Case Name: DONOHOOS LESSEE vs. BRANNON AND ALS.
Court: Tennessee Superior Court of Law and Equity
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1808-10
Citations: 1 Overt. 327
Docket Number: 
Parties: DONOHOOS LESSEE vs. BRANNON AND ALS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 327–330

Head Matter:
DONOHOOS LESSEE vs. BRANNON AND ALS.
The plaintiff in deducing his title produced a deed, on the back of which was a memorandum dated in the year 1793 in the following words, "this day came before me the bargainor, and acknowledged the execution of the within deed for the purposes expressed," signed " John M'Nairy,” upon which the deed was registered in the proper county, and certified by the register.
A probate of a deed signed by a person who was at the date of the probate, a judge is sufficient to authorise its registration altho' the official character of the judge be not stated in the certificate of probate. A certified copy given by a person who was once authorised to give such copies, cannot be received in evidence, unless it appear to have been given before the time when his authority ceased.
Whiteside for the defendant,
objected to the reading of this deed in evidence, because the probate does not state the official capacity of the person taking the acknowledgment, and relied upon former decisions of the court, particularly commitments by Justices of the peace-If the mitimus does not state the official capacity of the justice, a person will be discharged.

Opinion:
Overton, J.
Some years past an appeal was sent up from the county court of Davidson ; the transcript was headed "pleas &c. before, &c." expressing the court, the clerk, signed name Iris thus." a copy
ANDREW EWING."
The court decided, that this could not judicially prove, that Andrew Ewing, was clerk of Davidson county unless he had signed his name officially ; upon suggestion of dimunition a certiorari was allowed and a correct record brought up. I am not disposed at this time to question, the propriety of this decision but it seems to me, to border on nicety. In this case however the certificate of the clerk had not any date from which the court could know that at the time of signing Andrew Ewing was clerk of the court or not.
In the case of Coulter's lessee vs. Hodge, at Knoxville, a copy of an entry signed " A. B. E. T" was received though without date, and though the court knew that A. B. had not been entry taker for a great length of time. The case of a mittimus by a justice of the peace does not apply.
The law seems to be, that this court may know officially all officers, known to the laws of the state of whose appointment there is a record. Though we may know such officers, we are not bound to acquire this knowledge, nor in fact will the law presume it as to inferior officers.
Though we may know the respective officers in the state, whose duties are pointed out by the laws yet we may not know them. Hence an officer ought to state the character in which he does an act. When this is done, the law will presume he possesses the character he assumes. It is not absolutely necessary that an officer should state his official capacity, if in the body of the certificate facts are stated, from which an incontrovertable presumption arises, that the act was done in an official capacity it seems to be sufficient. In this case the law of the state enables us to know that a judge of the superior court, out of court, was authorised to receive the acknowledgment of deeds for lands, or probate by witnesses, and that such deeds thus authenticated, were to be registered.
It is known to this court, that John M'Nairy was a judge of the superior court, at the time this aknowledgement was made, and we know it is his signatures. A judge is to know the law of the land,why may he not know the official capacity of men pointed out by those laws and of which there is a record ; and why can he not state the one as well as the other when he does know it? When an officer states his official capacity,it is prima facie evidence, and no instance is recollected, of such evidence having been disputed, Is not the knowledge of the judge in this respect at least, equal to the prima facie evidence referred to? It seems to me, that it ought as to the capacity of officers,known to the laws of the state, who are authorised to certify facts, to be on the same footing.
When officers entrusted by law with the discharge of certain duties, officially certify ; their certificate Respecting the discharge of those duties, will be received in a court of justice, without confirmatory proof.
The certificate of a private act cannot be received as evidence. It extends no further than to official acts. So of a judge, his knowledge of a fact, would be inadmissible as prima facie evidence, unless relating to his own, or the official existence or duties of others known to the laws of the state.
In this case it is not stated, that the acknowledgement was received as judge, but as the act would be void if done as an individual, the law will presume the acknowledgment, to have been taken in pursuance of the authority with which "John M'Mairy" was clothed at the time the act was done. The deed ought to be received as evidence.
Humphreys, j.
accordant in the reception of the evidences:
The defendant offered to read a copy of an entry, sighed thus " a copy Nathan Ewing" It was rejected by the court, on the ground that there was no date to the copy. It was known to the court, that Nathan Ewing was entrusted by the act of assembly, to give copies of the preemption entries, but that this authority soon ceased, being transfered to other hands, whether this copy was given before or after this power ceased cannot be known to the court. The original entry book still remains with him though he is not entrusted to give copies.
3 Bina. 539.
3 Binn. 539.