
    MORGAN,
    SEPTEMBER TERM, 1794.
    Steele v. Anthony.
    A grant from the State without the seal appendant, offered in evidence. Judge Wiiiiams thought that the deed was destroyed by the seal’s being torn off. But A sun Judge, was clearly of opinion, that where an interest once passed and vested in the grantee, the destruction of the deed could not affect the interest before passed by it.
    Ejectment. Plaintiff in making out his title, produced a grant from the State without the seal appendant, but it had been registered in the Register’s office. It was signed the Governor, and countersigned by the Secretary.
    It was objected by JIvertj and Henderson, that tiie seal being not appendant, the gr.ant is nullified,and therefore itcannot.be produced in evidence; in like manner, if the seal of a bond be torn off. the bond cannot be read in evidence. They cited Bull. Nisi Prius 172. ll Ilep. 28.
    
      Haywood e contra
    
    When the seal of a bond is torn off, the presumption is, that it was done in order to cancel the bond, and the existence of the debt depends upon that, of the bond ; when the bond becomes extinct in point of law, the debt is also extinct: but in cases where an interest passes and vests in the grantee by the operation of thedeed,though that deed be afterwards destroyed,that will not revest the interest thus passed. It would be of the most alarming consequence, if in every case w here a deed of bargain &sale was destroyed by tearing off the seal, the bar-gainee or grantee should lose his lands. He cited L. Evid. 107, 108. Bull. Nisi Prius 267, 268. Besides, if this paper cannot be read as the grant itself, it surely may be read as a copy or paper containing the words in which the real deed was conceived. The rule is, when a deed is lost, a registered copy, or a sworn copy, may be given in evidence; or for want of such an abstract, the contents may be given in evidence. In taking these copies however, there may be a mistake and variance from the original, but here there can be no such mistake, and therefore this paper is better than a registered copy, as being less liable to deceive ns, and therefore ’ on this ground it ought to be read.
   Judge Williams

cited 2 Bl. Com. 295. and thought that in every case .where the seal was torn off, the deed was destroyed, and inclined to be of opinion that the paper offered could notberead as the grant; butJudge^sAewaR dearly of the contrary opinion, lie said, where an interest once passed and vested in tire grantee, the destruction of the deed afterwards could not affect the interest before passed by if; and that this was not like the case of a bond, where the debt must be presumed to be extinct where the instrument which evidenced it, appeared to want one of its most essential constituents : for when the seal is torn from a bond, the conclusion oflaw is, that the bond was meant thereby to be cancelled. They agreed to reserve it as a point for further discussion, but the jury found for the Defendant upon other grounds.  