JOHN DAVIS AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,

v.

RICHARD B. MASON, LESSEE

.Mr. Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court:—

The plaintiffs here were .defendants below, to an action of ejectment, brought to recover eight thousand acres of land lying in the state of Kentucky.

The law of real estates in Kentucky, therefore, is the law.of this Court, in deciding on the rights of the parties. The plains tiffs below,-derives title under, 1st, a patent to George Mason of Gutiston, issued in 1787" — 2d, a deed of bargain and vs'ale, from s.even out of nine legal representatives of the' patentee, their brother, to George Mason of Lexington,, executed in 1794 — 3d, a codicil to the will of George Mason fts the defendants contend it.shpuld be considered, to the third -codicil. ,

, With regard to the second' exception to-the sufficiency of the proof of this codicil, it can only be necessary to resort to adjudged cases, as they, seem conclusive to this point.

There were two witnesses to this codicil, to wit, Thompson Mason and M‘Carty, M‘Carty only was sworn, and the probate upon which it was ordered to be recorded, imports, that the two' codicils were proveed by the oath of Daniel McCarty! In the case of Harper et al. vs. Wilson et al., decided in the Court of Appeals of the" state of Kentucky, in 1820, in which the right to lands was in controversy; llie probate was-in' these words, “ this will was produced in Court proved by the oath of Sarah Harper, a subscribing witness thereto, and'ordered to be recorded.” There was another subscribing-witness to tlv will, and exception tvas.taken to the sufficiency of the prapi. The language of the Court in that case Was. “ As to the proof of the-execution of the will it need only be remarked that its admission, to record, is sufficient to show that the witness' b\ whom it wáá proven in that Court, established every fact essential to its due execution; and.it is a settled; ruie, that'although more than one witness is required to subscribed will-disposing of lands, the evidence of one may be sufficient to prove it.” (2 Marhall.) The ’same doctrine.has been since fully recognised in the case, of Turner vs. Turner, (1 Litt. Rep. 103,) adjudged iii the same Court in 1822-; and the identity of the, certificate and, facts in this case with those-in the case, of Harper vs. Wilson, leaves nothing for this Court to deliberate upon.

There is spread.upon thé record, a considerable.body of-testimony, taken by-the Court by which the will had been ,pré- ' vio'usly admitted to record, andiwhich upon the, face of it, appears to have been taken in order ¡to." remove all doubt on the - sufficiency of the will, and authenticity of*thé attestations to it. Bift as it does not appear to have been followed up by any order of that Court, it was not taken into view in the bill, of exceptions, and made no part of the. evidence in the Court below. It therefore only required this remark in order to prevent any misapprehension on this point.

We are of opinion that there was no error in the judgment below and that it be affirmed with costs.