terms of a written instrument does not apply where the possession of that instrument has been obtained by fraud. Gillett v. Knowles, 108 Mich. 602 (66 N. W. Rep. 497). Where a deed does not undertake to give a specific description of the boundaries of a lot conveyed by number, parol evidence to identify the lot by showing the boundaries by which it was purchased and conveyed, is admissible. Diggs v. Kurtz, 132 Mo. 250 (33 S. W. Rep. 815; 53 Am. St. Rep. 488). Upon the trial of an issue to correct the records of a judicial tribunal on account of inadvertence and mistake therein, pertinent parol testimony may be received. Gill v. Pelkey, 54 0. St. 348 (43 N. E. Rep. 991). Where absolute conveyances are executed between persons having undivided interests in the parcels of realty conveyed, parol evidence is not admissible whether they are to convey title or merely sever possession. Smith v. McClain, 146 Ind. 77 (45 N. E. Rep. 41). Parol evidence may be admitted to explain a latent ambiguity, but not one patent upon the face of the contract. Smith v. Blake, 88 Me. 241 (33 Atl. Rep. 992). For cases depending upon particular facts illustrating the rules permitting parol evidence to create or destroy title, see Shreveport Rod and Gun Club v. Board of Com'rs, 48 La. 1081 (20 So. Rep. 293). Upon the question as to the location of a highway as a boundary, the recollection of witnesses as to where the way was traveled in former times will not be heard to contradict the record establishing the way. Hoffman v. Port Huron, 110 Mich. 616 (68 N. W. Rep. 546). Sec. 307. Declarations affecting realty interests. Declarations by a donor in favor of his donee's title made subsequent to the gift are admissible to support the donee's title, but a donor's subsequent declarations in his own favor are not admissible to disprove the gift. Ogden v. Dodge Co., 97 Ga. 461 (25 S. E. Rep. 321). It is held that "the principle that declarations of one shown to be at the time in actual possession of the property, asserting title of ownership in himself, are admissible as res gesta, does not extend to declarations as to the source of his title, or the manner in which he acquired the property." Mc Cleod v. Bishop, 110 Ala. 640 (20 So. Rep. 130). After the consummation of a transfer of land the grantor becomes a stranger to the title and his acts and declarations are no longer binding upon the grantee and cannot be received to impeach the character of the conveyance as being fraudulent. Neuffer v. Moehn, 96 Ia. 781 (65 N. W. Rep. 334). The oral declarations of a party to a written instrument, made before or at the time of its execution, of an intention or purpose not therein expressed, or different from that to be derived from its terms, are not within the rule which permits extrinsic evidence of the situation of the parties and of the surrounding circumstances when the instrument was executed, and are in admissible in an action on the instrument where its reformation is not sought. Tuttle v. Burgett's Adm'r, 53 O. St 498 (42 N. E. Rep. 427; 53 Am. St. Rep. 649; 30 L. R. A. 214). Declarations of one in possession of real estate, show ng the character of his possession and title, cannot be given in evidence to sustain or destroy the record title. Smith v. McClain, 146 Ind. 77 (45 N. E. Rep. 41). Citing, Steeple v. Downing, 60 Ind. 478, and authorities cited on page 503; Gibney v. Marchay, 34 N. Y. 301; Jackson v. Miller, 6 Cow. 751; Jackson v. Mc Vey, 15 Johns. 234. The declarations of a deceased former owner of land as to boundaries are ometimes held admissible when made before the controversy arose and at a time when such persons are shown to have had knowledge but no interest. Martyn v. Curtis, 68 Vt 397 (35 Atl. Rep. 333). Sec. 30 Admissibility of opinions-Proof of values. The question of damages in an appropriation proceeding is for the consideration of the jury and is not to be determined by expert testimony as to the amount of injury. Union Ele. Co. v. Kansas City Sub. Belt Ry. Co., 135 Mo. 353 (33 S.W. Rep. 926); Union Elevator Co. v. Kansas City Sub. B. Ry. Co., 135 Mo. 353 (36 S. W. Rep. 1071). Evidence as to amount of damage to land by ditch in present condition, incompetent. Old v. Keener, 22 Colo. 6 (43 Pac. Rep. 127). A clerk in a real estate office may be competent to express an opinion as to the value of land. Teele v. City of Boston, 165 Mass. 88 (42 N. E. Rep. 506). As to what constitutes one an expert in matters of value, see Lewis v. Springfield Water Co., 176 Pa. St. 230 (35 Atl. Rep. 186). In order that the opinion as to value may be received as expert evidence, the witness must have a special knowledge of values in the vicinity of the land in controversy. Struthers v. Philadelphia & D. C. R. Co., 174 Pa. St. 291 (34 Atl. Rep. 443). In determining the value of an heir's undivided interest in the fee of land set apart to the widow for life, evidence of the value of the whole tract and of the value of the land outside of the portion assigned to the widow for life is admissible. Clemons v. Clemons, 68 Vt. 77 (34 Atl. Rep. 31). For cases which depend upon particular facts and which illustrate the admissibility of evidence in proof of values, see Teele v. City of Boston, 165 Mass. 88 (42 N. E. Rep. 506). Sec. 309. Documents and records-What admissible. A statement of facts admitted by both parties in open court, and upon which a trial is had, where not expressly limited to the purposes of that trial, are admissible as evidence in a subsequent trial of the same cause, even though not signed by either the parties nor their attorneys. Prestwood v. Watson, 111 Ala. 604 (20 So. Rep. 600). The order of court, recognizing plaintiffs as heirs of the deceased, and plac. ing them in possession of his property, is not evidence of his title in a suit by the heirs asserting the ownership of their ancestor, brought against the party claiming title. Chamberlain v. City of New Orleans, 48 La. 1055 (20 So. Rep. 169). In an action to quiet title by one claiming under a Mexican land grant, the patent from the government to the grantees in such Mexican grant and the various mesne conveyances through which plaintiff obtains title, are admissible in evidence. Colorado Fuel Co. v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 22 Colo. 71 (43 Pac. Rep. 556). It is held that ancient maps and plans may be admissible upon the same ground of ancient deeds when they relate to an actual transaction. Whitman v. Shaw, 166 Mass. 451 (44 N. E. Rep. 333). The Michigan statute, How. Ann. Stat., § 616, provides that the certificate of the county surveyor of any survey made by him shall be presumptive evidence of the facts therein stated. Under this statute it is held that when other surveys have been made by competent surveyors and are introduced in evidence they are of equal binding force with that of the county surveyor. Van Der Groef v. Jones, 108 Mich. 65 (65 N. W. Rep. 602). It is presumed that the records of a court are regular and true and that its officers perform their duties in the proper manner. Ayers v. Roper, 111 Ala. 651 (20 So. Rep. 460). Sec. 310. Documents-Authenticity-Exemplification. In order that a will may be introduced in evidence as a muniment of title, its probate must be shown. Inge v. Johnston, 110 Ala. 650 (20 So. Rep. 757). An administrator's deed and the record of the proceedings leading up to its execution which shows that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and all interested parties, should not be refused admission in evidence to support the title of one claiming under it on account of subsequent irregularities in the proceedings. Zillmer v. Gerichten, 111 Cal. 73 (43 Pac. Rep. 408). In order that the record of a survey may be admissible in evidence, it must appear that the survey was made according to the statutes governing surveys. Van Der Groef v. Jones, 108 Mich. 65 (65 N. W. Rep. 602). Where an acknowledgment before the proper officer is a prerequisite to the recording of an instrument and the same is recorded without such acknowledgment, a certified copy of the record is not admissible in evidence even as proof of the contents of the original instrument, it being lost, unless such certified copy be shown by other evidence to be a true copy. Starnes v. Allen, Ind. (45 N. E. Rep. 330). The exemplification of the record of a patent, recorded in the general land office, under the hand and seal of the commissioner thereof, is evidence in the courts of Florida of the facts recited therein. Ropes v. Kemps, 38 Fla. 233 (20 So. Rep. 992). Where the issue is the forgery of a deed, it is not necessary to call or account for the subscribing witnesses, even though the deed upon its face purports to be an ancient document. Goza v. Browning, 96 Ga. 421 (23 S. E. Rep. 842). Particular facts reviewed and held insufficient to establish the fact that a deed had been executed. Nessley v. Ladd, 29 Ore. 354 (45 Pac. Rep. 904). Sec. 311. Non-existence of an instrument of record. A witness who is not the keeper of the record is competent to testify that he has examined such records and that no deeds of 1 Johnston, 95 Ga. "Official charac a given import appear thereon. Hincs v. Sec. 312. Proof of title. One who claims title under a probate sale must be prepared to prove the facts giving the court jurisdiction to order the sale. Dorrance v. Raynsford, 67 Conn. 1 (34 Atl. Rep.706; 52 Am. St. Rep. 266). The court say: "It is a general principle that the party who sets up a title must furnish the evidence necessary to support it. If the validity of a deed depends on an act in pais, the party claiming under that deed is as much bound to prove the performance of the act as he would be bound to prove any matter of record on which its validity might depend. It forms a part of his title. It is a link in the chain which is essential to its continuity, and which is incumbent on him to preserve. These facts should be examined by him before he became a purchaser, and the evidence of them should be preserved as a necessary muniment of title.' Williams v. Peyton's Lessees, 4 Wheat. 79 (Marshall, C. J.); Ranson v. Williams, 2 Wall. 313, 319; Early v. Doc, 16 How. 610; Mason v. Fearson, 9 How. 248; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119, 125; Beckman v. Bingham, 5 N. Y. 366; Insurance Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 238; Whart. Ev., §§ 176, 923." The bare statement of a witness that title "passed" from one person |