Brummel v. Glos

<p>1. Registration of title—party introducing abstract of title in evidence must prove maker was reputed to be an abstracter at time abstract was made. Section 18 of the act concerning land titles requires that the party introducing an abstract of title in evidence before the examiner must prove that the signature “is” genuine and that the maker “was” reputed to have been engaged in the abstract business at the date shown on the abstract, and evidence in regard to such reputation at the time of hearing is not competent.</p> <p>2. Same—genuineness of original abstract must be established before copy can be introduced. Section 18 of the act concerning land titles makes the statement of the maker of the copy of an abstract of title prima facie evidence of the correctness of the copy, only, and does not make it proof of the genuineness of the original abstract or of the business of the maker at time the abstract was made, and it is essential, before the copy can be introduced in evidence, to establish the existence and genuineness of the original.</p> <p>3. Same—what sufficient evidence that premises were occupied when application zvas filed. In a proceeding to register title, testimony of a surveyor that he surveyed the property a few weeks before the application was filed and found it occupied with several sheds, a fence and a one-story building, and of another witness that he examined the premises a few weeks after the application was filed, knew who resided on the adjoining lot and that such resident occupied some of the sheds on the premises in question, is sufficient to show that the premises were occupied by such person at the time the application, which alleged occupancy by such person as a tenant at will, was filed.</p>