
    Lessee of James against Betz.
    Sunbury, Saturday, July 8.
    A patent is prima facie evidence of title, and of survey. Binnoy , Si 12 136 558,
    IN ERROR.
    ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county.
    Upon the trial of this cause, the plaintiff having given in evidence a patent from the land office, and also a diagram to illustrate the recital of courses and distances in the patent, offered a witness to prove that the diagram was accurate, and corresponded as well with the patent as with the lines on the ground. But it was objected that the return of survey under the seal of office, being the best evidence, ought to have been produced, and the lines on the ground shewn to correspond with the official survey returned into office. The Court accordingly sustained the objection, on the general principle, that the best evidence ought to be produced.
    The plaintiff then offered a witness to prove that the lines on the ground corresponded with the courses and distances recited in the patent, and that the defendant lived within those lines. But the Court refused to admit the possession of the defendant to be thus proved, because the official return of survey was the best evidence, and might be had; because the recital in the patent was only a copy of that return, and an imperfect copy, as it did not contain the diagram; and because the official copy was the only evidence to prove the survey made by an authorized deputy surveyor. The plaintiff of course took a bill of exceptions.
    
      
      Hall, for the plaintiff in error,
    argued that the patent was the best evidence of the survey, and in that light had been uniformly admitted, being an acceptance and confirmation of •the survey by the owner of the soil; that the want of a diagram in the patent was of no importance, because in fact a diagram or draft could be, and could only be, made out from the written courses and distances in the patent; and that, instead of the official copy of the survey being the only evidence to prove the survey made by an authorized surveyor, the patent was not only prima facie evidence of that fact, but also that such deputy surveyor had acted therein lawfully and properly.
    
      D. Smith, for the defendant in error,
    was proceeding to-argue, that the patent was not the best evidence of the survey, when the Court intimated to him that it had been considered as settled, that a patent was prima facie evidence of title and of survey. He therefore relinquished the argument, and
   Per Curiam

unanimously,

Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.  