Kelly v. Calhoun

Decision Date01 October 1877
Citation95 U.S. 710,24 L.Ed. 544
PartiesKELLY v. CALHOUN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court

Mr. S. P. Walker for the appellants.

Mr. Josiah Patterson, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellees, Calhoun and Meyer, are the grantees in a deed of trust covering the Paducah and Memphis Railroad, which has its northern terminus at Paducah, Ky., and its southern at Memphis, Tenn. A corporation known as the Paducah and Memphis Railroad Company, and authorized to build the road, executed the deed of trust to secure the payment of certain liabilities therein described. The deed, bearing date the first day of February, 1872, was acknowledged the fifth of that month, and duly lodged for record in the proper office in Shelby County the 9th of March in the same year. The company made default in the payment of the interest on the bonds intended to be secured by the deed; and Calhoun and Meyer, the trustees, thereupon filed this bill to enforce its provisions. The Circuit Court placed the road pendente lite in the hands of a receiver.

After this was done, the appellants, Kelly and others, procured leave to intervene, and filed their joint petition. It sets forth the facts already stated, and that the petitioners severally recovered judgment against the company in the first Circuit Court of Shelby County, at the following dates: on the 9th of January; on the 27th of January; on on the 25th of May, and on the 13th of October, in the year 1875; and on the 26th of January, and on the 3d of June, 1876. It further alleges that the certificate of the proof and acknowledgment of the deed of trust is fatally defective, and that their judgments are, therefore, the first lien upon the premises. They pray to be permitted to levy executions, that the premises may be sold under the order of the court, that the proceeds may be applied in payment of their several judgments, and for general relief. Leave was given to them to levy, but not to sell. They levied accordingly. The deed and certificate alleged to be defective are set out in full. Calhoun and Meyer demurred. The Circuit Court held the certificate good, sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill.

The deed was well executed. The testatum clause sets forth that the company had caused its corporate seal to be affixed, and the instrument to be signed by its president and secretary, which appear on its face t have been done. The sealing and delivery were attested by two subscribing witnesses. Angell & A. on Corp., sect. 225.

The attack is confined to the certificate of acknowledgment, which, less the caption and official signatures affixed, is as follows:——

'Be it remembered, that on this fifth day of February, 1872, before me, Charles Nettleton, a commissioner, resident in the city of New York, duly commissioned and qualified by the executive authority and under the laws of the State of Tennessee to take acknowledgments of deeds, &c., to be used or recorded therein, personally appeared Ex. Norton, the president of the Paducah and Memphis Railroad Company, and Henry L. Jones, the secretary of said company, who are personally known to me to be such; and who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he, the said Ex. Norton, resided in the city, county, and State of New York; that he, the said Henry L. Jones, resided in Paducah, in the State of Kentucky; that he, the said Norton, was president of the said Paducah and Memphis Railroad Company; that he, the said Jones, was secretary of the said company; that they knew the corporate seal of said company; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument, purporting to be the corporate seal of said company, was such corporate seal; that it was affixed thereto by order of the board of directors of said company, and that they signed their names thereto by the like order, as the president and secretary of said company, respectively; and the said Ex. Norton and Henry L. Jones also acknowledged to me that they executed said instrument as their act and deed, and the act and deed of said company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. And, at the same time and place, before me, also personally appeared Philo C. Calhoun and L. H. Meyer, also parties to the foregoing instrument, with each of whom I am personally acquainted, who severally acknowledged that t...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • In re Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 4 Abril 1983
    ...is prescribed and a probating officer has little if any discretion to vary the form of the certificate. See, e.g., Kelly v. Calhoun, 95 U.S. 710, 711-713, 24 L.Ed. 544 (1878); In the Matter of Viking Co., 389 F.Supp. 1230, 1231-1234 (E.D.Tenn.1974), aff'd 510 F.2d 974 (6th Cir.1975); In re ......
  • Agin v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC (In re Shubert)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 19 Agosto 2015
    ...words are necessary as long as they amount to an admission that he has voluntarily and freely executed the instrument. Kelly v. Calhoun, 95 U.S. 710, 24 L.Ed. 544 ; Qualls v. Qualls, 196 Ala. 524, 72 So. 76 ; Jemison v. Howell, 230 Ala. 423, 161 So. 806, 99 A.L.R. 1511 ; Jackson v. Hudspeth......
  • The State ex rel. Klotz v. Ross
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 9 Noviembre 1893
    ... ... [23 S.W. 210] ... according to the honest intent of the parties. Roe v ... Tranmarr , Willes, 682; Kelly v. Calhoun , 95 ... U.S. 710, 24 L.Ed. 544 ...          Guided ... by these authorities, and for the reasons already stated, it ... ...
  • McOuatt v. McOuatt
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 1946
    ...words are necessary as long as they amount to an admission that he has voluntarily and freely executed the instrument. Kelly v. Calhoun, 95 U.S. 710, 24 L.Ed. 544;Qualls v. Qualls, 196 Ala. 524, 72 So. 76;Jemison v. Howell, 230 Ala. 423, 161 So. 806, 99 A.L.R. 1511;Jackson v. Hudspeth, 208 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT