Logan v. Williams

Citations

• 76 Ill. 175

Syllabus

<p>1. Acknowledgment of deeds—taken before unauthorized officer, cured by subsequent legislation. The acknowledgment of a deed under the act of 1819, which conformed to the requirements of that act as to the form of the officer’s certificate, but which was taken by an officer not authorized by it to take acknowledgments, is cured by the amendatory statutes of 1827 and 1829, authorizing such officer to take acknowledgments, which are retrospective in their operation; and the provision in the latter acts requiring the certificate of acknowledgment to show that the grantors were personally known to the officer, will not be held to apply to acknowledgments taken before their passage, but only to subsequent acknowledgments.</p> <p>2. Jtiusdiction—of the person, by publication. Where the record of a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage, in 1822, showed that the court ordered publication of notice to the defendants, having found them to be non-residents, and the court, at the next term, in its decree, found that notice had been given, as required, to the defendants: Held, that, in a collateral proceeding, it would be presumed that the notice given was sufficient, in the absence of proof to the contrary, and that the court had jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants, although all their names did not appear in the orders and decrees.</p> <p>8. Decree—description of land by reference to bill. Where a bill to foreclose two mortgages made the mortgages part of the bill, as exhibits,' and the lands were properly described therein, a decree of foreclosure which directs the sale of the mortgaged premises described in the complainant’s bill, giving the number of tracts only, and without further description, will be sufficient. In such case, a formal -description of the lands is unnecessary.</p>