Abrams v. Ervin

Supreme Court of Iowa

Abrams v. Ervin

9 Iowa 87

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJune 15, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 9 Iowa 87 (Abrams v. Ervin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abrams v. Ervin, 9 Iowa 87 (iowa 1859).

Pincite

Opinions

StocktoN, J.¹

The question is whether the deputy of the clerk of the District Court, authorized to be appointed by the act of July 81, 1840, (Rev. Stat. 143,) was, under the seventh section of the act of February 16,1843, (Rev. Stat. 204,) authorized and competent to take and certify the acknowledgment of a deed of conveyance of real estate. ■

[90]*90Where the duties of a public officer are of a ministerial character, they may be discharged by deputy. Duties of a judicial character, cannot be so discharged. The clerk is a ministerial officer. When the law gives him power to appoint a deputy, such deputy, when created, may do any act that the principal might do. He cannot have less power than his principal. He has the right to subscribe the name of his principal; and the act of the deputy, in the name of the principal, within the scope of his authority, is the act of his principal. Parker v. Kett, 1 Lord Raymond, 658; Ellison v. Stevenson, 6 B. Mon. 275; Troplett v. Gill, 7 J. J. Mar. 444; Corrith v. Arnold, 3 Littell 316; Hope v. Sawyer, 14 Ill. 254.

From the certificate in this case, it may fairly be presumed, that the deed was acknowledged before the clerk, and his name signed by the deputy. Without regard to his principal, it is not intended to be held, that the deputy has any power. It might be doubted whether a certificate, that the deed was acknowledged before the deputy, and signed with his own name, without showing his principal, would be good. The taking and certifying the acknowledgment of a deed, is, however, so far a ministerial act, that it may be done by the deputy in the name of the principal, as other acts of a ministerial nature are authorized to be performed by him. Beaumout v. Yeatman, 8 Humphrey 542; McRaven v. McGuire, 9 Smedes & M. 34.

The ruling of the court upon the evidence given by Browning, we think, was correct. But for the error in refusing to admit the deed in evidence, the judgment will be reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

StocktoN, J.¹

The question is whether the deputy of the clerk of the District Court, authorized to be appointed by the act of July 81, 1840, (Rev. Stat. 143,) was, under the seventh section of the act of February 16,1843, (Rev. Stat. 204,) authorized and competent to take and certify the acknowledgment of a deed of conveyance of real estate. ■

[90]*90Where the duties of a public officer are of a ministerial character, they may be discharged by deputy. Duties of a judicial character, cannot be so discharged. The clerk is a ministerial officer. When the law gives him power to appoint a deputy, such deputy, when created, may do any act that the principal might do. He cannot have less power than his principal. He has the right to subscribe the name of his principal; and the act of the deputy, in the name of the principal, within the scope of his authority, is the act of his principal. Parker v. Kett, 1 Lord Raymond, 658; Ellison v. Stevenson, 6 B. Mon. 275; Troplett v. Gill, 7 J. J. Mar. 444; Corrith v. Arnold, 3 Littell 316; Hope v. Sawyer, 14 Ill. 254.

From the certificate in this case, it may fairly be presumed, that the deed was acknowledged before the clerk, and his name signed by the deputy. Without regard to his principal, it is not intended to be held, that the deputy has any power. It might be doubted whether a certificate, that the deed was acknowledged before the deputy, and signed with his own name, without showing his principal, would be good. The taking and certifying the acknowledgment of a deed, is, however, so far a ministerial act, that it may be done by the deputy in the name of the principal, as other acts of a ministerial nature are authorized to be performed by him. Beaumout v. Yeatman, 8 Humphrey 542; McRaven v. McGuire, 9 Smedes & M. 34.

The ruling of the court upon the evidence given by Browning, we think, was correct. But for the error in refusing to admit the deed in evidence, the judgment will be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Iowa 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-v-ervin-iowa-1859.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack