Case Name: Rogers vs. Campbell
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1845-12
Citations: 6 Hum. 340
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rogers vs. Campbell.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 340–341

Head Matter:
Rogers vs. Campbell.
The act of 1819, eh. 47, see. 3, providing for the registration of copies of deeds of which probate had been made, but which had not been registered in the proper county, is a temporary act and limited in' its operation.
This is an action of ejectment, instituted in the circuit court of Van Burén county, by Rodgers against Campbell. It was tried at the December term, 1844, Marchbanks being the Judge presiding. A verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed.
The bill of exceptions shows that the land was levied on by virtue of a justice’s judgment, on the 25th day of May, 1839, against one Lane; that it was condemned by the circuit court and sold on the 28th day of September, 1839. Brady, the sheriff of White county, made a deed to the purchaser on the 14th day of July, 1841. Due probate was made of this deed on the 14th day of July, 1841. It was registered in White county on the same day, and was registered in Van Burén county on the 29th day of August, 1843. The defendant relied on a deed executed by Lane on the 2d day of July, 1839, to J. Goodall, in trust for certain creditors.
The presiding Judge was of the opinion that the act of 1819, eh. 47, sec. 3, applied only to cases which occurred previous to its passage and that it was wholly retrospective in its operation.
S. Turney, for the plaintiff.
J. Campbell and Taul, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Reese, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
A deed upon which the title of the lessor of the plaintiff depended was procured,'and registered a few years since in a county in which the land did not then lie. A copy from the registry books was taken to the proper county, and registered, and offered upon the trial and excluded by the court and the only question in the case is, whether in that respect the court erred. For the plaintiff in error it is insisted, that the 3d sec. of the act of 1819, ch. 47, authorizes such registration. That section provides, "that when any grant or deed of conveyance shall have been registered in any county in this State, with the proper probates, it shall and may be lawful for any one interested therein, to have registered in the proper county a copy," &c. It is insisted that this is a general prospective statute.
This act was passed in 1819, when the Western District, covered by old grants and deeds, was about being settled, the Indian title having been extinguished the year before. The preamble to the section in question, states, that "whereas many persons claiming lands in the Western District, and other persons have had their grants and mesne conveyances registered in Green county and other counties in this State, other than that in which the lands lie or did lie at the time of such registration, therefore; Be it enacted "that when (that is in any case where) "any grant or deed," &c. It is plain on the face of the statute, that its object was temporary and limited to existing registrations. The circuit court therefore, did not err, and its judgment will be affirmed.