
    Lucinda Forrest v. Levi Trammell.
    Columbia,
    May, 1828
    The demandant in dower need not make out a regular chain ¡Tí^ftS&anJmí husband. It is sufficient for her to shew that he had been in possession during the coverture; and it is then incumbent on the defendant to prove a paramount title in himself. The declarations of the husband may be given in evidence, to shew the extent of his possession; and copies from the Register’s books, of certain deeds, under which'the husband claimed, are admisible for the same purpose, without proof of their execution.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gaillarb, at Greenville, Spring Term, 1828.
    This was an application for dower, on which an issue had been made up, upon the seisin of the husband. The demandant proved, that the husband had been in possession of, and cultivated a small portion of the land. She then offered to prove that he claimed the whole tract by purchase from one Nicol; and proposed to give in evidence, copies from the Register’s books, of two deeds, by which Nicol had conveyed to the husband, certain tracts of land, said to be that now in dispute. The defendant objected to this evidence, that'copies of the deeds could not he admitted, without proof that the originals had been duly executed, more especially as the persons mentioned in the copies as the subscribing witnesses, were residents in the district, and might readily be produced; and that the declarations of the de-mandant’s husband, were not admissible under any circumstances. His Honor, the presiding Judge, held, that possesion in the husband having been proved, his declarations were admissible to shew the extent of that possession; that copies of the deeds were admissible for the same purpose, and it was unneces- . , sary to prove their execution, because they were introduced, not to make title, but to shew the extent of the husband’s possession, for which purpose their validity was unimportant, it being necessary onlj» tp shew that the husband claimed under them: He, therefore, overruled the objection, and the evidence was introduced.
    Here the evidence for the demandant closed, and the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was refused. The defendant declined going into evidence of his own title. His Honor charged the jury that the demandant had made out a case, which intitled her to a verdict: That it was not necessary in her to prove title in her husband, for she was not intitled by law to the custody of his muniments, and the law did not exact from lier, that which it was not lawfully in her power to perform: That it was sufficient for her to shew that her husband had been in possession, which raised a presumption of title in him; a presumption, which it was fully in the defendant’s power to rebut, if it was, in fact, unfounded ; and that he could not, by folding his arms, and declining to produce his title, exonerate his laqd from the demand-ant’s right of dower, which was a right favoured in law. He further charged, that the only question for the jury, was as to the husband’s possession; and that this possession was not to be measured in its extent by the quantity of land in cultivation or actual occupancy, if the jury were satisfied from the evidence, that it was accompanied by a claim bona fide, to the whole.
    The jury found for the demandant, that the whole of the land was subject to her dower.
    The defendant gave notice of appeal, and now in the Court of Appeals renewed his motion for a nonsuit, on the ground, that proof of mere possession was not sufficient to raise the presumption of title in the husband, and intitle the demandant to dower. And if this motion failed, then he moved for a new trial, on the grounds—
    1st. That tlic declarations of the demandant’s husband, had been improperly admitted.
    
      2d. That copies of the deeds from Nicol ought not to have been received, without proof of the cxecutionTjf the originals.
    3d. That under any circumstances, in the absence of all proof of title in the husband, either by regular chain of title, or possession under the act of limitations, the demandant’s right of dower ought to have been confined to the portion of the land in the actual occupancy of the husband.
    Thompson, for the motion.
   Nott, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court concurs in opinion with the presiding Judge in this case. The question is settled in Smith v. Paysenger. 2 Mill, 59.

Motion refused.  