
    Shrider’s Lessee v. Morgan.
    
      Title m ejectment. — Sheriffs deed.
    
    Tho plaintiff, in the first instance, need not show title further back than the person who last died seised, first showing title out of the commonwealth.
    The registering of a sheri ’r 3 deed in the prothonotary’s office, is a sufficient recording, within the statute.
   In this cause,

McKean, C. J.,

said, that he had ruled it in a case at Lancaster, that the lessor of the plaintiff shall not be obliged to show his title further back, than from the person who last died seised, first showing the estate to be out of the proprietaries, or the commonwealth,

It was objected to by Lewis and Glymer, that a sheriff’s deed of sale of lands, under a writ of venditioni exponas, not being recorded in the Rolls Office, according to the act of assembly of 1774, could not be read in evidence. Bed non allocatur: Because it was acknowledged *in court, pg9 and the registering of it in the prothonotary’s office (as is always *- done) is a sufficient recording within the act.

Sergeant and Lngersoll opposed the reading a deed in evidence, upon this ground : that by the act of assembly, last mentioned, all deeds not recorded in the Rolls Office, accordingto the particular directions of that act, are declared void as against subsequent purchasers ; and, therefore, though this deed was dated before the sheriff’s deed, under which the defendant claimed, yet as it was not recorded until afterwards, they insisted, it was void, and could be no evidence at all. Bed non allocatur: And McKean, C. J., said, we cannot hinder the reading of a deed, under seal, but what use will be made of it, is another thing ; and he cited the case of Ford v. Lord Gray, 6 Mod 44. 
      
       In ejectment against any other than the proprietary, or one claiming under him, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to show the estate to be out of the proprietary, if a right of entry is proved. Hylton v. Brown, 1 W. C. C. 204. Allen v. Lyons, 2 Id. 475. And it is not necessary to show title out of the commonwealth, where both plaintiff and defendant derive title from the same person. Patton v. Goldsborough, 9 S. & R. 47. And see Riddle v. Murphey, 7 S. & R. 230; Miller v. Wilson, 2 Yeates 294.
     
      
       This decision was recognised by Yeates, J., in McCormick v. Mason, 1 S. & R. 96.
     
      
       Dill’s Lessee v. Dill, ante, p. 63.
     
      
      
         See the note to McDill v. McDill ante, p. 63,
     
      
      
        ) 1 Sm. Laws, 94, 422.
     