Schley v. Pullman Car Co.

Citations

• 120 U.S. 575
• 7 S. Ct. 730
• 30 L. Ed. 789
• 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2002

Syllabus

<p>An irregular act of practice by an attorney of record rebuked.</p> <p>A deed, dated May 26, 1S56, by C. L., grantor, described as “ sister and heir-at-law of H. M.,” and as “ of tlie county of St. Clair and state of Michigan,” winch conveyed to the grantee a tract of land in Illinois, and was signed and sealed by C. L. and by W. L., the name of W. L. not appearing in the granting clause of the deed, and which was acknowledged May 27, 1856, by said “C. L. and W. L. her husband,” held sufficient to pass said title of husband and wife, under the statute of Illinois of February 22, 1817, then in force, respecting the conveyance of lands or real estate situate in Illinois by a feme covert not residing within the state, and respecting her joining with her husband in the execution of the deed.</p> <p>A magistrate’s certificate, attached to a deed of land in Illinois, that on the 27th of May, 1856, personally came C. L. and W. L., her husband, “known to me to be tbe persons who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the sume to be their free act and ■ deed,” is equivalent to stating that they came before the officer, and were personally known to . him to be the real persons who subscribed the deed, and in this respect complied with the requirements of the statutes of Illinois then in force.</p> <p>An officer’s certificate of the acknowledgment on the 27th May, 1856, of a deed of land.in Illinois by a married woman, showing.her privy examination separate and apart from her husband, and which shows that she, ■ “ fully understanding the contents of the foregoing instrument, acknowledged,” &c., is a sufficient compliance with the statutes of the statp .in force at that time respecting the communicating the contents of such a deed to her.</p>