Fund Commissioners of Muskingum County v. Glass
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a Bill in Chancery, reserved in Muskingum County. The Bill sets forth that on the 18th of June, 1838, the defendant, Samuel Glass, borrowed of the Fund Commissioners of Muskingum county, two hundred dollars, and on the same day, together with his wife, executed a mortgage deed conveying the premises in the deed and bill described, to the complainants, to secure the payment of said débt.
Read the full summary
This is a Bill in Chancery, reserved in Muskingum County. The Bill sets forth that on the 18th of June, 1838, the defendant, Samuel Glass, borrowed of the Fund Commissioners of Muskingum county, two hundred dollars, and on the same day, together with his wife, executed a mortgage deed conveying the premises in the deed and bill described, to the complainants, to secure the payment of said débt. The prayer of the bill is that the mortgaged premises may be sold, &c. . To this bill Wells Hawes, one of the defendants, put in answer, in which he admits the indebtedness of Glass as stated in the…
1Opinion of the CourtHitchcock, J.
The only question raised in this case is whether, where a deed is acknowledged before a Notary Public, the acknowledgment is void, unless the same is certified under the official seal of the officer taking the acknowledgment. That such acknowledgment is void, is earnestly insisted upon by the counsel for the defendant, and they base their argument upon the act “ for the appointment of Notaries Public,” which took effect May 1, 1816. (tíwan’s Stat. 601.) The third section of this act provides that “ each Notary shall provide a notarial seal, with which he shall authenticate his official acts,”…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cummings v. EastmanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1927
- Board of Township Trustees v. LambrixOhio Court of Appeals · 1978