28 Barb. 421
Decided November 4, 1858
New York Supreme Court · decided 1858-11-04
<p>Where a commissioner of deeds, in a certificate of acknowledgment, certifies to a material requisite to the validity of a certificate, and without which he could not legally take an acknowledgment, viz: that he knows the parties by whom the instrument purports to have been executed—which statement is untrue—such certificate is a nullity, both in respect to the recording of the instrument, and as proof of the execution thereof.</p> <p>As between the parties, however, the instrument would be valid, without any certificate of acknowledgment, upon proof that it was executed and delivered by the grantors.</p> <p>The court will not interfere with the finding of a referee, upon a question of fact, as to which there is conflicting testimony; unless the clear weight of evidence shows that he has erred.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1858-11-04
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1945
5 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.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1I concur, on the ground that it is expedient not to disturb the finding on facts deduced from a conflict of testimony; but I doubt, if the case were before me as a single *426judge without a jury, whether I should have come to the same conclusions as the referee."
¶2Dames, Gierke and Ingram ham, Justices.]
¶3Judgment modified.