218 Neb. 625 - Christensen v. Arant

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 2018

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Boslaugh, J.,

¶1dissenting.

¶2It seems to me that the decision in this case is a triumph of form over substance.

¶3A defective acknowledgment may be cured by a reacknowledgment. See, 1 C.J.S. Acknowledgments § 115 (1936); 1 Am. Jur. 2d Acknowledgments § 110 (1962).

¶4The testimony of the defendants, under oath in open court, established that the execution of the contract was their voluntary act and deed and that they intended it to be effective as a conveyance of their property. They admitted that they were not under duress or the influence of drugs or alcohol.

¶5Their testimony was a reacknowledgment of the contract and cured any prior error or irregularity in the acknowledgment of the contract.