Ridgely v. Howard
General Court of Virginia
THE following statement and questions were submitted by the chancellor to the general court: “ In chancery, May 14, 1793. This cause depends principally upon a question of title, viz. Whether the legal title to certain lands be in Brice Hoxvard, or in the infant heir of John Beale Hoxvard, deceased.
Read the full summary
THE following statement and questions were submitted by the chancellor to the general court: “ In chancery, May 14, 1793. This cause depends principally upon a question of title, viz. Whether the legal title to certain lands be in Brice Hoxvard, or in the infant heir of John Beale Hoxvard, deceased. “ It appears that the said John Beale Howard, seised in fee-tail of the said lands lying in Anne Arundel county, some short time before his death, duly executed a deed indented, whereby he bargained and sold the said lands to the said Brice Howard and his heirs. On the bach .if ..... . ~ , , ,.…
1Opinion of the Court
The judges of the general court, in answer tp the within questions submitted to their consideration by the honourable the chancellor, are of opinion, that where it appears by the certificate on the deed made in the usual-form, that the party on a particular day came before two justices of the peace of the county, and acknowledged the instrument of writing to be his act and deed, that parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the said justices separately took the said acknowledgment at different times or places within the said county.
The court are also of opinion, that if such evidence…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Cramer v. ShrinerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1861