Case Name: Orndorff vs. Mumma
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1810-06
Citations: 3 H. & J. 70
Docket Number: 
Parties: Orndorff vs. Mumma.
Judges: The cause was argued before Chase, Cln J. Gantt, and Earle, J. by
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 3
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
Orndorff vs. Mumma.
Appeal from Washington County Court. This was a special action on the case, the declaration stating that a suit had been brought in the late general court against the appellee, to recover land of which the appellant was in possession, and that the appellant agreed to indemnify him if he would defend the suit, &c. The general issue was pleaded/ and at the trial the plaintiff, (the now appellee,) offered in evidence a record duly certi&ed, &c. of the proceedings in the suit above referred to, being an action of ejectment brought in the late general court, in the name of George Painiher’s lessee against the present appellee, to recover the possession of a tract of land called The Resurvey on Stoney Glade, and a tract of land called The Resurvey on Hills and Rules and The Vineyard. In which action defence was taken on warrant, and plots were returned. At the trial a verdict was given, and judgment was rendered in favour of the plaintiffin the action tor an undivided moiety of the tract called The Resnrvey on Hills and. Rales and The Vineyard, as located "by the plaintiff on the plots returned in the cause, and which was included within a deed from Chapline to Painlher, dated, &c. as located by the plaintiff on the said plots, and which land, so included in that deed, was delineated on the said plots as beginning at, &c. and as to the residue of the trespass and ejectment in the residue of the land and tenements in the declaration complained of, verdiet that the defendant in that action was not guilty, &c. There was not annexed to the record of the proceedings above offered in evidence, either of the original plots, or a copy of either. The defendant objected to the record being received in evidence. But the county court, (Glagelt and Shñver, A. J.) overruled the objection. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
The plots in an Action of eipet> nwut arc a part at’ the vecoid. ami oixeoi’the mi"ina] plots, hr a cop\\ ought tabc annexed lo a tramunpt of the tMiocmlings to make it evidence. A c<fpy »f the proceeding^. in such an iicdon, wherein the venhet and judgment were for Anna as located on the plots returned in the cause, haviut? no plot or a copy annexed thereto, was held to he a -part only of the record, and not to be bufiieiejit evidence, though otherwise proper* 1$ uuUienticateUv
The cause was argued before Chase, Cln J. Gantt, and Earle, J. by
Brooke, for the Appellant;
and by
Hughes and Lawrence, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
Chase, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court. The court are of opinion, that the plot is a part of the records, and that a copy of it ought to have been annexed to the transcript. Ami part of the record only- being produced, was not sufficient evidence to support the action in this s'ase,
JUDGMENT REVERSED, AM) PROCEDENDO AWARDED.