Case ID: yeates_4/html/0427-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "And per Cziriam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*428] *AT A CIRCUIT COURT, HELD AT BEDFORD,
    OCTOBER 1807.
    CORAM — YEATES, JUSTICE.
    Lessee of Dorothy M'Kenzie, Joseph M'Kenzie and Thomas Thompson against Michael Crow and John Rowland.
    Plat of a survey made by the assistant of a deputy surveyor for his own benefit, not returned into the surveyor general’s office nor signed by the deputy, found amongst the papers of such assistant after his death, cannot be read in evidence.
    Ejectment for 319^ acres of land in Southampton township. The plaintiff claimed under an application in the name of Thomas Thompson, dated 24th February 1767, upon which it was said, a survey had been made by Robert M'Kenzie, the known assistant of Richard Tea, the deputy surveyor of the district, the same Robert being the owner of the application.
    To prove this, a survey dated 15th May 1767, under the signature of the said Robert M'Kenzie, and found amongst his papers at the time of his death, containing 319Í- acres, was offered in evidence by the plaintiff, as the act of the general agent of the deputy surveyor, and binding'upon him.
    This paper was objected to, though the hand writing of M'Ken-zie therein was acknowledged, and that he assisted Tea in making surveys.
   And per Cziriam.

No survey has been returned into the proper office. This plat is not signed by Richard Tea, nor even a single letter or figure in it ascertained to be his hand writing; nor was it found in his office. Nothing is shewn from which it can be inferred, that the deputy surveyor has recognized this act of his assistant, as a receipt for the surveying fees, or some settled account between them, wherein the supposed act of surveying has been introduced. It cannot therefore be regarded as an official paper, but as verbal declarations of the party that he had made the survey, which being for his own benefit, cannot be received in evidence.

Verdict for the defendants.

Messrs. Duncan and J. Riddle, pro quer.

Messrs. Woods, Dunlap and Brown, pro def.

[This judgment was affirmed on argument upon appeal. Pittsburgh, September 8, 1809. 2 Binney 105.]