
    Charles Thompson vs. Stephen C. Watson.
    The production and proof of a mortgage deed, in the absence of all other evidence, is sufficient to maintain a writ of entry.
    Evidence that the demandant had conveyed the same premises to the tenant at the same time, and had made one mortgage thereof prior thereto, and another after the action was commenced, furnishes no defence to the action.
    Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas.
    This was a writ of entry on the dem'andant’s own seisin. On the trial the demandant produced in evidence a mortgage deed of the demanded premises, dated April-28, 1832, from the defendant to the demandant, and there rested his case. The defendant objected, that this evidence was insufficient to entitle the demandant to recover; but Whitman C. J., who presided at the trial, overruled the objection.
    The defendant then offered to prove, that the same premises were conveyed to him by the demandant by deed of the same date of the mortgage, and that the demandant had made one mortgage of the premises prior to the execution of said deeds, and another after the commencement of this suit. The Judge ruled, that this was insufficient to maintain the defence, and the verdict was returned for the demandant. To these rulings of the Judge, the defendant excepted.
    The case was submitted without argument, by Swasey, for the demandant, and by R. A. L. Codman, for the defendant.
   After a continuance, the opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Emery J.

In this suit, a writ of entry on the plaintiff’s own seisin, and disseisin by the tenant, on the general issue pleaded, the plaintiff opened and rested his case with reading a mortgage deed from the defendant to the plaintiff, dated April 28, 1832.

This was deemed by the Judge sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover; and we think the decision was right.

The offer then by the defendant to shew, that the plaintiff had before conveyed the premises to Joseph S. Thompson in fee and in mortgage by deed, Sept. 30, 1829, and another conveyance in fee and in mortgage by the plaintiff to Samuel Dennet, by deed dated March 23, 1826, previous to the conveyance of the plaintiff to the defendant on the 28th April, 1832, were insufficient to maintain the defence; and the Judge was justified in rejecting the evidence.

The defendant admitted himself in possession, and was attempting to resist the operation of his own deed.

Exceptions overruled.  