
    [Lancaster,
    May 26, 1823.]
    HOAK and Another against LONG.
    in error.
    A deed from a person who has no written title, but claims by settlement, cannot be read in evidence if it clearly appear that he never resided on the land. Some title or spark of title in the grantor must be shown before a deed from him can be read in evidence.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county.
    Ejectment by Anthony Long, the plaintiff below, against Rudolph Hoak, and Daniel Minich, defendants below, for a tract of land in Lykens township, Dauphin county, containing 70 acres, or thereabouts. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 37 acres and 20 perches, particularly specified in the verdict.
    Six bills of exceptions to evidence were taken by the defendants on the trial in the court below, but only one was now noticed in the opinion of the court, viz: a bill of exceptions to a deed dated the 9th October, 1813, from Matthias Weymar and wife, to the plaintiff, FLnthony Long, which the court below allowed to be read in evidence by the plaintiff.
    
      Fisher, for the plaintiffs in error,
    now contended that this deed was not evidence, because Weymar had no title, not having had any residence on the land which he conveyed: and cited Eddie’s Lessee v. Falkner, 1 Binn. 190. Peters v. Condron, 2 Serg. & Rawle, S3. Healy v. Moul, 5 Serg. fy Rawle, 181.
    
      Ellmaker and Elder, contra,
    admitted the general principle to be that a deed is not evidence till some title or shadow of title is shown in the grantor, and contended that such was the case here: there being evidence that Weymar had cleared 15 or 16 acres, raised grain of all kinds, and built a small cabin, in which he and his wife, son, and daughter ate. This was at least some co-lour of title sufficient to introduce the deed to Weymar.
    
    
      Fisher, contra,
    referred the court to the evidence brought up by the bill of exceptions, in which it clearly .appeared by the Cross examination of the witness who stated the above facts, that Weymar never lived on the land in dispute.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghman, C. J.

This is an action of ejectment, in which Anthony Long, the defendant in error, was plaintiff in the court below. There were six bills of exceptions taken by the counsel for the defendants, on the trial of the cause, in alj of which, the court’s decision was right, except the 5th. This exception was to a deed from Mathias Weymar, and wife, to Anthony Long, for the land in dispute. The objection to this deed was, that Weymar had shown no title whatever to the land, which he undertook to convey. The rule is well established, that a deed is not evidence without some proof of title in the grantor. Any evidence of title, however small, is sufficient. But I cannot perceive- that a spark of title had been shown in Weyrriar. He had no written title whatever. The evidence was, that he had cleared and cultivated some of this land in dispute, but that alone gives no title. Residence is essential to a title by settlement; and not only was there no proof of residence, but the evidence was very clear that he had no residence. Not having shown any right then, there was nothing on which his deed could operate, and it ought not to have been admitted in evidence. I am of opinion, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

Judgment reyersed and a venire facias de novo awarded.  