Case Name: VAN DOREN against VAN DOREN'S Administrators
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1813-02
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 1023
Docket Number: 
Parties: VAN DOREN against VAN DOREN’S Administrators.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
VAN DOREN against VAN DOREN’S Administrators.
Deod admitted in evidence, on proof of handwriting of the grantor, and of the subscribing witnesses, one of them being dead, and the other out of the State.
This was a case of error from the Common Pleas of Somerset. At the trial in the Common Pleas a deed was offered in evidence by the plaintiff. The deed was witnessed by Robert Blair and James Voorhees. It was proved that Robert Blair was dead, and his handwriting was proved: it was also proved that James Voorhees, the other subscribing witness, had removed to the State of New York, about forty miles above the city of Albany, twenty years ago, and still resided there; and then proved the handwriting of Voorhees ; and also proved the handwriting of the grantor of the deed. The court refused to admit the deed in evidence, on which a bill of exception was taken, and the cause removed into this court by writ of error.
li. StooMon, for the plaintiff,
was stopped by the court.
Halsey, for plaintiff.

Opinion:
By the Court.
We think this deed sufficiently proved to have been given in evidence to the jury. The ancient practice in this respect has in modern times been relaxed, and we think with great reason; the rule which now obtains is, that if the subscribing witness is dead, or resides out of the reach of the process of the court, his handwriting may be proved. In this cáse one of the witnesses was dead, and the other resides in' the State of New York, at least 240 miles from the place of trial. The handwriting of both the subscribing witnesses, and also that of the grantor [*] are proved. We think, in this case, the deed should have been admitted in evidence; and that the judgment of the Common Pleas be
Reversed.
Cited in Den Lorrillard v. Van Houten, 5 Halst. 270.
Peake's Cases, 99; Sos. and Pul. $60; 1 Esp. Cases, 2; 2 East. 150. See, also, Saund. PI. and Ev. 4%5. S. P. 5 Halst. 273.