
    Lessee of Joseph Simon against William Brown, esq.
    A deed from the commissioners for lands sold for non-payment of taxes under their common seal, is no evidence of title.
    A deed recorded without a proper probate, is no evidence of notice to subsequent purchasers.
    Ejectment for 314 acres and allowance in Potter’s township.
    The defendant in the course of the trial offered in evidence a deed from the commissioners of Northumberland county, under their common seal, dated 8th October 1788, to John Thorn-burgh, in consideration of 13I. 10s., the same having been sold for state and county taxes for 1785 and 1786, and by Thorn-burgh assigned to Henry Drinker, on the 28th April 1795, in consideration of sol.
    Cited in 17 S. & R. 70 to show that a deed without a proper probate or acknowledgment was notice of nothing. Cited for the same purpose in 2 Watts 77; 1 Watts 479; 5 Pa. 149.
    *But the court refused the same, and said that such ^ „ deeds were mere nullities, and had been overruled more f ' than once. If the object was to prove that these taxes had been assessed on the land, and thus paid by those under whom the defendant claimed, in order to raise an equity, those facts were capable of better proof by the duplicates and the treasurer’s books.
    The defendant claimed under an application entered in the name of Robert Semple, assigned to William Plunket on the 3d May 1782. The plaintiff claimed under the same application assigned to Joseph Simon on the 18th January 1769. To shew a constructive notice to the defendant of this previous assignment to Simon, the certificate of its being recorded on the 26th March 1789, was offered in evidence. The probate on which it was recorded, was the affidavit of Solomon Etting, before James Maxwell, president of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county, that Semple had acknowledged the assignment to be his, and desired it might be recorded; and that John M‘Knight, Rebecca M‘Nickel and John Chapman,were the subscribing witnesses thereto.
    Mr. Hamilton, pro quer. Mr. Duncan, pro def.
    
   The court said, that the affidavit was illegal and informal, and did not authorize the recording of the transfer. It was no evidence whatever of notice to the defendant, and could not be received. See 3 Cranch 155.

Verdict for the plaintiff.  