Court Opinion

ID: 9829467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:19:54.770708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:01.368944
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have carefully examined the motion for rehearing, as well as the written argument in support thereof, filed by plaintiff in error, and are of the opinion that there is no merit therein.
[6] In his said written argument plaintiff in error, for the first time, either in the trial court or in this court, appears to contend that the certified copy of the deed, the original of which was attacked by an affidavit of forgery, and the introduction of a copy of *214which, as evidence, is complained of under his second assignment of error in his brief, and referred to in the fourth ground for rehearing, was, not admissible as evidence because it shows upon its face to have been a certified copy from the deed records of Sherman county, while the land was in Moore county, the statute not authorizing such copy as evidence of title to land in Moore county.
An inspection of the bill of exception will show that no such objection was made below, and if it could be said that the objections of plaintiff in error to the introduction of this certified copy as evidence, as shown by the bill of exception, was broad enough in its scope to cover the question now sought to be raised, we think plaintiff in error cannot now be heard to urge such a proposition as a grotínd for reversal, for the reason that the only assignment of error and proposition brought before this court by plaintiff in error in his brief, based upon the admission of this instrument, does not raise such a question but raises another and different one.
The bill of exception shows that plaintiff in error objected to the introduction of this instrument in the following language: “We object to the introduction of this deed, affidavit being on file alleging that the same is believed to be forged; it does not show to be recorded in Jack county; and our objection goes to the point that it is not taken from a competent record and is therefore not a deed that can be properly introduced in evidence. From the record it purports to come from at the date at which it purports to be filed, there was no Sherman county organized, and we will prove that the deed is not of record in Jack county.” Based on this bill of exception, appellant assigned and brought forward in his brief the following error: “The court erred in overuling the objection offered by plaintiff to the introduction in evidence by defendant of the certified copy of deed from James Leonard to Samuel H. Taylor, the plaintiff having filed his affidavit herein, alleging that he believed said deed to be a forgery, and having called the attention of the court to said affidavit, at the time of offering his objection to said testimony, as shown by his bill of exception No. 2.”
Only one proposition is submitted under this assignment, as follows: “A recorded instrument of writing or a certified copy of such from the records, offered in evidence by either party, and attacked by the opposite party, is in his belief a forged instrument, by affidavit filed within three days before the trial of the cause, must be proved by the first party to be genuine in order to be admitted in evidence.”
[7] We do not believe that the objection urged by plaintiff in error to the introduction of the evidence on the trial below was sufficient to raise the question he now seeks to present, but if we are in error about this, we feel sure he has waived it, as shown by the assignment and proposition above copied.
Believing that the motion for rehearing, filed herein by plaintiff 'in error, is without merit, the same is in all things overruled.