Case: Doe ex dem, William Patterson, Plaintiff in error, v. Elisha Winn and others, Defendants in error
Abbreviation: Doe ex dem. Patterson v. Winn
Decision Date: 1831-01
Docket Number: 
Citation: 5 Pet. 233
Volume: 30
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: *Doe ex dem, William Patterson, Plaintiff in error, v. Elisha Winn and others, Defendants in error.
Judges: 
Pages: 150–159

Head Matter:
*Doe ex dem, William Patterson, Plaintiff in error, v. Elisha Winn and others, Defendants in error.
Evidence. — Exemplification of grant.
An exemplification of a grant of land, under the great seal of the state of Georgia, is, per se, evidence, without producing or accounting for the non-production of the original; it is record proof, of as high a nature as the original; it is a recognition, in the most solemn form, by the government itself, of the validity of its own grant, under its own common seal; and imports absolute veritv, as a matter of record.
The common law is the law of Georgia, and the rules of evidence belonging to it are in force there, unless so far as they have been modified by statute, or controlled by a settled course of judicial decisions and usage. Upon the present question, it does not appear, that Georgia has ever established any rules at variance with the common law; though it is not improbable, that there may have been, from the peculiar organization of her judicial department, some diversity in the application of them, in the different circuits of that state ; acting, as they do, independent of each other, and without any common appellate court to supervise their decisions.
There was, in former times, a technical distinction existing on this subject; as evidence, such exemplifications of letters-patent seem to have been generally deemed admissible; but where in pleading, a profert was made of the letters-patent, there, upon the principles of pleading, the original, under the great seal, was required to be produced; for a profert could not be of any copy or exemplification; it was to cure this difficulty, that the statutes of 3 Edw. VI., c. 4, and 13 Eliz., c. 6, were passed; so too, the statute of 10 Ann., c. 18, makes copies of enrolled deeds of bargain and sale, offered by profert in pleading, evidence.
These statutes being passed before the emigration of our ancestors, and being applicable to our situation, and in amendment of the law, constitute a part of our common law.
By the laws of Georgia, all public grants are required to be recorded in the proper state department.
What should be considered proof of the loss of a deed, or other instrument, to authorize the introduction of secondary evidence ?
However convenient a rule established by a circuit court, relative to the introduction of secondary proof, might be, to regulate the general practice of the court, it could not control the rights of parties, in matters of evidence admissible by the general principles of law.
Error to the Circuit Court of Georgia. This was an action of ejectment, brought to May term 1820, of the circuit court of the United States for the . district of Georgia, to recover a tract of land, containing *7300 acres, J lying in that part of the county of Gwinnett, which was formerly a portion of Franklin county.
On the trial, at Milledgeville, at November term 1829, the plaintiff offered in evidence, the copy of a grant or patent from the state of Georgia, to- Basil Jones, for the land in question, duly certified from the original record or register of grants, in the secretary of state’s office, and attested under the great seal of the state. To the admissibility of this evidence, the defendants, by their counsel, objected, on the ground, that the said exemplification could not be received, until the original grant or patent was proved to be lost or destroyed, or the non-production thereof otherwise legally explained or accounted for, according to a rule of the court. This objection the circuit court sustained, and rejected the evidence ; to which decision, the plaintiff excepted.
