1 Tenn. 207 | Tenn. Sup. Ct. | 1805
Lead Opinion
Ejectment. — For the plaintiff was produced a grant from the State of Virginia.
WHITESIDE objected to the reading of this grant. The first act of Congress, respecting *208 the authentication of papers from other States, has provided for two classes of cases. 1st. The judicial proceedings of courts. 2d. The manner of authenticating the acts of the legislatures. The paper produced purports to be a grant of land, but we do not know that the laws of Virginia have been complied with. The second section of our Act of 1803 will not operate in favor of the grant unless it be good by the laws of Virginia. We are not bound to notice the laws of another State as we are our own. We are not presumed to know the laws of other countries. They must be shown when required. The grants of North Carolina are our own by adoption, and we are bound to know whether they have all legal requisites, but not so respecting those of Virginia or any other State.
Concurrence Opinion
Nonsuit, which was afterwards set aside.
Addendum
Let this case be considered independent of the act of Congress, and the question will be whether the grant can be received in evidence. This case does not relate to the act of Congress, but stands upon the general law of evidence, which requires the seal of the State. This grant purports to be under the lesser seal of the State, whichex vi termini imports higher evidence, and therefore cannot be received. If this be a record of another State it must either be certified by the seal of the State, or agreeably to the act of Congress; neither of which is the case here.
