
    Richmond.
    Ashwell v. Ayres & als.
    
    (Absent Cabell, P.)
    1848. January Term.
    
    An instrument purporting to convey land, with a scroll attached to the grantor’s name, though the scroll is not recognized in the body of the instrument, will be held to be a deed, where the instrument has been acknowledged in Court by the grantor as his deed for the purpose of having it recorded.
    
      Nancy Ayres and others brought ejectment in the Circuit Court of Bedford against John Ashwell. On the trial of the cause the defendant offered in evidence a paper as the deed of James Ayres, under whom both plaintiffs and defendant claimed. This paper commenced, “This Indenture,” &c., and was signed by James Ayres, with a scroll affixed to his name, but the scroll was not recognized as a seal either in the body of the instrument or in the attestation clause. The paper, however, had been acknowledged by James Ayres as his deed before the County Court of Bedford, and by order of the Court had been admitted to record. The Court excluded the paper, and the defendant excepted; and then there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs ; whereupon, the defendant applied to this Court for a supersedeas, which was granted.
    
      Robinson, for the appellant,
    referred to 1 Rev. Code, ch. 99, § 1, p. 361; Id. ch. 128, § 94, p. 510; Currie v. Donald, 2 Wash. 58. And he insisted that the instrument commencing “ This Indenture,” «fcc. and conveying land, of itself shewed that the scroll affixed to the name of the grantor, was intended as a seal.
    He insisted further, that the instrument having been acknowledged by the grantor in Court as his deed, that was a recognition of the scroll as a seal. Parks v. Hewlett, 9 Leigh 511.
    
      No counsel for the appellees.
   Allen, J.

delivered the opinion.of the Court.

The Court is of opinion, that as a valid conveyance of land could only be made by an instrument under seal, and as the statute authorized a conveyance to be recorded on the acknowledgment of the party in Court, and it furthermore appearing that this instrument was acknowledged by the grantor in Court as his deed, such acknowledgment is a sufficient recognition of the scroll as a seal. The Court is therefore of opinion, that the Circuit Court erred in rejecting the instrument in the bill of exceptions mentioned, offered to be read in evidence as the deed of James Ayres, from going to the jury. The judgment is therefore reversed with costs, the verdict and judgment is set aside, and the cause remanded for a new trial, on which said deed is to be admitted in evidence if again offered.  