Skip to main content
· 5/12/1892

Converse v. Wead

Citations

  • 142 Ill. 132
  • 31 N.E. 314

Syllabus

<p>1. Burnt Records act — evidence admissible to establish title under that act. In a proceeding to establish, title under the Burnt Records •act, when the foundation is laid by the filing of a proper affidavit, the petitioner has the right to offer, and the court shall receive, as evidence, any abstract of title, or letter-press copy thereof, made in the ordinary course of business prior to the loss or destruction of the records; and it is made lawful for any such party to offer, and the ■court shall receive, as evidence, any copy, extract or minutes from such destroyed records, or from the originals thereof, at the date of such destruction or loss, in the possession of persons then engaged in the business of making abstracts of title for others for hire. Section 24 hlso provides that “a sworn copy of any writing admissible under this section, made by the person or persons having possession of such writing, shall be admissible in evidence,” etc., subject to the proviso therein named.</p> <p>2. Same — original and secondary evidence. The deeds and other instruments, and the records thereof, are the original evidence under this statute, and the abstract of title made as required by section 24 is secondary evidence. It is, however, only one kind of secondary evidence. The copies, extracts or minutes mentioned in section 24 are another kind of secondary evidence. So a party may introduce either the abstract of title or the copies, extracts or minutes, and the latter are not secondary evidence of the former. To require proof of the loss ■of the abstract of title before allowing copies, extracts or minutes to be introduced, is to require secondary evidence of secondary evidence, which is not permissible.</p> <p>3. Same — must support the allegations of the petition. A petition for establishing the title to land in the plaintiff alleged that a railroad ■company, by its trustees, who held the legal title, conveyed the prem- ■ ises to James Allen, under whom plaintiff claim

Judges: Magruder

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.