The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1874-12-11

IMPORTANT LEGAL DECIsION.-The most i'm
portaut case tried at our late Court was that of
Adam Heetsr, A. l.. Guss ana DIR. J. r. ThoTnp-
son rs. Samuel L. G lasgOw and Harriet n Gias-
gov (his wife). The action was Scige JGciIS,
purpose OF mortgaging the wife's separate real
estate as security for the Indebtedness of her
husband to said plaintiffs. Tho evidence ehowcd
that plaintiffs had been accommodation endor-
sers on several promissory notes OF samuel j..
Glasgow, amounting to S2.UoU- That some time
previous to June, 1872. Mr.. Glasgow called on
the plaintiffs witt view OF getti0X them to en-
to do. As an inducemcnt for them to comply
with his request, he propSsed that II they would
endorse his notes for $3.50, his wife would Join
him in executing mortgage on her separate
real estate, security for the notes pferi4itsiy
endorsed by them, and also Tor the notes which
he sought to have them endorse. This prspo-
sttou was accepted by the piaintlffs, ana a
mortgage was execu.ea ps d s,,t ,
gagged security for any liability then incur
red, that might thereafter be incurred, en-
the part of plaintiffs. by reason of their said
endorsements. Mi. Glasgow did cot defend in
the action as against himself. HIS wIie, now
ever, defended and alleged that the mortgage
did not bind her FOR two reasons tlrst, because
there had been a fraudulent alteration OF the
mortgage by her husband after the execution
thereof; second, because the mortgage had not
been legally acknowledged by her before the
Justice of the Peace who took the acknowl-
As the Court withdrew the case from the jury
for the reason set forth In the second ground OF
defence, IL is not necessary that any special re-
ference should be made to any other branch OF
tbe f!Ieyaiity OF the wife's acknowledgements as
taken before the Justice. Mr. Glasgow and his
wife went before p. ii. Bence, Esq a Justice
of the Peace. residing in Three Springs for the
purpose of having said mortgage duly acknowl-
edged The Justice asked Mrs Glasgow If she
knew the nature OF the instrument she was
about to notwithstanding to her that II sue uiu
NOT understand it, it was his duty to explain It
To her She replied that she had reed the IN oTt-
gage and understoodit. The Justice then mace
fnGuiry OF her as to whether she executed the
mortgage of her own free VIII and accord, and
without any coercion or compulsion on the
part of her husband, and she replied that sho
"A he m
Glasgow and her husband, and duly Witnessed
His Honor Judge Dean held that this was not Il
stIbstantjnJ compliance with the provisions of
the I'd Section of the Act of 1iIo, which requires
The offfcer before whom the acknowl lcdgmeht
IS takentto sredd or Dthsrtcise make isiolCn 20 the
said tcife the f cortents Of such deed or conreH
otherwise maxi e know II to the wife the contents
OF the mortgage, because she informed him
that she had read it herself, and understood X;
Tht Court held that if " RS. Glasgow did
inform the Justice that she had read the deed
and understood the contents or II, she would
not be stopped from proving the tdtsity OF her
declaration to the Justice; and also that the
Act requiring the officer before whom the ac
acknowledgement Is taken to read or otherwise
make known to the wife the fun contents of
the deed must be strictly complied witt. Cndcr
a verdict against the husband for 1891 q, and
to the wife they found for the defendant.
This is indeed one of the most important de-
csions rendered in our Court for many years
Acknow ledgments of deeds by wives have al
most invariably been taken by our justices
without the Justice either reading or explain
ing to the wife the contents of the deed. These
officers have heretofore 2encraly conIenlcu
themselves with m examination OF the wire,
separate aud apart from the husband, and the
assurance by her that she understands the decd
and has executed it without amy coercion or
compulsion OF her husband rms. tho Court
holds, is not suffictentl but that the Justice
must actually "redd or othe''1ise make knoTn to
the tCife" the contents OF the decd
The counsel in the case were H. NJ Spcer, X:
II. Petrikin aud w. III. Woods for plai ntrs and
Messrs. John Scott and s. r. Brown for defeud-
ant. We learn that the case will be taken TO
the Supreme Court by the plaintiffs, where the
correctness of the ruling OF the lower Court
will be adjud4cated upon.-Hustingdon Mont
tor.