Lessee of Scott v. Leather

One claiming lands under the-assignees of a bankrupt, need not shew the trading and act of bankruptcy, against a title adverse to the bankrupt’s. A copy of the commissioner’s assignment to the assignees, certified by their clerk admitted in evidence. Exemplification of a deed recorded in Philadelphia county, for lands lying in several counties, received in evidence, the original being shown to be lost. The return of an equitable interest arising from the discovery of vacant lands, may be shown by parol testimony. Cited in 13 S. & R. 22. Cited in 2 Watts 80 to show that a good registry in one county may be received as evidence of the original in every other county. Referred to in 8 Watts 210.

Ejectment for 292 acres of land on the north side of Bald Eagle creek. The plaintiff claimed under a deed from Alexander Lowrey and others, assignees of the commissioners, under a commission of bankrupt against Mathias Slough, a bankrupt, to Samuel Miles, dated 12th March 1792, and by him conveyed to Scott on the 21st April 1794. The plaintiff’s counsel offered in evidence the petition of Caleb Foulke on the 15th June 1787, on which the commission of bankrupt issued. To this the defendant’s counsel excepted; unless it be first proved that Slough was a trader within the acts, and also the act of bankruptcy. These things are necessary to be shewn, in order to prove property under the commission. Bull. 37. In 5 Burr. 2628, the objection was taken that the debt of the petitioning creditor was of more than six years standing. In 1 Dali. 380-1, this matter is fully gone into, and shewn. The court said, there was an evident distinction, between cases where third persons claimed under or through the bankrupt, and where they claimed in another right, adverse to him. It will be found, that such points come in question in actions of trover brought by the assignees against persons holding property under the bankrupt, or where the debts of the bankrupt have been sued for. In 5 Burr, it was adjudged, that the objection of the debt of the petitioning debtor being barred by the statute of limitations, did not lie in the mouths of third persons. The debtor had not objected ; he had submitted to the commission and been examined under it. In i Dali, the fairness of the certificate of conformity was put in issue by the pleadings. The plaintiff may go on. A copy of the assignment of Slough to the commissioners dated 30th July 1787, certified by John Jennings their clerk, *to be a true copy, compared with the original on the „ 23d September 1796, was offered to be read ; but was ob- ^ jected to, because Jennings was no official character, and his act was done after the expiration of the bankrupt laws. The plaintiff’s counsel answered, that the commissioners had power to appoint a clerk and make allowance for his trouble. They have no public seal, nor will they trust out their .original papers. What then can a party do, except procuring a copy from their known officer ? Does not the evidence rest on the same footing, as the certificates of the comptroller general of the United States ? These are constantly received from the necessity of the case. The expiration of the bankrupt laws can have no effect on interests, vested during their existence. Yeates J. had some doubts of the propriety of the evidence adduced; because the plaintiff might have produced a person, who had compared it with the original. But the same having been ruled by Smith and Brackenridge, Justices, at the last Circuit Court, to be admissible evidence in another cause, he agreed,- that it should be received, and desired the counsel, if dissatisfied therewith, to take a bill of exceptions. The exemplification of the deed from Samuel Miles to the lessor of the plaintiff, certified by Matthew Irwin, recorder of deeds for the city and county of Philadelphia, -was then excepted to, by reason that the same had not been recorded in Mifflin county. The lessor of the plaintiff having made oath before the president of the 2d district, that the original deed had been lost, and could not be found on the most careful search, the court admitted the exemplification in evidence. It appeared in evidence, that James Crampton, Joseph Poult-ney and Thomas Holt had made the original discoveries of twenty-two tracts of vacant land, (of which one of them is the tract in question) and had interested Robert Callender in one fourth part thereof, in consideration of his taking out the office rights. Callender afterwards let Slough, who was his brother in law, into one moiety of the concern, and the latter filed the applications in the secretary’s office, in the hand writing of George Gibson, another brother in law, countersigned by Lewis Weiss, the agent. These original applications were produced on the trial, the one for the land in dispute being in the name of Thomas Poultney. On the 3d October 1775, Joseph Poultney sold his right to his father Thomas Poultney, under whom the *defendant claimed. Only nine of the tracts proved [*186 fortunate in the lottery; and on the 22d December 1769, Slough paid Charles Lukens, the deputy surveyor, 32I. 2s. for surveying the present tract and eight others. On the 29th August 1769, Crampton released his interest to Callender in consideration of 25I. The plaintiff then offered to shew by Arthur Buchannan, that Joseph Poultney had often declared to him that he had disposed of all his claim in the partnership concern of these lands to Callender for a valuable consideration ; that these conversations passed in 1773, and previous thereto Callender came over to view this tract with Thomas Holt. This was also opposed by the defendant’s counsel, who insisted, that the act for prevention of frauds and perjuries, passed on the 21st March 1772, prevents freehold interests passing by parol. 1 Dall. St. Laws 640.