Cross v. Clarkson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Cross v. Clarkson

5 Ky. Op. 745, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 359

DecidedSeptember 16, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ky. Op. 745 (Cross v. Clarkson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cross v. Clarkson, 5 Ky. Op. 745, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 359 (Ky. Ct. App. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Appellant insists that as judges are not usually the custodians of the seals of their courts it is sufficient under the provisions of the 17th section of chapter 24, Revised Statutes, for them to cause such seals to be affixed to their certificates by the officers having them in legal custody.

The certificate of the acknowledgment by Mrs. Clarkson of the deed to Rich does not show that the judge himself affixed to it the seal of his court, nor that he caused it to be done by the clerk thereof, and the clerk verifies his own certificate by his official seal and not by the seal of the county court. The two seals may be one and the same, but it is necessary under the law that it shall in some way affirmatively appear that the certificate of the judge is made under the seal of his court. From the certificate of the clerk it does not even appear that he is the clerk of the court over which the judge presides nor, indeed, of any court, considering everything appearing upon the conveyance, it cannot be adjudged that the certificate of the judge of the county court is in any way verified by the seal of his court.

The defect in the attestation of the instrument is a substantial one, and authorized the chancellor to hold that the attempted conveyance did not divest the mother of the appellants of her title to the real estate therein described.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Appellant insists that as judges are not usually the custodians of the seals of their courts it is sufficient under the provisions of the 17th section of chapter 24, Revised Statutes, for them to cause such seals to be affixed to their certificates by the officers having them in legal custody.

The certificate of the acknowledgment by Mrs. Clarkson of the deed to Rich does not show that the judge himself affixed to it the seal of his court, nor that he caused it to be done by the clerk thereof, and the clerk verifies his own certificate by his official seal and not by the seal of the county court. The two seals may be one and the same, but it is necessary under the law that it shall in some way affirmatively appear that the certificate of the judge is made under the seal of his court. From the certificate of the clerk it does not even appear that he is the clerk of the court over which the judge presides nor, indeed, of any court, considering everything appearing upon the conveyance, it cannot be adjudged that the certificate of the judge of the county court is in any way verified by the seal of his court.

The defect in the attestation of the instrument is a substantial one, and authorized the chancellor to hold that the attempted conveyance did not divest the mother of the appellants of her title to the real estate therein described.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ky. Op. 745, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-clarkson-kyctapp-1872.