
    
      Ex parte Calvin Goodell.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1817.
    A peremptory in stance, lies to a county who refuses to record a deed present-that purpose, ¡!®®”leddug';[d *¡¡® ^‘eTce’rchancery i0Jdgment°kn=nÜ identity of the led“thereon.°r*
    
      TALCOT moved for a peremptory mandamus to be directed to the clerk of Madison county, commanding him to record a deed from John Fiske to Calvin Goodell. He read an affidavit stating that the deed, which was for certain lands in Madison county, had been duly acknowledged, and the grantor identified by the oath of a witness before a master in chancery, who endorsed the following certificate on the deed: “ State of New~ York, Onondaga county, ss. On the 11th day of April, 1817, came before me, John Fiske, the grantor within named, (identified to my satisfaction, by the oath of Michael Underwood, to me known,) and acknowledged that he had signed, sealed, and delivered the within deed for the uses and purposes within mentioned. I allow the same to be recorded. Sanders Van Rensselaer, master in chancery.” That the deed, with the certificate of the master in chancery thereon, had been presented to the clerk of Madison county to be recorded; but that he refused to record the same.
    To show that a mandamus was the proper remedy in this case, Talcot cited Davison v. Thurston and others, (2 Hen. & Mun. Reports, 132.,) and that the acknowledgment was sufficient, he cited Jackson ex dem., Reilly and others, v. Livingston, (6 Johns. Rep. 154, 155. 157, 158.)
    He said that the mandamus ought to be peremptory, in the first instance, because, on an alternative mandamus, the clerk could return no excuse for not recording it; and if the grantee waited the result of an alternative mandamus, his rights, in this deed, might be endangered, or entirely lost, by a subsequent deed being put on record in the mean time.
   Per Curiam.

The acknowledgement of the deed, and the certificate of the master, were sufficient. Take your rule.

Rule granted.  