Case ID: yeates_3/html/0423-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "*By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lessee of Isabella M'Intire against William Ward, esq.
    A deed by husband and wife, joint-tenants, executed in Maryland, and acknowledged before two justices of the peace and of the Common Pleas at Baltimore, with a certificate under the county seal that there were at that time no superior magistrates or peace officers in the county, allowed to be read in evidence.
    Ejectment for two messuages, &c. and 655 acres of land in Bedford township.
    The lessor of the plaintiff deduced a title to herself under two warrants and surveys, to her father, Robert Callender, who on the 7th June 1773, conveyed the premises to her first husband, William Neil and herself, as joint-tenants in fee. Neil died, and she afterwards intermarried with Thomas M‘Intire, whom she survived.
    The defendant’s counsel offered in evidence a deed from the said- William Neil'and Isabella his wife, to Samuel Todd in fee, in consideration of ioool. dated 17th February 1779. The grantors then lived in the town of Baltimore, and acknowledged the conveyance before James Calhoon and Peter Shepherd esqs. justices of the peace of Baltimore county, but the seals of the justices were not affixed thereto. Three certificates by William Gibson, clerk of Baltimore county, under his seal of office, were annexed to the deed ; - the first, dated' 18th February 1779, shewing that Calhoon and Shepherd were justices of the peace; the second, dated 7th June 1802, shewing that they were at the execution of the deed, justices of the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore county; and the third, dated 30th September 1802, certifying that in February 1779, they were principal magistrates and justices of the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore county, and that in 1779, there were no superior magistrates or peace officers in the said county.
    Messrs. Duncan and C. Smith, excepted to the reading of the deed. — The court will not model the rules of evidence from the supposed hardship or necessity of any particular case. The only question is, what have the legislature done, and how far have they altered the rules of evidence at common law. The act of 1715, does not provide for the present case. The direction in the 4th sect. 1 St. Laws, no, where deeds have been made out of the province, goes only to the proof of their execution, by one or more of the witnesses, before any mayor, chief magistrate *or officer of the cities, towns or places where the deeds were made.
    The present case is- the grant of the estate of a feme covert, which in England could only be, by levying of a fine. A due conformity to the law of 24th February 1770, alone could divest the interest of the lessor of the plaintiff. To give validity to the conveyance of the lands of a feme covert, the husband and wife must acknowledge the deed in a certain specified form before a judge of the Supreme Court, or any justice of the Court of Common Pleas of the county where the lands lie. But-if the deed was made by a husband and wife not residing within this state, the acknowledgment thereof being taken and made in the manner therein specified, “ before any mayor, chief magistrate or “ officer of the cities, towns or places where such deed shall be “made or executed, and certified under the common or public “ seal of such cities, towns or places, it shall be valid and effec“tual.” 1 St. Laws, 536, 7. The certificate of the mayor of a city or chief magistrate of a corporate town, is here evidently contemplated, by calling for the common or public seal. Though Baltimore was not incorporated as a city in 1779, yet it is well known, that there were justices of the Supreme Court in Maryland, both of the eastern and western shore, at that period. And the act of the county clerk cannot prove, that there were then no- superior magistrates.
    Messrs. Hamilton and Watts for the defendant,
    insisted, that the acknowledgment in 1779, could have been in no other mode, than that which has been adopted. Baltimore was- then no corporate town, and had no chief magistrate. It is fully certified, that there were no superior magistrates or peace officers within the county. Of what moment is it, that there were justices of the Supreme Court in Maryland at the time, if they did not reside in the place where the deed was. executed, agreeably to- the terms of the law of 1770 ? The word officer does, not necessarily refer to a corporation, nor seems to be so intended. The words of the act, reddendo singula singulis, must be read, “ before the “ mayor of a city, chief magistrate of a town, or officer of the “ place where such deed was made,” &c. If there is a public or common seal, it must be affixed to the acknowledgment; but if there is not, the private seal of the officer must be sufficient. The act must be so construed as to promote the general utility and' public convenience, duly guarding against all frauds. Á deed executed in England, and acknowledged here, though not recorded, was allowed to be read in evidence. 1 Dali. 66.
    
   *By the Court.

It is air important circumstance in the present case, that the town of Baltimore possessed [*426 no mayor, or chief magistrate in 1779. The words of the act are before any mayor, chief magistrate or officer of the cities, “towns or places, where the deed was made,” &c. If it should even be admitted, that the terms of the law have not been literally pursued, the acknowledgment is the same in substance, as if it had been taken by any mayor, &c. The Supreme Court has received in evidence the records of courts in North Carolina and Georgia, without public seals, where it has been proved, that none such existed. Under the circumstances of this case, we do not feel ourselves authorized to refuse the deed in evidence, though we do not deem it necessary to express any opinion of its legal operation.

The plaintiff’s counsel excepted to the opinion of the court; but some difficulties arising, concerning the time when William Neil died, and the improvements made on the premises since, concerning which the counsel were not prepared with testimony, it was mutually agreed, that the jury should be discharged without giving a verdict.

This cause came on again to trial on the 17th November 1803, together with another suit, between the same plaintiff and Thomas Feree and Robert Cameron, depending on the same title. To the certificates before produced by the defendant, annexed to the deed objected to be received in evidence, another certificate was added by Ninian Pinckney, esq., clerk of the Executive Council of Maryland, under the great seal of the state, dated 8th November 1802, certifying, that in the year 1779, there were no magistrates or peace officers in Baltimore county, superior to James Calhoon and Peter Shepherd, esqrs.

The argument respecting the admission of the deed from Neil and wife to Todd, was again fully gone into; .and Yeates, J. delivered the opinion of the court, to the following effect:

We are bound to construe the law of 24th P'ebruary 1770, according to the true intention of the legislature. The act of 1715, respects the proving of deeds out of the state; that of 1770 the acknowledgment of deeds, granting the estates of femes covert. The words of the latter law, must be construed, red-dendo singida singulis. “Mayor” refers to “cities,” “chief magistrate” to “towns,” “officers” to “places.” What definite idea have we of places as contradistinguished from cities and towns, unless the term embraces such a case as the present ? Must they *necessarily relate to corporations ? It cannot *427] be supposed, that a public seal is necessary, where there is no such thing. The law intended to facilitate the transfers of lands out of the state. But if the plaintiff’s doctrine obtains, no deeds executed out of the state can be put on record unless made in a corporate place, or acknowledged or proved within the state. Necessity must justify the acts it imposes. The vendee has done all he could be reasonably expected to do. Extracts of records of courts, which have no public seals, have been given in evidence repeatedly and without hesitation.

On the whole, we see no reason to alter the opinion we delivered on the former trial, but adhere thereto, by allowing the deed to be given in evidence to the jury.

The plaintiff’s counsel then tendered a bill of exceptions, which the court sealed, and the jury gave their verdicts for the defendants.