Wilson v. Quigley
Decision Date | 02 December 1891 |
Citation | 17 S.W. 891,107 Mo. 98 |
Parties | Wilson, Appellant, v. Quigley et al |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Vernon Circuit Court. -- Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge.
Affirmed.
T. J Myres and M. T. January for appellant.
(1) A certificate of acknowledgment is fatally defective if the officer fails to certifiy that the party is "known" to him, etc. Holton v. Kemp, 81 Mo. 661; Tully v Davis, 83 Am. Dec. 179; Note to 41 Am. Dec. p. 175. (2) The court, therefore, erred in admitting in evidence the two mortgages purporting to have been executed by Samuel A Wilson.
W. J. Stone and Irvin Gordon for respondents.
(1) The officer certified that Wilson personally appeared before him, and he could not have truthfully so certified unless it was literally true. The length of acquaintance which will authorize an officer to certify that he personally knows a person must be left to his own conscience. It seems that a mere introduction is sufficient. Wood v. Bach, 54 Barb. 134; Neppel v. Hammond, 4 Cal. 211. (2) The courts are liberal in construing acknowledgments to be sufficient. Carpenter v. Dexter, 8 Wall. 513; Kelly v. Calhoun, 95 U.S. 710; Hughes v. Sloan, 14 S.W. 660. (3) The mortgages at all events were admissible in evidence as a basis for the plea of estoppel on account of the laches of plaintiff.
This is an action of ejectment for the north half of section 13, township 35, range 31, in Vernon county, Missouri. The defendant deduced their title through two mortgages executed by plaintiff. Plaintiff below and appellant here objected to the introduction of these mortgages in evidence, because the certificate of acknowledgment failed to state the grantors were personally "known" to the notaries who took the acknowledgments in Rockbridge county, Virginia. The form is one used and approved in that state, and is as follows:
As said by Judge Scott in Alexander v. Merry, 9 Mo. 514 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial