
    Smith v. Walsh.
    
      A deed executed in another State is good under the stautes of 1840 and 1841 whether acknowledged according to th'e Bws of that state, or according t'd the statute of 1840.
    Proof of the execution of a deed which has Been duly acknowledged is not necessary, unless denied under oath.
    Error to Lee District Court.
    
    
      J. C. Hall and C. H Phelps, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. Matthews, for defendant.
   Opinion by

Greene, J.

Acition of fight. Plaintiffs claim under the judgment of partition of the Half Breed lands in Lee county and recovered a verdict and judgment in the court below.

It is now objected that the court erred in admitting a deed in support of plaintiff’s title without proof that it was acknowledged according to the lav/ of the state ih which it was executed. But as the deed appears to have been acknowledged according to the statute of 1840, any furtheri proof of its execution was not necessary. If the deed had riot been acknowledged according to the statute of 1840< then, it was admissible under the statute of 1841, if acknowledged according to the law of the state wherein it was executed. Hence a deed acknowledged according to the laws of Iowa, or according to the laws of the state in which it Was executed, would be equally good. Nor would further proof of its execution be necessary unless denied under oath. Laws of 1841, p. 40, § 3. We conclude then, that the court below did not err in admitting the deed without proof of its execution.

Judgment affirmed.  