
    Henderson vs. Crwford.
    The probate of a deed was as follows, “State of Tennessee, Maury county, November term 1827, The within deed of conveyance was produced in open court, and the execution thereof duly proved by the oaths of W. B. H. Gatlin and S. M. Henderson, subscribing witnesses thereto, and ordered to be certified for registration. Held, that this was a good probato, and authorized the deed to be read to the jury.
    This was an action of ejectment, and the only question presented in this record arises on the admission of a deed from John Herndon to Abner B. Henderson and M. Henderson as evidence; the probate of which is in these words:
    “State of Tennessee, Maury county, November term 1817. The within deed of conveyance was produced in open court, and the execution thereof duly proved by the oaths of W. B. H. Gatlin and S. M. Henderson, subscribing witnesses thereto, and ordered to be certified for registration.
    Joseph B. Porter, Clerk.”
    
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The probate, it is contended, is historical, being a recital by the clerk of his recollection of wrhat was done, rather than a copy of what his minutes would show. But we hold that the endorsment contains within itself evidence of the fact, that the deed was proved in open court by the attesting witnesses; the endorsment being on the back of the deed and bearing reference to the matter it contained, is sufficiently certain. It would be better in all cases for the clerk to endorse a copy of his minutes, that there might appear no discrepency between he endorsement and the record, though we are well aware that the practice of many clerks has been to give the probate in tne form here adopted.

Judgment affirmed.  