The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1882-04-25

Of me sull And % O lmx deed execuaed ON The
day of trial cannes be given eject IN favCr of IT,
paAiafla alshD1gh - mAgh2 have heid the cersin-
cate OF eale and uisht have lad . deed hefore
suit The rule b Otherwise q 10 q defendanf
who seu up such tide 10 defeat the plainfiNs
cl9im d posse@isu- tDo spsat W Priee, Is
FlA-) So. -
& When husband and wifs reside upoa land
which d the separate property Of the wife, the
assessment for purposes Of tRxaticn NAV he
pant
8. Under the rsvenue Aw of 1874. q tax deed
only executed N pgiasw fa01 evidence Of fitle and
Of the regularity Of the proceedings from the val
uAti0a Of the had By the assessor 10 the date Of
The deed inclnsiVs, and the burtheu Of proof 70
defeat such title, Is upon the person resisting the
same.
Judgment reversed.
IL c. Jordan, and J. ". whitney, for Appel
lants; cOckrell & Walker, for Appellee
HOganA Ct al, Heirs Of Hogans, q xs, VS.. Car
ruth-Duvsl County.
WRsTcorT, J.:
1. In ejec4mena, defendant in possession NAV
defend by showing legal title in another person
and out OF plaintiff who Is claiming possession
as right incident TO legal title
Q. That o deed does not upon lis face show
that 1t embraces the lot In question, or that the
plaintiff does not show this fac1 a. . fuundatiou
for il. intHoddctioa. bnos good objection 70 its
introduction in evidente. party is not re-
quired to locate on the ground the calls of q
deed before it is admitted.
8. Where the calls of q deed first give bounda-
ries by land owned by neghboring proprietors or
adjoining tracts, and afterwards by courses dis
tances and area, and there is an apparent con-
fict, deeds showing the ownership OF the adjoin-
ing tracts al the time of the execution of the first
deed, are proper evidence. and they, with other
IN H. s-e~- .oPeh
ties, are proper evidence.
4 The acknowledgment of q deed taken by
the grantee therein is void. The deed, however,
is binding between the parties or their heirs and
Its execution may be established by common law
evidence
from identity of name. This upon grounds Of
public policy
.. While any principle applicable to the facts
IN the present case which was announced in an
antecedent case between different parties, should
have the weight of precedent and authority, both
in the Circuit Court and in this court, STILL when
the cases are not identical, to the extent of the
difference the principles first announced cease to
be controlling
.. An original deed of conveyance does not
prove itself at common law, and in this State an
original deed, introduced by and coming from
the possession OF the defendant, whether its exc
cutioO has been acknowledged or proved under
the statute of November Is, A. D. 1928 or not,
is not made evidence by any statute. The GER
tlticate or acknowl wledgment under that act is not
a common law certificate. 1t is altogether staiu-
tory in its character and can serve no other pur-
pose than that declared by the statute, which is
TO authorize a record thereof IN the Office as
signed by law for that purpose"
D. Where q deed purports to be executed un-
der power, the general rule is that the author
ity should be shown. Quere: Whether, if the
deed is an ancient deed, the rule is to any ex-
tent modi6edp But however this may be, the
toct Of the execution Of the deed may be shown in
dependent of the power, and if the deed be other
wise admissible as bearing upon a question of
boundary, and the act of the parties in making
the deed is pertinent to the issue, upon proof Of
execution 1t should go to the jury.
y. Ii is proper and necessary to the intelligent
consideration by this court of the testimony of
expert witnesses and of such portion OF the testi
mony as refers to plats, maps or diagrams, that
such maps and diagrams as introduced should
accompany the record.
Judgment reversed; new trial awarded
G; T. Cooper, for Appellants /; Cockrell &
Walker, for Appellee.
IN THE NATTER OF SAVAGE AND JAMEs-ADDr
TIoNAL HEAD-NoTE.
16 In cases of conviction of a capital offence,
the sentence of the court, under the statute,
should be that the prisoner be remanded to a
place of safe keeping, &c, Gn the usual form) and
that he be hung by the neck until he is dead at
such time and place as the Governor of the State
by his warrant shall appoint The act OF 1858
requires the warrant Of the Governor to be exc
cuied within the walls enclosure of the jail or
prison in the county where the prisoner 10 con-
fined when the warrant is issued