Lindley v. Smith

Decision Date31 January 1871
Citation1871 WL 7914,58 Ill. 250
PartiesSAMUEL LINDLEYv.SILAS SMITH et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Clark county; the Hon. HIRAM B. DECIUS, Judge, presiding.

Mr. R. L. DULANEY, and Mr. R. W. THOMPSON, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. JOHN SCHOLFIELD, for the defendants in error.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, to correct a mistake in the certificate of acknowledgment of a married woman, of a deed conveying land to which she held the legal title.

The defect in the certificate of acknowledgment by the justice of the peace, appears to be that he did not state therein that the wife was personally known to him as the real person whose name was signed to the deed as having executed the same.

The statute on this subject is as follows: “When any husband and wife residing in this State, shall wish to convey the real estate of the wife, it shall and may be lawful for the said husband and wife, she being above the age of eighteen years, to execute any grant, bargain, sale, lease, release, feoffment, deed, conveyance or assurance in law, whatsoever, for the conveying of such lands, tenements and hereditaments, and if, after the execution thereof, such wife shall appear before some judge or other officer authorized by this chapter to take acknowledgments, to whom she is known, or proved by a credible witness, to be the person who executed such deed or conveyance, such judge or other officer shall make her acquainted with and explain to her the contents of such deed or conveyance, and examine her, separate and apart from her husband, whether she executed the same voluntarily, freely and without compulsion of her said husband; and if such woman shall, upon such examination, acknowledge such deed or conveyance to be her act and deed, that she executed the same voluntarily and freely, and without compulsion of her husband, and does not wish to retract, the said judge or other officer shall make a certificate, indorsed on or annexed to such deed or conveyance, stating that such woman was personally known to the said judge or other officer, or proved by a witness (naming him), to be the person who subscribed such deed or conveyance, and setting forth the examination and acknowledgment aforesaid, and that the contents were made known and explained to her; and such deed, (being acknowledged and proved according to law as to the husband), shall be as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Frank v. Hicks
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 16 January 1894
    ...B. Mon., 268; Building Asso. v. Clark, supra.) A court of equity cannot put vitality into an instrument having none in itself. (Lindley v. Smith, 58 Ill. 250; Murphy Williamson, 85 Ill. 150; Tulley v. Davis, 30 Ill. 103; Adams v. Bishop, 19 Ill. 395; Montag v. Linn, 19 Ill. 399; Emeric v. A......
  • Gray v. Law
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 12 May 1899
    ... ... effect are the following cases: Shelton v. Aultman & ... Taylor Co., 82 Ala. 315, 8 So. 232; Carr v ... Hanley, 22 Fla. 317; Lendly v. Smith, 58 Ill ... 250; Fisher v. Meccter, 24 Mich. 447; Smith v ... Ward, 2 Root. (Conn.) 378; Chamberlain v ... Spangler, 86 N.Y. 603; Dolph v ... ...
  • Mettler v. Miller
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 31 October 1889
    ...were made known and explained to her. In respect to her and her heirs, the deed was absolutely void. Kerr v. Russell, 69 Ill. 666;Lindley v. Smith, 58 Ill. 250; and numerous other cases. 4. It was not error to admit in testimony the various instruments of evidence offered by appellant for t......
  • Washburn v. Roesch
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 May 1883
    ...must be acknowledged in the proper form prescribed by the statute, otherwise the deed is useless as a conveyance of title: Lindley v. Smith, 58 Ill. 250; Kerr v. Russell, 69 Ill. 666; Bressler v. Kent, 61 Ill. 426. As to how corporate existence can be acquired: Bigelow v. Gregory, 73 Ill. 1......
  • 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