{ "id": 8654631, "name": "D. J. RICHARDS v. W. M. RITTER LUMBER COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Richards v. W. M. Ritter Lumber Co.", "decision_date": "1911-12-23", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "54", "last_page": "61", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "158 N.C. 54" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "144 N. C., 639", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661623 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/144/0639-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 N. C., 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649250 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/96/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 R. I., 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "R.I.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N. C., 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650065 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0134-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 N. C., 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "8 N. C., 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275798 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/8/0221-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 636, "char_count": 16703, "ocr_confidence": 0.457, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0978963889004972e-07, "percentile": 0.5673149283993005 }, "sha256": "9dd466d52579f843f198a0a796b0d394ee07faa938cca135a82ac88dfecda3aa", "simhash": "1:5170a85beac4fe64", "word_count": 2926 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:05.014249+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice WaleeR concurs in.this opinion." ], "parties": [ "D. J. RICHARDS v. W. M. RITTER LUMBER COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark:, c. J.\nBoth sides appealed. The plaintiff offered Grant No. 3050. This grant was duly sealed with the great seal of the State with a plat of the land attached, and is signed \u201cW. W. Holden, Governor,\u201d and on the opposite side of the sheet are the words, \u201cSecretary\u2019s Office, February 3, 1869. H. J. Menninger, Secretary of State,\u201d which bears the same date as the grant.\nThe judge rejected the deed on the ground that it was not \u201ccountersigned.\u201d In this there was error. There is no decision in the courts of this State, or in any other that we have been able to find, which authorizes this ruling. The word \u201ccountersign\u201d comes from the French \"contresigne,\u201d \u2019and the Latin \u201ccontra signm/m.\u201d Webster\u2019s International Dictionary gives this derivation and says the meaning of the verb \u201ccountersign\u201d is to \u201csign on the opposite side,\u201d and it has, secondarily, the meaning \u201cto sign in addition to the signature of another.\u201d Worcester\u2019s, the Century, and Clarkson\u2019s Standard Dictionaries all give exactly the same meaning. The Century further says that it means \u201cto superadd a signature.\u201d All four dictionaries give the meaning of the noun as follows: \u201cThe signature of a secretary or other officer to a writing, or writings, signed by the principal or superior to attest its authenticity.\u201d Words and Phrases gives the same definition.\nIt is well settled in this State that-when a signature is essential to the validity of an instrument it is not -necessary that the signature appear at the end, unless the statute uses the word \u201csubscribe.\u201d Devereux v. McMahan, 108 N. C., 134. This has always been ruled in this State in regard to wills, as to which the signature may appear anywhere. If this is true of a \u201csignature,\u201d it must also be true of the word \u201ccountersign.\u201d It has been often held that the place of signing is a matter of taste. Adams v. Field, 21 Vermont, 264; Attorney-General v. Clark, 26 R. I., 474; 9 A. and E. Enc., 143; 36 Cyc., 441.\nThe Constitution, Art. Ill, sec. 16, provides that there shall be a great seal of the State, and adds: \u201cAll grants and commissions shall be sealed with The Great Seal of the State/ signed by the Governor, and countersigned by the Secretary of State.\u201d But there is nothing in this or in any statute which changes the original meaning of the word, which is to \u201csign on the opposite side\u201d of the sheet, or its derivative meaning, which is to super-add another signature as \u201cadditional evidence of authenticity.\u201d Mr. Menninger, the then Secretary of State, evidently construed the word in- its historical sense, to sign on the opposite side of the sheet. He did this, not at random, but officially, because the words used are \u201cSecretary\u2019s Office, February 3, 1869. H. J. Menninger, Secretary of State.