Case Name: LINDSAY against SCROGGS
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1828-10-20
Citations: 2 Rawle 141
Docket Number: 
Parties: LINDSAY against SCROGGS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Rawle)
Volume: 2
Pages: 141–143

Head Matter:
[Chambersburg,
October. 20, 1828.]
LINDSAY against SCROGGS.
IN ERROR.
A paper, found in the office of the deputy surveyor, proved to be in the hand- ■ writing of a former deputy surveyor, .and purporting to be memoranda in relation to his official duty, concerning warrants, is good evidence.
Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county. The plaintiff in error was defendant below.
In the court below, it was an ejectment by Scroggs against Lindsay, for two hundred and eighty acres of land in Southampton township, Franklin county.
On the trial, in the court, below, the plaintiff, who claimed under Samuel Blythe, gave in evidence two warrants, one dated' the 17th of May, 1784, tó John M‘ Conn el; the other, dated the 3d of No-, vernier, 1785, to Samuel Blytlie, together with a survey by Matthew Henderson, deputy surveyor', in 1786. Hé then offered in evidence the following paper, proved to be in the hand-writing of Matthew Henderson, who was deputy surveyor till his death, in 1795, or 1796, and produced by the present deputy surveyor, as found among the drafts in his office,'together'.with the said survey:—
“Memorandums for laying Samuel Blythe’s warrants. — The survey of three ,hundred and eighty-four acres, first surveyed on warrant to B. Blythe, Jr., formerly certified, to be left as it is, taking off fifty acres of the north-west end, to be returned on' warrant to Daniel Key, the remainder to be returned on warrant to John Weeks.
“ The survey of four hundred and sixteen acres, to be returned as it is, on a warr'ant to John M‘Cohnel, and' the warrant to Samuel Blythe, on which it was first surveyed, to be certified.
“ The warrant to James' Hall to be certified; two hundred and nine acres and fifty-eight perches of the land having been taken by an order of survey to Alexander Mitchell, dated January 23d, 1767, No. 2542, and fifty-six acres by a warrant to Samuel Rippely, dated the 20th of January, 1775, and one hundred, and sixty-.-six-acres and one.ffiundred and forty-five perches, by a warrant to ' James Dunlop, dated the 11th of May, 1785, formerly surveyed and returned. ' '
“The warrant-to John Cullen to be certified;, three hundred and ninety acres and ninety perches; the land having been surveyed,returned, and patented to John Reynolds, Esq. before the warrant - came to hand,'on the- said Reynolds’ warrants, dated the 14th of December, 1785, and 1st of February, 1787, respectively.
“ The warrant to Anrt Gordoif to be certified; the land having been surveyed on James Cummins’ twb warrants, dated the 3d of February, 1738, and the 5th of January, 1786, respectively, and a warrant to William Walker, for four hundred acres, dated the 8th of September, 1776. , <
“Drew deed poll from B. Blythe, Jr. to Samuel Blythe, com. five shillings.”
■ This evidence was objected to by the defendant, but admitted by the court, and exception taken by the defendant.
Crawford, for the plaintiff in error,
contended, it was not a paper made in the course of official duty; The court had gone far enough already, and ought to restrain the admission of such papers. He referred to Wilson v. Stoner, 9 Serg. & Rawle, 39. Blackburn v. Holliday, 12 Serg. & Rawle, 140.
Chambers, contra,
cited, 2 Binn. 55, where thesurveyor wrote, that the land was in dispute, it was held evidence of ownership. Boyles v. Johnstone’s Executors, 6 Binn. 125. Evans v. Nargong, 2 Binn. 55. Galloway v. Ogle, 2 Binn. 468. Slight evidence of ownership is sufficient. Entries of a surveyor at the time, are evidence of ownership. , In Wilson v. Stoner, there was no authority, and therefore, all was void.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
— The presumption, that a warrant o| location, is for the use of the person in whose name it w'as taken out, may be rebutted by slight evidence; and, on the other hand, a trust, presumed from the relation in which the person whose name is used, stands to another, may be rebutted by evidence equally, slight — - .even by the reputation of the country. The ownership majt be set- tied by evidence that would be incompetent to settle anything else. The paper which is the subject of exception, purports to bo a memorandum of instructions, received in a course of official duty, in relation to warrants in the hands of the deputy surveyor, as the property of Samuel Blythe; and, among the rest,one in thename of .John M'Connel, on which, it would appear, the deputy had been instructed to return a survey, made on a warrant in Blythe's own name. The rest relates to other warrants that were to be certified as unsatisfied, to entitle Blythe to the amount of the purchase money in land office credits. The object, therefore, was, to prove that Blythe was the owner ipf the warrant in the name of ikf' Connel, under whom the defendant had pretended to claim. The acts'of a deputy surveyor, preparatory to the consummation of his duty, such as his field notes, are unquestionably admissible as part of the res gestee; and to prove them, it has been aptly said, even the sweepings of his office are evidence. In Wilson v. Stoner, the survey and endorsement in the hand-writing of the deputy, were held void in the absence of proof of their haying been ihade in pursuance of a previous authority; and they were- deemed incompetent to prove the existence of such an authority, because, on the proof of that fact dépended' the question, whether they had been made in a*course of official duty; and the admission of them to prove it, would have been an assumption-of the question. Here there is no doubt of the existence of an authority to give the deputy cognizance; and ,as the noting of the instructions was not only in the course of his duty, but necessary fo a faithful discharge of it, the act was clearly of an official stamp: so that showing the footsteps of the parties, and having been found in the office of the deputy, after a period of forty years from his death, the paper was incontestably competent.
Judgment affirmed*.