Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

29 Md. 211

Johnston v. Canby

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 24, 1868

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1868-06-24

The bill in this case filed'- by the appellants on the 17th of June, 1864, stated that the appellants, Josiah Lee Johnston and Henry E.… Held: as the only available security. He insisted that forasmuch as Ritter, before whom his mortgage was acknowledged, and the affirmation of consideration made, was a Justice of the Peace of Baltimore County, when said acknowledgment and affirmation were made ; that said acknowledgment and affirmation were as valid if made in Baltimore…

Relies on Phillips v. Pearson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-06-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2006

4 state decisions

20186818701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

Bartol, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2It is unnecessary to express any opinion in this case, upon the question of the jurisdiction and authority of George W. Ritter, the Justice of the Peace of Baltimore County, to take the acknowledgment of the mortgage from Hatch and wife to Canby, or to take the affirmation of the mortgagee to the *221truth and bona tides of the- consideration thereof, out of the limits of Baltimore County, and within the City of Baltimore.

¶3Conceding that the appellants are correct in the position taken by them, that neither the acknowledgment nor the affirmation was .made as required by the Act of 1856, ch. 154, sec. 112, we are of opinion that the mortgage is good in ^equity against the appellants for the reasons, and upon the authorities stated in the opinion of the Judge of the Superior Court. We refer also to Phillips v. Pearson, 27 Md. 242, in support of the principles upon which the decree below was passed.

¶4A decree will be signed affirming the decree of the Superior Court,. from which this appeal was taken, with costs to the appellees.' ' Decree affirmed.

/29/md/211 · .json · Public domain