1782.
ledged in court, and the regiſtring of it in the Prothonotary’s office (as is always done) is a ſufficient recording within the act.
Sergeant and Ingerſol oppoſed the reading a deed in evidence, upon this ground: that by the[1] act of aſſembly laſt mentioned, all deeds not recorded in the Rolls Office, according to the particular directions of that act, are declared void as againſt ſubſequent purchaſers, and therefore, though this deed was dated before the ſheriff’s deed, under which the defendant claimed, yet as it was not recorded till afterwards, they inſiſted it was void, and could be no evidence at all.—Sed non allocatur: And M’Kean C. J. ſaid, we cannot hinder the reading of a deed under ſeal, but what uſe will be made of it is another thing: and he cited the caſe of Ford v. Lord Grey 6. Mod. 44.[2]
Wilcox et al. verſus Henry.
Tee caſe was this:—In the cloſe of the year 1777, one Stephen Backhouſe arrived at Philadelphia from Liverpool, the troops of the king of Great-Britain being at that time in poſſeſſion of the city. Backhouſe brought with him a large and valuable cargo of ſalt, which he ſtored in the warehouſe of one Pritchard, and after a ſhort ſtay in Philadelphia, he went to New-York, (then likewiſe in the poſſeſſion of the Britiſh troops) conſigning the ſalt to Meſſrs. Jones, Backhouſe and Foulk, of Philadelphia, with directions that they ſhould ſelt it for him, at the beſt price they could get, but not under a dollar per buſhel. Backhouſe, one of the conſignees, was no relation whatever of Backhouſe the owner.—The conſignees, accordingly, ſold part of the ſalt to different perſons, and on the 17th of June 1778, they ſold the remainder to Wilcox, the plaintiff. On the 18th of June 1778, (the day ſucceeding the ſale) the Britiſh troops evacuated Philadelphia. In January 1779, it was ſeized for the commonwealth as the property of the enemy. And the queſtion was, whether the ſalt was the property of Wilcox, the plaintiff; or became forfeited to the State of Pennſylvania, as being the property of a Britiſh ſubject?
It is to be obſerved, that no money was paid by Wilcox to the conſignees at the time of the ſale, though the key of the ſtore was delivered to him. The price of the ſalt was to be a dollar per buſhel; and the agreement, at the ſale, was, that if the ſalt ſhould be in the city when the American army entered it, then the money ſhould be paid for it within (I think) two or three months; but that if the ſalt should be deſtroyed or taken the Britiſh troops, in that event, the contract ſhould be null and void. Theſe conditions were annexed to the agreement from a general apprehenſion, that the Bri-
