Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/756

 742 FBDKIU& BEPOBTEB. �under the reservee acquired a title by the issuing of the patent as against his heirs ; and, of course, thaf the Jaeira of the reservee, as a-gainst the gra»t of ,their ancestori aoquired uo title whatever/ not- withstanding the issuing of., the; patent to him and his heirs. Sub- stantially the same faots exiflted in the. case: of Crews v. Burcham, where the court mad,^ the sameiruling. r �Ash-kum, on.t.he fpurthqf Ootober, 1835, made a cqnveyance of the section in controversy in this case to Louis de Seille by a war- ranty deed, a certified copy of which, from the recorder's office of Cook county, bas been introduceid in evidence, it not heing iti the power of the parties to produee, the original deed. Two objections have been made to,the introdijctipn of this oopy-t-First, that it was not properly acbciojwledged ; and, seconcUy, that there was no certifi- cate of magistracy. . According to the cppy the deed was acknowl- edged in Berrien, county,, Miphigan, ^lefore a justice of the peace. The officiai charact^.cf the jup^ice of the. peace is shown by aeertifi- cate of the secretaryrpf state of Miphigan, under the seal of the state, .attached to the copy, and the certificate of a clerk of a ;court of record, also attached,; showing tha|; the acknowledgment was made in conformity with the la'v^^ of Michigan at the time the acknowledgment was taken; and, independent pf such certificate, I suppose itwould be the duty of thip court to determine whether or not it was so exe- cuted and acknowledged. I think the copy is properly admissible under the twentieth seption of the statu te relating to conveyances, and therefore that the evidence is that Ash-kum made a conveyance of his right and title to this section of land in 1835, and consequently that when the patent was issued to him and his heirs it conveyed to his grantee and his assigna, under the deed of 1835, all; his title to the section, and that his heirs cannot set up aijy claim to the land as against the deed of their ancestor. �There have been several deeds introdueed on the part of the defence to show that the plaintiS has conveyed her intere,«t in the land to different persons who were claiming the land and in possession under the title obtained from Ash-kum, and therefore she cannot now set up any claim for dower. One of these deeds is dated Eebruary 19, 1877, by which she conveys, in consideration of the sum of $2,000, with cbvenants of warranty, to Benjamin S. Sooy, Stutely D. Palmer, James W. Murpby, and D. 0. Elwood, the tract of land in contro- rersy, together with the other section reserved to Ash-kum by the treaty; and there is a deed of July 5, 1877, in which the plaintiff purports to convey, for a consideration of $150, all her interest in this ��� �