Barr v. Gratz's heirs

Delivered the opinion of the Feb. 191%, Court. In this case, it is unnecessary to travel through all the exceptions taken by the defendant in the Court below, because; upon the fact? stated in the bill of exceptions, some of the opinions required of the Court upon points of law, do not arise from the evidence ; and as to others, the opinion of the Court, if in any respect erroneous, was so in favour of the defendant.

The first error assigned is, that the Court refused to grant a new trial; but it has been already decided, and is too plain for argument, that such a refusal affords no ground for a writ of error.

Another error alleged is, that the Court allowed the decree of the-Circuit . Court, in the Chancery suit between Michael Gratz and John Craig and ethers, to be given in evidence to the jury. In our •opinion this record was clearly admissible. It is true that, in general, judgments and decrees are evidence, only in suits between parties and privies. But the doctrine, is wholly inapplicable to a case like the present, where the Recree is not introduced as per se -binding upon any rights of the. other party, but as an introductory fact to a link in the/chain of the plaintiff’s title, and constituting a,part of the. muniments of his estate; without establishing the existence of the decree, it would be impossible to establish the legal, validity of the deed from Robert Johnson, to the lessors of the plaintiffs, which was made under the authority of that decree ; arid under such, circumstances to reject the proof of the decree* would be, in effect, to declare that no title derived under a decree in Chancery, was of any validity éxeept in a suit between parties and privies,-so that in-a suit by or against a stranger, it would be á mere nullity. It might with as much propriety.be argued, that the plaintiff was not at liberty to prove any other title deeds in this suit, because they were res inter alios acta.

Another error alleged is, the admission in evidence of the deed of John Craig to Michael Gratz, dated the 16th of July, 1784, without the regular proof of its execution by the subscribing witnesses. But as that deed was more than thirty years old, and was proved to have been in the possession of the lessors of the plaintiff, and actually asserted by them as the ground of their title in the Chancery suit, it was, in the .language of the books, sufficiently accounted for j and on this account, as well as because it was a part of the evidence in support of the decree, it was admissible, without the regular proof of its execution.

Another error alleged is, that the deed from Robert Johnson to the plaintiffs, under the decree in Chancery, was not admissible in evidence without proof that. Robert Johnson was the surviving trustee, and that Elijah Craig was dead. But upon examining the bill of exceptions of tfie defendant, no point of this sort arises ; for it is there stated that the plaintiff gave in evidence “ the deed from Robert Johnson the surviving trustee to the lessors of the plaintiffand no objection appears to have been made to its admissibility on this account. -

Having disposed of these minor objections, we may advance to the only points of any real importance in the causé, but which, in

Another objection taken is, that the deed from Robert Johnson to the lessors ,of the plaintiff, under the decree in Chancery, wa^ not approved' by the Court, nor recorded in the Court iti conformity with the statute of Kentucky of the Í8th of February, 1818, ch. 453. In our judgment no such approval was necessary; and upon examination of the statute in question, it is clear that it is not imperative in the present case.

Upon the’whole, without going more minutely into the case, we are all of opinion that the judgment of the Court below ought to be affirmed. No error has been committed which is injurioüs to the defendant. He has had the full benefit of the law, so far as the facts of his case would warrant the Court in applying it in his favour.

Judgment affirmed.

Vide Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 229. 245,

Vide Walden v. Grata’z Heirs, ante, vol. 1. p. 292;