{9|nine} or a beneficiary under

Free of charge Guides / Genuine Estate / The Law Of Real Property /

Sec. 460. Acknowledgment








In some states the statute needs a conveyance to get acknowledged from the grantor ahead of an official as a way to make it powerful even as between the events,three and in a very amount of states an acknowledgment is critical towards the validity of a conveyance by a married woman. Much more usually, even so, the necessity of acknowledgment is imposed only being a preliminary for the document of a conveyance, for that objective of charging a subsequent purchaser with recognize thereof,4 together with the outcome the record of a ness, it's been decided, might be by mark. Brown v. Mccormick, 28 Mich. 215; Devereux v. Mc-mahon, 102 N. C. 284, nine S. E. 635.

1-2. So it's got been held that one having a pecuniary interest from the conveyance is disqualified. Winsted Sav. Lender & 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 the grantor has also been regarded as disqualified. Third Nat. Financial institution of Chattanooga v. O'brien, 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's 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, 46 N. H. 125; Doe d. Johnson v. Turner, 7 Ohio, 216, pt. 2.

3. See Lewis v. Herrera,Buy Office Professional Plus 2010, 10 Ariz. 74, 85 Pac. 245; Parrott v. Kumpf, 102 111. 423; Hout v. Hout,

Trustee in,nine 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 get 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 needs the acknowledgment to become 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 may 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 for the officials who may possibly 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 from 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,Office Home And Business, 33 N. E. 1079; Geneseo First Nat. Lender v. National Live Stock Financial institution, 13 Okla. 719, 76 Pac. 130; Watts v. Whetstone, 79 S. C. 357, 60 S. E. 703.

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

7. But in Tennessee,Office Professional Plus 2007 Key, apparent ly, interest does not disqualify a single to take an acknowledgment. Cooper v. Hamilton Perpetual Bldg. etc. Ass'n, 97 Tenn, 285,buy microsoft office 2007, 33 L. R. A. 338, 56 Am. St. Rep. 795, 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, 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 Bank & 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, four 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 1. And in Darst v. Gale, 83 111. 136, a substantially similar view was taken as to an acknowledgment ahead of a single 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 Bank v. Carondelet Actual 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,Buy Windows 7 Enterprise, 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, 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. Bank, 16 Wyo. 161, 92 Pac. 624.