The plaintiff then offered: 1. A notice to the defendants, requiring them to produce the original grant or patent for the land. 2. The affidavit of the lessor of the plaintiff, William Patterson, sworn before Theodoric Bland, district judge of the United States for the district of Maryland, on the 9th 'of October 1821, deposing, in substance, that he had not in his possession, power or custody, the said original grant, describing it; and that ho knew' not where it was ; and that he had made diligent search for the same among his papers, and it could not be found. 3. The deposition of Andrew Fleming, stating at length the inquiries he had made for the papers of Thomas Smyth, jr., by whom, as attorney in fact for Basil Jones, this land had been conveyed to William Patterson, and the information he had received of the destruction of these payers. 4. The deposition of Mrs. Anna M. Smyth, stating the pursuits of her late husband, Thomas Smyth, and the facts and circumstances leading to the conclusion that his papers had been destroyed. 5. The plaintiff then called a witness who proved that he had compared the exemplification of the grant or patent aforesaid, with the register of grants in the office of the secretary of state of the state of Georgia, and the book or register of surveys, in the office of the surveyor-general of the said state ; and that *the exemplification offered was a true copj- from the said register of grants and plats in the said offices respectively. [*235
He further proved, that he had made search for the original grant or patent, in the said offices; and that the same was not there to be found. That he had made application to Mrs. Ann Farrar, the relict of Basil Jones, the grantee, who had since intermarried with Francis Farrar, for the said original grant or patent, if among the papers of her late husband, Basil Jones ; and was assured by the said Ann and Francis, that there were no such papers in their possession. That the said witness had made application to Gresham Smyth, the reputed son of Thomas Smyth, jr., for the said original grant, if in his possession ; and received for answer, that his father had died, while he was yet young, and that he had no papers of his father’s in his possession. The said witness also proved, that he had made diligent search among the papers of George Walker, now and long since deceased, who, it appeared, had once had some of the muniments of title of the lessor of the plaintiff in his possession, or been consulted as counsel; but the said original grant or patent could not there be found. That the witness himself, assisted by the clerk of Richmond superior court, where the power of attorney from Basil Jones to Thomas Smyth, jr., was recorded, searched diligently through all the papers in the office for the said original grant or patent, without success. That the said witness, as agent of William Patterson, caused advertisements to be published, for two months, in two of the gazettes of the state of Georgia, for said grant or patent, as lost, offering a reward for its production, if required, which advertisements were exhibited to the court, and were inserted in the record, at full length. And the said witness further proved, that no information whatever had been received, in answer to the said advertisements, nor any discoveries made in relation to said original grant or patent. He also proved, that he had searched the executive office of Georgia for the said original grant, and had examined the list of grants or patents to which the great seal of the state had *been refused to be annexed ; but the said original grant to Basil Jones was not found noted upon the said list, as one of that descrip- *- tion.
And thereupon, the said counsel for the plaintiff moved the court to admit the said exemplification of the said patent or grant in evidence, the loss or destruction of the original having been sufficiently proved; which the said court refused: to which decision, the plaintiff excepted.
The case was argued by Wilde, for the plaintiff in' error; no counsel appeared for the defendants.
Wilde, for the plaintiff in error,
contended : 1. That the exemplification of the patent or grant, under the seal of the state, was, by itself, admissible evidence. 2. That even were it not admissible alone, the proof made created a sufficient presumption of the loss or destruction of the original, to authorize the introduction of the copy.
The law of evidence in Georgia is the common law, except in so far as it is altered by acts of assembly. On this subject, there is no act; nor is there any settled course of judicial decision. Prom the organization of the judicial department in that state, there can be none. Seven distinct tribunals, each deciding for itself, in the last resort, without any common umpire, in case of disagreement, cannot be expected to exhibit a uniform interpretation of any code, however simple. With respect to rules of court, they are mere regulations for the convenient and orderly transaction of business. They can neither make law, nor repeal it. If the rule is in opposition to the law, it is a nullity, of course. The common-law doctrine is perfectly well settled ; the constat or inspeximus of the king’s letters-patent, is as high evidence as the original itself. 1 Phil. Evid. 410 ; Peake’s Evid. 21 ; Page’s Case, 5 Co. 53 ; 1 Saund. 189, in notes ; 1 Hardr. 119 ; Roberts v. Arthur, 2 Salk. 497 ; Hoe v. Nelthrope, 1 Ld. Raym. 154 ; 3 Salk. 154 ; 1 Dall. 2, 64 ; 2 Wash. 280-1 ; 2 Mass. 358 ; 12 Vin. Abr. tit. Evidence, Constat, A, b, 125 ; Ibid. tit. Evidence, Exemplification, 114, A, b, 33, § 1, 5, 8, 16-18.
