Case Name: Abraham Lewis's Lessee against William Waters
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1796-04
Citations: 3 Md. 430
Docket Number: 
Parties: Abraham Lewis’s Lessee against William Waters.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 3
Pages: 430–433

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
APRIL TERM, 1796.
(EASTERN SHORE.)
Abraham Lewis’s Lessee against William Waters.
THIS was an action of ejectment, for a tract of land called Security to Paint Point, lying in Dorchester county.
The case stated for the opinion of the court was, that a certain Richard Dawson, on the 27th of August, 1775, was seised in fee of the premises mentioned in the declaration, and being so seised made his last will and testament; and thereby devised, the same to a certain Mary Ann M'Keel, and her heirs for ever, and afterwards, in the year 1777, being possessed thereof, departed this life. That after the making of the said will, and in the lifetime of the testator, .the said Mary intermarried with Jeremiah Connerby. That the said Connerby and wife, after the death of the said Dawson, entered, and being seised, on the 16th of December, 1777, by deed of bargain and sale, conveyed the said land to George Waterf, the acknowledgment of which deed is as follows:
“ Maryland: Dorchester county, December 16, 1777.
“ Be it remembered that on the day and year above written, personally appeared before us the subscribers, two of the justices" of the peace of the county aforesaid, the above-named Jeremiah Connerby, and Mary Ann, his wife, and acknowledged the lands and tenements in the above deed contained, tobe the right, title, interest and estate of the above named George Waters, his heirs, &c. agreeably to the true intent and meaning of the above deed ; the same Mary Ann having been first privately examined by us secretly and apart and separate from her husband, whether she did the same freely and willingly of her own accord, and without being induced thereto by the threats of her husband, or fear of his displeasure, or ill usage from him, and having assured us she did the same voluntarily and without being induced thereto by any of the causes aforesaid, according to an act of assembly in such case made and provided.”
That after the execution of the said deed the said Waters entered into the land, and was seised thereof; and being so seised, afterwards, in 1778, died intestate, and without issue ; whereupon the interest of the said Waters in the said premises descended to John Waters, his eldest brother and heir at law who entered, and being seised devised the said land to William Waters, the defendant, and his heirs in fee-simple,' and afterwards died so seised, when the defendant entered.
That Jeremiah Connerby died in 1784, and afterwards, on the 20th of December, 1793, the said Alary Ann Can» nerby, the widow of the said Jeremiah, having entered upon the said premises, and claimed the same as her right and property, executed a deed of bargain and sale of the same to Abraham Lewis, the lessor of the plaintiff, who entered, &c.
Martin (Attorney-General) and Hammond, for the plaintiff.
Pinkney and J. Bayly, for the defendant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the' court, after full argument by the counsel, was delivered as follows, by
Chase, J.
The question in this case arises on the certificate of the acknowledgment of the deed from Jeremiah Conner by ^ and wife to George Waters, in the Words following, viz. " The same Mary Ann having been first privately examined by us, secretly and apart and separate from her husband, whether she did the same freely and willingly, of her own accord, and without being induced thereto by the threats of her husband, or fear of his displeasure, or ill usage from him, and having assured us she did the same voluntarily, and without being induced thereto by any of the causes aforesaid, according to an act of assembly in such case made and provided."
No deed of lands from a feme covert can be valid and operative to pass her interest therein, unless her acknowledgment is made according to the act of 1715, c. 47. This act prescribes a precise and particular form which must be substantially complied with.
The justices, in making the certificate, act ministerially and not judicially.
Whether the form prescribed by the act of assembly has been pursued, mu3t depend on an inspection of the certificate, and comparing it with the act It can derive* no aid or support from possession having been held under it. Long uninterrupted possession creates a presumption that every thing has been legally transacted ; but that presumption is encountered and defeated by resorting to the deed, and inspecting the certificate, which in this case appears to be defective.
A deed, to be good, and operate as such, must be acknowledged to be the deed of the party. The writing in question is not acknowledged by the feme to be her désela
No inference or implication can arise from the words u that she acknowledges the lands to be the right and estate of the party, his heirs and assigns," to make it her acknowledgment of the deed; nor can it be made a good acknowledgment by the concluding words, " according to act of assemblyfor that is the judgment or deduction of the justices, and is not warranted by the preceding part of the certificate.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
The defendant brought a writ of error to the court of appeals, but for want of prosecution the case was nonprossed in that court at June term, í ¡T98.