Case Name: Tolley's Lessee vs. Ford
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1803-05
Citations: 1 H. & J. 413
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tolley’s Lessee vs. Ford.
Judges: 
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: 1
Pages: 413–415

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1803.
Tolley’s Lessee vs. Ford.
Whore, the com'* missioned? appointed to perpetuate the hound* of lands have not been sworn a* greeably 10 law, the deposition of a witnos* taken, by i hem cannot be read m, evidence. The declaiations of a person who is dead, and whose deposition was taken under a commission to perpe-túale the bounds of lands, defectively executed, may he given in evidence in ,an action of ejectment by the person who took the deposition as a commissioner, though not legally empowered to administer an oath, ami lie may turn to tho deposition to refresh his memory; hut such declarations are not to be received a3 made on oath.
The declarations and ’shewing» of the patentee of a tract of land, as to the beginning* as located by the party claiming under him, are not legal evidence for the purpose of impeaching the credibility oftesliiiio-ny pioving the patentee had at a different time made differtntde-ciarations and snewed a different place, See,
EjectmeNT for a tract of land called The Case is Jittered, lying in Baltimore county. Defence on warrant, and plots returned.
The plaintiff claimed title to the land in the declaration mentioned under a grant to Walter Tolley, dated the 6th of October 17S2j and the defendant claimed the same land as included in a resurvey on a tract of land called Spanish Oak Bottom, granted to Stephen Onion on the 27th of May 1745. The question was as to the true location of Spanish Oak Bottom.
1. The defendant at the trial, offered in evidence to the jury a paper purporting to be an original commission issued on the 10th of June 1782, out of Baltimore county court, under the act of 1723, ch, 8, to Robert Long, Isaac Griest and James Baker, the commissioners therein named, to perpetuate the bounds of the tract of land called Spanish Oak Bottom. By the return to the commission it did not appear that the commissioners bad been sworn in the manner directed by the commission. The defendant offered in evidence by James Baker, one of the commissioners named in the said commission, that he was swern in the manner as i,s certified by the endorsement on the commission, and that Long, Griest and himself, the three persons named in the said commission, being together, a certain Richard Woolin, now deceased, upon an oath by the said Long, Griest and Baker, to him ad. ministered, under the authority or pretence of authority of the said commission, gave the evidence contained in the paper now produced, purporting to be a deposition of the said Woolin; which evidence and in* formation they the said Long, Grkst and Baker, then caused to be reduced to writing in the presence of the said Woolin, and which said paper contains a true and just account of the whole information and evidence of the said Woolin respecting the boundary therein mentioned, and which the said Woolin then signed in the presence of the said Long, Gricst and Baker, who have thereto signed their names respectively. And the defendant offered to read the contents of the said paper in evidence to the jury. To the reading of which said paper the plaintiff objected.
The tleclnvatioiis ami showings of the patentee of a tract of land, as to the beginning, as located by the party claiming under him, are not legal etidence for the purpose of impeaching the ere-» dili’ityoftesinno” ny p/oving the 'patentee had at a different time made different de-clara lions and 'shewed a different place, &c.
Chase, Ch. J. . The court arc of opinion, that the paper purporting to be the deposition of Richard Woolin, cannot be read in evidence to the jury. The court think, that James Baker (one of the commissioners and the witness produced,) was not authorised to administer the oath p> Woolin. The declarations of a person who is dead, whose deposition was taken under a commission defectively executed; may be given in evidence by the person who took his evidence as a commissioner, though not legally empowered to administer an oath, and he may turn to the deposition to refresh his memory; but such declarations arc not to be received as made on oath.
The case of Weems vs. Disney, (4 Harr. & M'-Iien. 1S6,J was different from the present case. There rhe commissioners were legally qualified, and they had authority to take the deposition, and the witness, (one of the commissioners,) swore that the deposition was taken before him. The defect in the execution of the commission was for want oF shewing how the commissioners had given the notice.
The defendant excepted.
2. The plaintiff gave in evidence to the jury, that a certain John Bond, now deceased, had heretofore in his lifetime shewn the place marked on the plots black EL, as the place where stood the beginning tree of the tract of land called Spanish Oak Bottopi, as located by the plaintiff, the said John Bond declaring at the time when he shewed the said place, that he derived his knowledge thereof from a certain Stephen Onion, deceased, the patentee of the'said land, who had shewed the said place of beginning to the said John Bond as the piare where stood the said beginning, Under which said Stephen Onion, it was admitted, the defendant by mesne conveyances directly claimed title to the said land. The defendant gave in evidence that the said John Bond, at the time of his shewing the said beginning of Spanish Oak Bottom, was a person advanced in years; that his mind and memory were impaired by age aud calamity; that he had been afflicted with temporary derangements in his understanding; that he was liable to be influenced by the suggestions of others, and that his recollection of transactions some time past was not to be relied onj and for the purpose of further impeaching the credibility of the said John Bond’s testimony, the defendant also offered in evidence that the said Stephen Onion had claimed and exercised ownership over the, said tract of land called Spanish Oak Bottom, as located by the defendants, and that the said Onion had frequently, at other times than that mentioned by the said John Bond, to divers credible and competent witnesses shewed the beginning of the said tract of land called Spanish Oak Bottom, at the place where the same was located by the defendant, and had not held or occupied the said land as located by the plaintiff.
Sail, Key, Mason and Johnson, for the Plaintiff.
Martin, (Attorney General,) and Hollingsworth, for the Defendant.
Done and Sprigg, J. concurred.

Opinion:
Chase, Ch. J.
. The court are of opinion, that the declarations and shewings of Stephen Onion, last mentioned, as to the beginning of the tract of land as located by the defendant, are not legal evidence to the jury for the purpose intended, under the general rule that no one can give evidence for himself. The defendant excepted.
Done and Sprigg, J. concurred.