
    Adams and another against Thomas.
    
      Philadelphia, Thursday, March 31.
    If the late sheriff has executed a deed, and acknowledged it defectively, his successor cannot under the act of 23d JMarth 1764, execute a new deed; but the late sheriff may acknowledge it again, though out of office.
    TN this case, the lands of the defendant had been sold by Jabez Hyde, late sheriff of Luzerne county, under a testatum venditioni, issued out of this Court returnable to December Term 1813. The purchase money having been paid, the sheriff made a deed for the lands, to Henry Drin
      
      ker the purchaser; and acknowledged the same on the 29th of October 1813, at the Wilksbarre Court of Common Pleas.
    
      Hyde being out of office, the purchaser now petitioned the Court under the act of the 23d of March 1764, to direct the present sheriff of Luzerne county, to execute a sufficient deed.
    
      Drinker on behalf of the petitioner,
    contended that the acknowledgment was an essential part of a sheriff’s deed; and that the former sheriff having acknowledged the deed before the return day of the writ, the whole was a nullity. Clancy’s Lessee v. Jones 
      
      . That the petitioner’s case, was within the equity, if not within the words, of the act of 1764; that the acknowledgment of a deed, was an act to be done by the sheriff, as sheriff; and that the former sheriff could now do no such act, 1 Dyer 41. 136 A, Moore 364. 186. 431., Cro. Eliz., 512, though he might make return of whatsoever he had done, whilst sheriff. 2 Ld. Ray. 1072.
    
      
      
         1 Smith’s Laws 65,
    
   Per Curiam.

The case of the petitioner is not within the act of 1764. That act provides for the case where a sheriff has made no deed; but the late sheriff has executed a deed to the petitioner, which it is said has not been acknowledged in due form of law. The acknowledgment is no part of the deed; it is only the sanction of the Court to the act of the sheriff. The practice has been for sheriffs, after their term of office has expired, to acknowledge deeds for lands sold by them, and executed whilst they were in office; and the Court is of opinion that such acknowledgments are sufficient. •  