Case Name: Boaz W. Williams v. Nelson Hill
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1876-01
Citations: 16 Kan. 23
Docket Number: 
Parties: Boaz W. Williams v. Nelson Hill.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 23–24

Head Matter:
Boaz W. Williams v. Nelson Hill.
Evidence; Records; When Record-Copy of Deed is Admissible. The common-law rule in reference to the conditions upon which copies of instruments may be admitted in evidence is changed by 2 27 of chapter 22 of General Statutes, and 22 11 and 12 of chapter 87 of the Laws of 1870, so as to admit the record-copy of a deed when it appears simply that the original is not in the possession or under the control of the party desiring to UBe it.
Error from, Washington District Court.
Ejectment, brought by Williams, as plaintiff, to recover possession of a certain lot in the town of Washington. Answer, denial of plaintiff’s title. Trial at the August Term 1874. Plaintiff showed title by regular conveyances in Strohm and Richards, and then offered the official record of the deeds from said Strohm and Richards to Price and others, (plaintiff’s grantors,) coupling such offer with proof that said deeds from S. and R. to P. and others were not in his (plaintiff’s) possession nor under his control. The record-copies were objected to by Hill, and the objection sustained. Finding and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings the case here on error.
J. D. Brumbaugh, for plaintiff.
J. G. Lowe, for defendant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
The only question in this case is, whether the common-law rule in reference to the conditions upon which copies of instruments may be admitted in evidence, is changed by §27 of chapter 22 of Gen. Stat., and §11 and 12 of chapter 87 of the Laws of 1870, so as to admit the record-copy of a deed when it appears simply that the original is not in the possession or under the control of the party desiring to use it. We think it is. The language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. It says that such record-copy "may be received in evidence in any court," and also that, when the " original is not in the possession or under the control of the party desiring to use the same, such record shall have the same effect as the original." And being merely a matter of evidence, we think it clearly within the power of the legislature to alter and modify the conditions upon which secondary evidence of the contents of written instruments may be admitted.
Thp judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to grant a new trial.
All the Justices concurring.