1782.
execution; which was not the caſe of the leſſor of the Plaintiff when the deed was actually proved before the juſtice.
To this it was anſwered, that the Act of Aſſembly only related to the proof which entitled a Deed to be recorded, &c. that many Deeds might be given in evidence, which were not ſo entitled; as in the caſe of a long poſſeſſion under an old Deed. Another act declares that one, or more ſubſcribing witneſſes is ſufficient, 1 St. L. 520. and it is eſtabliſhed, that the atteſtation of witneſſes is not of the eſſence of the Deed. Before the Stat. of Frauds the neceſſity of ſubſcribing witneſſes to any inſtrument, did not exiſt in England; and there is no inſtance in which the Legiſlature of Pennſylvania has expreſsly called for the atteſtation of two witneſſes, but in that of the aſſignment of a bond.
By the Court:—The ſigning of a Deed is now the material part of the execution; the ſeal has become a mere form, and a written, or ink ſeal, as it is called, is good. Any Deed under ſeal, when proved, is proper to be given in evidence. 6 Mod. 45. And, we are of opinion, that a Deed, the execution of which is ſworn to by one witneſs before a magiſtrate, who certifies the ſame, is within the rule. Beſides, the laſt Act of Aſſembly certainly allows the proof of one witneſs to be ſufficient.[1]
Morris’s Leſſee verſus Vanderen.
Several points of evidence were determined in this cauſe; which was an Ejectment, brought for the recovery of a lot on the weſt ſide of Second ſtreet, in Philadelphia.
1ſt. The Plaintiff, in order to ſhew that the perſons under whom he claimed were original purchaſers from William Penn, the proprietary, offered in evidence a paper from the proprietary’s (or, rather ſurveyor general’s) office, containing the liſt of names of ſuch perſons as were original purchaſers; and therein were the names of thoſe from whom the plaintiff derived his title. It was objected to, becauſe the deeds themſelves ought to be produced, as it did not appear that they had been deſtroyed. But it was anſwered, that the lot in queſtion is appurtenant to a large tract of land, and that the deeds are in the poſſeſſion of the owners of that large tract; for, on the ſettlement of the province of Pennſylvania, every one who bought 5000 acres of land in the country, was entitled to certain lots within the city, which became afterwards ſeparated.
And By the Court:—The objection is over-ruled, and the paper allowed to be given in evidence.[2]
