Case Name: Jacob's Lessee, vs. Kraner
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1802-05
Citations: 1 H. & J. 291
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob’s Lessee, vs. Kraner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 1
Pages: 291–293

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1802.
Jacob’s Lessee, vs. Kraner.
Where deeds defectively acknowledge by a feme covert grantor were held not to pass the estate in the land to the grange.
Ejectmewt for Cooke’s Adventure Resurveyed, Angelí’s Fortune, and Monk’s Discovery, three parcels of land lying in Baltimore county. The following case was stated for the opinion of the court, viz. The Lord Proprietary’s grants of the above mentioned tracts óf land were legally made, and afterwards a certain Rinaido Monk became seised and possessed of' the said lands, of which he died seise$ and possessed, having by his last will and testament duly made and executed, devised the same in fee simple to his daughter Mary Monk, who after his death in virtue of the said devise entered upon and was seised of the said lands, and intermarried with one William Jacob on the 19th of July 1772. That the said Mary died in the life time of the said William, her husband, some time in the year 1781, and that the said William died some time in the year 1790. That Minaldo Jacob, the lessor of the plaintiff, is the eldest son and heir at law of the said William and Mary. That in the lifetime of the said William and Mary, they executed two deeds to the defendant, the first, dated the 18th of April 1776, for part of two tracts of land, viz. part of Cooke’s Adventure Resurveyed, and part of Jlngdl's Fortune, was acknowledged as follows, to wit: “Baltimore county, sc. Came William Jacob, and Mary his wife, before us the subscribers, two of the Lord Proprietary’s justices of the peace for the county aforesaid, and severally acknowledged the within instrument of writing to be their act and deed, and the lands within mentioned to be the right and estate of the within named Michael Kroner, his heirs and assigns, for ever. At the same time the said Mary, the wife of William Jacob, being privately examined apart from and out of the hearing of her said husband, did declare she made the said acknoto-ledgment of her own free will and consent, without being induced thereto by any threats of her husband, or fear of his displeasure. Before us,
James Clarke,
Win. Russell.”
The other deed', dated the 28th of March 1780, for Cooke’s Adventure Resurveyed, was acknowledged as follows, viz. “Baltimore county, to wit: On the 28th of March 1780, before the subscribers, two justices of the peace in and for the county aforesaid, came William Jacob, and acknowledged the within bargained and sold land and premises to be*the right and estate of the within named Michael ICraner, his heirs and assigns, for ever. At the same time came Mary Ja cob, wife of the said William Jacob, and being by us privately examined apart from and out of the hearing of her said husband, acknowledged all her right and title to the within bargained and sold land and premises, to be the right and estate of the within named Michael Kraner, his heirs and assigns, forever', and that 'she made this acknowledgment of her own free and voluntary Will and accord, without being induced thereto by fear of threats of her said husband, or through fear of Ms displeasure.
Qeo. Lindenberger,
Feter Shepherd.”
Both deeds were recorded on the day of their respective dates.
That the defendant by virtue of the said deeds entered upon and has possessed the said lands .therein mentioned since that time. The lease, entry, and • ouster, as laid in the ejectment, are also admitted; and if upon the whole, &c.
Martin, (Attorney General,) for the Plaintiff.
Harper, for the Defendant.
The question in this case arose on the form of the ' acknowledgments, made by the feme covert grantor to the deeds above stated.

Opinion:
The Gehehax Court gave judgment upon the case stated, for the plaintiff, for possession and costs.