Philips v. Erwin
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina
The defendant relied principally upon the statute of limitations, and produced a grant which had not been countersigned by the secretary. It was objected that this was no grant, as it wanted one of the essential requisites of a grant, the countersignature of the secretary of state. Nov. 1777, c. 1, § 15; 1783, c. 2, § 15.
1Per curiam
This is a good grant, notwithstanding the secretary has omitted to countersign it. The grant is authentic, and passes the interest of tbe state, when the governor puts his signature and the seal of the state. The act, as to the countersignature by the secretary and recording the same, is directory, and, should the secretary neglect to do his duty, it should not operate to the prejudice of the grantee in making his grant void.1 Suppose a person takes a deed to a register of a county who returns it as registered. when in truth it was not. This neglect shall not injure the owner of the deed. In…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810
3Cited by1 opinion
- Le Roy v. ClaytonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1874