Case ID: cow_5/html/0421-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte S. C. Raymond.
    . A acmmisthe act of Ap"1 ,19tlb at the same ^ste^Lchau? eery can not knowledge,ent ”e<Prooi' of
    On the 16th April, 1825, D. Y. N. Radcliff, Esq. was appointed by the judges and supervisors of Dutchess, a commissioner to take the proof and acknowledgment of deeds, &c. He took the oath of office, and acted as such till April 17th, 1826, when he was appointed and sworn in as mas-' ter in chancery. After this, he took the acknowledgment of a deed as commissioner, but the clerk of Dutchess refused to record it, on the ground that he had no power to take the acknowledgment.
    A motion was now made for a mandamus, commanding the clerk 1o record this deed.
   Curia.

The motion is made on the idea that the act of April- 19th, 1823, (sess. 46, ch. 197, s. 4,) makes no mention of masters in chanceryand that they are, therefore, not prohibited from taking acknowledgments and proofs of deeds as they were by the statute of the 24th of March, 1818, (sess. 41, ch. 55, s. 2, 4.) True, they are not expressly so forbidden; but both acts are in pari materia; and the act of 1823, refers to, and adopts the provisions of the former. To allow a commissioner who is at the same time a master to take acknowledgments, would be to violate the very words of the 4th section of the first act. The motion must be denied.

Motion denied, 
      
       Vid. Ex parte Calvin Goodell, (14 John. 325.)