\u201d He also came within the derivative meaning as set out in all the dictionaries, because he thus superadded his signature as proof of the authenticity of the paper. Originally, a grant or order was signed by the King and authenticated by the great seal merely, but subsequently, especially after the advent of responsible government, \u201ccountersigning\u201d by a minister was required, and this was usually done on \u201cthe other side of the sheet,\u201d as the word signifies.\nThe original grant is filed in the record. There is no question made by any one but that it is genuine. This is shown by the great seal of State. When that appears, the signatures of the Governor and Secretary of State on an instrument, thus issued from the Secretary\u2019s office, are presumed to be genuine. They are protected by the statute against forgery and by the presumption of genuineness of the signatures upon an official document thus issued. The register of deeds of the county acts upon such instrument, without.any probate, and records it, as was done in this case. A reference to the office of the Secretary of State shows that this grant was duly entered, and that the grant was issued in payment of the sum therein recited. An instrument, unquestionably genuine and authenticated, and issued in consideration of the- money duly received by the State therefor, should not be set aside upon any controversy as to where a signature should be placed. The presumption is that the official act of the Secretary was correct, when acting on his own judgment he placed the signature on the opposite side of the sheet and when there is no statute, or decision, requiring it to be placed elsewhere.\n\u201e The defendant contends that the Word \u201ccountersign\u201d means tp sign on the opposite side of the same page. But there is no statute or decision which provides this, and the place where the defendant says the Secretary should sign is not on the opposite side of the page, but in immediate juxtaposition to the Governor\u2019s signature. It is true that there does appear printed at that place the words \u201cBy command\u201d and a blank space followed'by the words \u201cSecretary of State,\u201d but there is no statute requiring this, and all that we know is that .the words were put there by the printer. The Secretary of State himself construed the meaning of the word \u201ccountersign\u201d to be \u201cto sign on the opposite side\u201d of the sheet, and wrote his name with more formality, \u2019 \u201cSecretary\u2019s office, February 3, 1869. H. J. Menninger, Secretary of State.\u201d There is no authority anywhere for the use of the words \u201cBy command.\u201d\nThe grant being undeniably genuine, and duly issued upon payment of the consideration, authenticated by the great seal, signed by the Governor and by the Secretary of State, both officially, we cannot hold that it was not \u201ccountersigned\u201d because the place where the Secretary added his signature with the title of his office was not at the particular spot on the grant which the defendant contends for. The essential thing is the additional signature, not its location, with the evidence of the intent to authenticate, which is here shown by the use of the words which show not only that the grant was signed by \u201cthe Secretary of State,\u201d but in his office.\nThe defendant offered Grant 3083. The plaintiff objected to this grant because the grant as recorded in Macon County shows that the only indication of countersigning is as follows: \u201cBy command. H. J. Menninger, Secretary of State, per T. J. Menninger, Chief Clerk.\u201d In Beam v. Jennings, 96 N. C., 82, this very point was presented, and the Court held that the statute did not authorize the countersigning of a grant to be done by a deputy or clerk, and therefore that such grant was void. The Legislature of 1905, ch. 512, accepted that view and validated all grants thus defectively authenticated, adding \u201cthat nothing herein shall interfere with vested rights.\u201d Therefore, as to the plaintiff, this grant 3083 was void and should have been rejected.\nIt is true that Revisal, 1596, provides that \u201cAll abstracts of grants which may be filed in the office of Secretary of State, certified by him as true copies, shall be as good evidence in any court as the original.\u201d The defendant, instead of the original, offered an abstract which did not contain the defective countersigning by the chief clerk. The statute does not make the abstract any better evidence than the registration of the original (Revisal, 1598), and the inherent probability is that the words \u201cper T. J. Menninger, Chief Clerk,\u201d were copied by the register of deeds in Macon County from the grant as actually issued. It is not probable that it would have ever occurred to him, out of his own head, to transcribe those words if not in the grant. \"Whereas, the abstract might have been made in the Secretary of State\u2019s office with the careless omission of those words.