
    Rogers vs. Lessees of Rebecca Park et al.
    
    1. An attorney is an officer of the court, and when he institutes a suit the presumption is that he is duly authorized to do so; and therefore a power of attorney not authenticated, a letter, or any parol evidence which raises a reasonable presumption of the existence of authority, is sufficient.
    2. The plaintiffs claim as heirs of Benjamin Steadman; they proved that they are the heirs of Sarah Steadman, and that Sarah was the daughter of Benjamin. There is nothing which casts any doubt on the legitimacy of Sarah nor any proof that Ben* jamin Steadman was ever manned. Held, that the marriage of Benjamin Steadman and the heirship of the plaintiffs was sufficiently established; Benjamin having been long dead, and the controversy not being between persons claiming under conflicting* claims of heirship.
    3. The case of Gardner fy Mosely vs. Brown, 1 Hump. 354, approved.
    ■ Ejectment for 3840 acres of land in Obion county, by S. Spellings and Mary Parks against Rogers.
    The defendant, upon affidavit filed, moved that the attorney prosecuting the suit be requested to exhibit his authority for so doing. This motion prevailed, and an order in conformity therewith was made; and that if the authority should not be produced, that the suit should be dismissed. Thereupon, the attorney, William Fitzgerald, produced powers of attorney purporting to have been executed by E. Spellings and Mary Parks to W. Fitzgerald, authorizing him to prosecute an action of ejectment for the land in controversy. These powers of attorney were not authenticated, as the law directs, to render them admissible as evidence, and were objected to by the defendant, but the court overruled the objection and discharged the-motion.
    The cause came on for trial at the June term, 1843, in the Circuit Gourt of Dyer, (the cause having been' transferred to that county,) Harris, Judge, presiding.
    The plaintiffs introduced a grant from the State of North Carolina to Benjamin Steadman, and claimed the land as the heirs at law of said Steadman, who had been a soldier of the revolution, and. died not long thereafter, the precise time not appearing. ■* He left one child only, to wit, Mary Steadman.
    It did not appear, from the proof, that B. Steadman was ever married or was not, and there was no proof casting a shade of suspicion on the legitimacy of Sarah.
    The plaintiffs Were the heirs at law of said Sarah.
    The defendant introduced records of the condemnation and sale of the land in controversy for the taxes for two several years and deeds by the sheriff for the same, the one to Hamilton and the other to Rogers, the defendant.
    The jury, under the charge of the court, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. A motion for a new trial being made and overruled, and judgment rendered, the defendant appealed.
    Totten, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Fitzgerald, for the defendant in error.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action of ejectment, in which there was judgment for the lessee of the plaintiff in the court below, which is sought to be reversed here upon three grounds.

1st. That there is no sufficient evidence of authority in the attorney of the plaintiff to commence and prosecute the suit. A rule was made upon the attorney in the Circuit Court to produce his authority; in compliance with which he produced powers of attorney from Elizabeth Spellings and Rebecca Park, the lessors, authorizing him to prosecute the suit. The execution of these powers was proved in the State of North Carolina; that from Rebecca Parks in the Superior Court of Law for that State, at the October term, 1842, before M. E. Manly, one of the presiding Judges of that court, by the subscribing witness, which fact is certified by him and by the clerk, who also certifies that Manly was a judge of that court. That from Elizabeth Spellings was proved by the subscribing witness at the spring term, 1843, of the same court, and certified in the same manner as that from Rebecca Parks. These certificates of probate, it is contended, are not legally authenticated, and that therefore the powers of attorney were not competent evidence under the rule and in discharge thereof. We think they were properly received by the Circuit Judge. A power of attorney authorizing the commencement or prosecution of a suit, need not be proved with the formalities required when'it is sought to be used as a muniment of title. The attorney is an officer of the court, responsible to it for a proper and faithful discharge of his duties; and although when required he must produce satisfactory evidence of his authority to prosecute a suit, yet the presumption is not against, but in favor of his authority; and therefore it has never in this State been required that he should produce a power of attorney authenticated by the forms of law: in fact, a power of attorney in form has not been required at all: any written communication by letter or otherwise, giving the authority or recognizing it, has been held to be sufficient, as would any parol proof of the same fact, as all the court asks, in addition to the attorney’s official responsibility, is such proof as will raise a reasonable presumption of the existence of the authority: such we think these powers of attorney, authenticated as they are, to be.

2d. It is, contended, that there is no legal proof that the lessors of the plaintiff are the heirs at law of Benjamin Steadman, the grantee of the premises in dispute, in which character they claim. The lessors trace their descent by clear and legal proof from Sarah Steadman, who is proved to have been the daughter of Benjamin Steadman, the grantee; but there is no proof that Benjamin Steadman was ever married, as there is also none tending in the slightest degree to attach to Sarah the charge of illegitimacy. The proof shows, that Benjamin Stead-man was a soldier of the revolution, and has been dead a great many years. This, together with the probability arising from the unsettled state of the country, before and during the revolution, that there may be no record evidence of his marriage, would render it exceedingly difficult to produce direct proof of it. This, indeed, is not required in any case, when the marriage is of as long standing as this; but the same may be established by reputation; and although the proof being unskilfully taken, does not directly establish a reputation of marriage; yet it does the paternity of Sarah Steadman, which in the absence of any suspicion of illegitimacy under the circumstances, we hold to be sufficient, and the more especially as this question arises incidentally, the controversy not being between persons claiming under conflicting rights of heirship.

3d. The defendant attempts to protect his possession by showing an outstanding title in John C. Hamilton as a purchaser under a tax sale, and also a title in himself as purchaser under a tax sale. Records in support of both these are produced, which upon examination are found to be so defective as to pass no right under the decisions of this State. We do not deem it necessary to enter into an investigation of the questions arising out of them, as they have been again and again adjudicated. The same objections exist to the records of both these sales that existed to that in the case of Gardner & Mosely vs. Brown, 1 Hump. Rep. 354, in which it was held, after mature and deliberate examination, that the sale was void. To that case we refer, as having settled every thing upon this point in the case under consideration.

Judgment affirmed.  