The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1886-06-24
Benjamin 3. Liddon, ct sls.. Appellants, vs. Hart
well Hodnett AppeIlee-JAckson cuunty.

y
well Hodnett Appellee-Jackson county.
RANEy, j.;
l. The record in the volume kent fur that pur
pose a, the General Land Office at Washington,
oil patent tor land executed In the maaner pre.
scribed by law. or lawful exemplificatiou OF
stch record, Is evidence Of the same dignity as
the patent itself
3 The statutory provisions ia f,rce November
!. 1850. snd prescribing the manner in which A
patent oi the United States for land should be
signed and countersgned. required that IL shohid
be signed by the President and counter signed by
'he commissioner OF the General Land Office.
8 The act OF March 8, 1S43, Sec. 247O OF IT,
=. hev Statutes, provides that literal exempliH-
Cations oil any records shall be deemed of the
same validity In all proceedings whether in law
or equity, wherein such exemplifcations are
adduce1 ~ evidence us il the names OF the OIL
GERS signing and countersigning The same had
been fully inserted in such record: Held Tuat
tue record 10 prove valid patent must show
the signing and cOuntersigning by the above
Officers, but the names need not have been
fully inserted in the record; it partially inserted
IN Tue record, u Will be presumed that they fully
appear in the patent.
4. An exemplificaion of the record of a pat-
cnt under the above act al March 3, lS43 was
offered in evidence The concluding portion of
the record Ms shown by the exrmpIIfied copy is
a. follows; I'm testimony whereof, I, Andrew
jackson, President OF the United Slaies Of
America, have caused these letters Ia be made
patent and the seal Of The General Land Office
To he hereunto affixed Given under nv hand
at the city OF Washington, The 6rst day oi No.
vcmbcr, \ 1870 Rv th,. pr.s
dent, A. J.
f. H., Commissioner Of The
General Land Office"
Its admission in evidence was obiected
to because there no testimony that the
original OF such patent Was signed. or that
there Was any omission to sign the record and
the objection WAS sustained Held To be error.
aud that The court should have taken judicial
notice OF who were President of the United
States and Commissioner of the General Land
Office at the date Of the patent. and that the
initials ol their names appearing on the record
was prcsumptive evidence that they appeared in
full in the Patent
8. ExemplificatiOns OF records of the General
L'nd Olnce under the hand OF the Commissioner
thefeoi and the seal OF the office, are admissible
in evidence in the courts of this State in,lepen-
ent OF legislation in aid thereof
D. where The United States has sold and mai.
enled land according To The Official plnt of "A
previous survey. a subsequent survey making "A
'ilIcrent location OF the land called for by fhr
descriptive numbers in the patent does not affect
The location OF the land patented. ANY sale
maze ny The patentee or his successors either
before or after the second survey, and describin.
the land by numbers. is presumpIively according
To the original survey
Imrtys claim of little TO the land ia unon the
theory and assumption that the United States
has parted with the title thereto but no paIent
or other record evidence thereof IL iDir,siuce,l.
anu The question is when, or according to which
one OF two surveys, made about twenty five
years apart, the government sold, an ancient
deed, conveying part of the land and Ia gen
uineness 0i which there was nO objection had
been introduced in evidence, suhjt,.I Ia The iurys
determination as TO whether The grantee and Que
OF the subscribing witnesses were the same per-
son. II was error in the Circuit Judge in charging
the jury to exclude the deed from The cnnsi,Iera-
tlon of the jury, because the party introducing
II had not connected his title with it, II tll.
jury believed that the grantee had not subscribed
rs one 0i the two witnesses, the deed was ad-
iniss'ble To he considered with the other evidence
OF ACTS of private ownership nf the land. a. Ia
when or according 10 which survey the land
was sold.
g. In cases qf mistake 10 the true line he
tween adjoining lands, the real test as 10 whether
or not title will be acquired by II holding f.r
ihe period OF seven years is the intention Of the
person holding beyond the true line If such
occupation is by mere mistake and with no in.
tcntion upon the part Of the occupant Ia claim.
rs his own, land which does not really belong
to him. but he intends to claim only To The true
i'he' wherever II may be, the holding is not ad-
verse Ii, however, the occupant takes pnsses-
sion believing the land to be his own, up to the
mistaken line, and claiming title to il. and SO
holds, the holding is adverse. The intent TO
claim tile up 10 The line is indispensable ele-
menl OF the adverse holding; the claim of right
must be as broad as the possession. Simple ac-
quIescence in, or lying by without objection for
the staIue,ry period, in case of such adverse
holding, will bind the party so lying by, To the
line, though not the true line
~ Where, Looking at the whole testimony, the
clear effect OF it is contrary TO the verdict, new
trial will be granted
lO. Possession need not be undispuled To be
adverse.
IL. Where possession is proved to be adverse
to The true owner, and there is nothing in the
testimony to show that the possession has not
oecn he'u IN right of the person holding or
claiming adversely. it is not necessary for such
person to prove that he claimed TO hold against
the whole world"
Judgment reversed and new trial granted,
Lddon & Carter, for Appellants; John W.
Malone, for Appellee