*1 People Snydee. The v. of case. Statement People v. Appellant, York, of New the State The Snyder, Respondent.
Alonzo generally ought to he known judicial Courts notice whatever will take And, accordingly, the courts of jurisdiction. the limits of within portion of the terri- notice, judicial this take western State will Massachusetts, act, ceded to the State toiy its own this State afterward, parties, under the latter, and, by conveyed to certain who nation, extinguished proper of the the title authority of both States J.) (Daniels, Indians it. officer, acknowledged authorized to take a before Where pre- jurisdiction, it of his acknowledgment the limits will he such within acknowledgment actually taken within such limits. sinned that such . time presumed at the of its date. been delivered A deed to have Britain, provisions treaty of the United States with Great The of the convey to hold and capacity of British aliens reference to the lands with April State, passed 2d,"1798,upon it; country the law of this under provisions applicability and of that subject of such law by Daniels, State; Pulteney stated and discussed J. title in this conveyances by titles, the British validity of from trustees The derived estate, Pulteney affirmed. approved Seld., (3 305), Graves Cumberland followed. Duke 22d, 5th, 1869, (Cause argued 1869.) and decided December October Appeal at Court Supreme judgment General the seventh district, affirming judgment Term, /for / defendant. to recover one brought possession
This action situated town of and ten acres hundred Spring- and for county, in Livingston damages wrongfully water defendant it from claimed plaintiff. witholding Craven, earl of William, under Alexander Oswald possession Estcourt, who were Buclmall to own alleged Edmund the trial in fee. At of tie as trustees action, the premises held in verdict Circuit Court county,i\ Livingston before iliffi the defendant. The plaintiff appd directed fiprn ral to the me T/*rm verdict G recovered the judgment was affirmed. district, where judgment in the seventh Snydek. [Dee., Court, per Daniels, *2 in 51st The that court is contained in of opinion Barbour, 589. The from that to this appealed judgment court. are stated in the
The facts opinions. Lord,
Scott appellants.
D. Rumsey, respondent. A number of very great objections taken J. Daniels, counsel admission evidence of by plaintiff’s upon the trial of this which in cause, fully argued to the brief court on the presented part Bu appellant. tit will and consider entirely of dispose unnecessary them in under the which detail, view has been taken of the case. The title which defendant relied for his defence is identical with that, many which respects, upon the real the entire western property nearly portion this State Its is matter of early history notori depends. general and interest State, fact, of the ety throughout and, United for that States; and, the transactions and reason, public which it documents on has so rested should be long judicially the courts further noticed without of their authenti rule cation. The mentioned Greenleaf this on subject, “ courts stated to will take notice of be, what generally to be known within the limits of ever ought generally Greenleaf on Evidence, Smith (1 6, p.10; jurisdiction.” § 43Co., Barb., 225, 231; N. R. R. Y. Central Swinnerton Y., Ins. And that 37 N. Co., 188-90.) Columbian courts of justice, broad certainly enough permit that the western know, State, history portion public its its own ceded act, State of Mas territory and the latter to certain sachusetts, who conveyed parties, under the both States afterward, proper authority the title of the Indians to it. nation, extinguished Under formal taken to the documents offered rule, objections for the received those facts purpose establishing as well as immaterial. became entirely unimportant y. Snydee. Court, Daniels, per follows from consequence form legal the cause. the com- For, pleadings given Morris, Robert plaint, alleged grantee ¡Nathaniel Gorham Oliver to whom the State Phelps, it in Massachusetts owned on the fee, conveyed property, admits, 1795. The answer substance February, 20th day conced- fee, that Morris did own without property at he such owner time mentioned precise ing title, of his answer Upon subject pro- complaint. than the derived farther he ceeds complaint, alleges *3 As to his title Gorham objections Phelps. the as well as those the.validity taken to form, urged against title the the time to and of preceding substance the owner not material. It was Morris became when that did the fee of them, to of he acquire sufficient dispose he after could the land sometime year only ¡¡New the cession of the State York that by done legally State of Massachusetts, and Indian of the title maintained. For being extinguishment of the it case, therefore, disposing may purpose that Robert Morris did assumed become the owner properly in fee of the land controversy, furnished state answer by A similar is_ pleadings, made to the evidence the other defendant’s all objections to title to land For controversy. concerning