Case ID: dc_9/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice MacArthur", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FRANCIS DENMEAD vs. WILLIAN N. H. MAACK AND WILLIAM McCOURT, TRADING UNDER THE STYLE OF WILLIAM N. H. MAACK & CO.
    
      At Law. —
    No. 14920.
    This court cau take notice of the authority of a notary public in the State of Maryland to administer an oath to an affidavit to be used in an action pending in this jurisdiction, the same being certified by his signature and notarial seal, without any other verification that he was qualified to act as such notary.
    STATEMENT OE THE-CASE.
    Rule 73 of this court provides that a plaintiff who shall file with his declaration, at the time of bringing his action, •an affidavit, setting out distinctly his cause of action, &c., and shall serve the defendant with copies of the declaration and affidavit, shall have judgment, unless the defendant shall file along with his plea or pleas an affidavit denying the right of plaintiff to recover, and specifically stating the grounds of his defense, &c.
    In this case the declaration filed was accompanied with an affidavit in due form, made before a notary public in Baltimore. The pleas filed are not supported by affidavit, and the plaintiff moved for judgment, upon the ground that the defendant had not complied with the requirements of the rule referred to. To this motion the defendant answers that the affidavit of the plaintiff to his declaration is insufficient, because it was made in another jurisdiction, and is not accompanied with a certificate as to the authority, &c., of the notary before whom it was made. Upon the hearing of this motion, the justice holding the special term certified it to the general term, to be heard in the first instance.
    The Public Code of Maryland, article 67, section 3, gives-each notary public power to administer oaths in all cases of a civil nature where a justice of the peace may administer an oath, and with the same effect, and provides that a certificate under his notarial seal shall be sufficient evidence of his having, administered such oath in his character as notary public.
    Aud in section 7 of the same article it is provided that every notary shall provide a notarial seal, with which he shall authenticate his acts, instruments, and attestations.
    The Revised Statutes of the United States relative to the District of Columbia, section 986, make provision that “ notaries public may administer oaths and affirmations in all matters incident or belonging to the duties of their office, and take affidavits to be used before any court, judge, or officer within the District.”
    And the Revised Statutes of the United States further provide, section 1778, that in all cases in which, under the laws of the United States, oaths may be made before a justice of the peace, * * * they may hereafter also be made before any notary public duly appointed in any State, district, or territory, and when certified under the hand and official seal of such notary, shall have the same force and effect as if made before a justice of the peace.
    Sections 825 and 826 of the Revised Statutes relating to-the District of Columbia contain the legislative enactment under which, in suits brought on open accounts verified by. the plaintiff’s affidavit, the plaintiff may have judgment by default, and in the latter of these sections it is provided that, in such cases where the plaintiff’s affidavit is made before an officer of whose authority to administer oaths the court cannot take notice, his authority must be verified by the certificate under seal of the officer having authority to give such certificate.
    
      W. B. Webb for plaintiff.
    
      John C. Fay for defendant.
   Mr. Justice MacArthur

delivered the opinion of the court:

The question upon this motion is whether the court can take notice of the power of a notary public in the State of Maryland to administer an oath to an affidavit to be used in an action pending here without a certificate that he was duly qualified to act as such notary. By the statute law of Maryland a notary public can administer oaths, and a certificate under his notarial seal is sufficient evidence of his official acts. The jurat to the affidavit in this case is properly certified by him according to the Maryland Code, and it could be used in that State without any further evidence of his authority. It is authenticated by his signature and seal, and we are inclined to give it the same effect here. In this District a notary public may take affidavits to be used before any court or judge. The Revised Statutes, sec. 1778; enact that in all cases where oaths may be administered by justices of the peace, they may be made before any notary public in any State or Territory; and they are to have the same force and effect as if made before a justice of the peace. This relates to the instrument, in order to give the facts therein stated the weight of evidence; but there is no express requirement that the notarial certificate and seal are to be certified by any other official. When acknowledgments of deeds are made beyond the limits of the District, the certificate of the officer taking such acknowledgment is to be accompanied by the certificate of the clerk, register, &c., to the effect that at the date of the acknowledgment the person taking the same was in fact the officer he purported to be. But this is required by the express terms of the law, (Rev. Stats. D. C., sec. 443,) and the certificate in such case is made essential to the validity of the conveyance. No such requirement is made with regard to affidavits, unless they are made before an officer of whose authority to administer oaths the court cannot take notice. There is no other provision of our statutes requiring the certificate of a notary to be verified by any other than his owil seal, and when we have before us, as in the present case, the law of the State of Maryland, making the certificate of a notary under his seal sufficient evidence of his having administered an oath in his official character, we think this court can also take notice that the affidavit was sworn to before a properly qualified officer.

The motion for judgment, notwithstanding the defendant’s plea, is granted.