
    Hugh Maxwell ads. James Carlile.
    '.toe act ofl803, to authorize office copies of grants to be given in evidence, includes as well office copies, certified by the deputies of the secretary of state and of the surveyor general, as by those officers themselves.
    Tried before Judge Colcock, Abbeville, March Term, 1822.
    This was an action of trespass to try title, in which the plaintiff produced a plat and grant to James Campbell, for 82 acres of land, dated 5th May, 1800, then a conveyance of the land from Campbell to plaintiff, of 18th Jan. 1820, which was proved. He proved a trespass and rested his case.
    The defendant produced a copy grant of 1000 acres, embracing the above 82 acres, dated 21st July, 1775, to Sir Edward Head, Bart, under the usual affidavit, that the original was lost; which grant was certified “ to be a true copy from grant book, &c. by James M. Coxvdry, deputy secretary of the state,” See. which was rejected by the court, because not certified by the secretary himself i and also a plat of the same land was rejected ; because certified in the same way by the deputy surveyor general.
    The court, however, permitted the plat to go to the jury merely as assignation of the lines claimed by defendant, who proved á possession, constantly from the time he settled on the land in —, till the present time, (at least 18 years.)
    The judge, however, charged the jury, that they must find for the plaintiff; because he had proved 9-or 10 years cultivation of the land (he did not live on \t) within his. grant; and because the defendant did not produce a grant for the quantity he claimed.
    There was a verdict accordingly for 82 acres, and $4 25 damages.
    A motion was now made for a new trial,' on these grounds:
    1st. Because the judge ought to have admitted the copy .grant and plat, offered by the defendant; they being legally certified.
    2nd. Because bis honor charged the jury that they mis' 
      find for plaintiff, when defendant had proved a continued possession for 13 years ; and because defendant gained a tillé to the land for ought that appeared, even after plaintiff had failed to prove an actual possession of the land in in himself; to wit, after the year 1811.
   Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the sourt.

The question submitted to the court is, whether undet the act of 1803, to authorize office copies of grants to be given in evidence, the copy of the grint and plat, must be respectively certified by the secretary and surveyor-general, or may such certificate be given' as in the case before' us, by and in the name of their respective deputies ? The act declares that “ it shall be lawful, ¡kc. to produce in evidence a copy, certified by the secretary of state and surveyor-general, of any grant and plat,” &c.

To determine whether the words “ secretary and surveyor-general,” may include their deputies, we must turn to the constitution erecting their offices, which declares (sec. 2, art. 10,) “ that the secretary of state and surveyor-general, shall hold their offices both in Columbia and Charleston. They shall reside at one place and their deputies at the other.” '

Here we find a deputy secretary and surveyor-general,' expressly recognized and required; to reside,- the principal at one office, and his deputy at another. For what purpose ? Assuredly to do the' business of his particular office. The deputy is as plainly noticed as the principal, and regarded as an officer doing the duties'of his office at Charleston or Columbia.

Where the act uses the words w secretary and surveyor-general,” these words must be taken in their comprehensive sense, i. e. to mean the deputy as well as the principal; otherwise they would not embrace acts to be done at both offices, but those only, where the principal secretary resided. The act is a,remedial one, and the object in view is to be regarded. This was to permit office copies of grants to be given in evidence,'whether the originals or re-. cords were kept at Charleston by the deputy secretary, or at Columbia by his principal.

McDuffie, for the motion,

-, contra.

To confine the word secretary, in such a case to its most restricted import, would, in my judgment, be little less than confining it to the secretary in office, at the time of passing the iaw¿

The practice too, has been in conformity to the construction here adopted.

The motion is therefore granted.

Justices Nott, linger, Gantt and Johnson, concurred.  