Case Name: Baldwin vs. Marshall
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1840-12
Citations: 2 Hum. 116
Docket Number: 
Parties: Baldwin vs. Marshall.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 116–118

Head Matter:
Baldwin vs. Marshall.
1. A register who has made an incorrect registration of a deed, may correct such incorrect registration, and such register is a competent witness to prove the correction and the date thereof in any suit between third persons in regard to such deed.
2. Registration being intended to give notice to creditors and subsequent purchasers, such corrected registration would operate against such creditors and purchasers only from the date of the correction.
On the 28th January, 1839, Lewis C. Allen sold and conveyed by deed toH. Baldwin, certain slaves, horses, and two horse mules, in trust to secure said Baldwin and others therein specified, in the payment of certain debts, and to indemnify them against liabilities incurred for him. The mules were described in the deed as “horse inules.” On the 28th day of February, 1839, it was proven by the two subscribing witnesses, before the clerk of the county court, of 'Williamson county, the county of the residence of the parties, and on the same day it was registered in the same county. The register, however, misunderstanding the terms of the deed, described the mules on his books as “mare mules.” James Marshall applied to the register to examine the deed on the 3d of September, 1839, and finding that two “horse mules” were not, as he supposed, included in the deed, directed Harrison, the sheriff of Williamson county, who held an execution against said Allen in favor of Marshall, to levy such execution upon the mules. This was done. On the 7th, Baldwin ascertained the mistake in the registration of the deed, applied to the register, Figures, and had the mistake corrected. The mules were sold by the sheriff-to satisfy Marshall’s execution.
Baldwin thereupon instituted an action of trespass against Marshall, in the circuit court of Williamson, on the 14th October, 1839. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and issue was taken thereupon. At the March term, 1840, it was submitted, on the above facts in proof, to a jury. The register, Figures, was introduced to prove the defective registration.and the correction thereof. His testimony was objected to by the defendant, but the objection was overruled, and his statement admitted to go to the jury. Maney, presiding judge, charged the jury, that the register had a right to correct a defective registration, but that the parts of the deed so corrected operated as a valid and registered deed, only from, the date of such correction, as against creditors ‘and subsequent purchasers. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant. A motion for a new trial being overruled and judgment rendered for defendant, plaintiff appealed in error.
Marshall, for plaintiff in error.
Alexander, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Gujeen, J.
delivered the opinion of the, court.
This is an action of tresspass for taking two horse mules, the property of the plaintiff. It appeared in evidence, that Lewis C. Allen, on the 28th day of January, 1839, executed a deed of trust to the plaintiff, conveying several mules and horses, and among them, the two mules described in the declaration. This deed was registered the 28th February, 1839, and the register's certificate of that fact, then endorsed upon the deed. Afterwards, the register discovered that he had not correctly copied the deed, and that the mules in controversy, were described in the register's book, as "mare mules," whereas the deed described them as "horse mules." Upon discovering this mistake, the register, on the 7th of September, 1839, corrected his copy so as to make it read, "horse mules," instead of "mare mules." These facts were proven by the register, who was introduced as a witness in the cause, for that purpose.
The court charged the jury in substance; that a deed registered only could operate as notice of such conveyance of the property described in the registration; that after the supposed registration óf a deed, if the register should ascertain he had mistaken some words, he might lawfully correct the registration, by inserting the words of the deed in place of those that had been written by mistake, but that, as by the act of Assembly, as against creditors and subsequent purchasers, deeds take effect only from the date of their registration, the corrected words, would only have effect from the time of their insertion.
There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed in error to this court. The law was correctly stated by the court below. The registration, is the only notice the law contemplates, that purchasers and creditors can have of the contents of a deed.
The whole contents of the deed are to be spread upon the register's book, and other persons have a right to presume, that it has been correctly copied. To require that purchasers should examine the original deed, would be destroying the utility, and perverting the object of registration. This would be exceedingly inconvenient, and sometimes impossible, and in the language of the Chancellor in Frost vs. Beckman, (1 John. Chan. Rep. 299,) "The registry might prove only a snare to the purchaser."
The registry is good, therefore, and notice to others, only so far as it correctly describes the property, and if corrected, cannot take effect as to the correction, except from the date thereof. 1 John. Chan. Rep. 299. The register was a competent witness to prove the correction of the registry, and the date when such correction Avas made. Miller's lessee vs. Estill, Meigs'Rep. 479. Let the judgment be affirmed.