
    
      Den, on demise of Whitehurst vs. Hunter.
    HE plaintiff deduced title to himself to the lands in question. The defendant offered a deed from one of the mesne owners, through whom the plaintiff claimed; which owner was a feme covert. The deed had no endorsement of a probate in court, or an acknowledgment by the Baron ; but in the minute docket of the county court, there was an entry, purporting that the deed was acknowledged ; not saying by whom or in what court. There was also an endorsement on the deed, not stating in what county court or term, purporting that the feme acknowledged the deed in court, and was privately examined, not saying by whom.
   !Taylor, Judge-

(after argument.) I will ut res magis valeat tjuani pereat, g've a favorable construction to the endorsement. X well understand that she was privately examined ; not that she was examined in court, for that would be a private examination in open court, which is absurd. What is stated, may admit of the idea that she acknowledged the deed in open court, and was there privately examined — Iv is not said by whom she was examined. I will presume it to have been in the usual mode, by some member of the court. The act does not require that it should be expressed by whom. I think, therefore, that the indorsement is sufficient in these respects: the objection that the deed was not acknowledged by the husband, nor proved to be his deed, is fatal. Had there been a statement upon the minutes, that the husband acknowledged the note endorsed on the deed, I should deem that sufficient j but here it is not said on tbe minutes that the husband acknowledged, but only in gS> neral terms, that the deed was acknowledged. I need not give jbf opinion upon the point of the county or court not being mentioned in the endorsement, stating the wife’s acknowledgment and examination. The wife cannot make a deed without the consent of the husband ; and it does not appear that he has executed this deed with her.

So the deed was not read.  