
    Currie et al. v. Ulmer.
    [76 south. 877,
    Division B]
    Evidence. Documentary evidence. Certified copies. Admissalility.
    
    Und-- sections 1956 and 1974, Code 1906, providing that the record of any writing permitted to be recorded, or a copy thereof, when certified hy the clerk, shall he received in evidence without accounting for the original, hut if the execution he disputed, the original shall he produced, or its absence accounted for, before the certified copy shall he received in evidence, and that in suits founded on any written instrument it shall not he necessary to prove the signature or execution thereof, unless the ■ same he specifically denied by verified pleas, where complainants denied under oath the execution of the deed under which defendant claimed it was improper to admit over complainant’s objection a certified copy in evidence without any foundation therefor being laid.
    Appeal from the chancery court of Jasper coimty.
    Hon. Gr. C. Tann, Chancellor.
    Bill by C. Currie and others against H. Ulmer. From a decree dismissing complainant’s bill, he appeals.
    The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
   Cook, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The complainants filed in the chancery court of Jasper . county their bill of complaint, praying for the partition of certain lands described in the bill of complaint. The bill alleged that complainants were the sole surviving heirs at law of Demaris Ulmer, deceased, who died intestate, and who was the owner of the lands described when she died. Appellee answered the bill, and alleged that he was the owner of the land; the deceased having deeded same to him before her death. To this answer, appellants replied, denying under oath the execution of the deed by Demaris Ulmer.

The evidence offered by complainants supported the allegations of their bill. Defendant offered no evidence, except what purported to be a certified copy of the deed in question. At the close of complainant’s case, the record shows, defendant’s counsel pulled the certified copy from his' pocket and offered it in evidence. Complainants objected to the introduction of the certified copy of the deed, and the court overruled the objection, and followed with a decree dismissing the bill. This was manifest error. See sections 1956 and 1974, Code of 1906.

Reversed and remanded.  