Wannall v. Kem

51 Mo. 150
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 51 Mo. 150 (Wannall v. Kem) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wannall v. Kem, 51 Mo. 150 (Mo. 1872).

Opinion

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

[151]*151This was an action in the nature of a bill in equity to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendants Kern and wife, on land belonging to the wife in fee, to secure a note alleged to have been executed by Kem and wife to the plaintiff’s indorser. The mortgage is dated the 18th of January, 1869, and was acknowledged before the defendant A. L. Loucks as notary public. The acknowledgment was properly made, but the notary public failed to state in his certificate of acknowledgment the facts necessary to constitute a good acknowledgment by husband and wife to a conveyance of the wife’s lands. The notary is made a party defendant to this suit, and a decree is asked correcting the omissions of the notary in his certificate of acknowledgment, and for a foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises.

The defendants, Kem and wife, demurred to the plaintiff’s petition upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the notary was not a proper or necessary party to this suit.

This demurrer was sustained, and a final judgment was rendered on the demurrer for the defendants.

1st. It is essential to the validity of a mortgage or conveyance by husband and wife of the wife’s lands that such conveyance should be acknowledged in conformity with our statutory requisitions on this subject, and that the certificate of the officer taking the acknowledgment should substantially state all the facts necessary to such acknowledgment. If the officer fails to set forth in his certificate the facts necessary to constitute a good acknowledgment, a court of equity is not the proper forum to afford the relief. The officer may voluntarily correct his certificate, or make out a proper certificate where lie has given a defective one, if the facts really exist to warrant such action. If the officer refuges to make a proper certificate, he may be compelled to do so by mandamus', but a court of equity has no jurisdiction to correct such defects. The notary derives his authority to take acknowledgments from the statute, and courts of equity do not aid the defective execution of statutory powers. (Chauvin vs. Wagner, 18 [152]*152Mo., 531; Moreau vs. Detchmendy, 18 Mo., 522; Bright vs. Boyd, 1 Story R. 486, and 1 Story’s Eq., § 97-177.)

2d. Under our statutes a husband, during coverture, can ■ make no conveyance of his interest in his wife’s real estate unless it be by deed executed by the wife jointly with the husband, and acknowledged by her in the manner provided by law in the case of the conveyance by husband and wife of the real estate of the wife. (W. S. 935, § 14.) So in this case, the mortgage being inoperative as to the wife for want of a proper certificate of acknowledgment, was also inoperative as to the husband.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

The other Judges concur.

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

Related

Robinson v. Bruner
114 So. 556 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Smith v. . Beaver
111 S.E. 852 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Butler v. Butler
169 N.C. 584 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Brown v. Dressler
29 S.W. 13 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Flesh v. Lindsay
21 S.W. 907 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
Melcher v. Derkum
44 Mo. App. 650 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Griffith v. Ventress
91 Ala. 366 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)
Hall v. Klepzig
99 Mo. 83 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1889)
Cox v. Holcomb
87 Ala. 589 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)
Fischer & Co. v. Anslyn
30 Mo. App. 316 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Mueller v. Kaessmann
84 Mo. 318 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)
Hord v. Taubman
79 Mo. 101 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Gilbraith v. Gallivan
78 Mo. 452 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
First National Bank v. Hughes
10 Mo. App. 7 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1881)
Goff v. Roberts
72 Mo. 570 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1880)
Biggers v. St. Louis Mutual House-Building Co. No. 3
9 Mo. App. 210 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1880)
Homœopathic Mutual Life Insurance v. Marshall
32 N.J. Eq. 103 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1880)
Wannell v. Kem
57 Mo. 478 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1874)
Clark v. Rynex
53 Mo. 380 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Mo. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wannall-v-kem-mo-1872.