Case Name: Connelly vs. Bowie
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1823-06
Citations: 6 H. & J. 141
Docket Number: 
Parties: Connelly vs. Bowie.
Judges: The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan, Earle, Marx*®* Dorsey, and Stephen, 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: 6
Pages: 141–144

Head Matter:
Connelly vs. Bowie.
Appeal from Montgomery county court. Trespass qtiare clausura fregit. Tire general issue was pleaded; and at the trial, the plaintiff, (now appellee,) offered in evidence the plots and explanations returned to the court, and the patent of the tract of land called Hermitage, (on. which the trespass is alleged to have been committed,) granted to William Joseph on the 6th of June 1689, for 8866 acres. The third course of this grant is described, “thence south south west fifty perches to a bounded red, oak by another small run.” He then offered in evidence a deed from Benjamin Harris to John Bowie, ju,nr, dated, the 14th of November 1748, far a tract called Harris’s Adventure Enlarged, being part of a tract called Hermitage, and described as “beginning at, the end, of 100 perches on the third line of a. tract or parcel of -land now in possession of Benjamin Perry, called Hermitage, and; vanning thence S 82°. E. 130.ps.'' then N ?HÁ E 156 ps. then,” &c. containing 405| acres. He algo gave in evidence a deed from Thomas Boteler, of Prince-George’s county, io Benjamin Berry, of the same county, dated the 1.4th of July 1788, for 200 acres of land, being part of a tract, cal led Hermitage, and described by courses and distances. This deed was thus acknowledged: “Memorandum. On the day and year ■within written, came the within, named Thomas Boteler, and acknowledged the within land, and premises to be the right of the within named Benjamin Berry, his heirs and assigns, for ever. 1 , ’ • ! ’ , ’ ( ' ; ^ i , • ,
“John Beall,
, “Turner Wootton.
This deed was recorded amongst the land records of Prince-George’s county on the 8th of July 1738, (Montgomery county not having been erected into a county until the year .17,76,) and was located by the plaintiff on the plots. To the reading of these deeds the defendant objected; but ;the court, [_Ric!gely and Kilgour, A. J.~j overruled. the objection, and permitted tinpu to be read in evidence; the defendant excepted, and appealed, the verdict and judgment being for the plaintiff.
Where part of ta tract oí land cai1 led H is conveyed» and calls to begin at the end of HX) perches on tins third hue of 71, «-* owned by P, aiul , the third lme <>i' ’ if is described 5U the grant, US< S* • W, SO perches to a bounded red oak'*. > — Whether the p Allies intendt'4 that the beginning should coiiiineiU’rt ! at the end of lot? perches of th*i ’ third line of ilu?% part of the tmsfrwhich was OM-su-d, Jiy P, or at sorae •'oilier points is A question of ii«cS lor thejurv.
Where the ofH* ciai character of the pev-vons btihra m horn the tie-know lodgment ot* a dent tor lauda o.<e«nUd in 1758, does not appear on the face of On* avlvnoviU'dijment* and it is equally inept as to the county in which K ivas fdii n, ;:nil dence to uar/tmt the ‘presumption 'he oiippj.al deed was acknnwlodijed in ventor* mity t<i the pi ovimoiis of i lie act of 1715, eh 47, o py cat,nor. per sc he read m p\ i-.
No official copy of a deed, <u other instrument of writi i p-, is fry SB evidence, except the original K. ie* tjtl tve d lo ¡Jo tif*.
The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan, Earle, Marx*®* Dorsey, and Stephen, J. by
T. B. Dorsey, (Attorney-General,) for the Appellant, and by ' "
Magruder, for the Appellee,

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dorsey, J.
