Case Name: Stewart against Butler and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1816-06-07
Citations: 2 Serg. & Rawle 381
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stewart against Butler and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 2
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
Stewart against Butler and others.
1 < ■ After proving a warrant to Jl, a patent to JS may be given in evidence without shewing a conveyance from Jl, if it is stated that it will he followed by proof, that the defendant came into possession under the plaintiff's title deduced from the patent.
In Error.
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lycoming county.-
Ejectment by Butler and others, the plaintiffs below, against Stewart. On the trial the plaintiffs gave in evidence a war- < rant to Hugh Lemon, dated February 15th, 1793: and a! return of survey thereon of 439 acres and 39 perches. The ■ plaintiffs then offered in evidence a patent to Daniel Montgomery, dated March 18th, 1803, and stated that they would' follow it with proof, that the defendant came into possession1 under the plaintiff’s title deduced from this patent. The! defendant objected to the patent being given in evidence un-; less a deed-poll was produced, or a receipt for purchase money or surveyor’s fees being paid by Daniel Montgomery. The Court over-ruled the objection, and admitted the patent. To this the defendant took an exception.
Huston, for the plaintiff in error,
contended, that the patent might have been given in evidence if the warrant and survey had not been read but after they had been read, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to shew the conveyance from 'the warrantee before the patent,could be given in evidence.
Hall and Bradford for the defendant' in error.

Opinion:
The Court
intimated to Mr. Huston, that according to prior decisions, particularly in Penrose v. Griffith, the recital in the patent of the Conveyance from the warrantee to the patentee Was good evidence of that conveyance against the commonwealth and all persons claiming under the commonwealth by title subsequent to the date of the patent.
Upon this Mr. Huston declined further argument, and the judgment was affirmed. .
Judgment affirmed.
4 Binn. 231.