Upon general principle they cannot act in cases in which they are interested ; 95 Am. Dec. 378, note; Ogden B. & L. Ass'n v. Mensch, 196 Ill. 554, 63 N. E. 1049, 89 Am. St. Rep. 330 ; Hayes v. Loan Ass'n, 124 Ala. v63, 26 South. 527, 82 Am. St. Rep. 216 ; Sam ple v. Irwin, 45 Tex. 567 (an attorney for either party).
The acknowledgment of a deed to a cor poration cannot be taken by a notary who is a stockholder and director in the corpora tion; Fugman v. Loan Ass'n, 209 Ill. 176, 70 N. E. 644. One incorporator, who is a no tary, cannot take the acknowledgment of another incorporator to the articles of in corporation ; People v. Board, 105 App. Div. 273, 93 N. Y. Supp. 584.
A mortgage should not be acknowledged before a notary who is a stockholder and of ficer of the mortgagee ; Kothe v. Krag-Reyn olds Co., 20 Ind. .App. 293, 50 N. E. 594; a notary who is a stockholder of a corporation cannot take a valid acknowledgment of his company ; • Bexar B. & L. Ass'n v. Heady, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 50 S. W. 1079, 57 S. W. 583; nor one who is director, stockholder and assistant cashier of a bank ; Wilson v. Griess, 64 Neb, 792, 90 N. W. 866. A protest by a notary who is a stockholder in the bank is invalid ; Monongahela Bank v. Porter, 2 Watts (Pa.) 141; but where a notary pub lic was intermediary between a borrower and lender on mortgage and took the ac knowledgment of the mortgage, his act was held valid, there being nothing on the face of the papers to indicate to third parties that there was any incapacity to act; Jarvis Conklin Mtg. Trust Co. v. Willhoit, 84 Fed. 515 ; and some cases hold that the mere fact that he is an officer of a corporation does not make its acknowledgment before him invalid; Horbach v. Tyrrell, 48 Neb. 514, 67 N. W. 485, 489, 37 L. R. A. 434; Read v. Loan Co., 68 Ohio St. 280, 67 N. E. 729, 62 L. R. A. 790, 96 Am. St. Rep. 663 ; Cooper v. Loan Ass'n, 97 Tenn. 285, 37 S. W. 12, 33 L. R. A. 338, 56 Am. St. Rep. 795; Keene Guaranty S. Bk. v. Lawrence, 32 Wash. 572, 173 Pac. 680.
It is held that a mortgage to a corporation is valid although the notary who took the acknowledgment was a stockholder ; Read v. Loan Co., 68 Ohio St. 280, 67 N. E. 729, 62 L. R. A. 790, 96 Am. St. Rep. 663 ; so where the president of the mortgagee com pany took an acknowledgment of a mort gage to his company; Keene Guaranty S. Bk. v. Lawrence, 32 Wash. 572, 73 Pac. 680; so, in the case of a chattel mortgage, where the notary was a director, treasur er and stockholder of the mortgagee (the fact not appearing on the face of the pa pers) ; Ardmore N. Bk. v. Supply Co., 20
Okl. 427, 94 Pac. 533, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1074, 129 Am. St. Rep. 747, 16 Ann. Cas. 133 ; and in the case of a notary who was vice president of the company ; Florida S. Bk. & R. E. Exch. v. Rivers, 36 Fla. 575, 18 South. 850.
The books or registers of a deceased no tary are admissible to prove his official acts as to presentment, demand, and notice of non-payment of negotiable paper ; Porter v. Judson, 1 Gray (Mass.) 175; and so are en tries of a notary's clerk ; Gawtry v. Doane, 51 N. Y. 84. When produced, the handwrit ing of the deceased person must be proved ; Chaffee v. U. S., 18 Wall. (U. S.) 516, 21 L. Ed. 908 ; but as to what extent a certifi cate shall be conclusive proof of the legality of the acknowledgment is not entirely cer tain; but the general tendency is to pro tect one who relies on the certificate; Webb, Record Title §§ 87-89, and note in 1 Am. Dec. 81. In several states certificate is, by statute, prima facie evidence only ; 1 Hill's Code (Wash.) Sec. 1436.
A recorded deed of trust acknowledged be fore a notary disqualified by statute may be record notice to a subsequent judgment cred itor ; Southwestern Mfg. Co. v. Hughes, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 637, 60 S. W. 684.
Where a lawyer who was also a notary was in the habit of mailing instruments to his clients for signature and then certifying his acknowledgment, he was censured by the court, but not further punished as he acted without improper motive ; In re Barn ard, 151 App. Div. 580, 136 N. Y. Supp. 185.
Where an action is brought against a notary for a false certificate of acknowl edgment, the presumption is that the de fendant, acting in his judicial capacity, did so on reasonable information, and dis charged his full duty. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove a clear and in tentional dereliction of duty ; Com. v. Haines, 97 Pa. 228, 39 Am. Rep. 805 ; Prat. Notaries, 2d ed. §§ 48, 175 ; Notary's Manual. It has been held an actionable libel for a notary falsely and maliciously to protest for non-payment the acceptance of a person, and then send the draft with such protest to the source from Whence it. came; May v. Jones, 88 Ga. 308, 14 S. E. 552, 15 L. R. A. 637, 30 Am. St. Rep. 154. In England they are appointed by the Archbishop of Cahter bury through the master of the Court of Faculties. In the city of London they must have been apprenticed, and also be freemen of the Scriveners' Company ; Odgers, C. L. 1446. See [1910] W. N. 228.
See AUTHENTIC ACT; ACKNOWLEDGMENT.