Case Name: Darnell vs. Dickens' lessee
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1833-02
Citations: 4 Yer. 7
Docket Number: 
Parties: Darnell vs. Dickens’ lessee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 7–9

Head Matter:
Darnell vs. Dickens’ lessee.
When the seal of a corporation is affixed to a deed, the law presumes that such seal was so affixed by the proper authority.
This is an appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the circuit court of Carroll county. The defendant in error sued in ejectment for 1000 acres of land in Carroll county, described by metes and bounds in the declaration. The plaintiff in error claimed title to the lands, and had himself made defendant under the common rule, put himself on his title, and pleaded not guilty. Upon a trial before the mry m the court below, the following .. J , , . - , , proceedings were had: lhe defendant m error proved that the plaintiff in error was in possession of the land in controversy, described in the declaration,'and then read a grant from the State of Tennessee, for the land men-tined in the declaration, to the trustees of the University of North Carolina. The defendant in error then offered to read to the jury a deed from the trustees of the University of North Carolina to- Thpmas Hunt, for the land in controversy, to the admission of which the defendant below excepted; but the exception was overruled, and the deed and probate permitted to be read. The probate is in these words: “At a court of law begun and held for the county of Wake, in the State of North Carolina, on the 4th Monday of September, A. D. 1826, by and before the Hon. Willie P. Man-gum, Esq. Judge, &c. which court is a court of record and general jurisdiction, the within deed being produced in open court, Charles Manly and Ichabod Witman, the subscribing witnesses thereto, being duly sworn, did depose and say, that the seal impressed upon this deed is the corporate seal of the trustees of the University of North Carolina, that the' said seal was thereupon impressed by authority of Hutchins G. Burton, Esq. Governor of the State, and ex officio, President of the board of trustees, and that they saw the said H. G. Burton, Esq. President, &c. subscribe his name to this deed: all of which is ordered to be certified.” The plaintiff then read an exemplified copy of the act of the Legislature of North Carolina incorporating said “trustees of the University of North Carolina,” and from which act of incorporation it appears said trustees of the University of North Carolina are incorporated, have perpetual succession and a common seal, and declared to be a body politic and corporate, to be known and distinguished by the name of the “trustees of the University of North Carolina,” and by the corporate name may sell, assign and grant lands. The defendant then moved the court to instruct the jury, that the plaintiff could not recover, unless it was proved that, by the laws of North Carolina, the Governor was ex officio President of the board of trustees of the University of North Carolina, and as such authorized of his own mere motion to affix the seal of the corporation to deeds, &c. But the court refused so to instruct the jury, to which the defendant excepted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; the defendant moved the court for a new trial, which was overruled, exception was thereto taken by the defendant, and an appeal in the nature of a writ of error taken to this court.
T. J. Jennings, for plaintiff in error.
P. M. Miller, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Cateon, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The trustees of the University are incorporated, have perpetual succession, and a common seal; are declared to be a body politic and corporate, to be known and distinguished by the name of "the trustees of the University of North Carolina;" and by their corporate name may sell, assign and grant lands. This is of course to be done by affixing the corporate seal to the deed. The proof that the President of the board was the hand that affixed the seal is well, yet, the deed would have been good without such proof. The presumption that such seal was affixed by proper authority, arises upon the existence of the fact that it is to the deed,
Judgment affirmed.
Vide Angel and Ames on Corporations, 115, notes 1 and 2,