Windows 7 Pro Sec. 460. Acknowledgment.html

[buisness0243]

Free of charge Books / Actual Estate / The Law Of Real Residence /

Sec. 460. Acknowledgment








In some states the statute calls for a conveyance for being acknowledged from the grantor before an official as a way to make it effective even as between the parties,3 and inside a quantity of states an acknowledgment is critical towards the validity of the conveyance by a married lady. Much more typically, nevertheless, the requirement of acknowledgment is imposed only as a preliminary to the record of the conveyance, for the function of charging a subsequent purchaser with observe thereof,four with the result the record of a ness, it has been made the decision, could be by mark. Brown v. Mccormick, 28 Mich. 215; Devereux v. Mc-mahon, 102 N. C. 284, 9 S. E. 635.

1-2. So it's got been held that 1 getting a pecuniary interest from the conveyance is disqualified. Winsted Sav. Financial institution & Building Ass'n v. Spencer, 26 Conn. 195; Child v. Baker, 24 Neb. 1'88. And a grantor cannot witness the execution of the instrument by his co-grantor. Townsend v. Downer, 27 Vt. 119.

A wife or husband of a grantor has also been regarded as disqualified. Third Nat. Financial institution of Chattanooga v. O'brien,Windows 7 Serial, 94 Tenn. 38, 28 S. W. 293; Johnston v. Slater, 11 Grat. (Va.) 321; Cor-bett v. Norcross, 35 N. H. 99. But in some cases it has been held the witness need not be competent to testify at the time of its execution, provided he can testify when called to prove the execution in court. Frink v. Pond,Office 2010 Professional, 46 N. H. 125; Doe d. Johnson v. Turner, 7 Ohio, 216, pt. two.

3. See Lewis v. Herrera, 10 Ariz. 74, 85 Pac. 245; Parrott v. Kumpf, 102 111. 423; Hout v. Hout,

Trustee in,9 or a beneficiary under,10 a deed of trust take the acknowledgment of the grantor therein. Whether one particular grantor can take the acknowledgment of his cograntor appears to become uncertain.11 By the weight of authority an officer is disqualified to take an acknowledgment in which a corporation is beneficially interested if he is a stockholder therein,12 but not if

20 Ohio St. 119.

4. 1 Stimson's Am. Stat. Law, Sec. 1570.

5. See e g.; Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420; Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 364, 51 Pac. 549; Edwards v. Thorn, 25 Fla. 222, 5 So. 707; New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Ober, 84 Ga. 294, 10 S. E. 625; Harris v. Reed,

21 Idaho, 364, 121 Pac. 780; Graves v. Graves, 6 Gray (Mass.) 391; Thompson v. Scheid, 39 Minn. 102, 12 Am. St. Rep. 619, 38 N. W. 801; Ligon v. Barton.

- Qualifications of officer. The statute ordinarily demands the acknowledgment to be made, if within the state, ahead of a judge, clerk of court, justice of the peace, or notary public. The provisions of the statutes as to acknowledgment in another state sometimes provide that it might be taken by named classes of officials of the latter state, sometimes by commissioners of deeds appointed for such state, and sometimes by any officials of the other state authorized by the statutes of such state to take acknowledgments. The statutes also contain, almost invariably, specific provisions as to your officials who may take acknowledgments in foreign countries for use inside the state in which the statute is passed.

It is generally agreed that an officer who is beneficially interested inside the transaction cannot take an acknowledgment.7 Consequently the grantee cannot take the grantor's acknowledgment,8 nor can either the

88 Miss. 135, 40 So. 555; Finley v. Babb, 173 Mo. 257, 73 S. W. 180; Brown v. Manter, 22 N. H. 468; Bradley v. Walker, 138 N. Y. 291, 33 N. E. 1079; Geneseo First Nat. Financial institution v. National Live Stock Bank, 13 Okla. 719, 76 Pac. 130; Watts v. Whetstone, 79 S. C. 357, 60 S. E. 703.

6. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 1572; 4 Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 1676.

