
    GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1793.
    Charles Ridgely, of William, against Brice Howard et alios.
    THE following statement and questions were submitted by the chancellor to the general court: “ In chancery, May 14, 1793. This cause depends principally upon a question of title, viz. Whether the legal title to certain lands be in Brice Hoxvard, or in the infant heir of John Beale Hoxvard, deceased.
    “ It appears that the said John Beale Howard, seised in fee-tail of the said lands lying in Anne Arundel county, some short time before his death, duly executed a deed indented, whereby he bargained and sold the said lands to the said Brice Howard and his heirs. On the bach .if ..... . ~ , , ,. the said deed is a certificate in the usual ror.-v,, ¡ .vojustices of the said county, ‘ that on the day-->* , the said John Beale Howard came before them, i<t:o acknowledged the within instrument of writing to be Hs act and deed.*
    “ The said deed and certificate were recorded agreeably to law, within six months from the date of the deed.
    “ First. Can parol evidence be admitted at law to prove-that the said justices separately took the said acknowledgment on different days and at different places within the said county ?
    “ Secondly. If such evidence be admissible, and if it be-proved that the said acknowledgment was so taken, was the said deed good and effectual in law to pass the said lands to the bargainee, Brice Howard?'
    
    “ The chancellor begs leave to submit the above case to the honourable the judges of the general court, and to-request their decision on the above questions as early as may be consistent with their convenience.
    “ A. C. Hanson,* Chan.”
   The judges of the general court, in answer tp the within questions submitted to their consideration by the honourable the chancellor, are of opinion, that where it appears by the certificate on the deed made in the usual-form, that the party on a particular day came before two justices of the peace of the county, and acknowledged the instrument of writing to be his act and deed, that parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the said justices separately took the said acknowledgment at different times or places within the said county.

The court are also of opinion, that if such evidence could be admitted, and proof made, that the acknowledgment was taken by the justices -separately, at different times and places, that the deed would not operate to pass the lands to the bargainee.

Samuel Chase,

R. Goldsborough,

Jeremiah Townley Chase,

Annapolis, May 16, 1793.  