Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/75

 64  execution; which was not the cae of the leor of the Plaintiff when the deed was actually proved before the jutice.

To this it was anwered, that the Act of Aembly only related to the proof which entitled a Deed to be recorded, &c. that many Deeds might be given in evidence, which were not o entitled; as in the cae of a long poeion under an old Deed. Another act declares that one, or more ubcribing witnees is ufficient, 1 St. L. 520. and it is etablihed, that the attetation of witnees is not of the eence of the Deed. Before the ''Stat. of Frauds the neceity of ubcribing witnees to any intrument, did not exit in England; and there is no intance in which the Legilature of Pennylvania'' has expresly called for the attetation of two witnees, but in that of the aignment of a bond.


 * —The igning of a Deed is now the material part of the execution; the eal has become a mere form, and a written, or ink eal, as it is called, is good. Any Deed under eal, when proved, is proper to be given in evidence. 6 Mod. 45. And, we are of opinion, that a Deed, the execution of which is worn to by one witnes before a magitrate, who certifies the ame, is within the rule. Beides, the lat Act of Aembly certainly allows the proof of one witnes to be ufficient.

EVERAL points of evidence were determined in this caue; which was an Ejectment, brought for the recovery of a lot on the wet ide of Second treet, in Philadelphia.

1t. The Plaintiff, in order to hew that the perons under whom he claimed were original purchaers from William Penn, the proprietary, offered in evidence a paper from the proprietary’s (or, rather urveyor general’s) office, containing the lit of names of uch perons as were original purchaers; and therein were the names of thoe from whom the plaintiff derived his title. It was objected to, becaue the deeds themelves ought to be produced, as it did not appear that they had been detroyed. But it was anwered, that the lot in quetion is appurtenant to a large tract of land, and that the deeds are in the poeion of the owners of that large tract; for, on the ettlement of the province of Pennylvania, every one who bought 5000 acres of land in the country, was entitled to certain lots within the city, which became afterwards eparated.

And :—The objection is over-ruled, and the paper allowed to be given in evidence. 2. The