Cribben v. Deal
Oregon Supreme Court
Plaintiff appeals. Where an instrument is of no force or effect aside from a statute making it so, the instrument’must be executed in accordance with the statute. (Harty v. Ladd, 3 Or. 353; Silliman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 117.) The statute requiring assignments to be acknowledged a failure to so acknowledge makes the assignment void even as to personal property. (Hardmann v. Bowen, 39 N. T. 196; Britton v. Lorenz, 45 N. Y. 54.) A deed not acknowledged is void.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff appeals. Where an instrument is of no force or effect aside from a statute making it so, the instrument’must be executed in accordance with the statute. (Harty v. Ladd, 3 Or. 353; Silliman v. Cummins, 13 Ohio, 117.) The statute requiring assignments to be acknowledged a failure to so acknowledge makes the assignment void even as to personal property. (Hardmann v. Bowen, 39 N. T. 196; Britton v. Lorenz, 45 N. Y. 54.) A deed not acknowledged is void. (Goodyhoontz v. Olsen, 54 Iowa, 174.) Where an acknowledgment is an essential requisite of a conveyance, a deed acknowledged while the…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
This is a suit in equity brought by the plaintiffs to have a deed of general assignment set aside and declared void and to have the attached property applied in payment of their judgment. The single proposition of law involved is whether the name of the grantee can, by some one authorized upon parol authority of the grantor, be inserted in a blank left in a deed of general assignment, after the deed has been signed, sealed and acknowledged, but before delivery. For the purposes of this case, the facts are these: That the deed of assignment was made on the seventeenth of November, 1888, by C.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Allen v. WithrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Speake & Others v. U. StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Drury v. FosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Smith v. CrookerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- State v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lafferty v. LaffertyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
- Exchange National Bank v. FlemingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1901
- Jones v. Rocky Cliff Coal Mining Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1921
- Telschow v. QuiggleOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Bechtel v. BechtelOregon Supreme Court · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.