legal title a formal to the least, at transmission show, persons the defendant the land. whom under occupied Upon it is and wife, averred Morris complaint, subject, instrument and sealed duly signed them, by conveyed Charles who lived and Williamson, to died the premises and that Great the defendant Britain; king subject title them into and claimed entered through of Williamson or his These averments grantees. authority in the fourth more elaborated subdivision of are fully Williamson, the statement due complaint, form died Sir William who law, conveyed Pulteney, his Henrietta Laura afterward, only child, Pulteney, leaving Shydeb. [Dec., Court, per Dahiels, and that died, she Sir John heir-at-law; Lowther leaving her at the Johnstone, heir-at-law, who, time of only his death, “ and left last he testament, will devised his lands Ernest called the duke America, of Cumber Augustus, land, Charles Herbert David and Master- Pierpont, Cathcart, for certain ton in his Hre, trust, will purposes,” mentioned. is then such com Vances and releases were alleged' under afterward and made, of that pursVnee will; that Ernest David Cathcart, and John Augustus, Ure, Masterton Gordon, became were seized of such \nds, held the thereto in title su pursuance will, trust bject it. for in And after that, decease of Ernest provided ' and David Cathcart, Master ton Hre Augustus and John left the Gordon trustees under the surviving will, and such, severally conveyed interest premises, William, earl of Alexander Craven, Oswald and Edmund whom it is Estcourt, averred, Bucknall thereupon pur terms of such last will and testament suant of Sir John Johnstone, became seized of such lands and Lowther held the to such thereto, subject trusts, now hold title the same. all these persons were aliens and After alleging subjects of Great is stated that Britain, king defendant *4 land in the under the dispute, was in three possession named. last pei’sons the is answer its complaint peculiar structure.
The or denial whatever, no but specific denies general contains the the as same are after complaint, except allegations to be true, admitted it may expressly ward of denial in no form way provided passing, observed The present system sanctioned by pleading. for the answer then show proceeds subdivision fifth of the land under the possession defendant stated he had derived that complaint from whom persons title traced back to And State possession. the same devise persons, convey Massachusetts, through and described in mentioned the com more particularly ances in difference pleadings being only The plaint. The v. Sntdeb. Court, per Daniels, referred already the time Charles Williamson to, when derived his title Robert Morris. Thus it from will be seen, that no issue whatever was made transmission concerning of the formal title both defendant that sub their statements agreed entirely upon Hence the ject. and formal evidence given documentary establish it the deeds from Robert defendant, beyond Morris and wife him to to Charles and from Sir Williamson, William it but was was not needless, Pulteney, only wholly if the actually immaterial. And impertinent objections taken to that evidence founded, they were otherwise well under were, whatsoever, ofno issue, legal importance admission of the no could work possibility any injury this plaintiff. agreement pleadings upon of the case part conclusive both upon parties, neither could be evidence show the prejudiced by tending truth of the facts so agreed upon.
If this evidence had to the issue in any possible pertinency it ease, was to that itof which part may have perhaps been made of those whom alienage persons through transmitted Williamson to the for it did defendant, were aliens as the prove they had stated them to be. So far, complaint may bene- fited the but that fails case, to render the plaintiff’s objec- tions more tenable than would have if that any been, had not issue been made. plain case, theory plaintiff’s complaint it,
disclosed Williamson received his conveyance Morris on the 20th from Robert 1195, and that February, he was at that time an alien, afterward suc persons to the title were also aliens. For this reason ceeding it was that the title had claimed vested escheat in the plaintiff. case, deed from part Morris to Upon William *5 son was evidence. Formal pertinent the execution proof of that deed rendered necessary pleadings, order to entitle the court to receive it as because evidence, both the in their parties that a deed pleadings agreed convey
—Hand II. 51 Yol. Snyder. [Dec., Daniels, Court, per had made and delivered Morris to been property
