressed in it. A second grant covering the same land, and to the same individual, would be void. Under such circumstances, if part of the same land as covered by both grants the second will be void as to such parts, but may be good, as to the residue not covered by the first. An entry is not indispensably necessary to the validity of a grant. Where there are two conflicting entries a younger grant upon the oldest entry, maybe permitted to prevail in a court of law, against an older grant upon the youngest entry agreeably to the present practice. This however arises from the established practice of the state, founded as it is said, on the peculiar structure of our statute law, and not upon the English authorities.