| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 61 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
JOHNS VS. REARDON. 61 law to be registered, and are duly registered In compliance with law. 1 Story's Eq., Sec. 404; Lessee of Heister vs. Fort- ner, 2 Binney, 40; Frost vs. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch. Rep., 288. In the last-cited case the Chancellor said, " The question does not necessarily arise how far the unauthorized registry of a mortgage, as one made, for instance, without any previous legal proof or acknowledgment, would charge a purchaser with notice of the mortgage"'—"the better opinion in the books seems to be, that it would not be notice, and that equity will not inter- fere in favor of an. incumbrancer, when he has not seen that his mortgage was duly registered." It would seem, therefore, upon authority to be quite clear, that the mere fact that the mortgage to Johns was enrolled in Harford county would not have the effect of binding Scott by constructive notice, unless such enrolment was authorized and required by law; and the question therefore is, was the deed to Johns, notwithstanding the obvious and admitted defect in the acknowledgment, authorized and required by law to be re- corded ? It is too clear for controversy that the defect in tha acknowledgment was not and could not be cured by the regis- tration, and that notwithstanding the registration, the deed was wholly insufficient to pass the title. The case of Git- tings vs. Hall, reported in 1 H. & J., 15, and 2 H. & J.., 380, is conclusive upon this point. The deed in that case from Ogle and wife to James Bosley, was, in reference to the acknow- ledgment, the precise counterpart of the deed in this case; and yet, though enrolled in the county in which the land lay, it was adjudged defective and inadmissible in evidence as a link in the chain of title attempted to be made out in that ease, or rather, to prove the statement on which the jury were asked to ground the presumption of another deed, which was essen- tial to the plaintiff's title. In the case of Gittings and Hall, the Court of Appeals,. when it was first before them, decided, that though the deed was defective upon its face, because the acknowledgment was made before two justices of the peace for Prince George's county, when the grantors in the deed were described as of |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 61 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives