Page images
PDF
EPUB

ACKNOWLEDGMENT, of Lease and Release, by SEVERAL MARRIED WOMEN, before Perpetual Commissioners.

MEMORANDUM.

THIS DEED (202), marked A., was this day produced before
us, and acknowledged by Mary Blake, Ellen Long, and Jane
Jones, therein named, to be their several acts and deeds; pre-
vious to which acknowledgments, the said Mary Blake, Ellen
Long, and Jane Jones, were examined by us separately and
apart from their respective husbands, touching their knowledge
of the contents of the said deed, and their consent thereto, and
each of them declared the same to be freely and voluntarily
executed by her. Dated the
one thousand
eight hundred and

day of

(Signed by the Commissioners).

CERTIFICATE (203).

Memorandum -lease and release.

Certificatelease and release several married women.

THESE

are to certify, that, on the year one thousand eight hundred and

day of, in the

Before us, Thomas

(202) Where a married woman is a conveying party to deeds of lease and release, there must be a memorandum upon each of the deeds, though in point of legal effect they form but one assurance, and may be included in the same certificate and affidavit.

(203) In this case several married women acknowledge deeds of lease and release. Vide Rule of Trinity Term, 1834, which is a little obscure. Where the wife's freehold or inheritance is intended to pass, it is proper that she should join in, and acknowledge, both the lease and release; first, because the wording of the act of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, s. 77, ("as fully and effectually as she could do if she were a feme sole"), admits of a doubt whether the act has rendered her simple deed, as such, effectual, or has only endowed her, under certain conditions, with capacity to convey by the ordinary modes of assurance; and, secondly, because her execution of both instruments renders the conveyance effective independently of the marriage. But where the wife has a mere title to dower, or an estate or interest which the deed of release is in itself adequate to pass, it would of

Ward, of Grantham, in the county of Lincoln, Gentleman, and
James Wing, of Grantham, aforesaid, Gentleman, two of the
Perpetual Commissioners appointed for the said county of Lin-
coln, for taking the acknowledgments of deeds by married
women, pursuant to an act passed in the third and fourth years
of the reign of his Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled
"An Act for the Abolition of Fines and Recoveries, and for
the Substitution of more simple Modes of Assurance," appeared
personally Mary, the wife of John Blake (204); Ellen, the wife
of Thomas Long; and Jane, the wife of Arthur Jones, and
produced certain indentures of lease and release, bearing date
respectively the and
days of
one thousand
eight hundred and, the lease marked A. (205), and made
between the said John Blake and Mary his wife, Thomas Long
and Ellen his wife, and Arthur Jones and Jane his wife, of
the one part; and Michael Foster, of the other part; and the
release marked B., and made between the said John Blake and
Mary his wife, Thomas Long and Ellen his wife, and Arthur
Jones and Jane his wife, of the first part; the said Michael
Foster, of the second part; and Henry Lee, of the third part;
and acknowledged the same to be their respective acts and
deeds. And we do hereby certify that the said Mary Blake,
Ellen Long, and Jane Jones, were at the time of their respec-
tively acknowledging the said deeds, of full age (206) and com-

course be supererogatory to make her a party to the lease for a year. It sometimes happens that one married woman conveys by the lease and release, while another conveys by the release only. Thus, A., a married woman, and B., a married man, are tenants in common in fee, and the wife of B. is dowable; so that the wife of A. joins in both the lease and release to pass the inheritance of one moiety, while the wife of B. joins in the release only to extinguish her title to dower out of the other moiety. In this case, it would simplify the acknowledgment, though it would not be strictly accurate, to make both the married women parties to both deeds. Where that is not done, the next form (p. 224) must be adopted.

(204) If the same persons, who are parties to the release, are also parties Certificateto the lease for a year, then, instead of the words "the lease made lease and rebetween &c., and the release made between" &c., say, "and respectively made between" &c.

(205) The form of certificate prescribed by the act requires the insertion of the names only of the parties.

(206) Vide notes to the Rules, post, 237.

lease.

petent understanding, and that each of them was examined by us apart from her husband touching her knowledge of the contents of the said deeds, and that each of them freely and voluntarily consented to the same.

(Signed by the Commissioners).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT of Lease by several Married Women, and of Release by the same, and by other Married Women.

CERTIFICATE.