ing Williamson. which existed was that only disagreement it the time when was done. The deed'itself concerning the case to have been the defendant produced by appears by from the inserted this deed trial; it, upon copy seems to have been dated on the 11th day April, 1792, sealed and delivered in the of four to have been presence James Wil subscribing witnesses, before acknowledged one of the Court of the United son, judges Supreme officer enti on the 20th of This States, 1795. February, tled take the and it must be acknowledgment, presumed it that he did within the limits of his even jurisdiction, to have is not stated case certifi though he favor of cate which made, legal presumption the acts of where validity public officers, nothing a different This certificate conclusion. appears warranting the execution of was sufficient acknowledgment it as evidence trial, the deed to render admissible it from which time, after so lapse great particularly had witnesses that the be subscribing well might presumed, trial was had. the time when this life before all departed the deed than other evidence was given No the time of its of showing furnished, purpose itself the law presumes under the state of the proof, delivery; its date. Seymour at the time of delivered to have been it & 3d notes, Hill’s Co wen 403, Wend., 414); Slyck (8 v. Van and Duke cited; and cases 461, 2, 588, Ed., part part that view where Seld., 308), v. Graves (3 Cumberland the law taken the application very properly did not for the acknowledgment deed, subsequent B. Monroe, Gregory, (Ford that presumption. change the evidence, should under this court Assuming, 175, 180.) time when at the and delivered deed was that this made the date of acknowledgment, not at date, hears have been well convenience, as a matter of may very which, time at that if Williamson was then even afterward, made enti he was in the complaint, as he was stated alien, *6 People Snyder. 403 v. Daniels, of the J. Court, per under the tied between United States and Great treaty hold and Britain to the title to the land. This convey treaty was made on the 19th of November, 1794; its ninth article it British who then agreed held subjects lands the territories of the United States, should continue to hold them to the nature and tenure of their according estates and titles and that respective therein, they might sell or devise same to whom grant, like pleased, they manner as if were natives; that neither they nor. their heirs or so far as assigns should, such lands respected remainders incident legal thereto, be regarded S. alfens. Statutes at (U. vol. 8, act This Large, 122, 9.) clearly Williamson to hold and empowered the title convey even land, though allegations complaint for concerning alienage true, constitution the United it became States, apart law of supreme and as such obligatory authorities of the dif ferent States. R. S., Edmonds’ (1 ed., 23; Art. § Const. of U. S.)
But evidence was from the records of the given Supreme Court Pennsylvania, showing very Wil satisfactorily naturalized in that liamson was court on the 9th of Jan day a few months before the date of uary, the deed from him. Morris wife to This was certified the clerk the court, authenticated the chief in the form justice the act of in order congress, required by render it enti full faith and tled to credit the courts of this State, it was not admissible as reason, only evidence, hut that it completely court in beyond justified excluding than mere certificate of clerk that no other paper him on file in oath was found his office. This was due to full the record as faith and evidence, credit would not to it. This otherwise record given showed that had Charles Williamson been admitted as a citizen and from the States, United identity name of all other absence it is proof upon to subject, pre that he sumed whom the person Snydek. [Dec,, Court, per Daniels,
Opinion of the (Hatcher Rocheleau, 18 N. made. Morris was *7 Y., 86.) in this case whether is of no importance
But it special or for the naturalized not; treaty ever Williamson was he was an alien and if him to hold convey authorized him to of the the laws State British and permitted subject, a of the United he had citizen States. become same, do to the land. case the title He could either convey acknow It. as the certificate date, as well appears Pul to William the deed from Williamson Sir ledgment, 1801, it of March, executed on the 31st day was teney, it and the certificate of its that was recorded record, on the office of the of the of Hew York, State secretary than months after the 1801, day 21st of less twelve October, a therefore, of its date. valid even though to an for it was been, alien; as it to have made, appeared 2, time under the act of which, made within the April the sub not aliens, 1198, lands could be conveyed being at war State or with or of some power ject subjects sovereign a States of America. In order render United convey all act, under that that was to an alien'valid necessary ance made after was that it should be within three its years pas in the office and recorded be State secretary sage, of its date. within months after day twelve (Edmonds' vol. And 4, ed. of General Statutes, 294.) compliance for the of those with both shown requirements purpose That statute conveyance. provided sustaining made and recorded under its should conveyances, provisions, deemed valid to vest the estate be thereby granted and alien or alien that it be lawful for such should grantees, her or their heirs and hold the to his, assigns aliens to alienism forever, contrary