- As the abstract is no better evidence under the statute than the record in Macon County, the case should go back, that the jury may find which is the better evidence.. The plaintiff may serve notice on the defendant to produce the original grant, and if found, of course it will settle the controversy, as that is the best evidence.\nOn account of these errors, there must be a new trial, and it is unnecessary to consider the other exceptions in the record.\nIn defendant\u2019s appeal, affirmed.\nIn plaintiff\u2019s appeal, new trial.\nHoke, J., concurring in the result: I concur in the disposition made of the case, being of opinion that, on the testimony, there was a sufficient countersigning of the grants in question, within the meaning of the Constitution and statutes. I am of opinion, further, that under the conditions and careful methods known to exist in the office of the Secretary of State, and of which we may, to this extent, take judicial notice (Furniture Co. v. Express Co., 144 N. C., 639), where a grant, under the seal of the State, has been attested by the Governor and countersigned in the name of the Secretary of State, per his chief clerk, and to the issuance of which no suspicion has attached, and no reason for such suspicion is suggested or shown, the same should be held a valid grant. It should be presumed that such a grant was countersigned in the presence of the Secretary of State and by his direction, and that the case of Beam v. Jennings, 96 N. C., 82, to the extent that it contravenes this q>osition, was not well decided, and should be overruled.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark:, c. J." }, { "text": "AlleN, J.\nI dissent from the opinion of the Court on the plaintiff\u2019s appeal, and concur on the defendant\u2019s appeal, but do not care to do more than note the difference in the facts, and to state, without discussion, my view of the law.\nOn the plaintiff\u2019s appeal, the question is presented of the admissibility of a paper, purporting to be a grant, which was signed by the Governor and the great seal attached, but which had no signature of any officer or clerk on the page which the Governor signed. On the back of this paper appear the words, \u201cSecretary\u2019s office, February 3, 1869. H. J. Menninger, Secretary of State,\u201d but no evidence was introduced that this in-dorsement was in the handwriting of H. J. Menninger, or that it was on the paper when it came from the office of Secretary of State.\nThe Constitution, Art. Ill, sec. 16, says: \u201cAll grants and commissions shall be issued in the name and by the authority of tbe State of North Carolina, sealed with tbe great seal of tbe State, signed by tbe Governor and countersigned by tbe Secretary of State.\u201d Tbis language was construed in 1820 in Hunter v. Williams, 8 N. C., 221, a part of it, at tbat time, being.in tbe Constitution, and a part in a legislative act, and tbe Court there says: \u201cTbe Constitution, sec. 36, declares tbat all grants shall run in tbe name of tbe State and bear test and be signed by tbe Governor. Tbe year after tbe adoption of tbe Constitution, tbe Legislature, at their November session, declares tbat tbe Secretary shall make out grants for all surveys returned to bis office, which grants shall be authenticated by tbe Governor and countersigned by tbe Secretary. Act of Assembly 1 111, cb. 1, sec. 11. Tbis is tbe only mode pointed out by tbe Legislature whereby individuals can acquire a right to tbe unappropriated lands; and if it be not pursued, no right can be acquired in any other way, sooner than if no mode at all bad been pointed out. Nothing,.therefore, passed by tbis instrument, as it is not pretended tbat Mr. Martin bad title individually.\u201d\n' When tbe Constitution says a grant shall be issued under tbe great seal, and shall be signed by tbe Governor, and countersigned by tbe Secretary of State, I think w;e may dispense with tbe seal or tbe signature of tbe Governor, if we can bold tbat it is not necessary for tbe Secretary of State to countersign.\nIf evidence of tbe bandwriting on tbe back of tbe paper bad been introduced, I do not think it would amount to more than an office entry, and it would not be countersigning j but the paper when offered at tbe trial did not come from tbe office of Secretary of State, but was produced by tbe plaintiff, and be offered no evidence of bandwriting or as to tbe time when tbe indorsement first appeared on tbe paper. So far as we can see, it may have been written after tbe paper left tbe office of Secretary of State.\nOn tbe defendant\u2019s appeal, it appears tbat tbe defendant claimed under a paper purporting to be Grant No. 3083, under tbe great seal, which was signed by tbe Governor and countersigned, \u201cH. J\". Menninger, Secretary of State, per T. Gt'. Men-ninger, Chief Clerk.