
    Teackle vs. Nicols's Lessee.
    Appeal from Somerset County Court. Ejectment foe part of a tract of land called Beckford. The defendant, (now appellant,) took defence on warrant, and plots were returned; and at the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence plots and explanations, and proved the locations mad® by him to be correct. He also read in evidence a grant of Bedford to G. IP. Jackson, on the 19th of December 1798. Also a deed from Jackson to the defendant, for 9 acres 3 rods and 29 perches of the said tract, described by courses and distances, dated the 19th of May 1802. Also a deed dated the 29th of October 1807, from the tiefendan't, stated in the deed to be of Somerset county, to J. Teackle, for (amongst others) the above part of the tract called Beckford, conveyed to him by Jackson. This deed was acknowledged on the day of its date in Prince- George’s county^ before J. M. Garitl, stated to be chief judge-of the first judicial district of.this state. He then offered to read in evidence a deed of trust, dated the 13th of April 1809, between J. Teuckle of George Town, in the District of Columbia, of the first part; L. D. Teackle, (the defendant,) of Somerset county, in this slate,, of the second part; and C. N. Bancker, of the city of Philadelphia, of the third part; for the said part of Bedford. This deed was signed and sealed by J Teackle only, in-the presence-of J. M. Gantt,, and was by Teuckle acknowledged on the day of its date, in the same manner as the last above mentioned deed. Under this deed the lessor of the., plaintiff claimed title. To the reading of this deed in evidence the defendant objected, because it did not appear that J. M. Gantt, before whom it was executed and purported to, be acknowledged, was by law authorised to take the acknowledgment of the same. But the Court, [Bone, Ch. J. and Robins, and Whittington, A.. J J] overruled the objection, and; permitted the deed to be read in evidence, and directed the jury that the deed, arid acknowledgment on the face of it, without further .evidence, was. sufficient'in point of law-, to transfer the property therein mentioned to the grantee. The! defendant excepted; and the verdict and -judgment- being against him, he appealed to this court, where the cause was; argued before Buchanan, Earle, and Johnson, J. by
    A conveyance land lying in SoXitevsei county, ex* eenis*d by the gi'nntov, stated to j>e George- Town., in the (iistnct óf Cohmibia, and acknowledged by him in Prince-George's county, before, J M G, stating himself to bé chief judjye of the first judicial ‘ district oí this state— ifcWjtbatthedeed, ftnd aekncnvledprjnem on the face of it, without fuviliei* «y¡dpnce.\vas sufficient in 'point of ■ law fo transfer (he property therein iwuuoned to the o- * £ £ ,® [ J i l> 3
    
      T. Bayly, for-the Appellant;,
    and by
    
      J. Bayly, for the Appellee.
   JUDGMENT AyEiRMER  