
    Schuyler H. Platt v. Urs Haner.
    
      Patent: Parol evidence. is not admissible. Parol evidence of tbe contents of a United States patent.
    
      Heard and decided April 23
    
    Error to St. Clair Circuit.
    This was an action of trespass quare clausum, brought by Haner against Platt before a justice of the peace and certi-fled to the circuit upon notice that the title to land would;, come in question. On .the trial the question appeared to be-, one of disputed boundaries, and parol evidence was admitted against objection, of the description of premises contained in the United States patent of the lands in question. The plaintiff recovered judgment below, and the defendant brought error.
    
      V. A. Saph and Trowbridge & Atkinson, for plaintiff in error, were stopped by the court.
    
      T. 0. Owen, for defendant in error.
   The Court

held that parol evidence of the contents of a United States patent is inadmissible; for, if the patent itself is lost or not accessible, the proof by exemplification from the general land office is equivalent in degree and should be obtained.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial awarded.  