Case Name: Elizabeth Moore v. Lessee of Rachel Moore et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1854-02-09
Citations: 3 Ohio St. 154
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elizabeth Moore v. Lessee of Rachel Moore et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 3
Pages: 155–156

Head Matter:
Elizabeth Moore v. Lessee of Rachel Moore et al.
An acknowledgment of a deed taken by a mayor without the limits of his city, is valid.
Error to the court of common pleas of Clark county, reserved in the district court.
The action below was ejectment. The plaintiff in that action bav155] ing made a prima facie ease, the defendant offered *in evidence a deed from Eachel Moore, one of the lessors of the plaintiff, dated June 9, 1852. It was admitted that the acknowledgment of the deed was taken by the mayor of Springfield, without the limits of the city, and of the township, in which the city is situate, and that the lands were all without the limits of said city and township ; but the competency of the facts so admitted was denied, the deed purporting to be acknowledged within the city limits ; and the admission was made subject to the question of its competency. The evidence was received by the court below, and the motion of plaintiff to reject the deed was sustained, to which the defendant excepted.
This writ is sued out to reverse the judgment for the alleged error of the court in rejecting the deed.
Shellabarger & Hunt, for plaintiff in error.
S. & R. Mason, and Wm. White, for defendant.

Opinion:
Corwin, C. J.
The act done by a mayor or justice of the peace in taking the acknowledgment of a deed is the exercise of a power in the nature of that conferred upon a commissioner of deeds. In the act " to provide for the proof, acknowledgment, and recording of deeds and other instruments of writing " (Swan, old ed. 265), no territorial limit is fixed to the power of the officers invested with the power of taking acknowledgments. As to justices of the peace, however, another statute provides that the power "shall be coextensive with the county in which they may have been elected." Ib. 506. If, as held in the case of Crumbaugh v. Kugler, 2 Ohio St., the taking of an acknowledgment without his county is a valid act, a fortiori, such an act must be valid when done by a mayor without the limits of his city; no territorial limitation whatever being expressed in the statute.
For the error of the court in rejecting the deed offered in evidence, the judgment must be reversed.