®'col'8aa> the original warrant and survey are returned to *the surveyor-general’s office, where they are filed, and the survey recorded. The acts of that state prescribed the form of grants. A record of them .is ordered to be kept in the secretary of state’s office, where the great seal is attached to them ; and no grant is allowed to issue, until it is recorded. No distinction exists, in reason or authority, between the patents of the state and the patents of the king. They are of equal dignity, and to be verified in the same manner. It will not be pretended, there is one rule of evidence for grants issued before the revolution, and a different rule for those emanating since.
The most distinguished counsel of that bar, one who was among the profoundest jurists of his country, the greatest ornament of his profession, and most eloquent man of his age, had been consulted, in his lifetime, on this subject. Before the action was brought, his opinion on the point in contest had been obtained. This is its purport: “ There can be no doubt, that an exemplification or sworn copy of the registry of the grant, is good evidence, without proving the loss of the original. See 12 Vin. Abr. 97, especially § 8, 39, and page 114, § 2, 5, 16, &c. The distinction always was between profert and evidence. When a grant was pleaded, profert must have been made of the original; and hence, the statutes mentioned in Yin. Abr. supra, but the exemplification or sworn copy from the roll or registry was always evidence at the common law. The statutes, however, were all passed before the colonization of Georgia. In that state, the grant is enrolled, or a eon-
stat of it preserved, in some public office or offices, as in Maryland ; and what question can it be, whether the book itself, or a copy from it, is evidence ; whether the original be producible, or not ? In Maryland, the office-copy is constantly given in evidence, and always has been, although we have no act of assembly for that purpose, and it was never otherwise in England. The enrollment can answer no sensible purpose, if it does not answer this. The practice of enrolling grants, &c., can have no other object but to furnish sure constant evidence of the titles of the citizen to his lands, or rather of the source of his titles.” Opinion of William Pinkney, Esq.
Thus the matter stands upon authority. How is it on the *score r¡¡¡ of reason ? This is the transcript of a public record, and imports L absolute verity. That which remains in the office, is the true original; the grant, which goes out into hands of interested parties, may be subject to alteration for fraudulent purposes ; from this, the official record is secure The emanation of the grant is a public and official act. In relation to any such act of the legislature or judicial department, the original document authenticating it, is not produced, but a copy. Nay, in relation to any other official act of the executive authority, the citizen who claims a right under it is not held to produce the original instrument. Why should it be otherwise, in the case of a grant ? If the patent which goes out is to be considered the original, and that which remains in the office, only a copy, then the exemplication is merely the copy of a copy ; and the individual whose grant is destroyed by accident, can obtain from the public achives only the weakest kind of evidence, to aid him in establishing his rights. Again, what is the fact which the patent is introduced to prove ? That the state has divested itself of part of the public domain, in favor of a particular citizen. And will not the solemn acknowledgment of the state, extracted from its own records, and authenticated by its own seal, be deemed sufficient evidence of that fact ?
As to the second point. The exemplication was rejected, not on account of any inherent defect, but because the affidavit of the lessor of the plaintiff was alleged not to be a compliance with the rule of court. Rules of court are made to advance justice ; they are always to be interpreted and applied in subservience to that object. They have not the inflexibility of the law : made by the court, they may he changed by the court; the judge can relax or enforce them as justice may require. The forms of the shrine are not to be converted into snares for the suitors who approach it. The rule requires of the party seeking to introduce a copy, an affidavit of his belief that the original is lost or destroyed ; but this, evidently, is applicable only to the case where such belief exists. Suppose, he does not believe it to be lost or destroyed ? Suppose, he believes it to be in the hands of the opposite party ? Must he perjure himself, or, *lose his rights ? May r¡¡. he not give notice to the opposite party to produce the original; *• show diligent inquiries after it; prove circumstances presumptive of its destruction ; and by his own oath, declare that he has it not, that it is not in his custody or power, and that he knows not where it is ? All of which has been done in this case. What room is there to imagine the voluntary suppression of the original, after such an affidavit ? Could he say, it was not in his power, if he had given it to another, or directed that other to give it to a third ? Could he say, he knew not where it was ?