notwithstanding. any plea its act construc And this with statute, affecting together in 1819 of N. vol. Y., was enacted Statutes tion, (Gen’l held this court to sanction legalize 295), from whom claimants the title present persons derived their estate. Cum (Duke question property y. Sbydeb. Court, per Woodruff, Opinion of ths Graves, Seld., berland Under authority, 305.) title fact of their aliens, conveyed being being aliens, devised was not sufficient to entitle the through an escheated divest as estate. The same conclusionwould also result from the article referred if Williamson at that to, treaty already time an. for that that neither the alien alien; provided owner, of Great nor heirs being subject king Britain, should be so far aliens as such lands assigns, regarded Both the concerned. the statute allowed treaty and devised from one alien to ano- property conveyed ther, to be inherited descent alien heirs, without *8 in manner or the title to it. This any impairing affecting since deed from title, Williamson has not into the passed hands a citizen of this State or and while country, shall to continue be its it will not be liable character, to escheat reason of the to plaintiff its owner. by alienage The which the circuit made of this disposition right and the trial, cause at the judgment appealed should therefore be with costs. affirmed, J. The of this argument embraced appeal
Woodruff, it is in which many questions, not, to opinion, my necessary examine reason or decide. Ho is and I think none assigned, should exists, which induce us to re-examine the case of The Duke Cumberland v. Graves and (3 Seld., the decision 305), there must be deemed final on all of law involved questions in and of in that ease. disposed
The which are questions and here, presented prominently not do to in appear contested the former case whether the State of first; are, New York with parted its title the lands to in to the question, prior conveyance by Robert Horns to Charles Williamson in the case, former in this mentioned ? Second. Was the State case York New in the title, escheat or to the reinstated otherwise, prior to Sir William former conveyance Pulteney, which, was held valid and ease, effectual the title, convey Snydeb. [Dec., The Court, per Woodbtjee, of the force acts prin
operated by legislature affirmed to make decision con subsequent ciples alsovalid effectual so State, veyances against afterward accrued? no title escheat The case referred assumes Robert Morris then in fee seized simple question, the same to Williamson, whom, and then Charles conveyed William who were released to Sir Pulteney, neither nor was an held that his alien. court alienage of their devisees heirs-at-law, or subsequent alienage escheat. succession, or worked grantees any to examine in this therefore, case is, wholly unnecessary evidence subsequent the deeds or wills produced the authentica- or William Pulteney, Sir whether or depositions thereof, they, tion inquire or those subsequent to show family history produced there no that, ground except transfers; pretence heirs or or his Sir William assigns, Pulteney of alienage Charles William- claim to has the recovery, plaintiff any had title son premises. if the escheat, was hound prove immaterial whether that, not establish wholly did
proofs received or the defendant were properly proofs given and if the title was *9 was plaintiffs, the upon burden not; to when the Sir conveyance the out of plaintiffs to shown he this decided made, then court have was William Pulteney And it the may, plaintiff. no escheat proved that all the evidence he of this conceded appeal, the purposes of to the subsequent history defendant, prove in the put aas it will stand received; and yet title, was erroneously the last men- that at the time the case, in fact no wholly had title, plaintiff tioned, the plaintiffs escheat. to any subsequent failed prove And of the defendant were the hand, the other proofs the of the title showed state received, than they properly in Duke Cumberland the court The was before which of escheat no and established negatively subsequent Graves, Snyder. Woodruff, per Court, do. to not bound were This the defendants had happened. therefore, wholly the failed to do. is, The contrary plaintiffs were defendant’s the proofs to whether inquire unnecessary inadmis- them to wholly be not; for, admissible conceding so far as entitled, point the defendant was still sible, he in which the instruction his favor involved, peremptory trial. had on the Was it then recur: 1st. shown
The questions title, State had with its before the conveyance parted ? there Was Morris to Charles And 2d. Robert Williamson of facts escheat to the conveyance prior establishing ? Sir William Pulteney the true I am of con
In the first opinion, upon place, must held herein, struction of complaint plaintiffs but that on 20th of Feb aver, not admit, only day in the then Robert Morris, city ruary, year commonwealth Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in fee and These seized premises possessed question. are terms of very plaintiffs’ allegation.
