About the Book
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1870 edition. Excerpt: ...Bryan v. Ramsey, 8 Cal., 461; 2'b., 581; Hopkirzs fv. Delaney, z'b., 85; ib., 511; and these being complied with, a liberal construction is given to certificates of acknowledgment. Jlforse '0. Clayton, 13 S. M., (Mz'ss., ) 373;' Crowley v. Wallace, 12 Mo., 143; and even where justices of the peace do not, in their certificates, describe themselves as such, the acknowledgment is good. Welles v. Cole, 6 Gratton, ( Va., ) 645; and the ofiicial seal wantin g will not vitiate the acknowledgment. Pillow 1;. Roberts, 13 How., (U. S., ) 472. And it may be laid down, as a general if not universal rule, that no mere clerical error in the oflicer will avoid the acknowledgment. Ivcs 21. Kimball, 1 Jlfann, (lIz'ch., ) 308; llfonroe v. Arlerlge, 23 Texas, 478; Cavemlcr v. Smith, 5 Clarke, (lbwa, ) 157; and the misdescription of the ofiice held by the person taking the acknowledgment is altogether immaterial. l'Vv-ay v. McKee1za1z., 6 Ifumpla, (T01m., ) 207; Bee/ml v. Petti_qrew, 6 Ohio, (N. S1, ) 247. The court of chancery, having all the parties interested before it, can arrest this mistake, so as to cure all difliculties. Johnston v. Jones, 1 Blac-l: ., (U. S., ) 209; Simmons 21. North, 3 S. 91-lI., (lI2'ss., ) 67; lVh2'teheacentsl v. Brown, 18 Alu., 682; Stone v. Hale, 17 Ala., 557; Davis '0. Rodgers, 33 Maine, 222; Wall v. Arrington, 13 Ga., 88. And, as affecting one having notice of the deed or mortgage, though defective, it is always corrected in this way.-Cases.sup.; ll'arr.lszcorth v. lVendell, 5 Jo/ms. Chg/.,224, 230; so that, by these cases, the appellant had in truth his record, and the others were bound by it; and, although this deed may have been defective, yet it appears from the bill that due notice of Simpson's claim was fixe
