1 U.S. 436 (1789), Parker v. Wood

Citation:1 U.S. 436, 1 L.Ed. 212
Party Name:Parker et al. v. Wood
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 436

1 U.S. 436 (1789)

1 L.Ed. 212

Parker et al.



United States Supreme Court.

April Term, 1789


Scire Facias on a mortgage of lands in Northampton county. The cause was tried at Easton, when a verdict was taken for the Plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court, on the following case:

'That the Defendant, Wood, on the 20th of June, 1776, made and executed the mortgage deed in the record set forth; and, on the 5th day of July, 1776, acknowledged the same before Peter Kuchlien, Esquire, then holding a commission as one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Northampton, from John Penn, Esquire, late Governor of the Province of Pennsylvania; but he had not received any such commission after the declaration of Independence, nor any notice of that declaration.

'That the said mortgage was afterwards, to wit, on the 3rd day of November, 1776, recorded by Lewis Gordon, Esquire, in the record book kept for recording deeds and mortgages in the said county, he, the said Lewis, at the declaration of Independence being Recorder of deeds in and for the said county, and continuing, as such, to do and perform the duties of the said office, until the said 3rd day of November, and after; but he had received no commission for so doing after the 4th day of July, 1776.

'That the said mortgaged premises were afterwards taken in execution, set up to sale, and sold by the Sheriff of the said county to G. A. Baker under certain conditions, and at the time of the deed from the Sheriff to the said G. A. Baker, an agreement was made relative to the premisses in case the said mortgage should be adjudged to be valid.

'That the Defendant, Jacob Wood, at the time of the said purchase made by G. A. Baker, was indebted to the said G. A. Baker, by judgment entered in the Common Pleas of the said county, prior to the aforesaid sale by the Sheriff, and to the Plaintiff's judgment against the Defendant. And that G. A. Baker knew of the said mortgage before the contracting of the said debt to him.

'If upon the whole matter, the Court shall be of opinion that the law is with the Plaintiff, then judgment to be entered for him; otherwise, judgment to be for the Defendant as in the case of a nonsuit.'

The question was, whether a mortgage, acknowledged before a Justice of the Common Pleas, and recorded by the Recorder of the proper county, subsequent to the declaration of Independence, was void? the Justice and the Recorder having no other...

To continue reading