What are termed third first, second, complaint, are in truth action, and fourth causes of but a cause of single a title to wit., statement of action, and claim and their differ- to recover same; plaintiffs, in the of different ence consists averment upon grounds is claimed. Under our former recovery system plead- united several causes action different were counts ing, but and in declaration, form, theory of different In this recovery subjects. complaint claims to recover and he specified parcel plaintiff the existence of four facts or avers combinations of all fact, each truth other, with consistent which he avers, and truth of either of he which, claims to recover these However various or cumulative the premises. grounds this constitutes but one cause of claim, action. therefore, recover, title to establishing may *10 admit the taken to truth
be own defend- averments. The ant bound was not fact which prove averred. any plaintiff Sttydee. [Dec., Court, per Woodbüpp, If this be then the consideration so, of this appeal may begin with the admission of title out and in Robert plaintiff, on the Morris, 20th of and 1795, February, only question will be: Did the a escheat plaintiffs prove subsequent prior to William Sir men conveyance Pulteney already tioned ? averred that a plaintiffs Morris, 1795, conveyance
executed himself and and wife, then acknowledged delivered, to Charles Williamson, conveyed premises that Williamson an was then alien.
But the neither plaintiffs fact, proved argument now on the is founded urged evidence appeal, put defendant, even the conveyance itself to to as Williamson, objected incompetent. Suppose we should be of that Where, evidence opinion. then, that Robert Morris ever to an conveyed alien, or even that he has ever them at all. And in that conveyed what can there view, be pretence established to recover? right Doubtless, however, avail themselves of plaintiffs may proofs put defendant, and establish that Charles Williamson was then an alien, have the benefit thereof, this of make avail fact though any plaintiffs, Morris to Williamson must alsobe derived from the defendant’s which the this on proofs, plaintiffs appeal, But are inconsist- insisting incompetent. waiving that Charles then does Williamson was ency, appear alien ?
A certified of a in the Court of the copy record, Supreme State of evidence, wherein Pennsylvania, produced in that on the 9th -is court, proceeding January, the affect that Charles Williamson entered, appeared made oath to court, Constitution of open support the said 9th United States, day January, admitted be a the United citizen of States.
This is and to court, certified to be record such, certified from the said records by prothonotary *11 People Sbtyder. 409 v. 1869.J Woodruff, J. Opinion Court, per under that and is authenti- court,, Court, seal Supreme the certificate of the to the effect that cated chief justice, is so and still prothonotary- person certifying said of the records court, thereof, whose having custody fall faith acts as and credit are and such, to be ought given, attestation and that the said is due form. the defendants that
The counsel'for this was not objected authenticated. "Wherein it defective not was was properly and I do not therein. out, perceive pointed any imperfection He further that there is no evidence that it is objected, It does not nor is it original paper. be, essential purport that it should be. It is a in that record proof remaining court, the form the act of prescribed making congress, he further it evidence. And is there no evi- objected, dence that it has been court or of custody any any the records thereof. thereof, among clerk The authentication the clerk (prothonotary) all those chief justice, proves things.
The record thus it evidence, established properly being the naturalization of Charles Williamson. was a judicial and as and it conclusive, such was was a record act, properly the court of its action. judicial no conclusive, thus extraneous requires That or of facts than other act any preliminaries, any has been admission citizenship, repeatedly adjudged. (See Co., Cranch., v. Ins. 420; Starke 7 v. Chesapeake Spratt Pratt, Ritchie 13 4 Pet., 406; Putnam, Wend., 524.) If there were room for observation doubt, of Justice in 16 for the naturali Wend., proceedings Nelson, are of aliens to be construed zation liberally, every in their would us favor, to assume require intendment the court over the no subject jurisdiction being all were satisfied. doubt, prerequisites find that the I do not there was no identifi- objection, cation of the with the naturalized, Morris’ person grantee, made, on the trial. Of course it cannot first deed, there made here. But which was satis- evidence, entirely — Haito Yol. H. Snyder. [Dee. Court, per Woodetjef, In addition to the
factory. name, presumption identity that the transaction was in where fact, Philadelphia, resided, and the grantor, Morris, testimony unqualified *12 that the to the of oath the handwrit- was signature allegiance of such ing grantee. from the between Great Britain and
