Case ID: cal-dist-ct_1/html/0268-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Norton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LUNING vs. BRADY.
    
      Twelfth Judicial District Court,
    
    October, 1857.
    Certificate op Acknowledgment.
    Where the certificate of acknowledgment, by the husband and wife, attached to a mortgage, misnames the husband, but describes the wife by her true name, and states that she is known to the officer giving the certificate, to be the person who executed the mortgage, the defect of describing her as the wife of the misnamed husband, is not fatal to the validity of the certificate, as far as concerns the wife, and if the error, ss far as affects the husband, be .obviated by a new certificate, made qn proof, by ¿ 'subscribing witness, the proof of acknowledgment is sufficient.
    The material fabts are stated in. the opinion. On demurrer.
    
      8. M. Bowman, for plaintiff.
    
      McDougal $ Sharpy for defendant.
   Norton, J.

This action is instituted to foreclose a mortgage, exe©uted.hy fee defendant, and his wife ; but there is a slight difficulty, winch presents itself en account of an error in fee certificate of acknowledgment of. this mortgage, arising from a.-misdescription of the, husband, His. true name is Thomas Brady, while the. certificate of acknowledgement describes fee parties as “ Joseph Brady, aud Josephine, his wife.”

The error, so far as it affects Brady, the tasbaai, has tee® ©twisted hy a new certificate, made on proof, by a subscribing witoffis.

But it is urged, that the description, in the first eertifisato. Is dsfeetr ive as to the wife, that is, it describes her as the wife of Jcáepb, vAorsas m the mortgage it appears that she is the wife of Thomas. I tMnkj however, this is not a-fatal circumstance, asshe is otherwise snffieientiy described by her own name, and as being known to the officer as the person described in the mortgage. It is also objected, that the tas* band and wife should acknowledge at the same time, that is, that there should be one certificate which is good as to both. I cm see no sufficient ground for this objection. The statute requires the. wife.*) make her acknowledgment separate from her husband. It is sufficient that he has assented to her execution of the mortgage,''by himself being a party to it.

Demurrer overruled.