<p>1. Appeal and Error — Review—Harmless Error — Exclusion of Juror.</p> <p>The exclusion of a juror for insufficient cause is not reversible error, if the twelve who are finally chosen to try the case are legally qualified, (p. 349).</p> <p>2. Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Attested Copy.</p> <p>An attested copy of a deed from the records of a county court clerk’s office in this state, is primary evidence, and has the same probative force, to prove title, that the original would have, if it had been introduced for that purpose, (p. 350).</p> <p>3. Same — Documentary Evidence — Parol Evidence Affecting Writings.</p> <p>If such copy purports to be signed and sealed, and contains a scroll, or pen-flourish, following the name, or the official designation, of the grantor, it will be presumed that it was placed there by the recorder to represent a scroll which had been placed on the original, as and for a seal. Parol evidence is not admissible, in the absence of any charge of forgery, to prove that such scroll, or pen-flourish, was not intended by the recorder as a copy of the original, (p. 350).</p> <p>4. Same — Documentary Evidence — Authentications—Presumption.</p> <p>A deed for land, made before the formation of this state, and recorded in the county wherein the land lies, for ten years or more before the bringing of a suit concerning the land, purporting on its face to have been made by a commissioner of delinquent and forfeited lands, under judicial proceedings in a court of Virginia, and purporting on its face to convey the title of certain persons therein, under such judicial proceedings, is, by sec. 2, ch. 76, Acts 1907, made prima facie proof of the grantor’s authority and of the actual passing to the grantee, of the title ol such persons as it purports to pass. (p. 351).</p> <p>5. Deeds — Construction—Questions of Law or Fact.</p> <p>Whether a written instrument has the effect to pass title, is a question of law for the court. It is error to submit such question to the jury for their determination, (p. 352).</p> <p>6. Tbial — 'Waiver of Objections to Reception of Evidence.</p> <p>If, in the trial of a case, improper testimony has gone to the jury over objection, and the court, before the jury retires, offers to strike it out, and the party who objected to its admission resists such offer and the court thereupon allows the evidence to remain in the case, such party will be held to have waived the error, if any, in admitting the evidence, and will not be heard to complain in this Court, (p. 353).</p> <p>7. Deeds — Construction—Description of Property — Conflicting Descriptions.</p> <p>Where two inconsistent descriptions of land are given in a deed, one describing it as being a part of a certain larger tract, and the other describing it by metes and bounds, which carries it outside of such larger tract, the latter description, being the ■ more specific one, will prevail, (p.353).</p> <p>8. Ejectment — Proceedings■—Verdict.</p> <p>If a plaintiff in ejectment sues for his entire tract of land, and proves title, and the defendant controverts his title to a part of it only, and does not disclaim as to the residue, a general verdict for the defendant is erroneous. In such case the verdict should be for the plaintiff for so much of his land, at least, as was not actually controverted by defendant, (p. 354).</p> <p>9. Adverse Possession — Operation and Effect — •Constructive Possession.</p> <p>In the absence of actual adverse possession, constructive possession follows the older and better title to the full limit of the claimant’s boundaries, (p. 355).</p> <p>10. Same — Admisión of Evidence..</p> <p>If a portion of the land, claimed under the older and better title, interlocks with a junior grant, and there has been no actual adverse possession, for the statutory period, within such interlock, it is error to admit evidence of the junior claimant’s possession within the boundaries claimed by him, outside of the interlock.</p>
