¶1 In Starke v. Etheridge, 71 N. C., 245, which has been frequently cited with approval, it is held that the word “jv/rat" when written on a deed by an officer authorized to take probates, means “proved,” and in Quinnerly v. Quinnerly, 114 N. C., 147, that the presumption is that the probate is properly taken when the only indorsement on the deed is that the parties claiming under it “procured the same to be proved.”
¶2 The authorities are conclusive against the defendant, if there is any evidence that the word "jurat” was written on the deed by ah officer of the law, or if, in the absence of such evidence, the law would presume the fact to exist.
¶3 The question has arisen in several cases before this Court, and it has'been held, as we think, without exception, in the absence of evidence and when there is nothing in the form of the probate on the deed indicating that it was improperly taken, that a presumption arises from the act of the register of deeds in admitting the deed to registration that the probate was by the proper officer and regular, and that proof of that fact was before him. Strickland v. Draughan, 88 N. C., 317; Howell v. Ray, 92 N. C., 513; Cochran v. Improvement Co., 127 N. C., 389.
¶4 If the rule is ever applicable, it should be in a case like this, where the deed has been registered more than forty years.
¶5 Being of the opinion, upon these authorities, that the deed of 1859 was duly registered, upon a legal probate, and that the judgment of his Honor is in accordance with law, it is
¶6 Affirmed.