Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1875-02-10
IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION.

IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION
Tho most important case tried nj
our late Court was that Of Adam Heet
err A. Il. Guss, and Dr. J. +. Thomp
son vs. Samuel L.. Glasgow and Har
rlet N. Glasgow, his wife. The action
was q scire facias, on n mortgage exc
cutcd by defendants, for the purpose
OF mortgaging the wife's separate real
estate as security for the indebtedness
OF her husband to said plaintiffs The
evidence showed that plaintiffs had
been accommodation endorscr on sew.
eral promissory notes of Samuel Il.
Glasgow, amounting to $4,000 That
some time previous to June, 1879, Mr..
Glasgow called on one of the plaintiffs
with a view Of getting them to endorse
more notes for him, which they declined
to do AS an inducement for them to
comply with his request, he proposed
that If they would endorse his notes
for 81 1900, his wife would join him in
executing a mortgage upon her scpa-
rate real real estate, as security for the
notes previously endorsed by them,
and also for the notes which he then
sought TO have them endorse. This
prvPosl'ioh was accepted Dy plaintlils,
anu u mortgage was executed by de-
iehdants, whereby the wiie's separate
reai estate was mortgaged as security
loi any Inability theh incurred or that
nignt hereafter DC incurred on the
Par, oi plaihtil's' py reason oil Their
s'nu endorsements Mr. 'iasgow dld
nov ue,ehu IN tne actloh rs against
iin,se', ils wiie, however, defended
anu aneged that the mortgage did not
olnu her Tor two reasons First, be-
cause tnere had been irauRdlent al
.era,'oh Oh the mortgage by her nus
pahu' aiter the execution thereof sec
onu, because the mortgage had not
oeeI lcgaliy acknowledged py her be-
,Ii ~, 'u1 'us.,ce Vi Tue rcace' VINO TOOK
'nv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
s As thc oours w,'hurew the case
iloIl 'ne jury ior the reason set forth
~ 'nc secohu GROUND Oh defence, u Is
no' hceessary that any special refer
tnec shoulu pe maze 10 any other
pianon VI .he case me ruiihg prin.
o,p'o ~ 'he case was inc iliegailty oil
.ne VINES acknowie1agment' as taken
peiore 'he 1us'ce' Mr; uiasgow ana
us wiie went ncior r. H. bence, ESQ.,
r 1ustice Oh tne feace, residing IN
hree springs ior the purpose OF nav
,ng saiu mortgage duiy acknowiedged'
ihv Justice asked mrs ulasgow wheth-
vi sue knew 'he nature Oh the lnstru'
men. she was ABOUT 10 execute-stat-
lng 70 ner that u she did not under
s.",iu H. !, was nus uuty 10 explain IL
70 her' one repneu that she had read
Ine mortgage, ana understood IT. The
1us'lce 'heh haue inquiry oi her as 10
"he'ncr sue eHvcuteu the mortgage OF
nei own iroe wlii ana accord, ana with
out any coercion or compulslon on
'ne Pars o' nc, husband, ana she re-
pncu tha' she uia, Inc mortgage was
,hen signed Dy MIS- ulasgow and her
nasoahd I1 ana uuly Witnessed Ills
ionor uugc Deah heiu that TINS was
not suos'antial compliance with the
provisions OF the "a Section OF the act
Oh IVY, winch requires the officer be
iore whom the acknowledgement is
taken TO "redd or other~'se make knorn
% me sad wye the Jul contents Of such
deed or conveyance e. The Justice in
TINS case ana not read or otherwise
make known TO the wife the contents
OF the mortgage because she informed
MN That she had read IT herself, and
understood it, The Court held that
even II Mrs. Glasgow did inform the
Justice that she had read the deed and
understood the contents OF II, she would
not be estopped from proving the falsi-
" oi her declaration to the Justice !
and also that the Act requiring the
ofilcer before whom the acknowledge
ment Is taken to read or otherwise
make known to the wife the full con
tents oi the deed, must DC strictly com
p'ed w''h. Under this instruction Of
the Court the jury rendered a verdict
against the husband Tor s3,9l4.32, and
as 70 the wlie they found for tho de-
iehuan.' ms Is ihaeed one oil the
mos. important decisions rendered IN
our court ior many years Acknowl-