Moreover, this action was commenced in 1820, the affidavit was made in 1821, and the rule was not established until 1823. Before the adoption of the rule, the evidence in this case, independent of the plaintiff’s oath, would have been deemed sufficient to admit the secondary proof. The oatn is, virtually, in every important particular, a compliance with the ex post facto rule. According to the recollection of counsel, it was once so held by the circuit court itself, and in these very cases. The rule of the circuit court is said to be borrowed from those of the state courts. If the rule is borrowed, the interpretation is original. Nothing is hazarded, in saying, that upon the affidavit and evidence offered in this cause, and set forth in the record, no court in the state of Georgia would have refused to admit this copy.
For a former decision in this case, see 11 Wheat. 380.
s. p. United States v. Sutter, 21 How. 175 ; United States v. Vallejo, 1 Black 554-5.

Opinion:
Story, Justice,
delivered the opinion of the court. — This case comes before the court by a writ of error to the circuit court for the district of Georgia. The original action was an ejectment, brought by the plaintiff in error, against the defendants ; and at the trial in November term 1829, a bill of exceptions was taken, which raises the only questions which are now before us for consideration.
The-bill of exceptions states, that the plaintiff offered in evidence, in support of his title, an exemplification, under the seal of the state of Georgia, of a grant or patent to Basil Jones, of a tract of 7300 acres of land, dated the 24th of May 1787, and registered the 5th of June, of the same year, in the registry of grants in the secretary of state's office. The defendants objected, that the exemplification could not be received, until the original patent was *proved to be lost or destroyed, or the non-production *240] thereof otherwise legally explained or accounted for ; which objection the court sustained, and rejected the evidence. The plaintiff then exhibited a notice, served on the opposite party, to produce the original grant, and also an original power of attorney from Basil Jones to Thomas Smith, jr., dated the 6th of August 1793, to sell' and convey (among other tracts) the tract in question. And also offered an affidavit, duly sworn to by the plaintiff, in Ootober 1821, that he had'not in his possession, power or custody, the said original grant or power of attorney, and knew not where they were ; and that he had made diligent search among the papers for the said grant and power, and they could not be found. He further offered depositions to prove, that search had been made for the papers of Thomas Smyth, by whom, as attorney in fact of Jones, the land had been conveyed to Patterson, and that no papers could be found. He further proved, that he had made search for the original grant or patent in the office of the secretary of state, and the book or register of surveys in the office of the surveyor-general of Georgia, and that the same could not be there found. And he further proved, by a witness, that the exemplification was a true copy from the register of grants and plats in the said offices. He further proved, that search had been made among the papers of Basil Jones, in the possession of his widow ; and among the papers of George Walker, deceased, who, as counsel for the plaintiff, had once had the muniments of his, the plaintiff's, title in his possession ; and also in the office of the clerk of Richmond superior court, where the power of attorney was recorded ; but without success. He also proved, that he had, by public advertisement, in two gazettes of the state of Georgia, offered a reward for the production of the said grant or patent, but no discovery had been made ; and that he had searched the executive office of Georgia for the same, and had examined the lists of grants or patents, to which the great seal of the state had been refused to be annexed, but the grant to Jones was not found noted upon 1 that list, as one of that description. And the plaintiff then moved the court to admit the said exemplification in evidence, the loss or destruction of the original having been sufficiently proved ; which the court refused. The plaintiff excepted to the ruling of the court upon both points.
*The first exception presents the question, whether the exem- p,. . plification, under • the great seal of the state, was, per sc, evidence, *- without producing or accounting for the non-production of the original; and we are of opinion, that it was. The common law is the law of Georgia; and the rules of evidence belonging to it are in force there, unless so far as they have been modified by statute, or controlled by a settled course of judicial decisions and usage. Upon the present question, it does not appear, that Georgia has ever established any rules at variance with the common law ; though it is not improbable, that there may have been, from the peculiar organization of her judicial department, some diversity in the application of them, in the different circuits of that state, acting, as they do, independent of each other, and without any common appellate court to supervise their decisions. We think it clear, that by the common law, as held for a long period, an exemplification of a public grant, under the great seal, is admissible in evidence, as being record proof of as high a nature as the original. It is a recognition, in the most solemn form, by the government itself, of the validity of its own grant, under its own seal; and imports absolute verity, as matter of record.
