Acknowledgment

The act of one who has executed a deed, in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. The acknowledgment is certified by the officer The function of an acknowledgment Is two-fold: to authorize the deed to be given in evidence without further proof of its execution, and to entitle it to be recorded. The same purposes may be accomplished by a subscribing witness going before the officer or court and making oath to the fact of the execution, which is certified in the same manner; but in some states this is only permitted in case of the death, absence, or refusal of the grantor. In. the states a deed is void except as between the parties and their privies, unless acknowledged or proved. Nature of. In some states the act is held to be a judicial or quasi-judu-ial one; Wasson v. Connor, 54 Mis. 351; Harmon t. Magee, 57 Miss. 410; Grider v. Mortgage Co., 99 Ala. 281, 12 South. 775, 42 Am. St. Rep. 5S (changing the rule of earlier cases); Thompson v. Mortgage Security Co., 110 Ala. 400, 18 South. 315, 55 Am. St. Rep. 29; Heilman v. Kroh, 155 Pa. 1, 25 Atl. 751; Murrell v. Diggs, 84 Va. 900, 6 S. E. 461, 10 Am. St Rep. 893; while in others it is held to be a ministerial act; Lynch v. Livingston, 6 N. Y. 422; Loree v. Abner, 57 Fed. 159, 6 C. C. A. 302; Ford v. Osborne, 45 Ohio St 1, 12 N. E. 526; Learned v. Riley, 14 Allen (Mass.) 109. Who may take. An officer related to the parties; Lynch v. Livingston, 6 N. Y. 422; Remington Paper Co. v. O'Dougherty, SI N. Y. 474. The presumption is that the officer took it within his jurisdiction; Morrison v. White, 16 La. Ann. 100; Rackleff v. Norton, 19 Me. 274; Bradley v. West, 60 Mo and that it was duly executed; Albany County Savings Bank v. Mc Carty, 71 Hun 227, 24 N. Y. Supp. 991. In some states a notary cannot take acknowledgment in another county than the one within which he was appointed and resides; Utica & Black River R. Co. v. Stewart, 33 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 312; Rehkoph v. Miller, 59 111. App. 662; nor the attorney of record; Gilmore v. Hempstead, 4 How. Pr. (X. Y.) 153; Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. (X. Y.) 91; Hucrhes v. Wilkinson's Lessee. 37 Miss. 482; Hedger v. Ward, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 106; nor if his term has expired; Gilbraith v. Gallivan, 78 Mo. 452; Carlisle v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 542. In Pennsylvania, by statute, a notary may act anywhere within the state; Acts, 1893, p.

323.

Taking an acknowledgment is not public business such as may not be transacted on a legal holiday: Slater v. Schack, 41 Minn. 2G9.

43 N. W. 7.

One cannot take an acknowledgment of a deed in which he has any interest; Beamau v. Whitney, 20 Mo. 413; Groesbeck v. Seeley, 13 Mich. 329; Wasson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Brown v. Moore, 38 Tex. 645; Withers v. Baird, 7 Watts (Pa.) 227, 32 Am. Dec. 754.

Contra, Davis v. Beazley, 75 Va. 491: Dail v. Moore, 51 Mo. 589; West v. Krebaum, SS 111.

263; Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420. of acknowledgment and the lueniity of the parties are the essential parts, and must be stated; Bryan v. Ramirez, 8 OaL 461, 68 Am. Dec. 340; Morse v. Clayton, 13 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 373; Alexander v Merry, <J Mo, 514. The general rule applied in cases of grammatical or clerical 'errors is that the courts will disregard obvious mistakes, and read into the acknowledgment the proper won1. If such word can he easily ascertained; Merritt v. Yates, 71 111.

636, 23 Am. Rep. 128; Cairo & St. L. K. Co. v. Parrott, 02 111. 194; Durst v. Daugherty, 81 Tex. 650, 17 s. w.

388; Mc- Oardla v. Hillings, 10 N. D. 373, 87 N. W. 1008, 88 Am. St. Rep. 720; Frostburg Mut. Bldg. Ass'n v. Brace, 51 Md. 50S; Hug! Wright, 100 Tex. 511, 101 S. W. 789, 11 L. R. A. (X. S.) 643, 123 Am. St. Rep. 827; but it is held that important words omitted cannot be supplied by intendment; Jackway v. Gault, 20 Ark. 190, 73 Am. Dec. 494; Hayden v. Westcott, 11 Conn. 129; Newman v. Samuels, 17 la.

52S; Wetmore v. Laird, 5 Biss. 160, Fed. Cas. No. 17,467.

In the following cases it was held that the statute must be strictly complied with; Buell v. Irwin, 24 Mich. 145; Rogers v. Adams, 66 Ala. GOO; Myers v. Boyd, 96 Pa. 427; Wetmore v. Laird, 5 Biss. 160, Fed. Cas. No. 17,467; Tully v. Davis, 30 111.

103, 83 Am. Dec. 170: Ridgely v. Howard, 3 H. & McK. (Md.) 321.

Where a notary takes the acknowledgment and attaches his seal, but fails to sign his name, it is not sufficient; Clark v. Wilson, 127 111.

420, 19 N. E. 800. 11 Am. St. Hop. ! 13.

Effect of. Only purchasers for value can take advantage of defects; Mastin v. Halley, 61 Mo. 196. An acknowledged deed is evidence of seizin in the grantee, and authorizes recording it; Kellogg v. Loomis, 16 Gray (Mass.) 48. An unacknowledged deed is good between the parties and subsequent purchasers with actual notice; Gray v. Ulrich, 8 Kan. 112; Kellogg v. Loomis, 16 Gray (Mass.) 48; Stevens v. Hampton, 40 Mo. 404; Bishop v. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472, 2 Am. Rep. 533; Ryan v. Carr. 40 Mo. 483. The certificate will prevail over the unsupported denial of the grantor; Lickmon v. Harding, 65 111.

505.

Identification of Grantor. An introduction by a common friend is sufficient to justify officer in making certificate; Carpenter v. Dexter, S Wall. (U. S.) 513, 19 L. Ed. 126.

Contra, Jones v. Bach, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 568T Nippel v. Hammond, 4 Col. 211.

See Acquainted. A notary imposed upon by a personation is liable only for clear negligence. It is a legal presumption that he acted on reasonable information, and his absence of memory as to details of what occurred does not destroy that presumption; Com. v. Haines, The certificate is not invalidated by wau* of recollection of the officer; looker v. Sloan, 30 N. J. Eq. 394; nor by □ or omission of, the date; Huxley v. Har 62 Mo. 510; Kelly v. I k, 45 Md We Wb v. Buff, 'W Tex. C77; Yorty v. Paine. 01' Wis. 15!, 22 N. W. 137. It is always permissible to show thai party never appeared before the officer acknowledged the deed; Donahue v. Mills, 41 Ark. 421; Pickens v. Knisely, 29 A'.'

1, 11 s.

E. 932, 8 Am. St Rep. 622; but if he appeared, the rtiflcate of acknowledgment can only be 6 for fraud or imposition, with knowledge bro home to the grantee: Bouvier-Iaeger Land Co. v. Sypher, 180 Fed.

I Correction

Where a notary fails to set forth the necessary facts, he may correct his certificate, and may be compelled by mandamus, but equity has no jurisdiction to correct it; Wannall v. Kem, 51 Mo. 150; Hutchinson v. Ains Worth, 63 Cal. 286; Merritt v. Yates, 71 111.

636, 23 Am. Rep. 1- See paper by Judge Cooley, 4 Amer. Bar Assoc. 1SS1.