Apart, then, the treaty United which bound States, we are to Williamson recognize, was to take and hold lands as a naturalized citizen. competent The deed to him bears date in and if he 1792; then British not naturalized, subject, con- treaty terms, very firmed his title, notwithstanding alienage. the statement in
If, however, the complaint Robert Morris was seized on 1795, is not to betaken conclusive, as or even true the then it is prima against plaintiffs, facie material to whether title out the of inquire plaintiffs proved. the States between of New York and Massa compact that it
chusetts, unless exceeded the of objection power divested the State of New York of the title legislature, to And, as question. observed, already unless the a subsequent ffs plaintiffs proved escheat, plainti not entitled to recover. is such not objected compact was sufficiently To this I objection, suggest: proved. it forms a That
First. part political jurisdictional State and I am itself; and territorial history inclined that the acts to author opinion strongly legislature the acts of the confirma izing legislature negotiation, us thereof, and, or tory, recognition consequence, itself thus authorized are to confirmed, be deemed compact court. (Act Nov. knowledge 12, within judicial act of Jan. Exhibit E; 25, 1787, Exhibit act of 1784, B; 1801, & Edition of the of N. Y., Kent Radcliff’s Laws 207, 1 p. § 1 In Henthorn 17; Doe, Laws of ex p. 294, 8.)§ held Blackf’d, the claims (1 dem. 159), Shepherd lands now State of forming part Indiana, Virginia, in what was called northwest formerly territory, Snydee. "Woodbtjep, Court, per States, the United thereof Virginia cession of certain disposal regard of Virginia the statutes divided cession, in that were reserved lands which are a history part Virginia, laws according take will her courts judicial Indiana, and laws further even This going proof. without specific knowledge calls for. case than present last or made, on the suggestion Without
Second. resting that our statute made the claim respondent, considering make not exemplifi- does Rev. (2 Stat., p. 74), §§ [59] but inadmissible, cation seal of the State, under the great mentioned the officers confined to certified by copies have, under their seal any they referred official to, that if the mere authenti- sufficient answer is, objection *13 reversal. is no for cation furnishes defective, present ground a record, a bemay or authenticated record, copy Such The defect can be argument appeal. produced and the record itself admits no contradiction. supplied, on the The counsel offered, respondent argument, such so as to obviate even copy, authenticated, produce raised the counsel. objection that the
To that it should also State suggestion appear ratified the it must sufficeto Massachusetts compact, say, if is that not to be presumed, exemplified copy of that of their act State was evidence (Exhibit assump D), of the land and this is tion ceded to suffi them, ownership cient. title out of the State New York follows, appears, have failed an escheat. And there plaintiffs prove
fore, whether the Massachusetts, conveyancesby Phelps or Gorham, them to Morris, Robert were proved duly immaterial to this Let the evidence of not, is wholly appeal. case, those be struck from the result conveyances the same. there them, Error any (which receiving I do not here affect the result. could not concede),
And I have if the title assumed to have said, already in Robert then Morris, no proved by alienage Künzze American Ex. Fire [Dec., v. Ins. Co.
Statement of case. them unless we overrule the plaintiffs, entitling recover, to. , case of The Duke Graves; Cumberland v. I that, think decided. rightly I think the should he affirmed. judgment All the for affirmance, concurring affirmed. judges judgment Exchange Respondent, Louis Kunzze, The American Fire Company, Appellant. Insurance plaintiff, policy Where holder a goods of fire insurance store, in a certain being removing goods store, desirous of to another policy having goods removed, and of applies cover the when so “ defendant, company, by issued, policy insurance whom goods stating it transferred to building,” cover in the new that the goods day, company, were be moved that accordingly, secretary, policy signed memorandum, indorsed on the a it was “ ” property building,—JETeZtZ transferred to similar cover the new (Woodruff, J., having day destroyed a fire contra), goods, next removal, before their that the defendants still liable for the loss. (Cause 6th, argued 22d, October 1869.) and decided December Appeal General Term of the judgment Court of New York, Superior affirming judgment plain at circuit. tiff *14 effected an insurance, with the defendant, in a store,
certain at personal property, dwelling-house in Richmond loss and Tompkinsville, county, against damage under a dated the fire, 1st policy day May, 1862, from that A one date. year portion insured, property in the said while on the premises, fire, 24th destroyed by this action March, day brought York to Court New recover amount of the Superior The defendant resisted the on the claim, loss. ground, “ to the occurrence on the day fire, said previous of insurance transferred the aforesaid policy subjects situate two brick story on the insurance, building,