Ridgely v. Howard

3 Md. 321
CourtGeneral Court of Virginia
DecidedMay 15, 1793
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Md. 321 (Ridgely v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering General Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ridgely v. Howard, 3 Md. 321 (Va. Super. Ct. 1793).

Opinion

The judges of the general court, in answer tp the within questions submitted to their consideration by the honourable the chancellor, are of opinion, that where it appears by the certificate on the deed made in the usual-form, that the party on a particular day came before two justices of the peace of the county, and acknowledged the instrument of writing to be his act and deed, that parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the said justices separately took the said acknowledgment at different times or places within the said county.

The court are also of opinion, that if such evidence could be admitted, and proof made, that the acknowledgment was taken by the justices -separately, at different [323]*323times and places, that the deed would not operate to pass the lands to the bargainee.

Samuel Chase,

R. Goldsborough,

Jeremiah Townley Chase,

Annapolis, May 16, 1793.

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

Related

Cramer v. Shriner
18 Md. 140 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Md. 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridgely-v-howard-vagensess-1793.