ACKNOWLEDGMENT. The act of one who has executed a deed, in going before some competent officer or court and declar ing it to be his act or deed.
The acknowledgment is certified by the officer or court; and the term acknowledgment is sometimes used to deeignate the certificate.
The function of an acknowledgment is two-fold: to authorize the deed to be given in evidence with out further proof of its execution, and to entitle it to be recorded. The same purposes may be accom plished by a subscribing witness going before the officer or .court and making oath to the fact of the execution, which is certified in the same manner ; but in some states this is only permitted in case of the death, absence, or refusal of the grantor. In some of the states a deed is void except as between the parties and their privies, unless acknowledged or proved.
Nature of. In some states the act is held to be a judicial or quasi-judicial one; Was son v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Harmon v. Magee, 57 Miss. 410 ; Grider v. Mortgage Co., 99 Ala. 281, 12 South. 775, 42 Am. St. Rep. 58 (changing the rule of earlier cases); Thompson v. Mortgage Security Co., 110 Ala. 400, 18 South. 315, 55 Am. St. Rep. 29 ; Heil man v. Kroh, 155 Pa. 1, 25 Atl. 751; Murrell' v. Diggs, 84 Va. 900, 6 S. E. 461, 10 Am. St. Rep. 893; while in others it is held to be a ministerial act; Lynch v. Livingston, 6 N. Y. 422 ; Loree v. Abner, 57 Fed. 159, 6 C. C. A. 302; Ford v. Osborne, 45 Ohio St. 1, 12 N. E. 526 ; Learned v. Riley, 14 Allen (Mass.) 109.
Who may take. An officer related to the Parties ; Lynch v. Livingston, 6 N. Y. 422; Remington Paper Co. v. O'Dougherty, 81 N. Y. 474. The presumption is that the officer took it within his jurisdiction; Morrison v. White, 16 La. Ann. 100; Rackleff v. Norton, 19 Me. 274 ; Bradley v. West, 60 M. 33; and that it was duly executed; Albany County Savings Bank v. McCarty, 71 Hun 227, 24 N. Y. Supp. 991.
In some states a notary cannot take ac knowledgment in another county than the one within which he was appointed and re sides ; Utica & Black River R. Co. v. Stew art, 33 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 312; Rehkoph v.
Miller, 59 Ill. App. 662 ; nor the attorney of record ; Gilmore v. Hempstead, 4 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 153 ; Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 91; Hughes v. Wilkinson's Lessee, 37 Miss. 482 ; Hedger v. Ward, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 106; nor if his term has expired; Gilbraith v. Gallivan, 78 Mo. 452 ; Carlisle v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 542. In Pennsylvania, by statute, a notary may act anywhere within the state; Acts, 1893, p. 323.
Taking an acknowledgment is not public business such as may not be transacted on a legal holiday ; Slater v. Schack, 41 Minn. 269, 43 N. W. 7.
One cannot take an acknowledgment of a deed in which he has any interest; Bea man v. Whitney, 20 Me. 413; Groesbeck v. Seeley, 13 Mich. 329; Wasson v. Connor, 54 Miss. 351; Brown v. Moore, 38 Tex. 645; Withers v. Baird. 7 Watts (Pa.) 227, 32 Am. Dec. 754. Contra, Davis v. Beazley, 75 Va. 491; Dail v. Moore, 51 Mo. 589 ; West v. Krebaum, 88 Ill. 263 ; Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420.
Sufficiency of. Certificate need only sub stantially comply with the statute. The fact of acknowledgment and the identity of the parties are the essential parts, and must be stated ; Bryan v. Ramirez, 8 Cal. 461, 68 Am. Dec. 340; Morse v. Clayton, 13 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 373 ; Alexander v Merry, 9 Mo. 514.
The general rule applied in cases of gram matical or clerical errors is that the courts will disregard obvious mistakes, and read into the acknowledgment the proper word, if such word can be easily ascertained ; Merritt v. Yates, 71 Ill. 636, 23 Am. Rep. 128; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Parrott, 92 111. 194; Durst v. Daugherty, 81 Tex. 650, 17 S. W. 388 ; Mc Cardia v. Billings, 10 N. D. 373, 87 N. W. 1008, 88 Am. St. Rep. 729 ; Frostburg Mut. Bldg. Ass'n v. Brace, 51 Md. 508; Hughes v. Wright, 100 Tex. 511, 101 S. W. 789, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 643, 123 Am. St. Rep. 827 ;. but it is held that important words omitted can not be supplied by intendment ; Jackway v. Gault, 20 Ark. 190, 73 Am. Dec. 494 ; Hayden v. Westcott, 11 Conn. 129; Newman v. Sam uels, 17 la. 528 ; Wetmore v. Laird, 5 Biss. 160, Fed. Cas. No. 17,467.