Case Name: Jackson, ex dem. Ross, Wilson and others, against Cooley
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1811-05
Citations: 8 Johns. 128
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jackson, ex dem. Ross, Wilson and others, against Cooley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 128–136

Head Matter:
Jackson, ex dem. Ross, Wilson and others, against Cooley.
In an action of ejectment, the lessors of the plaintiff resided in England, and claimed to be heirs of the person who died seised of the land in question. A witness here he1,r'kneiv Yht iTY¡CScharge agentaU<1 ^and corresponded with him, and after his death, who sent him á hiYYasYitdrYnd liu'hiformatimí was also derued from persons acquainted with the family of the lessors; it this was suffipriina Lfude^o’( ship81" to°go6to
evidenee is sufficient to prove » 'pedigree.
t he acknowjedgment of a deed from persons describing ’themselves as heirs, taken, according to the directions of the act, before the major of Londons is also a circumstance of weight in evidence of pedigree.
THIS was an action of ejectment. The cause was J tried at the Essex circuit, before Mr. Justice Van Ness, ’ J ’ the 15th January, 1811.
The plaintiff produced in evidence a patent for 2,000 1 _ 1 acres of land, in Boquett, from the king of Great Britain, , ... dated 16th April, 1765, to James Ross, and an exemplmcation of a deed for the same land from Ross to William Wilson and John Goodrich, in fee, dated 10th August, * 765; recorded in the secretary’s office. The deposition of Caru Ludlow, of the city of New-Tork, taken by 3 J consent of the parties, was also read in evidence. He testified, that about thirty years ago, he knew William Wilson, who then resided in New-Tork, and removed to England, prior to the year 1783, where he died, as the witness understood, between the year 1788 and 1795; 7 • J that he was not married; that the witness never heard that he left any children, nor any brother or sister, nephew or niece, except his nephew John Wilson, one of the lessors, who claimed to be the heir at law and devisee William Wilson. The witness was the agent of William Wilson, in his life-time, and superintended his lands, particularly those in the patent to Ross, and correspond-1 . . ed with him; and after the decease of William Wilson, . , . , . John Wilson sent a power or attorney, in which he styles himself the heir at law and devisee of William Wilson, to the witness, which was dated the 16th November, 1798. The witness had corresponded with John Wilson, and had always understood from persons acquainted with the family, that he was the heir at law and devisee of his uncle William Wilson, who claimed one undivided moiety of the land patented to Boss, and John Goodrich the other moiety. The witness was the agent of Goodrich, in his life-time, and was, afterwards, empowered to act as agent of the children and coheiresses of Goodrich, who are also lessors of the plaintiff. The information of the witness was derived from the several powers of attorney he had received, during a correspondence with the parties, and from conversations with Goldshorough Banyar, and Samuel Corp and others, acquainted with the families of Wilson and Goodrich, but he had never seen Joseph Wilson, or the children of Goodrich, all of whom resided in England.
A witness for the defendant testified, that five or six years before, a Mr. Kempthorne came to view the premises, who said, that he was the grandson of John Goodrich, and that there were sixteen or eighteen heirs of Goodrich who claimed half of the patent, and several sisters belonging to the family. 1'here was also some evidence on the part of the defendant, relative to an adverse possession of the tenants, which it is unnecessary to state.
It appeared that Mr. Ludlow had paid the taxes in 1786 and 1787, and directed the tenants to pay the taxes on the land in their possession. The jury, under the direction of the judge, found a verdict for the plaintiff.
A motion was made to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, which was submitted to the court, without argument.

Opinion:
Thompson, J.
delivered the opinion of the court. The lessors of the plaintiff claim title to the premises in question, as heirs at law of ' William Wilson and John Goodrich, deceased. A regular title from the government having been shown in their ancestors, the only question upon the trial was, whether the evidence warranted the jury, in finding that the lessors were the heirs of Wilson and Goodrich. No objection was made t@ the competency of the evidence. It was, therefore, a question altogether for the jury. Cary Ludlow testified that he was well acquainted with William Wilson, when he resided in New-York; that he removed from this country to England prior to the year 1/83; that he was his agent here, and superintended his lands; that he died, as he has always understood, some time between' the years 1788 and 1795; leaving no children, or brother or sister, and that John Wilson was his only nephew and heir at law; that after the death of William Wilson, he acted as the agent of John Wilson, in relation to the lands in question, by virtue of a power of attorney from him, bearing date the 18th of November, 1795; wherein he is styled the heir at law of William Wilson; that he has corresponded with John Wilson, and has always understood, from the acquaintances of the family, and the people who claimed an interest in these lands under the patent to Ross, that John Wilson was both devisee and heir at law to William Wilson, who claimed an undivided moiety of the lands granted to Ross; and that John Goodrich claimed the other moiety. The testimony of Ludloxu, showing that the other lessors of the plaintiff were the heirs at law of John Goodrich, was substantially the same. In addition to which, a deed from them to Ezra Coats, another lessor, was produced, wherein they are described as such heirs. This deed was duly acknowledged, before the mayor of Loudon, agreeably to the statute of this state. Mr. Ludlow further stated, that his information was derived from the several powers of attorney he received, and correspondence with the parties, and conversations with Goldsborough Banyar, Samuel Corp, and other acquaintanees of the families of Wilson and Goodrich.
This testimony was sufficient, prima facie, to be submitted to the jury. Had there been any evidence, on the part of the defendant, casting any doubt or suspicion on the subject, the sufficiency of the evidence might be somewhat questionable. Testimony, as to pedigree, is not to be tested by the ordinary rules of evidence. The subject necessarily requires a relaxation of those rules; and it is, of course, always treated as an excepted case. Hearsay evidence, or any thing which shows a general reputation, is admissible to establish a pedigree. (Peak. Evid. 9.) The declarations of persons, who from their situation were likely to know, are competent evidence Lord Mansfield (Goodright v. Moss, Cowp. 591.) says, tradition is sufficient in point of pedigree. Circumstances may be proved; such as an entry in a family bible; an inscription on a tombstone; a pedigree hung up in a family mansion, which are all good evidence. In this case,, also, the recitals in deeds, the finding of a special verdict between other parties, stating a pedigree, (Buller, 233.) a bill in chancery, by an ancestor, (7 Term. Rep. 3. note,) though not admissible in other cases, are competent to prove a family pedigree. The declarations of the members of a family, and of others, living in habits of intimacy with them, are said, by Lord Kenyon, to be received as evidence of pedigree; (Term Rep. 723.) and he does not confine it to the declarations of deceased persons only. The acknowledgment of the deed to Coats., by the heirs of Goodrich, before the mayor of London, is a fact of some importance in proof of pedigree. Our statute requires that the officer taking the acknowledge ment should know, or have satisfactory evidence, that the grantors are the persons described therein, and who executed the deed. The grantors being described as such heirs, their identity must have been known to the mayor; or proof thereof given to him. And this, though ex parte, is entitled to as much, if not more weight than many circumstances we find in the books which have been received as evidence of pedigree. The books furnish us with no definite or precise rule on the. subject. Almost any circumstances, which are calculated to show a general reputation, and afford reasonable grounds of belief, are received as evidence of pedigree; and I cannot say that the testimony given to the jury, in this case, was not sufficient to warrant the verdict, in finding that, the lessors of the plaintiff were the heirs at law of Wilson and Goodrich, especially, as it was in proof, that the defendant does not pretend to claim the title to the premises, or any thing more than the mere naked possession.
The opinion of the court, accordingly, is, that the motion for a new trial must be denied.