THESE

day of
before us,

in the

of

are to certify, that, on the year one thousand eight hundred and the city of, Gentleman, and, of the same city, Gentleman, two of the Perpetual Commissioners appointed for the city of, and county of the same city, for taking the acknowledgment of deeds by married women pursuant to an act passed in the third and fourth years of the reign of his Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled, "An Act for the Abolition of Fines and Recoveries, and for the Substitution of more simple Modes of Assurance," appeared personally, Caroline, the wife of William C―, and Anne, the wife of Caleb B—, and produced a certain indenture of release marked A., bearing date the day of instant, and made between George S-, Joseph B, John B, Thomas B, Joel B- the said Caleb B- and Anne his wife, the said William C—, and Caroline his wife, and Robert W, of the one part; and Frederick C—, of the other part; and acknowledged the same to be their respective acts and deeds; and also appeared personally, Elizabeth, the wife of George S, Hannah, the wife of Joseph B, Mary, the wife of John B, Sarah, the wife of Thomas B, Eliza, the wife of Joel B——, the said Anne, the wife of Caleb B, and the said Caroline, the wife of William C, and produced a certain indenture of release marked B., (grounded on the said indenture of lease), bearing date the instant, and

[ocr errors]

day of

made between the said George S― and Elizabeth his wife,
Joseph B and Hannah his wife, John B― and Mary
his wife, Thomas B and Sarah his wife, Joel B― and
B-
Eliza his wife, Caleb B and Ann his wife, and William
C-
C― and Caroline his wife, of the first part; the said Robert
W-, of the second part; Edward A—, Richard B.

and Henry C, of the third part; and the said Frederick
C, of the fourth part; and acknowledged the same inden-
ture, marked B, to be their respective acts and deeds; And we
do hereby certify that the said Elizabeth S, Hannah B
Mary B, Sarah B, Eliza B—, Ann B
and
Caroline C, were, at the time of their respectively acknow-
ledging the said deeds as aforesaid of full age and competent
understanding, and that they respectively were examined by us,
apart from their respective husbands, touching their knowledge
of the contents of the said deeds, and that they respectively,
freely, and voluntarily consented to the same.

(Signed by the Commissioners).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT before a JUDGE or MASTER, where a THIRD PERSON, being a practising Attorney, deposes to all the Facts.

AFFIDAVIT (207).

IN THE COMMON PLEAS (208).

JOHN GRANT, of Lombard Street, in the city of London,

Gentleman, one of the Attornies of the Court of

maketh

(207) The affidavit must be on parchment, and have a 2s. 6d. stamp. (208) The affidavit must, even in Ireland, be sworn before a Commissioner of the Court of Common Pleas in England. (In the matter of Anderson's acknowledgment, 2 Bing. N. C. 435). In the case of an acknowledgment taken beyond the seas before special commissioners, (vide 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74, s. 83), the certificate of a British Consul, that the affidavit of acknowledgment was sworn before commissioners duly appointed,

[blocks in formation]

Locality of parcels.

oath and saith, that he knows Jane, the wife of John Ball, in
the certificate hereunto annexed mentioned, and that the ac-
knowledgment therein mentioned was made by the said Jane
Ball, and the certificate signed by the Master [or Judge] in
the said certificate mentioned, on the day and year therein
mentioned, at [the public office, Southampton Buildings, in
the county of Middlesex], in the presence of this deponent;
and that, at the time of making such acknowledgment, the said
Jane Ball was of full age and competent understanding; And
that the said Jane Ball knew the said acknowledgment was in-
tended to pass her estate in the premises respecting which such
acknowledgment was made; And this deponent further saith,
that previous to the said Jane Ball making the said acknow-
ledgment, he this deponent inquired of the said Jane Ball
whether she intended to give up her interest in the estates,
in respect of which such acknowledgment was taken, without
having any provision made for her in lieu of, or in return for,
or in consequence of her so giving up her interest in such
estates, and that, in answer to such inquiry, the said Jane Ball
declared that she did intend to give up her interest in the said
estates, without having any provision made for her in lieu of, or
in return for, or in consequence of her so giving up such her
interest; of which declaration of the said Jane Ball this de-
ponent has no reason to doubt the truth, and verily believes
the same to be true; And, lastly, this deponent saith, that in
the deed acknowledged by the said Jane Ball, the premises
wherein she is stated to be interested, are described to be in
the parish of Saint Pancras, in the county of Middlesex (209).
Sworn at the chambers of Lord
Chief Justice Tindal, in Ser-
jeants' Inn, Chancery Lane,
London, this 2nd day of Jan-

uary, 1836.

Before me.

(Signed) John Grant.

[blocks in formation]

is sufficient. (In the matter of the Trustees of Mrs. Barber, 2 Bing. N. C. 268).

(209) This clause requiring the localities to be stated, revives one of the inconveniences of the abolished assurances, and seems to be an unauthorized interference with the frame of the deed.

« PreviousContinue »