Smith v. Chamberlain
Superior Court of New Hampshire
It is not essential to the validity of a deed in this state, that the subscribing witnesses he competent to prove its execution at the time when they put their names to it as witnesses.
Read the full summary
It is not essential to the validity of a deed in this state, that the subscribing witnesses he competent to prove its execution at the time when they put their names to it as witnesses. This was a writ of entry, brought to foreclose an equity of redemption upon a mortgage, and was tried here at September term, 1820, upon the general issue, when a verdict was taken for the demandant, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case : Billy Gilman, being seized of the demanded premises, on the 20th April, 1818, made a deed of that date, purporting to convey the same premises to the…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.
By the statute of February 10, 1791, sec. 4,(1) it is enacted, “ that all deeds or other conveyances “ of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments lying in this “ state, signed and sealed by the party granting the same, “ having good and lawful authority thereunto, and signed u by two or more witnesses, and acknowledged by such *441« grantor or grantors before a justice ot the peace, and re- “ corded at length in the registry of detds, in the county “ where such lands, fee. lie, shall be valid to pass the same “ without any other act or ceremony in law whatever.”(1) t N H Tawsaio.
Upon this clause…
2Cited by3 opinions
- French v. FrenchSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825
- Underwood v. CampbellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843
- Forsaith v. ClarkSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850