In the following cases it was held that the statute must be strictly complied with ; Buell v. Irwin, 24 Mich. 145 ; Rogers v. Adams, 66 Ala. 600; Myers v. Boyd, 96 Pa. 427; Wetmore v. Laird, 5 Biss. 160, Fed. Cas. No. 17,467; Tully v. Davis, 30 Ill. 103, 83 Am. Dec. 179; Ridgely v. Howard, 3 H. & McK. (Md.) 321. Where a notary takes the acknowledgment and attaches his seal, but fails to sign his name, it is not suffi cient; Clark v. Wilson, 127 Ill. 429, 19 N. E. 860, 11 Am. St. Rep. 143.
Effect of. Only purchasers for value can take advantage of defects ; Mastin v. Halley, 61 Mo. 196.
An acknowledged deed is evidence of seizin In the grantee, and authorizes recording it ; Kellogg v. Loomis, 16 Gray (Mass.) 48.
An unacknowledged deed is good between the parties and subsequent purchasers with actual notice; Gray v. Ulrich, 8 Kan. 112 ; Kellogg v. Loomis, 16 Gray (Mass.) 48 ; Ste vens v. Hampton, 46 Mo. 404 ; Bishop v. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472, 2 Am. Rep. 533; Ryan v. Carr, 46 Mo. 483.
The certificate will prevail over the un supported denial of the grantor ; Lickmon v. Harding, 65 Ill. 505.
Identification of Grantor. An introduction by a common friend is sufficient to justify officer in making certificate ; Carpenter v. Dexter, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 513, 19 L. Ed. 426. Contra, Jones v. Bach, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 5681 Nippel v. Hammond, 4 Col. 211. See Ac QUAINTED.
A notary imposed upon by a personation is liable only for clear negligence. It is a legal presumption that he acted on reason able information, and his absence of mem ory as to details of what occurred does not destroy that presumption; Com. v. Haines, 97 Pa. 228.
The certificate is not invalidated by want of recollection of the officer ; Tooker v. Sloan, 30 N. J. Eq. 394 ; nor by mistake in, or omission of, the date; Huxley v. Harrold, 62 Mo. 516 ; Kelly v. Rosenstock, 45 Md. 389; Webb v. Huff, 61 Tex. 677 ; Yorty v. Paine, 62 Wis. 154, 22 N. W. 137.
It is always permissible to show that the party never appeared before the officer and acknowledged the deed ; Donahue v. Mills, 41 Ark. 421; Pickens v. Knisely, 29 W. Va. 1, 11 S. E. 932, 6 Am. St. Rep. 622 ; but if he appeared, the recitals in the certificate of acknowledgment can only be impeached for fraud or imposition, with knowledge brought home to the grantee ; Bouvier-Iaeger Coal Land Co. v. Sypher, 186 Fed. 660.
Correction. Where a notary fails to set forth the necessary facts, he may correct his certificate, and may be compelled by manda mus, but equity has no jurisdiction to cor rect it ; Wannall v. Kem, 51 Mo. 150 ; Hutch inson v. Ainsworth, 63 Cal. 286; Merritt v. Yates, 71 Ill. 636, 23 Am. Rep. 128.
See paper by Judge Cooley, 4 Amer. Bar Assoc. 1881.