The authorities cited at the bar fully sustain this doctrine. There was, in former times, a technical distinction existing on this subject, which deserves notice. As evidence, such exemplifications of letters-patent seem to have been generally deemed admissible. But where, in pleading, a proferí was made of the letters-patent, there, upon the principles of pleading, the original, under the great seal, was required to be produced ; for a proferí could not be of any copy or exemplification. It was to cure this difficulty that the statutes of 3 Edw. VI., c. 4, and 13 Eliz., e. 6, were passed, by which, patentees, and all claiming under them, were enabled to make title in pleading, by showing forth an exemplification of the letters-patent, as if the original were pleaded and set forth. These statutes being passed, before the emigration of our ancestors, being applicable to our situation, and in amendment of .the law, constitute a part of our common law. A similar effect was given by the statute of 10 Ann., c. 18, to copies of deeds of bargain and sale, enrolled under the statute of Hen. VIII., when offered *by way of proferí in pleading ; and since that period, a copy of the t*oao enrolment of a bargain and sale is held as good evidence as the original L itself. 1 Phil. Evid., ch. 5, § 2, p. 208-302 ; ch. 8, § 2, p. 352-6 ; 408-11 ; Bac. Abr. title Evidence, F. p. 610, 644, 646 ; Com. Dig. Evidence, A, 2 ; 1 Stark. Evid. § 33, p. 152 ; 2 Saund. Plead. & Evid. 638 ; Page's Case, o Co. 53 ; 12 Vin. Abr. tit. Evidence, A, b, 25, p. 97 ; A, b, 33, p. 114 ; 1 Saund. 189, note 2. Such, then, being the rule of evidence of the common law, in respect to exemplifications, under the great seal, of public grants, the application of it to the case now at bar will be at once perceived; since, by the laws, of Georgia, all public grants are required to be recorded in the proper state department.
The question, presented by the other exception, is, whether under all the circumstances of the case (even supposing the exemplification of the grant had not been admissible in evidence, upon the principles already stated), there was not sufficient proof of the loss of the original, to let in the .secondary evidence, by a copy of the grant.' It is understood, that the court decided this point wholly upon the ground, that the affidavit of Patterson did not conform to a rule made by the court in December 1823. That rule is in the following words, " whenever a party wishes to introduce the copy of a deed or grant in evidence, the oath of the party, stating his belief of the loss or destruction of the original, and that it is not in his possession, power or custody, shall be indisimnsable, in aid of such evidence as he may adduce to prove the loss." Patterson's affidavit was made before the making of this rule (in 1821), and the defect in it is, that it does not' contain any declaration of his belief as to the loss or destruction of the original.
It might not be important to decide this jjoint, if it were not understood, that the same objection applied to the copy of the power of attorney in the case, as to the copy of the grant. We think, that the affidavit and other circumstances of the case were sufficient to let in the secondary evidence. The grant and power of attorney were of an ancient date ; the former being more than forty years old, and the latter but a little short of that *2431 sinoe the execution. Some presumption *of loss might naturJ ally arise, under such circumstances, from the mere lapse of time. There appeared also to have been a very diligent search in all the proper places, and among all the proper persons, connected with the transactions, to obtain information of the existence or loss of the papers. The affidavit of Patterson explicitly denied any knowledge, where they were, and declared, that they were not in his possession, power or custody. We think, that according to the rules of evidence at the common law, this preliminary proof afforded a sufficient presumption of the loss or destruction of the originals, to let in secondary proof ; and that it was not competent for the court to exclude it, by its own rule. However convenient the rule might be to regulate the general practice of the courts, we think, that it could not control the rights of the parties in matters of evidence, admissible by the general principles of law.
The judgment must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court, with directions to award a venire facias de novo.