7. But in Tennessee, apparent ly, curiosity does not disqualify a single to take an acknowledgment. Cooper v. Hamilton Perpetual Bldg. etc. Ass'n, 97 Tenn, 285, 33 L. R. A. 338, 56 Am. St. Rep. 795,Office 2010 Professional Plus, 37 S. W. 12.

There is authority for your view that curiosity does not disqualify if there is no other officer who can take the acknowledgment. Stevenson v. Brasher, 90 Ky. 23, 13 S. W. 242; Lewis v. Curry, 74 Mo. 49. Contra, semble,Windows 7 Pro, Hammers v. Dole, 61 111. 307.

8. Lee v. Murphy, 119 Cal. 364, 51 Pac. 549; Brereton v. Bennett, 15 Colo. 254; Hogans v. Carruth, 18 Fla. 587; Florila Savings Financial institution & True Estate Exchange v. Rivers, 36 Fla. 575, 18 So. 850; Hammers v. Dole, 61 111. 307; West v. Krebaum, 88 111. 263; Wilson v. Traer, 20 Iowa, 231; Greenlee v. Smith, 4 Kan. App. 733, 46 Pac. 543.

Beaman v. Whitney, 20 Me. 413; Laprad v. Sherwood, 79 Mich. 520, 44 N. W. 943; Wesson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Hainey v. Alberry, 73 Mo. 427; Amick v. Woodworth, 58 Ohio St. 86, 50 N. E. 437; Hunton v. Wood, 100 Va. 54, 43 S. E. 186.

But in Murray v. Tulare Irrigation Co., 120 Cal. 311, 49 Pac. 463, 52 Pac. 586, it was held that an acknowledgment taken by one particular of several grantees, each of whom took "a separate and denned interest" was good as to all the grantees except that one. And in Darst v. Gale, 83 111. 136, a substantially similar view was taken as to an acknowledgment prior to one particular of several trustees to whom a mortgage was made.

9. Muense v. Harper, 70 Ark. 309, 67 S. W. 869; Darst v. Dale, 83 111. 136; Holden v. Brimage, 72 Miss. 228, 18 So. 383; German American Financial institution v. Carondelet True Estate Co., 150 Mo. 570, 51 S. W. 691; Lance v. Tainter, 137 N. C. 249, 49 S. E. 211; Rothschild v. Daugher, 85 Tex. 332, 16 L. R. A. 719, 34 Am. St. Rep. 811, 20 S. W. 142; Bow-den v. Parrish, 86 Va. 67, 19 Am. St. Rep. 873, nine S. E. 616; Hunton v. Wood, 101 Va. 54, 43 S. E. 186. Contra, Weidman v. Templeton, (Tenn. Ch. App.) 61 S. W. 102.

10. Wasson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Long v. Crews, 113 N. Car. 256, 18 S. E. 499; Baxter v. Howell, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 198, 26 S. W. 453.

11. That he can do so, see Greve v. Echo Oil Co., 8 Cal. App. 275, 96 Pac. 904. Contra, People v. Railroad Comm'rs, 105 N. Y. App. Div. 273, 93 N. Y. Supp. 584 (certificate of incorporation).

12. Hayes v. Southern Home Bldg, etc., Ass'n, 124 Ala. 663, 82 Am. St. Rep. 216, 26 So. 527; Ogden Bld'g, etc., Ass'n v. Mensch, 196 111. 554, 63 N. E. 1049; Steger v. Travelling Men's Bldg etc., Ass'n, 208 111. 236, 100 Am. St. Rep. 225, 70 N. E. 236; Kothe v. Krag Reynolds, 20 Ind. App. 293,Windows 7 Pro, 50 N. E. 594; Smith v. Clark, 100 Iowa, 605, 69 N. W. 1011; Wilson v. Griess, 64 Neb. 792, 90 N. W. 866; Bexar Bldg. etc., Ass'n v. Heady, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 50 S. W. 1079, 57 S. W. 583; Boswell v. Laramie First Nat. Financial institution, 16 Wyo. 161, 92 Pac. 624.