Case Name: Lessee of Johnston v. Haines
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1825-12
Citations: 2 Ohio 55
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Lessee of Johnston v. Haines.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 2
Pages: 48–50

Head Matter:
*Lessee of Johnston v. Haines.
Where the person taking acknowledgment of a deed gives himself no official character in his certificate or subscription, the acknowledgment is insufficient, and the record of the deed irregular. Copy of it duly certified can not be given in evidence.
Proof to supply defective certificate of acknowledgment of a deed can only be given when original deed is produced.
At the trial of this cause, the plaintiff, in deducing title, offered in evidence the copy of one deed in the chain of title, duly certified by the recorder, together with the copy of the certificate of acknowledgment as made by the person taking it. In this acknowledgment it was not expressed that the person taking it was an officer of any kind, and the name subscribed was without any official character. The plaintiff offered to prove, by other evidence, that the person who took the acknowledgment was, in fact, at the time a justice of the peace duly commissioned and qualified. The defendant objected to the copy of the deed, and to the evidence of the character of the person who took the acknowledgment. The deed and evidence were both rejected, and the plaintiff was nonsuit. A motion was made for a new trial, on the ground of error in rejecting the deed and evidence, and the decision of the motion adjourned to this court.
Leonard, for the plaintiff.
Atkinson, for defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court:
When a copy of a deed, signed by the recorder, is offered in evidence instead of the original, its admissibility depends upon the fact whether'the original has regularly been admitted to record; for the mere fact of recording a deed, without the legal requisites, gives it no validity.
The statute, providing for the execution and acknowledgment of deeds, which was in force when this deed was recorded, required that the execution of all deeds for the conveyance of lands should be acknowledged by the grantor, or proved by the subscribing witnesses, before some judge or justice of the peace, and recorded in the proper county. The acknowledgment or proof is nothing unless it be taken by an authorized officer, and whether the person be authorized or not, is a fact which ought to appear in the certificate *of the officer himself. This, prima facie, would be sufficient to authorize the record and to throw the proof on the person impeaching the deed. In this case nothing of the kind appears in the certificate or attached to the subscription, consequently the deed was not duly recorded and the copy can not be received as evidence.
Proof, distinct from the certificate upon which the record was made that the person who made the acknowledgment was, in fact, a justice duly qualified, could not be received at the trial, because it was a copy, and not the original, to which the evidence was intended to be applied. We do not decide what would be the law had the original deed been in court, and proof offered that the person who took the acknowledgment was a justice. We think it clear, that in the case of a copy such proof can not be received. The record being irregular the original is not proved, and until that is done a copy can not be used. The court decided correctly in rejecting the testimony, and the motion for a new trial must be overruled.
NoTJS by the Editor. — The law of this case is recognized in the case of lessee of Livingston v. McDonald, ix. 168.