Groover et al. v. Coffee-Opinion of Court.

this was allowed by the court; and if this was right then certainly giving instructions to the jury afterwards was right; plaintiff's counsel is the last one that should complain at any rate.

THE CHIEF-JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action of ejectment commenced by appellants in Madison county and moved to Jefferson for trial. The lands are in Madison county, and described as "about seventy-seven acres in fractional lot number 200 in originally Irwin county, Georgia, and about twenty acres in fractional lot number 199 in the southeast corner of said lot in originally Irwin county, Georgia, both now in Madison county, Fla., said lots being more particularly described as ninety-seven acres in the northern part of fractional section twentynine, township three, north, of range nine, east."

Appellants introduced in evidence two patents issued by Governor McDonald, under the seal of the State of Georgia, dated January 1, 1842, granting to James Groover, his heirs and assigns, (in pursuance of an act of the General Assembly passed 23d December, 1822, relating to lands in the territory lately acquired from the Creek and Cherokee Indians,) fractional lot number 199 containing two hundred and twenty-six 2-100 acres and fractional lot number 200 containing two hundred and fifty 2-10 acres "lying and being in the fifteenth district of Irwin county in the said State, *** having such shape, form and marks as appear by the plat of the same hereunto annexed."

The plats annexed designate the southern line as "Florida line," and dimensions, area, monuments, courses and distances are duly certified by the Surveyor-General of the State of Georgia as being correct, and as having been surveyed on the second day of July, 1820, and the grants

Groover et al. v. Coffee-Opinion of Court.

were duly registered by the Secretary of State January 1, 1842.

Plaintiff also put in evidence a deed of James Groover, of Thomas county, Ga., to Thomas A. Groover, of Lowndes county, dated 31st December, 1855, recorded in Lowndes county, conveying the same lands in fee. Also a deed of Thomas A. Groover to Charles A. Groover, of Brooks county, Ga., dated 8th July, 1860, recorded in Brooks. county, Ga. The plaintiffs are the heirs at law of Charles A. Groover now deceased.

It was proved that James Groover was in possession of the land in controversy when he conveyed it to Thomas A. Groover, and the latter was in possession when he conveyed it to Charles A. Groover, and that he and his family occupied and cultivated it until they were dispossessed by the defendant in 1876, and the defendant, A. J. Coffee, has been in possession since that year. All the land in question was cultivated by Thomas and by Charles A. Groover while they were in possession.

A plat made by a surveyor was introduced by plaintiffs, showing the location and boundaries, from which it ap pears that about 120 acres of the lots described as lots 199 and 200 in the Georgia patent and in the deeds falls south of a line called the "McNeill line," and north of the "Watson line." The plat also shows that the lands south of the McNeill line, including the land in controversy, are within the surveys made by the United States and designated by sections, bounded by the McNeill line on the north, so that the 97 acres claimed by plaintiff constitute a part of section 29 according to this plat of the U. S. surveys. It seems to be conceded by both parties that this tract is south of the present boundary line between Georgia and Florida, and hence is treated as a part of the present territory of Florida

Groover et al. v. Coffee-Opinion of Court.

and within the county of Madison. Precisely where the State line is does not appear in the evidence.

One of the witnesses (Bentley) says the Watson line was considered the State line. Another (Lanier) says he considers the McNeill line the boundary, and he knows of ananother line "that runs between the two States still south of the Watson line." Both lines were distinctly marked.

On the part of the defendants there was introduced a deed executed by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund conveying to the defendant the whole of fractional section twenty-nine, township three, north, range nine, east, containing 269 85-100 acres in the county of Madison, State of Florida. This is dated September 12, 1874. Defendant further introduced a certificate of Hugh A. Corley, Commissioner of Lands and Immigration for the State of Florida, dated May 6, 1880, "that the whole of fractional section twenty-nine in township three north, of range nine, east, was patented to the State of Florida as 'swamp and overflowed land' under act of Congress approved September 28th, 1850, as appears from Patent No. 9, dated July 6, 1857, which patent now remains on file in this office."

Defendant also offered a certificate of Dennis Eagan, Commissioner of Lands and Immigration of the State of Florida, dated January 20, 1874, certifying that "the records of this office show that fractional section twenty-nine in township three, north, of range nine, east, was sold to McCall and Stripling on the second day of September, A. D. 1857."

Defendant testified that his brother, John Coffee, had the land in controversy in 1839, had a "claim" and cleared part of it before it was in market. He bought his brother's claim, and after it was put in market Bryant Stripling and T. Fane McCall entered it and got a certificate which they

Groover et al. v. Coffee-Opinion of Court.

transferred to defendant, and he had the title made to himself by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund. Defendant further testified that "Charles A. Groover had a clearing on part of the land in controversy, and I had part of the land in cultivation that was included in my deed south of the Watson line, and as there was a dispute between Mr.Groover and myself about the land and we agreed to let it remain as it was until Congress would settle it." Defendant and Mrs. Groover made a bargain for a sale of the land to her, but it was not consummated. Defendant says he then commenced suit and obtained judgment against her for the possession in the U. S. Court, and was thereby put in possession. Until that time defendant did not take actual possession of the land north of the Watson line or inake crops on it.

Every document and paper introduced by either party was objected to by the opposing party, and was received by the court and given to the jury as evidence. Other testimony of witnesses was received or excluded upon objections being made, and these rulings will be noticed as they may be deemed material. The court refused to give certain instructions prayed by plaintiffs' counsel and charged the jury, (exceptions being taken to the refusal and to each paragraph of the charge) and the jury found a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiffs (a new trial having been denied) appealed from the judgment, assigning errors in the rulings and charge of the court and in the verdict as against the law and the evidence.

The grants of land by the Governor of Georgia to James Groover were objected to by defendant, "because they were not connected with the case."

Courts recognize, without other proof than inspection, the seals of other States and nations which have been recognized by their own sovereign. I Greenleaf's Ev.. $479.

Groover et al. v. Coffee—Opinion of Court.

The land in question is claimed to have been formerly within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Georgia, and the land is described in the grants as lying within the county of Irwin in that State. The grants were offered as parts of the history of the title to the land, and in view of the fact that a dispute existed for a long period as to the exact boundary line of the States, and that the law sometimes recognizes titles to property granted by the government exercising the powers of sovereignty for the time being, the documents were properly received as alleged links in the chain of title. Whether they were "connected with the case" depended upon the whole evidence offered. this aspect the court properly received the documents in evidence.

In

The defendant objected to the deed of James Groover (grantee of the Georgia patents) to Thomas A. Groover and the deed of Thomas A. Groover to Charles A. Groover, the ancestor of the plaintiffs, on the ground that the execution of the deeds was not sufficiently proved, and that as to the last named deed one of the subscribing witnesses was living and should be called to prove the same.

As to the deed of James Groover, it was shown that he was dead, and the subscribing witnesses were also dead. The signatures of the grantor and of the subscribing witnesses were shown to be genuine. As to the deed of Thomas A. Groover to Charles A. Groover, it was shown that the grantor was living in Georgia, and one of the subscribing witnesses, James G. Groover, was living and was out of the State, residing in Georgia, and the other subscribing witness was dead. Thomas A. Groover was produced and testified to the genuineness of the signatures of both subscribing witnesses, and they were signed in his presence and at his request, and that the one now living was in Georgia.