Opinion
(October Term, 1796.)
Copy of deed cannot be read in evidence till plaintiff proves he cannot procure the original.
EJECTMENT. The plaintiff stated his title to have been derived under a patent to Newberry, who conveyed to Carrol and Dyer, who conveyed to the plaintiff. He offered to produce an office copy (411) of the deed from Carroll and Dyer. Mr. Williams objected to the reading of it unless the plaintiff would swear he had not the original in his possession or power.
The copy cannot be read unless the plaintiff will swear he has not the original nor can procure it.
The plaintiff was nonsuited.
See Blanton v. Miller, ante, 4.
Cited: Harper v. Hancock, 28 N.C. 127.