This was an action of trespass quare c7.au* cum fregit, brought in Montgomery county court, by John Bowie, the appellee, against John Gonnelly, the intestate of the appellant. The general issue was joined, and defence on. warrant taken. The plaintiff - below located, on, plots filed in the cause, a tract of land called The Hermitage, granted to William 'Joseph on. the 6th of June 1689, • for 3866 acres. He also located a deed executed on the •.. •14th, -of November 1748, by .Benjamin Harris to John Bowie, "for a tract of land culled Harris's Adventure En- • larged,, being part ofa tract of land called The. Hermitage, and he,made a location of a deed said to be executed on the 4th of July 1738, by Thomas Boteler. to Benjamin Perry, for. 200 acres of land, part of The Hermitage* The defendant counterloeated the tract of. 'latid- called The Hermitage, as also the deed fronx, Harris to Bowie for. Harris's Adventure Enlarged. The plaintiff at the trial gave in evidence the grant of The Hermitage, and, the plots and explanations,'and offered toread to.the court, and jury the deed executed- by Harris to Bowie, for Harris's Adventure Enlarged, as also the copy of a deed pur» 'porting to be. executed on the 4th of July 1738, by Thomas Boteler to Benjamin. Perry, for 200 acres, part of The Hermitage, and. certified under the. (land and official seal of the clerk of Prince Georgecounty court, to be truly copied from the land records of that county. The defendant, by his counsel, objected to these papers being read to the jury. b,ut the court below declared they were admissible evidence in the. cause, and they were accordingly read. To this opinion the defendant excepted. And this court are of opinion, that the deed executed by Harris to Bowie was correctly admitted in evidence, but that the paper, purporting to be the copy ofa deed from Boteler to Perry, ought not to have been read to the jury. First, as lo thé admissibility of Harris's deed. It calls to begin at the end of one hundred perches on the third line of The Hermitage, owned by Pirnj. Thé third, line of The Hermitage is thus described in the grant} "south south west fifis most apparent that the parties to the deed could not mean to refer to a point in the third line of the whole tract as the beginning, as that line is only fifty perches lotig; whether they intended that the beginning should commence at the end of one hundred perches on the third line of that part of the tract which, was owned by Perry, or at some other point, was á question of fact to bé tried by the'jury; ánd as thé plaintiff1 had located this deed, according to its courses and distances, the court think that it wás legally admissible in evidence. Secondly, as to the admissibility of the writing, purporting to be a copy of a deed from the records of Prince- George?s county. The endorsement, as certified by the c the following words: "Memorandum. That on the day and year within written came the within named Thomas Boteler, and acknowledged the within land and premises to be the right of the within named Benjamin Perry, his heirs and assigns, for ever.
John Beall,
Turner Wootton."
Thé official character of the persons before whom the supposed acknowledgment was taken, does not appear on the Face of it, and the paper is equally silent as to the counproof in the record showing that John Heall and Turner tVootion were justices of the peace, or that the acknowledgment was made in the county in which the lands were then situate. This copy per sc, cannot be read in evidence nilless the original was required to be recorded. By the act of 1715, ch. 47, it is declared, that no manors, lands, tenements or hereditaments, shall pass front one to another, whereby an estate of inheritance or freehold, or any estate above seven years, shall be made, or take effect in any person, by reason of a deed of bargain and sale, except the same be made by writing, indented and sealed, and be'acknowledged in the provincial court, or before a jrdge thereof, or in the county court, or before two justices ty in which the acknowledgment was taken, nor is there any oT'the same, where sucli manors, lands, tenements, and hereditaments 'do lie, and enrolled within six months after the-date of such writing1, indented ás aforesaid." Now, as there is iio evidence in this case to warrant the presumption that the original was acknowledged in conformity to the provision's of the act,, a Copy cannot per se be read as evidence, for 'copies aré only admissible in proof when the Originals aré required to be recorded to give them legal efficacy. This 'copy must therefore be considered as inofficial, and cah only be used under the satae limitations and exceptions as private copies of deeds", or other instruments of writing. If th'e plaintiff had offered evidence that Benjamin Perry, and those claiming under him, had possessed and enjoyed the land under Bolder's title, a strong foundation would have been laid for presitming that the original deed was acknowledged in conformity to the provisions ' of law, but in the absence of all such proof; there is no room for healing inferences; The court are of opinion, that the judgment of .the court below must be reversed, and that a. procedendo be awarded.
Judgment reversed.