\u201d The defendant also offered in evidence a certified copy, from the office of Secretary of State, of the abstract of Grant No. 3083, which was signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State. I think the paper was incompetent under the 'authority of Beam v. Jennings, 96 N. C., 83, holding that \u201cThe clerk of the Secretary of State has no power to certify to and affix the great seal of the State to copies of grants and other papers from the Secretary of State\u2019s office, to be used in evidence. The statute contemplates that this officer should do all official acts himself, and does not permit any of them to be done by a deputy,\u201d and that the certified copy was competent by virtue of section 1596 of the Ee-visal, which reads .as follows: \u201cCopies of the plats and certificates of survey, or their accompanying warrants, and all abstracts of grants, which may be filed in the office of the Secretary of State, certified by him as true copies, shall be as good evidence in any court as the original.\u201d\nI therefore conclude that the judgment ought to be affirmed on the plaintiff\u2019s appeal and reversed on the defendant\u2019s appeal.\nJustice WaleeR concurs in.this opinion.", "type": "dissent", "author": "AlleN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robertson & Benbow, J. Frank Ray, and George L. Jones for plaintiff.", "L. C. Bell for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "D. J. RICHARDS v. W. M. RITTER LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 23 December, 1911.)\n1. Words and Phrases \u2014 \u201cCountersign.\u201d\nThe verb \u201ccountersign\u201d means \u201cto sign on the opposite side\u201d or in addition to the signature of another, and the noun means \u201cthe signature of a secretary or other officer to a writing, or writings, added to that by the principal or superior to attest its authenticity.\u201d\n2. Same \u2014 Grants of Land \u2014 Secretary of State.\nWithin the intent and meaning of our Constitution, Art. Ill, sec. 16, it is not required that the Secretary of State \u201ccountersign\u201d grants of lands and commissions in any particular place or position thereon, and when a grant to the land in controversy is put in evidence by one of the parties and in all respects appears to be regular and authentic upon its face, it will not be held to be defective because the countersignature of the Secretary of State appears on the opposite side of the sheet from the signature of the Governor.\n3. Same \u2014 \u201cBy Command\u201d \u2014 Blanks Left in Grant.\nWhen a grant from the State to the land in controversy is relied on by one of the parties,'in his chain of title, and the words appear on the grant as follows, \u201cBy command,\u201d and a blank space followed by the words \u201cSecretary of State,\u201d and it further appears that the Secretary of State did not use the blank space evidently left for the purpose, but countersigned properly on the \u201copposite side\u201d from the signature of the Governor, the countersignature will be held valid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it not being required that the words \u201cBy command\u201d be used at all in this connection.\n4. Same \u2014 Evidence of Authenticity.\nA countersignature appearing to be that of the Secretary of State, on a grant for lands, as follows, \u201cSecretary\u2019s office, February 3, 1869. H. J. Menninger, Secretary of State,\u201d by the use of the words which show not only that the grant was signed by the \u201cSecretary of State,\u201d but in his office, gives evidence of the intent to authenticate, and without more, will be held valid.\n5. Grants \u2014 Countersignature\u2014Deputy\u2014Interpretation of Statutes.\nA deputy cleric of the Secretary of State is not authorized by statute to countersign, in the name of the Secretary, a grant to lands, and his attempt to do so is void; and chapter 512, Laws of 1905, validating all grants tlnis defectively authenticated does not, by its express terms, interfere with vested rights, and therefore not available to the defendants in this case.\n6. Grants \u2014 Evidence\u2014Certified\u2014Copies\u2014Registered Copies \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nCertified copies by the Secretary of State of abstract of grants filed in his office, may be used in evidence, and \u201cshall be as good evidence in any court as the original\u201d (Revisal, 1596) ; but this does not make them better evidence than the registration of the original (Revisal, sec. 1590) ; and where there is a material discrepancy, it is for the jury to find as a fact which one is correct.\nAppeal by both parties from Cline, J.,' at Spring Term, 1911, of MacoN.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of the Court by Mr. Chief Justice Ciarle.\nRobertson & Benbow, J. Frank Ray, and George L. Jones for plaintiff.\nL. C. Bell for defendant." }, "file_name": "0054-01", "first_page_order": 98, "last_page_order": 105 }