Court Opinion

ID: 9810527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:52:33.877055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:59.402116
License: Public Domain

ClaRK, J.,
dissenting.
The defendant asked the Court bo charge: “The only apparent defect in the defendants’ deed is the apparent lack of a seal 1.0 the deed dated 13th December, 1895, as registered in Book 15, page 197, and as the said record discloses that the attestation clause recites the presence *400of a seal, the jury will infer and presume a seal because of such recital, in the absence of the original deed.”
The exception for refusal so> to charge should be sustained. It was in evidence that the original deed Was lost and after due diligence could not be found. The attestation clause, as it appears upon the register’s books recites:
“Witness my hand and seal. This 13th day of May, 1895.”
“E. D. Markham,

"Sheriff.”

The. legal presumption from this recital is, in the absence of production of 'the deed, that there was .a, scroll after the signature, as therein recited. Aycock v. Railroad, 89 N. C., 323; Heath v. Cotton Mills, 115 N. C., at page 208. It might affect the security of many titles if, notwithstanding such recital in the record of a deed upon the registration book, the omission of the register or of his clerks to make on the record the flourish of a pen, Called in ou/r State by courtesy a seal, should render invalid Hie registration. If, in fact, the instrument has neither a seal nor a scroll or pen flourish in lieu thereof after the signature of the grantor, it is invalid. But when there is a seal the grantee is not required to supervise the registration to see that the scroll, or something similar to it, is entered on Hie registration of the deed. The recital recorded, “Witness my hand and seal,” is notice, and presumptive evidence, that there was a seal of some kind on the original. It need moit and may not have been a scroll at all. It may in fact have been a seal attached by a ribbon or thread which could not have been copied. This is not probable, because with us a scroll is allowed by courtesy, and in ordinary usage in lieu of a seal, but this shows tlhat the making of a scroll (which, if in the original deed is itself a mere make-believe and substitute for a seal) in the registration of a deed, is not an indispensable matter, but. the state-*401meat made in tlie use of the words “Witness my hand and seal” raises a presumption that there was a seal.
In Aycock v. Railroad, supra, it is held that a copy of a grant from the Register’s office, containing therein the recital that it was issued under the Great Seal of the State, is admissible in evidence, though the registry does not show the 'the impress of the seal or scroll to indicate it. The Court says: “As the purpose of requiring registration is to give notice of the terms of the deed, and this is fully accomplished in the registry, we .can see no reason why some scroll or attempted imitation of the form of the seal should be required in addition to the words spoken in tire grant.” These words are quoted in Heath v. Cotton Mills, supra, with approval, where the Court further says: “Very respectable authorities which accord with our conception of the true principle, sustain the position that if the attestation clause recites that the deed was signed and sealed, it will be presumed that the original deed was sealed” — citing an extract from Beardsley v. Day, 52 Minn., 451,which itself cites many authorities to that effect, and 1 Jones on Mortgages, 403. Another case exactly in point with the present is Dolan v. Trelevan, 31 Wis., 147.
This ease differs from Patterson v. Galliher, 122 N. C., 511, in that there the original deed was produced in evidence, and on inspection it rebutted the presumption of a seal raised by the recital recorded in the registration. Here, the loss of the original was in evidence, and the Court excluded oral evidence offered to show, as ivas averred in the answer, that there was a scroll or seal to the original deed.
This is a tax deed, hut the same principle applies to the registration of any other deed. This deed was made under the law then in force, 1893, eh. 297, sec. 65, which prescribes the form of deed, containing this conclusion: “Witness my hand and seal., Sheriff,” without containing any word “seal,” or any scroll. In Patterson v. Galliher, supra, *402it was held that this prescribed attestation fully indicated that there should be a seal or scroll, and in its absence the instrument was invalid. Ry parity of reasoning, tire ap-parance of the same recital in the registration of a deed indicates that there was a seal, unless the contrary is shown.
Error.
MoNTgomury; J. I concur in the dissenting opinion.